I would be happy to elaborate. When young men sign up to serve in the military, they take an oath to protect this country from enemies, foreign and domestic. They never agreed to put their lives on the line to stop genocide in far off lands or to make the world safe for democracy.
So you think it is nuts for us to oppose meddling in affairs that have nothing to do with this countries safety. I think it is nuts to expect people to risk their lives for my own personal pet causes, and immoral to compel them to do so via government force. If you want to stop genocide, get your ass in the line of fire and stop the genocide. Stop hiding behind the government and transferring authority you never had.
I never said anything about making the world safe for democracy (unless of course, there's a threat to
all democracy, including ours). As for this country's safety, I do believe we should only go to war if our national interests are at stake. But outside of that, there are things we can do that don't involve the military. Why? Because there is such a thing as morality.
As for the genocide... I don't think the US should unilaterally interfere in any of them, I think the UN should send out peacekeeping troops. But Ron Paul is against membership in just about any international organization AND against interfering in genocides, so as far as I can tell the fact that hundreds of thousands of people in Darfur have died is just fine by him.
If you want to send aid to your allies, then send aid. You wouldn’t dare reach into my pocket directly to get that money. Instead you hide behind government and transfer this authority to them (which you never had in the first place). It is complete nuts the way your ilk justify your actions, then turn around and pretend we are nuts for having the moral clarity to call foul.
OK, so then everyone keeps money in their pockets and nobody sends aid. So say the next Hitler rose and decided to take over Europe. We know that if he succeeds he'd eventually go after us. Should we now continue our policy of not aiding our allies?
Or a free democracy somewhere in the world is attacked by an oppressive country who wants to take it over. I wouldn't want to take money out of your pocket to give to the free democracy, so I guess we just have to stand aside and watch more people suffer.
I am one of his most dedicated supporters. The owner of this forum is also one of those dedicated supporters. A minority of his supporters are what I would refer to as “9/11 truthers”
That's great for you guys. Once certain people start talking about how stupid non-RP-voters are, or how everything will go to hell if we don't follow his policies, that is where I draw the line.
Yes, that's what our foreign policy is supposed to be. George Washington and Thomas Jefferson established the concept of non-interventionist foreign policy. You know, free-trade, diplomacy, no foreign entanglements.
No foreign entanglements work when you're a new, small nation. When you're the biggest guy around, there will be people who hate you
just for existing, and you might have to change strategies a little.
I'll never understand the aggrandizement of the UN and NATO. What terrible things do you suppose will happen if we withdraw from these international bodies? It's not like they have magical powers which keep the forces of evil at bay.
Staying out of the League of Nations was part of what allowed WWII to happen.
Interfere in what way? Militarily?
(answered above)
The reason so many people are wary of this is because his detractors falsely attribute slash-and-burn policies to him. Dr. Paul wants to phase out inefficient and unconstitutional government programs (because that's a Congressman's job), he's not advocating an acute restructuring of the Federal government. Dr. Paul is very principled but he’s also very pragmatic.
Eh, no argument here. I like his domestic ideas to some extent, I just think that he takes them too far.