Sure makes a lot of sense.

I like Ron Paul but his foreign policy is horrid. He would make a great banking chairman.

I don't know. Most of his foreign policy I've heard amounts to; "get out of other countries and let them alone. Instead spend that money here." Makes sense to me.

eber322 wrote:

I don't know. Most of his foreign policy I've heard amounts to; "get out of other countries and let them alone. Instead spend that money here." Makes sense to me.

Only problem is we did that during the Jimmy Carter years and paid dearly for it.

Still looks pretty good to me...

Quote :

Paul's stand on foreign policy issues has drawn support across the political spectrum. His views are generally attributed to those of non-interventionism, which is the belief that the United States should avoid entangling alliances with other nations, but still retain diplomacy, and avoid all wars not related to direct territorial self-defense. Paul is quoted as stating "America [should] not interfere militarily, financially, or covertly in the internal affairs of other nations", while advocating "open trade, travel, communication, and diplomacy with other nations." Ronald Reagan spoke in support of Paul's foreign policy views, stating "Ron Paul is one of the outstanding leaders fighting for a stronger national defense. As a former Air Force officer, he knows well the needs of our armed forces, and he always puts them first. We need to keep him fighting for our country." Daniel Ellsberg, famous for releasing the Pentagon Papers, has said of Paul: “On foreign policy, on the Constitution, on Homeland Security, on intervention, he speaks very well.” Ohio Congressman Dennis Kucinich has said that he and Paul "agree tremendously on international policy."

Non-intervention

Paul's stance on foreign policy is one of consistent non-intervention, opposing wars of aggression and entangling alliances with other nations.

Paul advocates bringing troops home from U.S. military bases in Korea, Japan, and Europe, among others. He also proposes that the U.S. stop sending massive, unaccountable foreign aid. The National Journal labeled Paul's overall foreign policies in 2006 as more conservative than 20% of the House and more liberal than 77% of the House (28% and 72%, respectively, in 2005). For 2008, his ratings were 57% more conservative and 42% more liberal (48% and 52%, respectively, in 2007).

In an October 11, 2007 interview with The Washington Post, Paul said, "There's nobody in this world that could possibly attack us today... we could defend this country with a few good submarines. If anybody dared touch us we could wipe any country off of the face of the earth within hours. And here we are, so intimidated and so insecure and we're acting like such bullies that we have to attack third-world nations that have no military and have no weapons."

Iraq

Paul was the only 2008 Republican presidential candidate who voted against the Iraq War Resolution, and he continues to oppose U.S. presence in Iraq, charging the government with using the War on Terror to curtail civil liberties. He believes a just declaration of war after the September 11, 2001, attacks should have been directed against the actual terrorists, Al-Qaeda, rather than against Iraq, which has not been linked to the attacks. In 2003, Paul said that when America seeks war, it must be sought only to protect citizens, it must be declared by the U.S. Congress, and it must be concluded when the victory is complete as previously planned, which would allow all resources to be dedicated to victory; he added, "The American public deserves clear goals and a definite exit strategy in Iraq." However, the original authorization to invade Iraq (Public Law 107-243), passed in late 2002, authorized the president to use military force against Iraq to achieve only the following two specific objectives: "(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and (2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq." Accordingly, Paul introduced legislation to add a sunset clause to the original authorization.

During the 2003 invasion, Paul found himself "annoyed by the evangelicals being so supportive of pre-emptive war, which seems to contradict everything that [he] was taught as a Christian". Paul's consistent opposition to the war expanded his conservative and libertarian Republican support base to include liberal Democrats.

Israel

Paul argues that if the United States cares about Israel, the U.S. should not get them so dependent. He states that "the surrounding Arab nations get seven times as much aid as Israel gets and also a recent study came out that showed that for every dollar you give to an Arab nation it prompts Israel to spend 1.4 dollars." Paul would not stop Israel from defending her interests in any way she saw fit.

Our foreign military aid to Israel is actually more like corporate welfare to the U.S. military industrial complex, as Israel is forced to purchase only U.S. products with the assistance. We send almost twice as much aid to other countries in the Middle East, which only insures increased militarization and the drive toward war.

We have adopted a foreign policy that has left Israel surrounded by militaristic nations while undermining Israel's sovereignty by demanding that its foreign and defense policies be essentially pre-approved in Washington. That is a bad deal for Israel, as sovereign nations must determine on their own what is a most appropriate national defense. On foreign policy as well, the U.S. steps in to prevent Israel from engaging in dialogue with nations of which the U.S. administration disapproves.

Paul was in Congress when Israel bombed Iraq's Osirak nuclear plant in 1981 and—unlike the United Nations and the Reagan administration—defended its right to do so. He says Saudi Arabia has an influence on Washington equal to Israel's. His votes against support for Israel is consistent with his opposition to all foreign aid.

Iran

Paul rejects the "dangerous military confrontation approaching with Iran and supported by many in leadership on both sides of the aisle." He claims the current circumstances with Iran mirror those under which the Iraq War began, and has urged Congress not to authorize war with Iran. In the U.S. House of Representatives, only Paul and Dennis Kucinich voted against the Rothman-Kirk Resolution, which asks the United Nations to charge Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad with violating its genocide convention and charter.

Sudan

In his speech before the House on a related bill, H. Con. Res. 467, Paul rejected the proposal for "[urging] the Administration to seriously consider multilateral or even unilateral intervention to stop genocide in Darfur should the UN Security Council fail to act." Paul argued the unrelatedness of the proposal to "the US national interest" or "the Constitutional function of [United States] military forces." The resolution passed unanimously, with Paul among 12 non-voters.

Paul was the only "no" vote on H.R. 180, the Darfur Accountability and Divestment Act of 2007 (passed House 418-1-13, not reported out of committee in the Senate), which would "require the identification of companies that conduct business operations in Sudan [and] prohibit United States Government contracts with such companies." Among the bill's findings were Colin Powell's Senate testimony that the Sudanese government and the Janjaweed militias it supported were responsible for genocide, and the observation that many Americans inadvertently invest in foreign companies which disproportionately benefit the Sudanese regime in Khartoum. Paul cited the past ineffectiveness of sanctions against Cuba and Iraq as evidence against divestment from businesses connected to the Sudanese government. Proponents of Sudanese divestment legislation cite recent advertisement campaigns by the Sudanese government, and the complete withdrawal of large suppliers such as CHC Helicopter Corporation, Rolls Royce, and ABB, as evidence of the effectiveness of Sudanese divestment.

Cuba

Paul advocates ending the United States embargo against Cuba, arguing, "Americans want the freedom to travel and trade with their Cuban neighbors, as they are free to travel and trade with Vietnam and China. Those Americans who do not wish to interact with a country whose model of governance they oppose are free to boycott. The point being – it is Americans who live in a free country, and as free people we should choose who to buy from or where to travel, not our government.... Considering the lack of success government has had in engendering friendship with Cuba, it is time for government to get out of the way and let the people reach out."

International organizations

Paul advocates withdrawing U.S. participation and funding from organizations he believes override American sovereignty, such as the United Nations, the International Criminal Court, the Law of the Sea Treaty, NATO, and the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America.

The World Trade Organization

Paul states that the WTO is a barrier to free trade and that the economic argument for free trade should be no more complex than the moral argument. "Tariffs are taxes that penalize those who buy foreign goods. If taxes are low on imported goods, consumers benefit by being able to buy at the best price, thus saving money to buy additional goods and raise their standard of living. The competition stimulates domestic efforts and hopefully serves as an incentive to get onerous taxes and regulations reduced.... By endorsing the concept of managed world trade through the World Trade Organization, proponents acknowledge that they actually believe in order for free trade to be an economic positive, it requires compensation or a “deal.”" Paul introduced HJR 90 to withdraw membership from the World Trade Organization.

International trade

Paul is a proponent of free trade and rejects protectionism, advocating "conducting open trade, travel, communication, and diplomacy with other nations." He opposes many free trade agreements (FTAs), like the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), stating that "free-trade agreements are really managed trade" and serve special interests and big business, not citizens.

He voted against the Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA), holding that it increased the size of government, eroded U.S. sovereignty, and was unconstitutional. He has also voted against the Australia–U.S. FTA, the U.S.–Singapore FTA, and the U.S.–Chile FTA, and voted to withdraw from the WTO. He believes that "fast track" powers, given by Congress to the President to devise and negotiate FTAs on the country's behalf, are unconstitutional, and that Congress, rather than the executive branch, should construct FTAs.

Paul also has a 57% voting record in favor of free trade in the House of Representatives, according to the Cato Institute.

Borders and immigration

Paul considers it a "boondoggle" for the U.S. to spend much money policing other countries' borders (such as the Iraq–Syria border) while leaving its own borders porous and unpatrolled; he argues the U.S.–Mexico border can be crossed by anyone, including potential terrorists. During the Cold War, he supported Reagan's Strategic Defense Initiative, intended to replace the "strategic offense" doctrine of mutual assured destruction with strategic defense.

Paul believes illegal aliens take a toll on welfare and Social Security and would end such benefits, concerned that uncontrolled immigration makes the U.S. a magnet for illegal aliens, increases welfare payments, and exacerbates the strain on an already highly unbalanced federal budget.

Paul believes that illegal immigrants should not be given an "unfair advantage" under law. He has advocated a "coherent immigration policy," and has spoken strongly against amnesty for illegal aliens because he believes it undermines the rule of law, grants pardons to lawbreakers, and subsidizes more illegal immigration. Paul voted for the Secure Fence Act of 2006, authorizing an additional 700 miles (1100 kilometers) of double-layered fencing between the U.S. and Mexico mainly because he wanted enforcement of the law and opposed amnesty not because he supported the construction of a border fence.

Paul believes that mandated hospital emergency treatment for illegal aliens should be ceased and that assistance from charities should instead be sought because there should be no federal mandates on providing health care for illegal aliens.

Paul also believes children born in the U.S. to illegal aliens should not be granted automatic birthright citizenship. He has called for a new Constitutional amendment to revise fourteenth amendment principles and "end automatic birthright citizenship," and believes that welfare issues are directly tied to the illegal immigration problem.

Pissedoffvulcan wrote:

eber322 wrote:

I don't know. Most of his foreign policy I've heard amounts to; "get out of other countries and let them alone. Instead spend that money here." Makes sense to me.

Only problem is we did that during the Jimmy Carter years and paid dearly for it.

Not exactly Carter was heavy in the whole Israel palestinian thing. Sending money and military equipment to Egypt. CIA over throwing governments like Iran from within.