The nutty South Carolina debate audience booed Ron Paul when he suggested we apply the Golden-Rule strategy to our military foreign policy....
While I don't agree that we should always stay out of every body's business around the world if we don't want them in ours, he sort of has a general point with which I do agree. Unless there is a demonstrable and pressing threat to the US or our allies, we don't need to go into, and/or bomb, foreign countries just because we think the time is ripe to bring our brand of democracy to them.
There was no demonstrable threat to the US in Iraq, Libya, or Egypt. We went into two of the three countries and yet, it's looking more and more that we'll end up with radical Islamic regimes in all three before the accounting is done. Can anybody argue that Iraq and Libya were worth the trouble, especially Iraq? The argument for the Afghanistan war is a more valid one to me because that's where the Taliban and Al Qaeda are primarily staged.
I think Ron Paul is more or less correct and after all, who doesn't know that we are ramping up for an attack on Iran? Before it's over we'll have been in Syria too, and to what end? To have created by our actions, radical Islamic nations more determined to bring harm to us than before? I don't think Israel will sit idly by waiting for the US to protect it from a perceived Iranian nuclear threat, they'll handle their business with or without our permission....we don't need to attack Iran.
This is not an endorsement of Ron Paul, just an acknowledgment that his general notion of reducing our military presence and role in the affairs of other countries is a valid one.