I always hear how every one loves Ron's positions on everything except for his foreign policies but I never hear any one mention anything specific.
My question is what, specifically, is it about his foreign policies that makes you come to the opinion that he's nut job when it comes to foreign affairs.
Personally, I can't see a whole lot that I disagree with.
__________________
"The danger to America is not Barack Obama but a citizenry capable of entrusting a man like him with the Presidency........... Blaming the prince of the fools should not blind anyone to the vast confederacy of fools that made him their prince. The Republic can survive a Barack Obama, who is, after all, merely a fool. It is less likely to survive a multitude of fools such as those who made him their president."
The problem I had was his stand that "So what if Iran gets a nuclear weapon ? Everybody else has one !"
That's just stupid. All the other nuclear powers are not promising to unleash their weapons on Israel as soon as they have the capability. Ron Paul is an unmitigated schmuck.
Same as Bergall. Ron Paul said we should use "diplomacy" to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon (that hasn't worked so far). Paul then said that Iran just wanted nukes because of their surrounding neighbors, it's dangerous, etc., etc. Paul then said that a "MAD" policy (Mutually Assured Destruction) like we had in the cold war with the soviets would prevent Iran from using a nuke against us. Santorum pointed out to Paul that Iran wants to die as a martyr while killing us and that MAD just wasn't a workable option. FWIW, Iran has also said something along the lines of they plan to blow Israel off the map with nukes.
I'm paraphrasing from the Republican debate on 12-16-11 but you can see where many people would conclude that Paul is off base on this issue. Iran simply isn't reasonable, rational or responsible. That's a bad mixture for a country possessing a nuclear weapon and with their statements about using nukes on Israel, I wouldn't want to take that chance.
I will freely grant that some of Paul's libertarian stances are fiscally responsible and welcome. I like much of what he says about the domestic side of the Presidency. It's the foreign policy where I think Paul is just plain dumb. I honestly don't think Paul is naive about foreign policy as he gets a lot of the intelligence reports on foreign countries and, quite frankly, he knows better.
I would vote for Paul over Obama if that was the choice (those 2 only) BUT I would vote for any other Republican candidate before Paul. Just my thoughts but you were wondering why people felt that Paul is a nut regarding foreign affairs.
__________________
Jesus Christ--The reason for the season!
If you can read this, thank a teacher. If you can read this in English, thank a veteran.
If you're certain you know everything, there's little opportunity to learn anything.
Same as Bergall. Ron Paul said we should use "diplomacy" to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon (that hasn't worked so far). Paul then said that Iran just wanted nukes because of their surrounding neighbors, it's dangerous, etc., etc. Paul then said that a "MAD" policy (Mutually Assured Destruction) like we had in the cold war with the soviets would prevent Iran from using a nuke against us. Santorum pointed out to Paul that Iran wants to die as a martyr while killing us and that MAD just wasn't a workable option. FWIW, Iran has also said something along the lines of they plan to blow Israel off the map with nukes.
I'm paraphrasing from the Republican debate on 12-16-11 but you can see where many people would conclude that Paul is off base on this issue. Iran simply isn't reasonable, rational or responsible. That's a bad mixture for a country possessing a nuclear weapon and with their statements about using nukes on Israel, I wouldn't want to take that chance.
I will freely grant that some of Paul's libertarian stances are fiscally responsible and welcome. I like much of what he says about the domestic side of the Presidency. It's the foreign policy where I think Paul is just plain dumb. I honestly don't think Paul is naive about foreign policy as he gets a lot of the intelligence reports on foreign countries and, quite frankly, he knows better.
I would vote for Paul over Obama if that was the choice (those 2 only) BUT I would vote for any other Republican candidate before Paul. Just my thoughts but you were wondering why people felt that Paul is a nut regarding foreign affairs.
IM with you on the domestic policy. A lot of what he says is rock-solid and would be very good for the country. But after obama, to have yet ANOTHER foreign-policy baboon would be too much !
Yeah, the current sanctions do so much to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons. According to the propaganda machine they are doing just fine with their nuke program despite the sanctions. Does the United States go to war with Iran because we think they are developing nukes? I think Israel can handle Iran just fine with out our help and with out us tying their hands. Ron wants to allow Israel and other nations to have the ability to defend themselves with out us dictating to them the terms for their countries best interests. He believes in a countries sovereignty and their right to handle their own affairs.
Ron Paul is a constitutionalist through and through. I believe that most of us here are as well. At least we all talk about getting back to the law of the constitution. Ron isn't anti war or anti intervention or anti force. He wants congress declaring war. He wants congress to debate whether or not the United States should go to war and when we should go to war. War should be a last resort but I believe that Ron would defend this country at all costs if war is what is needed.
I think it is long overdue for us to quit policing the entire world population.
__________________
"The danger to America is not Barack Obama but a citizenry capable of entrusting a man like him with the Presidency........... Blaming the prince of the fools should not blind anyone to the vast confederacy of fools that made him their prince. The Republic can survive a Barack Obama, who is, after all, merely a fool. It is less likely to survive a multitude of fools such as those who made him their president."
He has the "If we stick our head in the sand, our enemies will just go away". I think the guy has lost it. Disregard the source, it's the first one to come up that had the entire exchange.
Yeah, the current sanctions do so much to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons. According to the propaganda machine they are doing just fine with their nuke program despite the sanctions. Does the United States go to war with Iran because we think they are developing nukes? I think Israel can handle Iran just fine with out our help and with out us tying their hands. Ron wants to allow Israel and other nations to have the ability to defend themselves with out us dictating to them the terms for their countries best interests. He believes in a countries sovereignty and their right to handle their own affairs.
I agree with this. I think we should let Israel make their own decision as they are Iran's # 1 nuclear target. Since the US is probably target # 2, I do think the US should be more involved than just hoping Israel is going to take care of it.
Ron Paul is a constitutionalist through and through.
Agreed.
I believe that most of us here are as well. At least we all talk about getting back to the law of the constitution.
Agreed.
Ron isn't anti war or anti intervention or anti force.
I'm not sure on this. It sounds like he's kind of in the middle on war and would pursue a much more isolationist policy.
He wants congress declaring war. He wants congress to debate whether or not the United States should go to war and when we should go to war.
Paul has said this. I think a President should go before Congress to make his/her case for going to war if deemed necessary. Paul does not give the impression that he would lead this effort to persuade as President.
War should be a last resort but I believe that Ron would defend this country at all costs if war is what is needed.
I honestly don't get the same impression. Paul's statements sound isolationist and even a little pacifist. He has said nothing to cause me to believe he would defend this country at all costs.
I think it is long overdue for us to quit policing the entire world population.
Agreed.
I think many of us have similar thoughts and beliefs about the constitution and the need to stop policing the world. It is Ron Paul's other ideas about how to handle nuclear issues, etc. that causes most of us to determine that he simply isn't up for the job. It's too bad because he does have some great ideas domestically.
__________________
Jesus Christ--The reason for the season!
If you can read this, thank a teacher. If you can read this in English, thank a veteran.
If you're certain you know everything, there's little opportunity to learn anything.
Ron Paul's national security ideas remind me of Nevil Chamberlin just before WWII. Paul doesn't recognize the threat posed by our Muslim enemies. He doesn't want the military deployed anywhere to fight them; he wants to close Gitmo; he wants to end the Patriot act etc.
What are your thoughts on his wanting to cut the Dept. Of Interior? That one really affects hunting and our most precious possessions as a nation?
I have no issues on this. States can control their own natural resources.
__________________
John Adams “The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence.”
Ronald Reagan: 'Everybody that is for abortion has already been born'
"I never said I was worth it. I only said I wouldn't do it for less " William F. Buckley Jr.
Question about Ron Paul
