T Nation

Romney vs Paul on foreign policy.


#1

Romney foreign policy:

21 June 2007:

'I believe America must establish a Special Partnership Force, with a core leadership drawn from Army Special Forces personnel training in working with civilian governments and Intelligence personnel. This force would work hand-in-glove with local host governments. Together, in partnership, they would seek to target and separate terrorists from the local population, and to disrupt and defeat them. They would have the authority to call in all elements of civil assistance and humanitarian aid. And, where they felt it was necessary, they could call in Delta and SEAL resources. Their goal is to build national institutions of stability and freedom, and to promote the rule of law and human rights.'

  • Romney wishes to increase the size of the military by at least 100,000 troops

  • Romney has opposed ratification of New START, a bilateral nuclear arms reduction treaty between the United States and the Russian Federation,[160] in part because he wishes to deploy defensive missiles on submarines.

  • During the debate in South Carolina held May 15, 2007 Romney stated that in his view 'We ought to double Guantanamo.' He then went on to say, in reference to combatants captured in Iraq, 'I want them in Guantanamo where they don't get the access to lawyers they get when they're on our soil. I don't want them in our prisons. I want them there.'

Ron Paul:

During the 2009 Gaza War, Paul addressed Congress to voice his staunch opposition to the House's proposed resolution supporting Israel's actions. He stated: "Madame Speaker, I strongly oppose H. Res. 34, which was rushed to the floor with almost no prior notice and without consideration by the House Foreign Affairs Committee. The resolution clearly takes one side in a conflict that has nothing to do with the United States or US interests. I am concerned that the weapons currently being used by Israel against the Palestinians in Gaza are made in America and paid for by American taxpayers." He then went on to question the very purpose of America's support for Israel, asking: "Is it really in the interest of the United States to guarantee the survival of any foreign country?"

and

  • Paul rejects the "dangerous military confrontation approaching with Iran and supported by many in leadership on both sides of the aisle."

  • Described 9/11 attacks as 'air piracy'. 'Paul supports reopening investigation into the attacks' and 'He has called the 9/11 Commission Report a "charade", saying spending more money abroad or restricting liberties at home will do nothing to deter terrorists, yet this is exactly what the 9-11 Commission recommends'

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

  • Paul described the United States as 'bullies that have to attack third-world nations that have no military and have no weapons'

'Paul advocates withdrawing U.S. participation and funding from organizations he believes override American sovereignty, such as the United Nations, the International Criminal Court, the Law of the Sea Treaty, the WTO, NATO, and the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America.'

On human rights:

In his speech before the House on a related bill, H. Con. Res. 467 Paul rejected the proposal for "[urging] the Administration to seriously consider multilateral or even unilateral intervention to stop genocide in Darfur should the UN Security Council fail to act." Paul argued the unrelatedness of the proposal to "the US national interest" or "the Constitutional function of [United States] military forces."

Paul was the only "no" vote on H.R. 180 , the Darfur Accountability and Divestment Act of 2007 (passed House 418-1-13, not reported out of committee in the Senate), which would "require the identification of companies that conduct business operations in Sudan [and] prohibit United States Government contracts with such companies."

On Cuba:

'In 2000, Paul voted to end trade restrictions on Cuba'

All sourced from Wikipedia.

Do I even need to comment on any of this? Withdraw US participation from NATO? Is he serious?

Romney; he may be a non-entity but he's not Ron Paul.


#2

And why does the US need to be part of NATO? How has this helped us as a nation?


#3

Foreign affairs is where Paul really proves to be off his rocker.


#4

You keep saying that but it is you and anyone else that loves murdering foreigners that you don't even know are the ones not only off your rocker but completely fucking evil.

Paul is the only moral choice.


#5

Romney is a fake.


#6

Romney is clueless, and a Big Government Republican.

Paul may be a little naive about how that would workout, but at least he's coherent and self-consistent.

No kidding. NATO is obsolete, it was created to defend against a Soviet threat that no longer exists.


#7

The only difference between Obama and Romney is Obama doesn't lie about being a socialist.

Romney will say ANYTHING to be elected.

Romney is complete and total liar and fake who: drove MA to near bankruptcy with bad economic polices, pushed gay marraige, pushed abortion, pushed gun control, pushed RomneyCare (ObamaCare, Jr.), supported the bank bailout, supported GM/Dodge bailout, and believes in man-made global warming.

In short, Romney is a Democrat with an "R" next to his name.

(BTW: Romney's complete fakery does not make Ron Paul any less of a fucktard.)


#8

Dude, these morons are not going to get it. They still laughably think "they hate us for our freedoms." If it weren't so pathetic it would be great entertainment.

Try a mirror punk.


#9

Oil, security, global stability where do I start?


#10

You're spending too much time here on T Nation my friend. Do a little reading on how Thomas Jefferson took care of the Barbary pirates. A country (and country) MUST defend its self interests. Every country does and the US should as well. Paul supporters are young and naive. I'll be kind and leave it at that for now because I like most of you guys.


#11

Apples to oranges. Are you guys really THIS dense?


#12

Yeah, I don't know a lot about the Republican nominees but I've heard a lot of that about Romney. From my understanding(bookies' odds basically), Ron Paul has no chance. Would like to see Michele Bachmann win but I don't think it's likely. Don't know much about Rick Perry. Seems like a non-entity.


#13


OK, here I am looking in my mirrow and what do I see?

Ron Paul with the founders of the Don and Derek Black, founders of the neo-nazi Stormfront website!

Paul has been doing his best to run from his anti-semitic past, but 40 years of his looney writings and railing against Jooooos and Israel, are impossible to ignore.


#14

Please explain why the handling of Tripoli is much different than our current war on terrorists. But I warn you, you'd better do some serious reading on the topic.


#15

Understatement. The guy is crazy.


#16

Who care?!

TJ is irrelevant and only proves one thing: people with power love to use it.


#17

I'll let you pick since you seem to think it's so important.


#18

Okay, global security. Basically NATO is an alliance of the most powerful nations of the free world and an essential deterrent to any act of belligerence by Russia, China, North Korea, Pakistan etc. And if the most powerful nation in the free world pulled out of NATO and withdrew all its forces from South Korea and Japan, the chances of a Korean conflict and possible escalation involving China grabbing Taiwan greatly increase for example.


#19

Bahahahahahahaha!

You just became irrelevant.


#20

Correction:

Some governments with power MUST use it to defeat their enemies and deter further aggression by other willing parties.

Oh how I wish the world were as black and white as Ron Paul sees it.