122 votes

How many support Ron Paul's Foreign policy 100%?

So through out conversations with people who I believe are buying into the fear of not having military installations all over the world, interviening in other nations' political affairs, and "maintaining control of peace" in the middle east; It has been stated several times that "not even Paul supporters agree with his foreign policy 100%". I for one, do. I am not afraid of the impending doom of the end of the world if America's empire falls. I just feeling a little bit alone in this one, since it seems, that even the ones who claim to be supporting the good Dr. clam up when it comes to this topic.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.


I'm in favor of tariffs where the good Dr. is not. So... 99% I guess.

NOTE: I am not advocating violence in any way. The content of the post is for intellectual, theoretical, and philosophical discussion. FEDS, please don't come to my house.

Thanks :D

Thank you all for the over-whelming support and response. I have enjoyed this very much hearing all the different view points. I can't say thank you enough.


Sure do!

I support Ron Paul's Foreign policy 100%

because the cost of unjust wars is unacceptable.

In the Chicago Tribune dated January 22, 2012 there is a small article, hidden on page 27.
The title is: Army: SEX CRIMES RISE. It says that violent sex crimes increased by 90% from 2006 to 2011. Add to this statistic, the number of deaths, the number of wounded, the number of suicides, the increased deficit of our national budget, the blowback factor of our interventions and you suddenly realize the horrible cost of these wars. It is insane.
Ron Paul has to confront the war promoters of this exorbidant cost that is draining our

Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called the children of God.

A punch

takes 2-3 times as much energy as a block. I remember this from Kung Fu classes years ago. To maintain a global empire probably cost 2-3 times what a strong national defense would, and has less unintended consequences.

So yes, I agree. If Christ didn't want a physical empire, why should I?




No one else's foreign policy comes close. Ron Paul represents my opinions on foreign policy 100%.

I agree with every thing

he says on foreign policy 110%.

me too


Do you mean foreign policy or

Do you mean foreign policy or something else? Bases on foreign soil seem to be a matter of national defense more than a matter of foreign policy. No country since the demise of the Soviet empire uses its military installations outside of its borders as its primary means of foreign policy. This is a basic principle in the world today, although tainted by the unilateral attempts for changes in international law by the Bush administration, carried on by BHO.

Ron Paul's foreign policy will be a lot more about how he works the U.N. and other international bodies, his policy in areas with vested American interests such as in the Middle East, South Korea and the Americas. No matter if the U.S. pulls back all bases and military personnel and drops foreign aid to zero day one, the opinion of the U.S. government will still carry a lot of weight.

International trade is another area where Washington has conducted its foreign policy ever since WWII. Would president Paul propose to immediately drop all sanctions and restrictions on American companies doing business overseas, will travel restrictions on foreign dignitaries be lifted across the board, will frozen assets in American financial institutions be unfrozen? Will any and all changes be made without regard to resolutions passed over the years by the U.N. Security council?

Some time, Rock, when the team is up against it, when things are wrong and the breaks are beating the boys, ask them to go in there with all they've got and win just one for the Gipper.

good Points...

I never understood why we were part of the U.N. in the first place. I would think if America wants to trade with a country it shouldn't matter what the U.N. says. I would support leaving that body of world wide government in a heart beat.

I do. It's the policy we

I do. It's the policy we should have had for entire run as a country.

The only Wars we should have had post 1900 were WW1 and WW2. We'd be a lot safer now if we didn't start dabbling in the middle east.

me me me me me me.....


I do too!


The fallacy of fighting the last war

The USA had the bases as a deterrent to the USSR, after the collapse of the soviets the bases should have been closed and a more reasonable foreign policy enacted. I often ask the people I talk to about RP, what are the 60,000 troops we have in Germany protecting us from? A classic argument from the Mark Levin followers is we must defend S. Korea from N. Korea. The fact is if N. Korea ever invaded the south the only thing that could prevent it would be a nuclear deterrent, our ground troops there are sitting ducks. We don't need huge standing armies for that, sorry, the next real war won't be fought with tanks and artillery. So the RP position is 100% correct, close foreign bases bring the troops home, maintain a strong navy and only go to war with a declaration of war.

I do.

I do.


His foreign policy is one of the biggest things that drew me to his campaign. Also, his views on civil liberties, the drug war, the death penalty and the Fed. I also want a balanced budget and to get rid of the debt. I defer on how to do that, and differ on a few choices for department cuts, etcetera.

Jack Wagner

It's more important to say WHY we back up RP's foreign policy

this isn't just about not policing the world

it's about fighting off the global elite's control of our countries

the global elites are using the US military as mercs to protect elite investments (building a world empire) and to oppress the working classes of several countries (including the USA)

RP's foreign policy is really to stop these horrid efforts in their tracks, to expose the global elite's intentions, and for us to start running our own damn countries.

RP's foreign policy is the tip of the spear of the global revolution!

agree with the premise

I am convinced that blowback is the main reason they fight us. That being said I don't think if we left right now that blowback would just go away. I think he does say some things that will reduce blowback(talk and trade), but for a long time these people will dislike us for our past misshaps. I also agree with closing military bases arround the world, but I would keep a few funning in select locations. Maybe 30 or 40 to allow for better deployment in case of problems later on. On a whole though I agree with him a lot more then the other options of premptive wars that have no goals and that we have no chance of winning.


I haven't yet found anything I disagree with Dr. Paul about.

100 percent..as a student and

100 percent..as a student and now teacher of history, paul uses history to explain his foreign policy..he HAS learned from history..100 percent agree with Paul on foreign policy

Best defense is not a good offense

In foreign policy, offense is offensive and stupid. He who lives by the sword shall die by the sword.

110% "G--Damnit,It's War Or

110% "G--Damnit,It's War Or Ron Paul!"

“It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds”
-Sam Adams


There is a big misconception about defense and offense. That is about it... I agree with it 100%, it's easy to understand that bombs and oppression don't make friends but make enemies. Then think about it, what other country does the same? And would you feel safe if another country had as many foreign military bases and wanted to spread their ideology upon the world... ?


There is extreme waste in our military expenditures.
People may have trouble with the tactical decision of closing all bases. But, the fact is we cannot afford the 'permanent war' economy any longer.
Maybe they'll never be convinced, but they owe it to themselves to at least know how much is being spent, where that money goes and how it compares to the rest of the world and the US Budget over time.
When Dr. Paul says 'close all bases' I picture him with defibrillators in hand, shocking the public into confronting this issue. What to close and when can come after we face the facts.
Until then, I'm 100% with Ron Paul on foreign policy.

How many bases do we need?
How much more can we possibly spend?
Who are we competing with??
Permanent War: Real Security or False Promise?



Right there withya at 100%!


"Criticizing Ron Paul for not passing bills in Congress is like criticizing a nun in a whore house for not turning tricks. He was there to stop the "whoring," not become one!" ~ Blake Buffington

I already voted 100%

I already voted 100% agreement, but wanted to add (as have others )

Ron Paul's foreign policy is the ONLY one which will truly make Americans safer.

We are currently *very weak* - not just bc spread throughout the world, but also bc our economy is collapsing & the dollar is plummeting.

Working for US policy in the mideast that serves AMERICA's interests http://www.councilforthenationalinterest.org/

Not So Much "Weak"

As vulnerable...

- we're broke
- we're meddlers
- we initiate the use of force
- we show hubris, an outsized sense of pride - and the vulnerability that comes with it
- etc.

and therefore

- we are exposing ourselves to retaliation and humiliation