though I disagree with all of them in many ways, including Ron Paul on the need for a gold standard
I think that most who post here would agree with and support Paul's views on reducing the size and scope of the federal government and that many, including myself, support his libertarian stance on social issues. It's his views on foreign policy that I and many others see as being naive at best.
I personally have no problem with the US having a leaner (and more flexible) military. I'm all for closing bases in places like Europe, relics of WWII and the Cold War, and letting them fund their own defenses to the level that they deem necessary. Also, I don't think that our entanglement in that primitive rat hole, Afghanistan, is worth the life of even one American soldier.
Where I differ from Paul is that I have no illusions about the nature of the various rat holes around the world. He seems unable to accept that some regimes and cultures are truly evil, and viewing them through rose colored glasses won't alter that reality. There's a difference between downsizing involvement in foreign affairs and appeasing those who hate and detest our country and way of life. That fat clown in Venezuela and the loonies in Tehran will never "like us", but playing kissy face with outfits like that will only earn us their contempt.
Plus, on top of a truly naive FP, Paul's age is an issue that can't be ignored. I do hope that the GOP doesn't push him and his supporters aside, though, as the next election might depend upon how they end up voting.. |
