Is Ron Paul delusional?

[Rooskibar03]

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/ron-...een-in-charge/

9/11 would not have happened if RP was in charge? Seriously? How deep does ones head have to be in the sand to make a statement like this?

I know there are a lot of PaulBots here and while I agree with some of his postions, it's this line of thinking that demostrates why he won't be president, and frankly shouldnt be.

[ChunkyMonkey]

Unfortunately, many pacifists think that if we pulled out of the world politic and economy, we will be save and secured. Forget that the fact we tried that during the WWI and WWII. Forget the fact that we have invested somewhere around 3.3 trillion USD in other economies or 2 trillion USD in exports.

To me this is the same mentality as the liberal has - Gun Free Zone = SAFE zone! No such thing. I do agree the US has over extended itself and need to roll back its involvement. I dont agree that we need to disengaged completely.

[Teufelhund]

Paul's stance is that we have been forcing our own belief system upon the Middle East for decades, typically through military force. This skewed foreign policy is what caused 9/11 as a retaliation, not just some unjustified internal hatred that Islam harbors for Western Civilization. Does that hatred exist now? Of course. Paul insists that we created it.

What he meant in this recent comment is that if "Ron Paul-people" had been in charge, i.e. people who believe in different foreign policy, we would never have created in the mind of Islam a need to retaliate (9/11).

For those who like to deride Paul's foreign policy, I would like to point out that it is arguably the same policy of our founding fathers:

America does not go abroad in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She well knows that by enlisting under other banners than her own, were they even the banners of foreign independence, she would involve herself beyond the power of extrication in all the wars of interest and intrigue, of individual avarice, envy and ambition, which assume the colors and usurp the standards of freedom.
– John Quincy Adams (1821)

[10mm-man]

Paul's stance is that we have been forcing our own belief system upon the Middle East for decades, typically through military force. This skewed foreign policy is what caused 9/11 as a retaliation, not just some unjustified internal hatred that Islam harbors for Western Civilization. Does that hatred exist now? Of course. Paul insists that we created it.

What he meant in this recent comment is that if "Ron Paul-people" had been in charge, i.e. people who believe in different foreign policy, we would never have created in the mind of Islam a need to retaliate (9/11).

For those who like to deride Paul's foreign policy, I would like to point out that it is arguably the same policy of our founding fathers:

Good point!

[Ronin13]

I cannot stand the people that think that if we just "stopped getting involved" suddenly everyone would forgive us and leave us alone. Do people not realize that in Islam they are urged (jury is still out as to if all Muslims follow this) to convert the world into one big caliphate. They won't "live and let live", there are [many/all?] who believe in "convert or die." Just "pulling out" won't solve anything... if anything, it'll make us appear weak at a time when it is in our best interests to appear strong. Even if we never did get involved in the M.E.- Post-Vietnam to now, they still hate us for backing Israel. If we go back further, say to Pre-WWII, they will still be mad at our involvement with the Saudis in the 1930's when WE discovered oil there and allowed them to become an economic powerhouse. So if we just had never gotten involved ever, at all, would we still have problems with them? You bet your ass we would! France never got involved with the middle east and they still got attacked in the 1970's. We would just take it laying down if we never got involved... but our policies for the last 40 years have been to not take it, but to get hit, then seriously mess the aggressors world up.

[tmckay2]

yeah and if we weren't involved we wouldn't be the power that we are. come on people, this stuff doesn't happen in a vacuum. we have been involved with the rest of the world for the main purpose of bettering our situation and furthering our growth and development. it has been successful. it has also created enemies (though anytime you are on top you have enemies). you can debate if it is/was worth it or not, but simply not being involved, even from the beginning, doesn't mean we would have the US as it is now but without people who hate us. we would be much weaker. perhaps a fair trade off perhaps not.

then the question comes up, what do you do if trouble arises there and we go in to help? kuwait loves us, but it pissed a lot of other mideast countries when we went into iraq in the 90's. so what do you do, let a maniac like saddam pick on smaller nations? obstruct our ability to get oil? sooner or later some idiot will do something that will FORCE you to go over there. then you are back to the original problem. even when we go over to help, people hate us to some degree, its impossible to escape. if we sit out, the world is controlled by egotistical dictators. thats a fact. rarely does anyone else do anything. this attribute of ours unfortunately creates a lot of enemies. but look who hates us. its typically radical, totalitarian regimes that we blocked from gaining conquest. is it really such a bad thing if such people hate us? ill be more concerned when the governments and general populace of free nations wants to fight us.

[jmg8550]

This skewed foreign policy is what caused 9/11 as a retaliation, not just some unjustified internal hatred that Islam harbors for Western Civilization. Does that hatred exist now? Of course. Paul insists that we created it:

Wrong. The Muslims hate us because we are not MUSLIM! They have a severe hatred for the "western civilization". Always have and always will.

And because we aren't Muslim, we are infidels, it's that simple.

[earplug]

If this is a war with Islamic states/people as has been pointed out.
There is no way the US will unconvert the people involved unless their killed. Fact is the soldiers are being out bred by the islamic people.
Keeping soldiers in such areas is a waste of money and lives.
Another poster mentioned France being attacked without cause in the 1970's. Evidently they forgot the French involvment in Algeria, Sudan/Mali, Somalia, Djbouti, Egypt and other North African nations. Ever think about the many French Mirage aircraft in the area?
Total Oil company is heavily involved in the Middle East.

[Aloha_Shooter]

I appreciate John Adams' philosophy as well as Madison's but I think Ron Paul's stance is a distortion of it. There is a big difference between not forcing yourself upon the world as we have been wont to do in the past 5 decades and withdrawing from the world as Ron Paul seems to want to do.

This isn't the nineteenth century and Ron Paul's approach to foreign policy was suspect even then when it took a minimum of 1 week and more like 2-3 weeks for anyone to journey to the US from Asia or Europe. Thomas Jefferson was excoriated for "adventurism" for sending Decatur to fight the Barbary pirates but it's important to note that one of the Founding Fathers and a close personal friend of Madison's did in fact find it necessary to send forces to fight them.

I like Paul's approach to domestic policy and spending -- particularly the emphasis on the Tenth Amendment which has never been repealed and should therefore be in primary force -- but his foreign and national security policy is as disastrous as BHO's.

[Teufelhund]

Wrong. The Muslims hate us because we are not MUSLIM! They have a severe hatred for the "western civilization". Always have and always will.

And because we aren't Muslim, we are infidels, it's that simple.

Let's assume for a moment that the M.E. hates us because we won't stay out of their lives and their country. If you are a government who needs to garner public support for a foreign war, do you tell them the truth, or tell them the foreign enemy is a country full of evil sociopaths who hate us just because we are who we are? Which would work, and which wouldn't?