Why Do People Not like Ron Paul's Foreign Policy?

[rockerrockstar]

I just don't understand people that like Ron Paul's fiscal policies but don't like his Foreign Policy. Why do people not like Ron Paul's foreign policy? Personally, I think Ron has the smartest foreign policy but most of the opposition is misinformed on his views. Why do these people want to fight wars so badly?

[thoughtomator]

Because they are bloodthirsty animals and expect to suffer no personal consequences from the carnage of wars they expect others to fight and die in?

[VIDEODROME]

They want to world to be more secure by leaving other countries in a smoking ruin.

[specsaregood]

Because americans recognize that we have voluntarily given up everything we used to be proud of in exchange for being able to destroy anybody else. Killing and destroying other countries is simply all we have left.

[kezt777]

I watch comments on other pages like on FB and pretty much everyone thinks that RP will want to sit around the fire and sing camp songs with Iran, Pakistan, etc. For example, on our Sun News network (canada), one op-ed show host is Brian Lilley. He was posting about Iran on his FB page. My bf talked about Ron Paul in response and Lilley himself (along with a hoard of his fans) went berserk (well Lilley wasn't berserk, he was respectfully disagreeing with 'RP's foreign policy'). My bf tried to educate them a little by trying to get away from their catch words of 'isolationist' but no one would listen. But he kept at it and just ignored them, getting as much info in there as he could.

Several weeks went by and then we happened to be watching when Lilley was doing a story and interview about the grave desecrations in Libya. He actually said (something like) 'You know, I'm starting to think Ron Paul knows what he is talking about. It doesn't seem to matter that we were all just over there helping free these people from Ghadaffi, and now look what's going on'. My bf just about hit the ceiling because he was literally the ONLY person in those gigantic threads that was trying to get people to see past the media blocks of 'let's be friends with everyone' and 'isolationist=wimpy baby', and felt that maybe Lilley was starting to think rationally about RP and look into it more himself. It's a nice hope at least lol.

As for everyone else I've talked to, people up here and in the US, they don't seem to know how to EXPLAIN why they do not like RP's foreign policy. If you ask, they will say 'it's dangerous' but give no reason why. Or they double talk their way around 'it's dangerous -why? - because the US cannot be isolationist - why?- because it's dangerous - why? - because RP is a kook - why? - because his foreign policy is outrageous - what is his FP? - to be isolationist'... and around and around we go. It drives me insane.

As for me, I catch flack for trying to suggest that I really dont think Iran is stupid enough to nuke anyone, even Israel, without severe provocation. I have thrown out the thoughts that Iran must surely know they would be the crater in the ground the next day, they would be the ones 'wiped from the map' themselves. How could they possibly think that sending a nuclear device to Israel or anywhere else would not have massive response from every other country able to send in troops (or send in their own myriad bombs)? That's all I ask people when they start talking about fearing Iran. They respond 99% of the time that Mahmoued is 'insane' and 'suicidal' and I respond that for a bunch of homicidal-suicidal crazies, they have managed to live into middle age and beyond. The leaders never want to be the ones in firing range these days - but they sure as heck would be prime targets if they set off a nuke. How could they defend themselves from a massive strike from all the european and north american armies? Ya some say that china and russia would respond on their behalf - but WOULD they? That sounds like way too many if's and possibilities and in the end, Iran would be a hole in the ground so it wouldn't help them at all if China and Russia came in after the fact. Maybe I am naive and will eat my hat in a few years, but right now I can't see that happening. I am continuously bashed for even bringing those thoughts up.

[Feeding the Abscess]

I watch comments on other pages like on FB and pretty much everyone thinks that RP will want to sit around the fire and sing camp songs with Iran, Pakistan, etc. For example, on our Sun News network (canada), one op-ed show host is Brian Lilley. He was posting about Iran on his FB page. My bf talked about Ron Paul in response and Lilley himself (along with a hoard of his fans) went berserk (well Lilley wasn't berserk, he was respectfully disagreeing with 'RP's foreign policy'). My bf tried to educate them a little by trying to get away from their catch words of 'isolationist' but no one would listen. But he kept at it and just ignored them, getting as much info in there as he could.

Several weeks went by and then we happened to be watching when Lilley was doing a story and interview about the grave desecrations in Libya. He actually said (something like) 'You know, I'm starting to think Ron Paul knows what he is talking about. It doesn't seem to matter that we were all just over there helping free these people from Ghadaffi, and now look what's going on'. My bf just about hit the ceiling because he was literally the ONLY person in those gigantic threads that was trying to get people to see past the media blocks of 'let's be friends with everyone' and 'isolationist=wimpy baby', and felt that maybe Lilley was starting to think rationally about RP and look into it more himself. It's a nice hope at least lol.

As for everyone else I've talked to, people up here and in the US, they don't seem to know how to EXPLAIN why they do not like RP's foreign policy. If you ask, they will say 'it's dangerous' but give no reason why. Or they double talk their way around 'it's dangerous -why? - because the US cannot be isolationist - why?- because it's dangerous - why? - because RP is a kook - why? - because his foreign policy is outrageous - what is his FP? - to be isolationist'... and around and around we go. It drives me insane.

As for me, I catch flack for trying to suggest that I really dont think Iran is stupid enough to nuke anyone, even Israel, without severe provocation. I have thrown out the thoughts that Iran must surely know they would be the crater in the ground the next day, they would be the ones 'wiped from the map' themselves. How could they possibly think that sending a nuclear device to Israel or anywhere else would not have massive response from every other country able to send in troops (or send in their own myriad bombs)? That's all I ask people when they start talking about fearing Iran. They respond 99% of the time that Mahmoued is 'insane' and 'suicidal' and I respond that for a bunch of homicidal-suicidal crazies, they have managed to live into middle age and beyond. The leaders never want to be the ones in firing range these days - but they sure as heck would be prime targets if they set off a nuke. How could they defend themselves from a massive strike from all the european and north american armies? Ya some say that china and russia would respond on their behalf - but WOULD they? That sounds like way too many if's and possibilities and in the end, Iran would be a hole in the ground so it wouldn't help them at all if China and Russia came in after the fact. Maybe I am naive and will eat my hat in a few years, but right now I can't see that happening. I am continuously bashed for even bringing those thoughts up.

Here's what I like to say to those who throw out the "Iranians are crazy religious, they'll suicide for their god" bit:

"Yeah, when mad men speak, we should listen. They'll suicide for their religion by dropping a nuke on one of the holiest sites in their religion. I can see the logic in that."

[ClydeCoulter]

I get the same responses from people. Round and Round. They're just repeating the same things the media keep telling them about Ron Paul's foreign policy. Like you say, "it's dangerous", "He's isolationist", etc.... recordings from their ears to their head and out the mouth, no processing of commen sense in between.

[kezt777]

I will store that response in my memory thx

I must point out though, having lived abroad in Europe (England and Germany), I feel sorry for the US. It's always a 'lose-lose' situation. If the US gets involved with something, people there would always say that the US needs to mind it's own business and back the hell off. But if they did not get involved in something right away, I would hear 'The US is staying out of this, when they have the best equipment and training. why are they staying silent?'. You can't win. I saw that over and over. In England and France, I heard a lot of talk about how 'the Americans did not get involved in WW2 until they were forced' and there still seemed to be a lot of bitterness about that. I would say 'well, it's not like they came in at the end!' and I would hear 'they might as well have' in reply. It is something that has always baffled me. A total 'damned if you do, damned if you don't' moment.

[Indy Vidual]

Why Do People Not like Ron Paul's Foreign Policy?

Propaganda is very strong and effective.

[Lishy]

In absolute truth:

People don't actually understand the situations discussed at hand. Because Ron Paul is extreme" ideologically, people get the impressions he's "radical", and so the average American wants someone with a "balanced" set of views, just for the sake of "balance", because most people acquaint that with stability. Hence, most people are under the impression congress doesn't "work" because they argue and "don't get anything done."

So it really has nothing to do with what the people know. They just have this principle that everything must have "balance".

I guess that's a better way to put it?

People want our troops home, but at the same time, they don't, because they equate it with unbalance, because it's simply such a new idea to the American people.