DeVore's stance on foreign policy?

[Fr3shjive]

What is Chuck's stance on foreign policy. I havent been able to find anything on his stance on foreign policy except for vague answers.

We he continue the neo-con policy of trying to police the world?

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

What is Chuck's stance on foreign policy. I havent been able to find anything on his stance on foreign policy except for vague answers.

We he continue the neo-con policy of trying to police the world?

If he does he will have no shot at beating Boxer, nor would I support such a candidate. I'm not too sure, I haven't done that much research on his foreign policy. Perhaps someone else will do better to answer your question.

[Flash]

In his Reason.tv interview he says he follows Reagan's foreign policy, I believe. I don't feel like watching the whole interview again but anyone can view it here:

http://www.reason.tv/video/show/every-last-penny-and-then-some

It's a big improvement upon the Neo-Cons "OMG you insulted Israel, you must die" foreign policy approach.

[FSP-Rebel]

He doesn't sound too sincere about his friendliness towards a liberty foreign policy.

[Fr3shjive]

Eh, Im not sold on DeVore's foreign policy. Im not anit-military but I would like to hear him say that he wants to close many of the 750 military bases we have all over the world.

Sounds like he wants to cut domestic programs and maintain the giant empire we have over the world.

[dannno]

Sounds like he wants to ... maintain the giant empire we have over the world.

he hasn't said that, but I'd be interested to know his answer to the question.

[Brian4Liberty]

He seems to be in the middle on foreign policy, kind of like Glenn Beck. He has said he likes the Reagan non-direct-intervention model. Maybe we need to ask some specific questions?

- Was it wise of Reagan to pull out of Beirut?
- Should foreign aid (foreign welfare) be paid for by the US taxpayer?
- Should foreign nation-building be paid for by the US taxpayer?
- Should policing the world be paid for by the US taxpayer?
- Does the Constitution require that wars be declared by Congress?

[Imperial]

The problem with Reagan and his ideological predecessor in Eisenhower was not that they were too hawkish. Both were smart in that they avoided direct wars that would force the United States to be trapped if failure occurred (contrasted with Iraq, Vietnam, and soon to be Afghanistan).

They did seek other ways to pursue an interventionist foreign policy though, to mold the world in a manner they perceived as beneficial to America and/or democracy.

Eisenhower was an interventionist in that he turned to covert operations fairly readily. It was Eisenhower who destroyed the Congo, let Patrice Lumumba be assassinated, and backed Mobutu. He also backed the CIA in lots of other places in covert operations. It must be noted the CIA was most effective in covert operations than it has been ever since then. But even then 'success' wasn't really found except in limited actions.

Reagan had a similar track record. Some success, particularly in Taiwan, but then you had limited engagements like Beirut and fiascoes like Iran-Contra go way off track.

Ultimately the problems with Reagan and Eisenhower's foreign policy were in their very premise, not in the specifics of the policy.

[Reloaderx3]

I am surpised he is in RP forums he supports the war on terror. He is running a very creative campaign and has a lot of support and I commend his creativity. Google Devore war on Terror see what you find and you will have your answers. He will have my vote because he is the lesser of 2 evils but not my support on the forums.

Have Mr. Devore denouce the war on Terror and he will make a few friends :)