EACH OF YOU HAS SOME FINE POINTS ABOUT PAUL’S FOREIGN POLICY. BUT HERE’S SOME FOOD FOR THOUGHT.

HOW CAN WE,AS A NATION, THE NEXT PRESIDENT MAKE OUR NATION AND CITIZENS IT’S NUMBER ONE PRIORITY?(

AS I SEE IT HILLARY IS JUST FOR HILLARY,

OBAMA, WELL I’M STILL TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHAT HIS NEW PARTRIOTISM IS….ANYONE KNOW THAT ONE?

AS FOR ALL THE OTHERS, SSDD KINDA THING…..
BORDER SAFTEY, MEDICAL ISSUES AND SO FORTH.

RON PAUL DOES HAVE AMERICA’S INTREST, BUT JACOB IS CORRECT, THE UNITED STATES IS SO INTERTWINED WITH NATIONS AROUND THE WORLD.
OUR PAST PRESIDENTS AND PRESENT MAKES DEALS WITH THESE COUNTRIES AND AMERICA GETS SCREWED, WTF..WHEN DOES IT STOP?

OUR MISTAKE WAS NOT FOLLOWING THOSE NATIONS NUMBER ONE PRIORITY:”WE COME FIRST IN EVERYTHING, TAKE WHAT WE CAN, IF WE CAN HELP THAN SO BE IT, IF NOT,OH WELL.”

Tancredo took the border enforcement issue as far as he could, we need a new torch bearer for this. The limited government issue needs to be resurrected, it died on us a few years ago when we were not looking.

One thing to bear in mind is we rarely get a truly great choice in candidates. Duncan Hunter, for instance, is probably not going to last past South Carolina. So in the end we will have to hold our collective noses and support the “least bad” choice for president.

Romney and Giuliani are suspect conservatives (although the guy in the White House now is also one). McCain is terrible on immigration. Thompson has Spencer Abraham working for him. Huckabee might just be the candidate who would inspire me to consider voting for a Democrat.

With the amount of money and, as Jacob notes, grassroots support Ron Paul has, he is in the race to stay. Those supporting him are, I would argue, doing so for largely rational reasons.

I agree with your analysis above and I share those same concerns. Unfortunately those who look past Paul’s more controversial positions do so at their own peril because of the clear greater importance of those positions to our national security.

I would prefer to find a candidate who shares all of the concervative values I do, but does not have such a flawed view of international relations. Some may be supporting Paul as a protest vote until better candidates emerge. I have been known to do this in the past in supporting Alan Keyes for example. Keyes I think has a much more balanced view than Paul though. I don’t want to create something in Paul on a protest vote that I could not live with if it caught on.

These are the events and circumstances that in my opinion motivates so many too be attracted too Ron Pauls message of smaller government,states rights and reduced federal spending. Many are willing too look past Paul’s more controversial positions in order too advance the cause of these fundemental tenents of conservatism that are at the core of reforming or redefining our government.

Similarly Paul has a naive view on things like the drug problem in America today. I think his libertarian leanings here are a bit too far for realism’s sake.

He seems to have very strong pro-life credentials as well, however his position papers on the issue seem to focus solely on the states rights argument of the Constitution. I on the other hand believe that the right to life expressly written in the Federal Constitution makes this clearly an issue the Federal government should address. His writings on this issue sound eerily familiar to arguments used to support slavery and against civil rights. I’m not saying the man is a racist, but I do believe some issues of this nature in the end need to be addressed by the federal government. Especially when human lives are at risk. I suppose he would appoint judges who would reverse Roe vs Wade, but then again those same judges might support legalization of drugs, gambling, and prostitution if I read his libertarian views correctly.

Mr. Paul is a bit too extreme for me (no oun intended)

EVEN THOUGH THE USA SEEMS TO BE THE TIE THAT BINDS ALL NATIONS OF THE WORLD, I STILL HAVE TO WONDER IF NATIONS WOULD WAKE UP AND THE WORLD WOULD FIND A HAPPY MEDIUM TO LIVE IN, SOMETHING LIKE GENE RODDENBERRY THOUGHT OF IN STAR TREK, NEXT GENERATION…..NO MONEY, LIVE IN RELATIVE PEACE AMONG NATIONS, TO GROW GLOBALY AND WORK AS ONE UNIT…….NO, I DON’T THINK SO, WE’RE TO UNCIVILIZED FOR THAT TO HAPPEN YET.

Europe: The Serbs would re-invade Kosovo. Russia would put the Ukraine under its heal, Poland would be stuck in between Germany and Russia, again. Turkey and Greece have some unresolved issues. They would quickly come to a boil (war is something we are constantly having to stop).

Middle East:
Israel and its neighbors … need I say more?

Iran and ITS neighbors, while this is sorting itself out (violently) Israel might find the time to resolve the border with the Palestinians, to its advantage.

The Sudanese Arabs/Muslims would annihilate the tribes to the south (both pagan and Christian).

Africa:
The Ethiopian and Ereitrian conflict would not take long to restart. Do you see any kind of European (Fr. Gr. Br.) response? They do not have the logistical system.

Lets see, currently there are six African nations with open civil wars going on. Without the threat of the Marines landing do you think the blue-helmets can keep the peace on their own? The last time this was tried we got Rwanda.

Asia:
The big one here is the Pakistani-Indian conflict over Kashmir. Both sides have nukes. Those two had a border incident just 5 years ago, with India sending over a Million men to the border. We diffused that. Care to see what happens after we pick up our marbles and go home??

China and Japan. China and Taiwan. China and South Korea. China and Vietnam. China and Malaysia. China and Russia. You think all is well in those relationships?

“IF WE STOPPED GIVING FINANCIAL AID, FOOD OR ANY OTHER SERVICE THAT WE FREELY OFFER. CALLED ALL DEBTS FROM BOTH SIDES “PAID IN FULL”.”
I think our current debt to China and others exceeds the debts of others (third world countries) to us. I don’t they will let us off the hook.

“WHAT WOULD THE WORLD DO IF WE SAID “NO MORE” AMERICANS ARE FINALLY FIRST IN LINE.”
I mentioned ‘enlightened self interest’. This means we continue to trade with the rest of the world.

“THE AMERICANS THAT SUPPORT A MAJORITY OF FOREIGN COUNTRIES WHO LIKE OUR LIFESTYLE AND FREEDOMS,YET HATE OUR GUTS.”
Aside from Israel, the majority of our aid goes to third world countries. Who would you cut off?

“IF RON PAUL’S FOREIGN POLICY IDEAS ARE NAÏVE THAN CONSIDER WHAT OTHER PRESIDENTS HAVE DONE CURRENTLY AND IN THE PAST WITH FOREIGN POLICIES. HAVE THEY BENEFITED OUR COUNTRY AT ALL?”
These other presidents have kept us in the game. Hindsight is always 20-20. I try not to fault the guy in to WH for making a decision. He has a difficult job. Clinton treated terrorism as a law enforcement problem. GW treats it as a guerrilla warfare issue. The execution is not something either of them have total control over.

Once you leave the field, the other team can score all it wants. The world is more messed up in someways now than back in the cold war.

Does that answer your question(s)?