This ALIPAC member has posted this entity be it editorial opinion, news article, column, or web creation as information for the General Population (public) only. It is not intended as an endorsement for this candidate by this poster. Its use here has not been anticipated to be used to, or used as a discredit of any candidate mentioned herewith.

Some of Ron Paul's foreign policy ideas dangerous to U.S.

By: Nik Antovich | Columnist nantovich@dailyemerald.com
Issue date: 11/27/07 Section: Opinion

http://media.www.dailyemerald.com

Ron Paul fervor is on the rise. You either love him, hate him or don't understand him, and those that love Ron Paul really love Ron Paul.

I conditionally want to vote for Representative Paul. I entirely agree with him regarding the repeal of income taxes, strong border security, privacy rights, property rights, and healthcare reform. We do need to distance ourselves from the U.N. and other international bureaucracies as Dr. Paul asserts. I like how he is consistent in his ideology, and how his voting record proves it. There is something appealing about a candidate who says what he believes and backs it up with policy.

Like I said, I truly want to vote for Ron Paul, but I can't. When speaking with Paul supporters it is clear they are excited. They're excited because Ron Paul offers a choice of freedom. Specifically, his message emphasizes individual freedom, just as our Founding Fathers desired. However, some of Paul's less publicized positions trouble me.

I understand that part of the allure of Ron Paul is his opposition to the war. On the political spectrum he is often placed where the extreme right and extreme left meet. His events are known for drawing hippies as well as Goldwaterites. However, his less talked about, yet strong conviction that U.S. troops should not be stationed anywhere around the world, specifically the Middle East, is ignorant. Paul argues that our presence in Saudi Arabia is what has caused extremists to target us. I can't say that I disagree, but I wonder if Paul understands the alternative.

Saudi Arabia has allowed our presence in order to protect their oil reserves from exterior threats. We have been sensitive to their requests for a minimal military footprint and have in fact been removing troops since Saddam Hussein was eliminated, as he posed the greatest danger. This not only ensures a constant flow of oil from the leading producer in the world, but also provides relief to investors driving our market, as they have reassurance knowing that a disturbance in the flow of oil from Saudi Arabia is unlikely. We cannot be responsible if a contingent of extremists believes our intentions to be negative. A disruption of oil from the country could cause economies to enter depressions.

If one were to ask Ron Paul to describe his foreign policy he would describe himself as a non-interventionist, and would be quick to point out that this is not isolationism. Instead, Paul describes non-intervention as, "Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations - entangling alliances with none." Paul would explain that this is in line with our Founding Fathers' beliefs, and he is right, in fact the above quote is a line from Thomas Jefferson's inaugural address.

I wish that I was born into a world in which the United States had a non-interventionist foreign policy, but I wasn't. The U.S. was forced to adopt an interventionist policy at the start of World War I. From that day on it was necessary for our country to be involved in others' actions. For the past 90 years our country has intertwined itself in foreign affairs, and contrary to Paul's position, we cannot just stop with the flick of a pen.

Ron Paul scares me because he is actually going to do what he says. If elected he would eliminate our intelligence agencies, and get us out of Iraq as well as Afghanistan, regardless of the unintended consequences. But then what? What happens if Iraq is overtaken by extremists? What happens if the flow of oil is disrupted in Saudi Arabia? What do we do if Israel is bombed by Hamas and Hezbollah, or Iran? What if Iran, with their mind set on the destruction of Israel, gets a nuclear weapon? If any Ron Paul supporters reading this know the answers to these questions please tell me. Because, frankly, I want a non-interventionist policy, but I don't see how it could work.

Ron Paul is a man who loves only one thing more than his country, and that is the Constitution. He will apply his interpretation of the Constitution to all executive decisions. I just wish he would recognize that we cannot reverse a century of foreign policy in one presidential term. I can acknowledge that our interventionist policies have hurt us at times, but President Bush did not invent alliances or trade agreements. Those have been around for a long time.