Ron Paul is not an isolationist. His foreign policy is based on the principles of our founders.

[GALTGULCH8]

Find this at www.ronpaul2012.com

<<<"

BRUCE FEIN ON RON PAUL’S FOREIGN POLICY

Writes constitutional lawyer and former assistant deputy attorney general for President Reagan, Bruce Fein at The Daily Caller:

When it comes to deterring and preventing wars of aggression against the United States, no candidate for the presidency is more hawkish than Ron Paul.

His foreign policy would be an adaptation of the Founding Fathers’ creed saluted in the Constitution’s preamble: Billions for a common defense, but not one cent for extravagant preemptive wars seeking world domination, a risk-free existence, and a planet purged of tyranny and sin. He would not spend $120 billion annually to confront 50 members of al Qaida in Afghanistan with 100,000 troops when international terrorists can be captured or killed with special forces.

Ron Paul would close the hundreds of U.S. military bases abroad, redeploy weapons and soldiers now dedicated to defending foreigners and foreign countries to the U.S. to defend American sovereignty and Americans, and end our multiple treaty obligations that require us to wage war in defense of other nations. Our government shouldn’t send Americans abroad on quests to secure the liberty of foreigners.

As then-Secretary of State John Quincy Adams explained in a July 4, 1821 address to Congress:

Wherever the standard of freedom and Independence has been or shall be unfurled, there will [America’s] heart, her benedictions and her prayers be. But she goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own …

Ron Paul’s foreign policy strategy is not isolationism. It is the timeless wisdom of the ages. Ecclesiastes 1:9 sermonizes, “What has been will be again, what has been done will be done again; there is nothing new under the sun.” The development of weapons of mass destruction has not altered human nature. They have not changed political motivations, the lust for power, or the law of self-preservation. As always, nations have no permanent friends or enemies. They have only permanent interests.

Candidate Paul favors the collection of intelligence on potential adversaries, trade between the United States and other nations, and cultural exchanges and embassies abroad. Like President Thomas Jefferson, he would seek “peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none.”

The cornerstone of peace and the common defense is deterrence. Ron Paul would embrace a retaliatory capability sufficient to destroy every living thing in any country complicit in an actual or imminent attack on the United States. He would deploy troops and weapons systems capable of foiling any acts of war targeting Americans on American soil.

Deterrence anchored to massive retaliation works. The Soviet Union flinched during the Cuban Missile Crisis. At present, no nation’s leaders — not even the semi-paranoid leaders of North Korea — would contemplate attacking Americans on American soil with weapons of mass destruction or otherwise…

Ron Paul no more supports Iran’s development of nuclear weapons than he does the nuclear arsenals of Pakistan, India, or North Korea. But the best way to address the prospect of Iranian membership in the nuclear club is to renounce our current policy of regime change, promise annihilation of any country that employs nuclear weapons against the United States, and leave Israel free to do what it believes is necessary to defend itself…”">>>

[Selene]

Gulch:

Excellent article. I would, preferably, like to hear this out of Dr. Paul's mouth because he does not make his case the way this article's author makes the case.

I am currently reading Sir John Keegan's, The Mask of Command [1987], he also wrote The Face of Battle.

Sir John Keegan

OBE

FRSL

(born 15 May 1934) is a

British

military historian

, lecturer, writer and journalist. He has published many works on the nature of combat between the 14th and 21st centuries concerning land, air, maritime, and intelligence warfare, as well as the psychology of battle.

Sir John makes an interesting observation in light of the above article you cited. Keegan points out that:

The urge to fortify, defend and deflect in that continet [Europe] and even more so in others,

was quite as strong as that to campaign, make expeditions or win victories. Indeed, if were

possible to quantify in military history - no doubt it is, but few have made the effort - it would

probably be revealed that altogether more money and human labour has been expended,

over the whole period of collective military effort before the two world wars, in fortification

than in fighting, ...fortification has served communities well, whenever its works have been

kept in order and madernized to meet improvements in weapon manufacture and management.

In that perspective, President Reagan's urge to realize a Strategic Defense Initiative, and to

protect his United States against the threat of wholesale ballistic missile attack, belongs not to

some utopian dream of the future, but to one of the deepest and oldest of all human responses

to military danger. [introduction: Page 7].

One of the reasons that Lee lost Gettysburg was because he did not follow Longstreets prescient advice to move to better defensive positions near a Railroad junction that was between the Union Army and Washington.

This would have forced Meade to attack into Longstreet's fortified position, Longstreet was a defensive expert, which would have most probably ended in a Confederate victory and a peace treaty and, of course, a completely changed history.

In all military combat odds tables, attacking a fortified position is generally, a 1:2 or 1:3 advantage for the defender, and depending on the terrain, up to 1:6 and up for the defender. Taking the higher ground being critical.

Therefore, a fortress America, with strategicly placed bases and a willingness to use our power and its reach if we were attacked would work quite well in my evaluation.

Remember, that would mean being clear with the world that we will not be sending troops, but we will be sending our power.

Good post Gulch.

Adam

[GALTGULCH8]

Adam,

I am glad that you appreciated that article. There is another one I just read at www.ronpaul2012.com about Ron Paul's thinking about Israel and how our manner of dealing with Israel has not always been to her advantage. It originally appeared at newsmax and all rights are reserved so I am hesitant to copy and paste the whole thing here.

It features an interview with Ron Paul so you do get to hear his own words.

http://tinyurl.com/7qlnyx2

Makes sense to me.

[blackhorse]

Gulch8, Please explain to me how Iran, or any tyrant nation, getting a nuke is sound foreign policy?

"A right cannot be violated except by physical force. One man cannot deprive another of his life, nor enslavehim, nor forbid him to pursue his happiness, except by using force against him. Whenever a man is made to act without his own free, personal, individual, voluntary consent—his right has been violated."-Ayn Rand

Ayn Rand knew this about Soviet Russia and would doubtless say the same of North Korea and Iran. There is no rational justification for Ron Paul's foreign policy of total pacifistic non-interventionism. Even Thomas Jefferson knew the muslim threat and sent Marines to Barbary.

[Ryanhoyt1168]

If I was just 3 years older I'd definitely vote for this guy. He sounds like he'd repair America the best.

[anthony]

If I was just 3 years older I'd definitely vote for this guy. He sounds like he'd repair America the best.

If I were the right nationality, I would, too.

I haven't followed everything about him, but I was kinda thinking Ron Paul was given the 'pacifist/insularist' lable unfairly - only because he stands for limited - and effective - response. Now, he shows his readiness for massive, 'disproportionate' response, too. As warning and deterrent.

Without putting huge numbers of "boots on the ground".

He matches my opinion on Israel as well; it's about time US Jewry realized it is counter-productive to baby-sit Israel. She'll do alright, (and better) on her own - with moral support from the USA only.

Well said, Adam:

"Remember that would mean being clear with the world that we will not be sending troops, but we will be sending our power."

Elite Special Forces - or maximum retaliation; and nothing in between.

Paul shows the same spirit as John Q. Adams, it seems.

[blackhorse]

"Now, he shows his readiness for massive, 'disproportionate' response, too. As warning and deterrent."

That's an irrelevant argument when a nuke that Paul would have allowed Iran to acquire, or whichever tyrant nation, has already killed millions of Americans because he chose not to preempt, but decided to wait until an actual attack has occured. Sometimes defending means taking the offense by stopping a catastrophe before it happens. Iran, being a tyrannical theocratic nation, as such has no right to exist. Just because the nation claims sovereignty and has written laws does not grant it a moral or lawful right to exist (see above A.R. quote)

[anthony]

Gulch8, Please explain to me how Iran, or any tyrant nation, getting a nuke is sound foreign policy? "A right cannot be violated except by physical force. One man cannot deprive another of his life, nor enslavehim, nor forbid him to pursue his happiness, except by using force against him. Whenever a man is made to act without his own free, personal, individual, voluntary consent—his right has been violated."-Ayn Rand Ayn Rand knew this.. .

There's the quote, blackhorse. What is its relevance, except in a generic way?

Maybe you are thinking of AR's speech (I think it was) of the rights of intervention in another nation, a dictatorship?

We have individual rights abused in dozens of places, today.

To justify military intervention in Iran only, on these grounds - only - tastes strongly of rationalization to me.

Sort of, kill the populace because their State is treating them badly - and anyway, we hate Iran, don't we?

Anyhow, Israel is the frontline, not the US.

[GALTGULCH8]

I think that the responsibility for the future of Iran is with its younger generation. I don't know what percentage of them have been indoctrinated by the clergy or what percentage of them are enlightened and prefer Western values but I think that some years ago we were told that a huge percentage of the entire population were under 35 years of age and somewhat Westernized.

A colleague of mine is a physician who was raised in Iran. He said there were times when he and his family and neighbors were obliged to go out into the streets and raise their fists in the air in support of the administration. He said everyone knew it was a farce and after the cameras left they went back to their lives.

At some point they may realize that the saber rattling of Ahmadinijad might lead to a pre emptive strike against Iran from elsewhere. Perhaps they will surrepticiously organize and engage in a coup to overthrow the oppressive regime without any nuclear bombs being used. I think that if anything like that begins to smolder we should help them.

[BaalChatzaf]

"Now, he shows his readiness for massive, 'disproportionate' response, too. As warning and deterrent."

That's an irrelevant argument when a nuke that Paul would have allowed Iran to acquire, or whichever tyrant nation, has already killed millions of Americans because he chose not to preempt, but decided to wait until an actual attack has occured. Sometimes defending means taking the offense by stopping a catastrophe before it happens. Iran, being a tyrannical theocratic nation, as such has no right to exist. Just because the nation claims sovereignty and has written laws does not grant it a moral or lawful right to exist (see above A.R. quote)

There is a relevant quote from the Talmud: If he is coming to kill you, rise up early and slay him first

Ba'al Chatzaf