I like much of what Ron Paul stands for. However, I don't like the fact that he seems so anti-war, that he comes accross as though we shouldn't have attacked Affghanistan. That is an entirely different war than Iraq. Additionally, most of the world was on our side with Afghanistan. He comes accross as opposed to both wars and not just Iraq. His views on limited taxes, no IRS, homeschooling, exc... I agree on all that. However, sometimes foreign intervention is necessary, and why would he think we can actually negotiate with the Taliban, and we were right in taking them out for harboring people whose objective is to kill thousands of civillians and millitary. Feedback???
2007-12-13 07:08:07 · 8 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Military
The resolution to go to war came from the UN. That's Paul's biggest problem with it. We don't make decisions based on the opinions of an unelected, foreign body such as the UN.
"No war should ever be fought without a declaration of war voted upon by the Congress, as required by the Constitution."
Additionally, he feels that we need to be taking care of US right now. We are in major debt trying to police the world when we have so many issues here. The founding fathers supported the notion of taking care of home before abroad.
2007-12-13 07:13:34 · answer #1 · answered by colley411 4 · 3⤊ 2⤋
He's not in favor of negotiating! He's in favor of non-intervention.
Both Afghanistan and Iraq are predominantly muslim. Islam is a religion that denies people basic rights. They cannot and will never have liberty unless they give up their religion of death.
I agree with Ron Paul that the reason they hate us and want to kill us is because we crashed their party.
It's not our job or calling to police the world. We have issues at home that need attention, why are we over there fighting a war we had no national interest in?
If you say oil was our interest, we should have spent a fraction of what we've spent in the middle east drilling for oil in Anwar or developing cars that run on methanol.
2007-12-13 15:11:09 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 3⤋
I certainly agree. What more can I say?
Ron Paul needs to read his history, and then rethink his foreign policy. Until then, let us let the 14th Congressional District of Texas reelect him to the House. He would be disastrous as President.
Camperdan: Ron Paul is more than a little left of Libertarianism. According to the tests, I seem to score in center-field of libertarianism, but I have very little in common with Ron Paul's brand of libertarianism. Thumbs-up, though.
2007-12-13 15:19:58 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
I get that to. Still I do not think he is totally anti war, remeber he did say before Iraq fi we go to war it us the members of congress who decide that, we vote to go to war, we do not just give that power to the president.
2007-12-13 15:30:23 · answer #4 · answered by satcomgrunt 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
He holds too closely with the ideas of the founders that have been made obsolete.
I'll be one of the first to say that its not our job to police the world and we don't have to get involved nearly as much as we do in international affairs.
At the same time, I think anyone that holds to a strict non-interventionist policy needs to take a look at their history books.
The ideas of the founders, both militarily and politically, were great for their time, but they are long since obsolete.
The advent of long-range and strategic weapons completely changed the way war works. You can't just hide inside your borders and ignore the rest of the world.
That's why I don't support Ron Paul. I like most of the rest of what he says, but what does it matter if we have less taxes if we're under foreign threat?
2007-12-13 15:10:25 · answer #5 · answered by Yun 7 · 1⤊ 4⤋
Ron Paul voted for the attack on Afghanistan...he always say that the US should defend themselves and get those who are responsible for 911.
2007-12-13 15:12:38 · answer #6 · answered by Edge Caliber 6 · 4⤊ 0⤋
Dr Paul hasn't got a turds chance at John Edwards dessert table of becoming President. The man is a Libertarian not a Republican. Has been for years. Secondly and most importantly (slow down and read carefully you Paul zealots) the man is supported by and refuses to dissociate himself from Neo Nazis and White Supremacist. The Republican party will never and should never let this shameful charlatan advance in the party.
2007-12-13 15:16:33 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 4⤋
he thinks congress should tell us if we should go to war (which is what law says). He is a man of law & character he believes intervention is necessary sometimes but thinks we should go about it the proper way.
2007-12-13 15:18:18 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋