He is not an Isolationist. There is a very distinct difference.
Isolationist Non-Interventionist
Why is it vital for America's interests to be a super power that bullies the world? I have no doubt that Ron Paul would react to threats in much the same way as Jeffferson did when American shipping was threatened. I think the main difference is that he would seek the approval of Congress first unless there was an immediate threat. The key issue is what constitutes American interest? I used to be of the opinion that ousting Saddam from Kuwait was in our interest. I've since become aware of facts that make me question whether or not a steady supply of Middle East oil is something that we absolutely need to fight over. The fact is that of the 66% of imported oil, only about 15-20% comes from the Middle East. The rest comes from a number of other places but mostly from Canada, Mexico, and Venezuela. Seeing as how the US is a major market for oil, I don't think it really matters who controls it, they are still likely to sell to us since having a market is in their best interest.
I was against the war in Iraq from the beginning because I didn't buy into the bag of goods being sold to the American people. It never made any sense to me that somebody like Saddam who was known for his paranoia would ever trust a terrorist organization with a nuke. He was always pretty secular and distrustful of the mullahs despite his convenient occasional use of Islam to rally the people against America. Most of that was to keep them focused outside rather than inside.
Having said all of that, there is a part of me that does feel a moral obligation because of complacency. The American people should have forced a debate in Congress rather than allow them to pass the buck to Bush. As I expected would happen, they now blame him and try to say they were deceived. They were willingly deceived.
It amazes me that despite all the inconsistencies in policy, people still think we are fighting a war on terror. We hand billions of dollars to Pakistan, a nation that already has nukes, despite the fact that Al Qaeda lives in their backyard and Musharraf seems to do little to hunt them down. We then rail against Iran, a nation that has yet to actually produce a nuke. The more we threaten them, the more incentive they have to produce a nuke for self preservation. America has shown we respect and subsidize those who have nukes. We run over those who don't.
It has been suggested that the war on terror is global and that it is somehow America's responsibility as the world's policeman. American meddling does more harm than good. It is American meddling that eventually resulted in the establishment of Iran's Islamic Republic. American meddling then resulted in Saddam building his war machine. American meddling lead to the Taliban. See a pattern here?
Consider the alternative. We back off and give Iran some breathing room. Maybe they build a nuke and maybe they don't. What does the Iranian government gain by giving Al Qaeda a nuke? The utter destruction of their land and people? The extremists might be suicidal but I don't happen to believe that the officials in charge are that nuts. Instead of sanctioning, we begin to trade and talk directly. American goods find their way into Iran. The removal of trade barriers and the absence of American bullying allows the Iranian economy to thrive. Over time the standard of living improves. As that happens, they demand more and more freedom as often happens when a society gets richer. That is what is happening in China right now. It has been true in Vietnam. Would they ever be a shining example of democracy? Probably not. Forcing them into democracy isn't going to accomplish anything either.
