Ron Paul vs Romney on Gun Rights

[Dale00]

This video is red meat for gun advocates and shows an ugly side of Romney.

I love Ron Paul's gun right's position - but disagree with his isolationist stance. What a dilemma!

 

[Gideon]

I don't believe that shedding the "World Police" title constitutes isolationism. He has never said that he would refuse to fight wars that need to be fought, nor has he even advocated a true non-interventionist stance, but simply that we should be doing those things from a strong moral position instead of as the initial aggressor.

 

[dutchwrangler]

RP pretty much insists that if the US is to become involved in conflict that Congress pass a declaration of war and then fund it. Nothing isolationist about that. Just ask yourself which of the two is more in tune to the Constitution.

 

[Spec ops Grunt]

 

[Dale00]

A little research reveals:

Paul advocates bringing troops home from U.S. military bases in Korea, Japan, and Europe, among others.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Ron_Paul#Non-intervention

And U.S. troops in Europe?

"I would get them home," Paul said in an interview Tuesday. "Having them stationed abroad doesn't serve our national interest, and that goes for forces in Japan and Korea.

"We should only send U.S. forces abroad when our security is directly threatened. Right now, nobody threatens our national security."

Read more: http://www.seattlepi.com/local/conn...nts-all-troops-home-1249373.php#ixzz1k9HVZCp0

http://www.seattlepi.com/local/connelly/article/GOP-s-Ron-Paul-wants-all-troops-home-1249373.php

This is isolationism. I don't think it wise to withdraw to behind our borders.

 

[Spec ops Grunt]

We are the only country in the world with such a presence. Why do we have to maintain this?

Would you say that Brazil or Germany are isolationist? I wouldn't despite their lack of foreign bases.


Getting rid of an unjust empire does not equal isolationism.

 

[justinsaneok]

Ron Paul is the man for the job

 

[Dale00]

We are the only country in the world with such a presence. Why do we have to maintain this?

Would you say that Brazil or Germany are isolationist? I wouldn't despite their lack of foreign bases.


Getting rid of an unjust empire does not equal isolationism.

First, I think there are treaty obligations for us to provide military protection for our allies.

Second, I believe closing bases in Asia would create a power vacuum and let the mainland Chinese take control of Asia. This would be a bad thing all around.

Brazil and Germany do not have military forces abroad because they believe that it is not in their interest to do so. If they thought is was advantageous for them to have foreign bases, then they would. If we withdrew our military to behind our borders, then perhaps they would see a need for foreign bases.

We are not the only nation to have military bases abroad - Canada, Italy, Russia, England, Australia and others also do, I believe.

 

[Glocktogo]

A little research reveals:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Ron_Paul#Non-intervention

http://www.seattlepi.com/local/connelly/article/GOP-s-Ron-Paul-wants-all-troops-home-1249373.php

This is isolationism. I don't think it wise to withdraw to behind our borders.

You do understand that isolationism means more than just troop withdrawal, right?

 

[Dale00]

You do understand that isolationism means more than just troop withdrawal, right?

Troop withdrawal is a form of isolationism. But use the term "troop withdrawal" if you believe it is more accurate.