HuffPo Interviews Ron Paul Why is this approach to foreign policy completely ignored? Even if you think it's wrong, why isn't it debated? If he is the man you all say he is, why do Obama supporters allow him to be so "political"?
I hate to use the word, but the Federal Government seems like some sort of conspiracy to keep us occupied with what they see fit. This is in turn limits intelligent discussion of issues that matter. For instance, every Presidential election, gay marriage comes up. It is one of the most talked about policies for either candidate. But in the grand scheme of things, whether it is legal or illegal matters for nothing more than votes. Ron Paul would leave issues like these up to the states, and not have the Federal Governmenment worry about them. In regards to Foreign Policy, the reason its change is so infrequent is due to something called the Government-Military Complex in which a select few make millions if not billions off government contracts. Lobbyism is the real enemy. P.S. I apologize for the jumping around I'm a little scatterbrained atm.
Nice article Aaronman... I am surprised that huffingtonpost put this up. They are infatuated with President Obama like nothing else. Too bad they wouldn't put that interview on the front page
I am very glad to see another person expand his mind and look at the real issue. Ron Paul is the only hope this country has out of all the politicians. Don't just take my word for it, research him, youtube it if you'd like, he even has a myspace page. Don't just sit back and watch your monday night football and drink a beer, think, realize, move the human race further into the future.
Funny how the scruffington post wants to pop an interview RP now after blindly supporting Obama through the election. Way to marginalize Paul during the race HuffPo! Paul and Kucinich for 2012!
I've always respected Ron Paul, if not because I agree with all of his views then because he represents a rarely vocalized type of politics in an intelligent and clear manner. I'm not sure I follow him on the whole Pakistan thing though... In recent weeks hasn't the Pakistan military been aggressively pursuing the Taliban, scoring some victories along the way? I could envision us having some role in Pakistan, but I can't understand why our involvement would require anything on the same scale as in Afghanistan. Also, I'm unclear as to whether or not Paul supports bringing the troops home immediately from Afghanistan and Iraq... I know he said "bring them all home" but he didn't mention those two countries specifically... The Taliban are a real organization and as demonstrated by the events of 9/11 they do pose some threat to the U.S. Granted we shouldn't give the government free reign to do whatever in the alleged pursuit of 'fighting turrism' but I feel we need to do something to weaken them if not in the interest of the Afghans then in our own national self-interest.
this is so true. I find it funny that Obama supporters throw the "neo-con" word around so much when talking about bush/cheney, when we ended up electing another neo-con for a 3rd straight election.
We are "Talibanizing" Pakistan, just like we "Al Qaeda-ized" Iraq. I see it as only getting worse, and the more we do to destabilize Afghanistan the worse off Pakistan will become. Of course bring them all home. Why would we continue to keep them over there to die for bankers and oil men? The Taliban were not involved with 9/11, but by targeting them we have made them stronger and more prone to supporting terrorism. Heck, the Taliban offered to give us Bin Laden if we gave them proof of his association.