General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Why Ron Paul attracts some liberals. [View all]PeaceNikki
(27,985 posts)Nor did either claim "his position on international matters, particularly with respect to avoiding war as an instrument of policy has been identical to mine".
Paul's 'anti-war' stance is a ruse. Sure, he opposes military intervention in foreign wars, but not out of a sense of decency or anything close to a position of pacifism. He wants to withdraw from the UN and end humanitarian and peacekeeping operations. Foreign aid would disappear, and if you think "unstable" regions are bad now, imagine what they would be like with the double-edged sword of multinational (read: US) corporate interests moving unchecked throughout the developing world AND an absence of monitored unilateral military involvement in those regions. Paul's position isn't one of altruism; it's one of isolationism. Not that I'm an advocate of First World military involvement in foreign problems, but look at what isolationism has netted in the past.
And THAT is is the position Kucinich said is "identical" to his!?
Anyone who takes that surface level 'anti-war' stance of Paul's at face value is willfully ignorant or supporting that shit. There is no in-between.