Ron Paul’s Non-Interventionism

For those who are genuinely fearful of Ron Paul’s foreign policy and don’t HATE him for other reasons while using his foreign policy as an excuse, I suggest you read the following:

Ron Paul wants us out of the UN, so we can look after OUR own interests, and not THEIRS.

Ron Paul wants to cut ALL foreign aid. Cutting foreign aid to Israel’s enemies is a net plus for Israel, even if we cut theirs as well. Foreign aid to Israel’s enemies amounts to up to ten percent of their economies, but foreign aid for Israel amounts to less than one percent of their economy.

If Israel no longer receives foreign aid, they will be free to look after THEIR own interests, and not OURS.

Israel has not acted against Iran yet for the following reasons:

Israel is part of the UN.

Israel receives foreign aid from the US.

Israel has received the go ahead to act against Iran from neither the UN nor the US.

Here is how we fix those problems:

We get out of the UN, and who knows? Israel may follow suit.

We stop BRIBING (foreign aid) Israel not to act in their own interests.

We mind our own business and let Israel do what it feels it needs to do.

The next questions that might arise are: Wouldn’t Iran still be a threat to us and Israel? Will we or Israel be able to defend ourselves? Doesn’t Israel need our protection?

These are all legitimate questions, but not a one of them can’t be answered satisfactorily, for an open minded enquirer.

Yes, Iran, IF it gets SEVERAL working nukes, MIGHT be a threat. We will give the fearful the benefit of the doubt and say that even if Iran ONLY has ONE weapon, they are still VERY dangerous.

But yes, in spite of Iran’s weapons we will be able to defend ourselves, because the US has a huge defense-shield network, and Israel has its own as well as ‘access’ to ours. The US has tens of thousands of its own nuclear weapons. Israel has 300 to 400 or more of its own nuclear weapons. Israel, ON ITS OWN, took out the entire Egyptian Air Force (the biggest, best trained, and most sophisticated Air Force in the Middle East at that time) in a single day in 1967. Israel, ON ITS OWN, took out Iraq’s nuclear weapons program in 1981, despite the fact that Iraq’s purpose of that program was a deterrent for Iran. Israel, ON ITS OWN, took out Syria’s nuclear weapons program in 2007.

So, no, Israel does not need our protection. In fact, the recently retired head of Mossad (Israel’s version of the CIA) and current conservative Israeli prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu have both stated that they can handle Iran without America’s help.

For those that are worried that Iran may be a greater threat once we pull out of Iraq and Afghanistan, I say to them we have no choice, unless we want to stay there FOREVER and go BANKRUPT.

It should also be noted that our presence in Iraq has only emboldened Iran because we took out Saddam and gave the Shiites of Iraq the reins of government.

For those concerned about cuts in the Department of Defense:

The Department of Defense, like ALL government agencies, is full of graft, corruption, obsolete programs (like the F22 Raptor), social engineering, and redundancies (like paying contractors TWICE to do a job ONCE). DoD pays contractors for equipment and services based on a set price, rather than market incentives. This leads contractors to charge more money for less quality, with no consequences to themselves. No bid contracts lack the competitiveness, efficiency, and quality associated with the free market.

Military installments (900 in 100 or so countries) around the world would be shut down, including those in Germany, Japan, France, and Britain. The reason why these countries have such lousy militaries and need us to protect them is because we are there and they have grown dependent.

Troop pay and Veteran benefits would not be cut, nor would body armor or necessary equipment.

We spend half of the world’s military spending. Half of it could be cut without affecting our military presence, and a large portion of the rest could be cut without weakening our military might.

As has been asked before: if you were Chuck Bronson living in a tough neighborhood, where would you keep your weapons? Locked in a safe back at home, or on the kitchen counters of friends, enemies, and strangers?

Resources now used for protecting Iraq and Afghanistan’s borders will be used on our border. These resources include money (and therefore equipment) to fund Border Patrol and the men hired may have recent military experience (I would imagine that is preferable to men with just police experience, given the state of the border in some areas). So technically, the military WON’T be on the border, except where there is an actual war zone, which we now have in some places in Texas, New Mexico, and Arizona.

And the National Guard and States would be permitted to aid the Feds where needed, but would again be under the direction of state governors, eliminating the need for a federally directed FEMA.

Putting resources (money and men) on the border and around seaports would also eliminate the alleged threat posed by suitcase nukes.

For those worried about Ron Paul not going after this nations REAL enemies:

Ron Paul voted to authorize going after Osama Bin Laden and other members of the Al Qaeda network. Kill or capture. He also supports allowing privateers to do this much more efficiently than 150,000 troops on a nation building experiment.

And for those who believe that Ron Paul blames this country for 9/11, here is the truth:

Ron Paul has NEVER blamed the American people, the American way of life, the American dream, or the troops for 9/11. He has blamed the US government. If it is okay to blame the feds for the economic crash, the poor education system, bankrupting the nation, and shoving immoral and unconstitutional laws down our throat, why is it not okay to blame the US government for the problems our country has on the international stage?

We will have to bring the troops home one way or the other. Would we rather do it on our own terms (by doing it ASAP, but taking precautions), or would we rather do it on the terms of our creditors and our enemies (by waiting for a fiscal collapse caused in part by our Defense spending and the borrowing and inflating required to fund it)?

This is how empires die: by spreading themselves too thin and treating everything as a threat.

This is not isolationism. Isolation would require us to withdraw from the world in toto. Ron Paul wants Free Trade (not fake free trade like NAFTA and WTO), diplomacy (not fake diplomacy like the UN and foreign aid), and in the case of a real threat, Constitutionally Declared Wars.

2 thoughts on “Ron Paul’s Non-Interventionism

  1. Pingback: Articles « keimh3regpeh2umeg

  2. Pingback: Correspondence With Ron Paul Hater, A Friend Of Mine, Part One « keimh3regpeh2umeg

Any thoughts?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s