Is it Too Late to Question Ron Paul's Non-Interventionism?

I'm asking, because I'm starting to lose hope in his candidacy and his positions may no longer matter. But assuming they do still matter, I'd like to discuss something I saw in a Ron Paul interview.

dailycaller.com...

Paul told CNN’s “The Situation Room” host Wolf Blitzer that he would attempt to discourage the Israelis from preemptively attacking Iran to prevent them from obtaining a nuclear weapon.

“No, if I had any say or if they asked me [for my] opinion, I would try to discourage them from doing it. Why start a war? You know? Besides, I’ve heard, you know the head of the Mossad say, even if the Iranians get a nuclear weapon they would not be an existential threat.”

Paul added that he didn’t feel this was worth going to war over. “You don’t go to war over these kinds of things,” he continued. “I would try to use the foreign policy and military experts who say this would be a fallacy and use the people in Israel who are saying these things as well to show that people should stop and think before they start a war.”

Now I understood that Paul wanted no military in the Middle East, and no aid given to any of those countries. I thought his message was "let 'em do what they want to do, as long as they leave us alone." Has he changed his position on non-interventionism by trying to influence the Israelis?

Besides, if he's cut off American participation in the Middle East, why should Israel listen to us?

I thought non-interventionism was his strongest point, now I'm confused.

Another one of his points is diplomacy. Talking to countries instead of policing them unwillingly. For the sake of preserving freedom and peace.

I do not believe that he excludes intelligence gathering and self-defence. But as he has said on many occasions. If the US is to go to war, it will be approved by congress. There would be a declaration of war, and it will be fought quickly and ended quickly. No farting around in foreign countries for years.

In other words, be nice to other countries instead of pissing them off all the time and picking fights like a school yard bully.

reply to post by Glargod

Dear Glargod,

Thanks for the explanation. I agree with you (and Ron Paul) that diplomacy is the way to go. But I'm still uncertain about part of this.

If we're not going to give money to countries, or put military bases in their countries (which provides the host country with money), nor send troops to them if we're not being attacked, why should anybody listen to us? What can we tell our diplomats they can offer to country XYZ if they do something we want?

My fear is that we can butt out too far from other countries' business.

In the interview, Paul indicated he wanted to persuade Israel not to attack, I just don't see how he can do it. If he wanted to be non-interventionist, wouldn't he have to say "Attack if you want, don't attack if you don't want. The US is not getting involved?"

yes its too late to ask........ask something about mitt romney and the mormon temple cult

reply to post by charles1952


I see where you are going. Nobody wants to see a war in the middle east and it would seem that RP's ideologies would allow countries to do whatever they want.

If we are not in other country (bases) or give financial aid of some sort, then it appears that we have no bargaining power and our word carries no weight.

Truth is this, Ron Paul does not want to give hand me downs (financial aid) but he is pro economical trade. That said, cutting ties economically with a country could be a good motivator for a country to "behave".

IMO, I also seem to read into RP's words that point out to "I don't care what they do over there, they are all grown adults", but I am not quite sure that if he were President, he would allow a global crisis go happen entirely. I have a feeling that If anything of global importance were to happen, countries of the entire world would unite to stop whoever is disturbing the peace.

The thing is, the right person has to be stopped and they have to be stopped for the right reasons.

If you have a group of 1000 men who instigate trouble in the name of a religion or in the name of their ethnic group, but really, they do NOT represent that group, then you get rid of the 1000 men.. not the group they claimed to represent.

And if a country is to go to war, there is no reason to use illegitimate excuses. Most wars were fought under false pre tense. Don't take my word for it though. Google "false flags", and you'll have historical facts about many battles, the cause spoken, the cause hidden and everything in-between

Any way you look at it, if only you agree with half of what RP says, half is still better than all of what the other options say.

reply to post by Glargod

Dear Glargod,

Really nice post! Thank you a dozen times. (May I rant for a second? It seems like ATS is losing it's polite, open-minded, members. We seem to be slowly drifting towards talking point belching, angry, children.) You've become my hero of the day.

That trade sanctions idea is a very interesting one. I can see where it would provide some leverage, and Paul could do it quickly, without having to go through Congress (I think). There might be one or two problems, but they might not be signifiant enough to matter.

One problem might occur if we have trouble talking other nations into introducing trade sanctions with us. For example, we've had a trade embargo on Cuba for what, 50 years? It doesn't seem to have affected them very much, they trade with other countries. Second problem might be if it's a country we don't trade much with anyway. Here, I'm thinking about most of Africa.

But everything considered, trade sanctions are worth trying. Isn't that what we're trying with Iran? It'll be interesting to see how that works out.

I have a feeling that If anything of global importance were to happen, countries of the entire world would unite to stop whoever is disturbing the peace.

The US might be in a position of moral authority to bring that about, and I really hope it would happen. But doesn't it seem as though some country or another in the UN is always vetoing something? I think China and Russia just vetoed the Syria resolution, and I know the US has vetoed a lot of stuff. World unity on any issue might be tricky.

If you have a group of 1000 men who instigate trouble in the name of a religion or in the name of their ethnic group, but really, they do NOT represent that group, then you get rid of the 1000 men.. not the group they claimed to represent.

Absolutely agreed. Don't kill people you don't have to. You're also right that if you're going to war, let the world know and let them know why. People are going to be killed, no politician should be worrying about their reputation at a time like that.

With respect,
Charles1952