Anyone who believes that Ron Paul's foreign policy is a sign of weakness, or that he does not have the courage to defend this country, should talk to Dr. Paul's military supporters. More than 1,500 supporters showed up at the march on the White House in support of Congressman Paul.
Among them were over 400 active duty or retired military members participating in the rally. None of them were timid about their support of the only military veteran in the race for the Presidency.
â€śWe support him because he supports us!â€ť exclaimed Corporal Jesse Thorton in his speech supporting Ron Paul. Echoing the theme of the march, Thorton also said, â€śRon Paul is the choice of the troops.â€ť...
It is strange to ask you to explain yourself?? Examples or case studies proving your point are your problem, not mine; let's hear something besides a headcount of supposedly non-isolationist states, which is not an argument, or at least, not a sound one (Bandwagon Fallacy).
Just to be clear, by â€śisolationistâ€ť I mean a policy of refraining from military actions or alliances with or against other nations. That means no NATO, no U.N. participation, no bases in other nations, no hypocritical economic boycotts, and no manipulative black ops. But it does *not* mean economic or diplomatic isolation like N. Korea or Albania way back when.
Can you take this much trouble to explain your position now?
Strange request. Synthesising isolationism and non-isolationism violates the law of non-contradiction but you know this.
There are 200 sovereign states in the world. Only a handful are isolationist, and only 1 sees itself as the world's policeman. If you want examples of alternative foreign policies you have no shortage of case studies for an empirical study, but you know this already.
Notwithstanding its lack of popularity, I support isolationism (AKA Mind Your Own Business). Interventionism (initially a Progressive policy) is immoral & doesn't make foreigners better & safer either. But it does make them angry at us; recall why Bin Laden attacked the WTS (US bases in Saudi). A generation before that, it gave the Communists a wonderful foil to use for their propaganda, for the US destabilized democratically-elected rulers (CIA Operations Ajax & PBSUCCESS) because we didn't like their politics. Would Americans like it if someone did that to us? Why is the Golden Rule so hard to understand?
A popular myth about WW2 is that America was isolationist during the '30s. False: While we indeed stayed out of European affairs, we interfered in Asia because of our little empire, stolen from Spain (BTW betraying Cuban & Filipino revolutionaries along the way). And because we and Europeans had Asian colonies, the Japanese reasonably inferred they had a right to them as well. Sort of like Iran & the Bomb; if we have it, it sounds pretty hypocritical to say they can't.
Very few Americans want an isolationist country that Ron Paul would have us have. Ron Paul suffers from many failings, [URL=http://www.jewishworldreview.com/0112/prager011812.php3?printer_friendly]]]Ron Paul and America's Alleged Racism[/URL] which that a candidate such as Rick Santorum doesn't, [URL=http://townhall.com/columnists/monacharen/2012/02/24/now_we_know_why_not_santorum/page/full/]]]Why Not Rick Santorum?[/URL] No, Ron Paul will never get my vote in this election!