Article Image
News Link • Politics: Republican Campaigns

Ron Paul Challenges Mindless Militarism

• reason.com
Print|Email
The Texas Republican's foreign policy perspective is desperately needed in the 2012 campaign.

Reporters routinely describe Ron Paul's foreign policy views as "isolationist" because he opposes the promiscuous use of military force. This is like calling him a recluse because he tries to avoid fistfights.

The implicit assumption that violence is the only way to interact with the world reflects the oddly circumscribed nature of foreign policy debates in mainstream American politics. It shows why Paul's perspective is desperately needed in the campaign for the Republican presidential nomination.

As the Texas congressman has patiently explained many times, he supports international trade, travel, migration, diplomacy, and cultural exchange. Furthermore, he supports military action when it is necessary for national defense—in response to the 9/11 attacks, for example.

The inaccurate "isolationist" label marks Paul as a fringe character whose views can be safely ignored. Given the dire consequences of reckless interventionism, that clearly is not the case.

 

1 Comments in Response to

Comment by TL Winslow
Entered on:

{{As the Texas congressman has patiently explained many times, he supports international trade, travel, migration, diplomacy, and cultural exchange. Furthermore, he supports military action when it is necessary for national defense—in response to the 9/11 attacks, for example.}}

{{The inaccurate "isolationist" label marks Paul as a fringe character whose views can be safely ignored. Given the dire consequences of reckless interventionism, that clearly is not the case.}}

Oh, I see. He's just against "mindless militarism", namely, invading Muslim countries that are harboring Islamist terrorists who are planning to attack us. Meanwhile he'd love the Muslim world to move on into the new non-Judeo-Christian U.S., and everybody can sing that K song when not polishing their AK-47s. And what kind of military action would he take to respond to 9/11? Yes it was foolish to invade Iraq, but what about recent revelations that Iran was behind 9/11? What if Iraq now falls into the hands of Shiites, if not Iran itself? Sounds like he's playing both ends against the middle.

http://www.bloomberg.com/article/2011-12-23/aYoOcZ6NT3wo.html

I guess Paul hasn't been following the Arab Spring and seeing how the hardcore Islamists who want a new CALIPHATE are systematically taking over country after country. The purpose of a caliphate is to DECLARE JIHAD against US. So he's going to just sit on his hands and wait until that happens, then do something? Or hope to be out of office by then and bequeath the mess to his successors? Ron Paul is just the president the U.S. doesn't need. 

More and more Wrong Paul sounds like a plant or front for globalists a la George Soros who have been trying to orchestrate a takedown of the U.S. in order to who knows what, but will do anything to weaken it no matter what evil horrors they're flirting with - old men have little to risk.

http://tinyurl.com/soroscope

What's really sad is that Newt Gingrich also calls himself a globalist even though he's throwing out tantalizing bait that he's going to fight the Islamist threat. Yes, a united world would be nice, but it can't include Islam in the mix or it would be an endless hell. As to the hints that Paul has been covering-up connections with right-wing racists and other extremists, it's no surprise that the John Birch Society hates Gingrich, but it sure loves Paul:

Too bad, all Americans are still ignorant about Islam and its horrific history that predicts what it will do if it restores the caliphate, namely, set the whole world back a thousand years. It's all free from the Historyscoper, but it takes work to master it:

http://go.to/islamhistory

 

 

Join us on our Social Networks:

 

Share this page with your friends on your favorite social network:


Free Talk Live