http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/11/foreign-policy-experts-agree-with-ron-pauls-controversial-foreign-policy/?fb_ref=abc-fb-recs

Ron Paul is often chided by his Republican opponents for his extreme views on American foreign policy. His calls for ending all foreign wars and shutting hundreds of military bases across the globe have drawn howls from his GOP rivals, who have labeled the moves irresponsible and naïve.

His campaign pledge of cutting all foreign aid and withdrawing U.S. participation in the World Trade Organization and the United Nations has been at odds with even the most conservative members of his own party.

Yet as voting day in Iowa and New Hampshire draws near, Paul, the Congressman from Texas, is finding support for his non-interventionist positions from a growing number of foreign policy experts.

“He’s attacking our rich lazy friends, why is that not more popular,” said Harvey Sapolsky, emeritus professor of public policy and organization at MIT. He backs Paul’s calls for reducing America’s military budget, arguing that much of it is used to defend wealthy nations’ security.

A huge, Cold War-era global presence — with hundreds of overseas military bases — isn’t necessary, now that the Soviet threat is over and the collapse of communism, Sapolsky said.

“It’s not in America’s interest,” said Sapolsky, who added that despite the drumbeat in the media over the fear of terrorism, America is the safest it has ever been in its history.

Christopher Preble, vice president for defense and foreign policy studies at the Cato Institute, is also another foreign policy expert who agrees that the United States is extraordinarily secure due to its geography and nuclear weapons, and doesn’t need a huge global presence.

He also argued that the United States’ military is being used in overseas conflicts with little or no national interest, specifically pointing to the U.S. invasion of Iraq.

Preble gave Paul credit for being one of the few outspoken critics of the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

For sure America’s attitudes toward the war has changed and popular opinion seems to be on his side.

It’s evident at most of his campaign stops, where Paul’s calls for the troops to return home are met with thunderous applause and the occasional standing ovation.

But not all of Paul’s foreign policy positions have gone over well.

Paul has often said that America encourages terror by stationing troops worldwide.

“That’s irresponsible,” former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum said. “A future president of the United State should not be parroting what Osama Bin Laden said on 9/11.”

Santorum, who is among Paul’s rivals for the GOP presidential nomination, challenged him at a recent debate, to explain his view that American overseas domination caused the Sept. 11 attacks.

Paul’s answer received a hostile response from the audience and even a few boos.

Paul’s view that a withdrawal of U.S. troops would decrease the incentive for terrorists to attack the United States got him into trouble with a Concord, N.H., voter earlier this year, who questioned his sanity.

“Anyone who thinks that is off their rocker,” she said.

“He’s easily dismissed as a crank,” said Sapolsky, who says Paul has good ideas but can be an inarticulate messenger.

Like most aspects of running a national political campaign, style often outweighs substance and both Sapolsky and Preble said that Paul is neither a great orator nor does he break down large global situations well.

But despite his shortcomings, Sapolsky does give Paul credit for speaking his mind.

“A lot of people won’t say come home,” Sapolsky said. “But Ron Paul does and that’s great.”

I guess even a nut can hit one right accidentally. He is so crazy with the other stuff though that this will not matter.

I do agree with him on this though.

Backhanded compliment much?

Einstien, Beethoven, Henry Ford..... all nuts too

Closing overseas bases immediately stimulates our economy.

It would save billions, improves troop morale and lets them spend their money in the US instead of helping prop up foreign economies.

The First US overseas Military Base to close should be Diego Garcia. A paradise Island that is home to 3000 Americans. The island was deemed incapable of sustaining the islanders that lived there by the British and US. So many wrong doings and the world is still in a mess.

When oh when will people wake up and see through the propaganda that is pushed to satisfy the minority.

Bump!
Go, Ron Paul

I suppose China and Russia will provide Safety for the US-Merchant-Fleet!

Whole Ron Paul has some pretty good grasp on some issues,on others he is plump crazy!

I didn't realize U-boats were still sinking merchant shipping..

Diego Garcia is considered a "hell hole" and the military has a lot of trouble getting civilians to work there. Pearl Harbor, on the other hand, is considered a paradise.

you'd be surprise what is happening on the High Seas when Big Brother ain't looking!
Pull the US-Fleet home,and see what happens!

Howard Hughes, Van Gogh and Sigmund Freud

Usually, the highly intelligent remain at least a little bit crazy, but accurate in their findings.

http://mises.org/daily/5751/Ron-Pauls-Campaign-of-Ideas

Interesting Article on Ron Paul.

Every interview with Dr. Paul eventually concludes with an attack on our monetary system for the simple reason that that is what is likely to destroy our liberties and possibly the nation itself, not al Qaeda nor the Iranians nor the North Koreans. Dr. Paul is a highly respected and much-published Austrian economist. He has warned the nation about the dangers of fiat money and fractional-reserve banking since he entered politics after Nixon took the nation off the last tenuous ties to the gold standard. His presidential campaign is a campaign of ideas. It is a true intellectual crusade, not because he calculated that that might get him elected but because an intellectual campaign is the only kind of campaign that can save us.

It is an honest campaign, too. Unlike that of the typical politician who carefully tailors his speeches to match the prejudices or vested interests of his audience, Dr. Paul's message is always the same: fractional-reserve banking and fiat money are violations of historic legal principles. Their inherent fraud is revealed in frequent boom-and-bust business cycles, which wipe out the honest savings of the people. Rather than prosecute such practices as fraud, the government allowed bankers and businessmen to conspire to create an institution that would shield them from the consequences of their fraud. That institution is the central bank; here in America it is called the Federal Reserve Bank. Although the central bank can protect the bankers and their politically connected businessmen by becoming a lender of last resort, the central bank cannot stop the workings of economic law, which demands that someone, somewhere bear the loss of its wealth-redistribution effects and capital destruction. That loss is borne by the rest of us.

Dr. Paul is like a passenger on the Titanic who understands that proceeding full steam ahead through iceberg-infested waters is fraught with danger, while the captain and crew are engaged in schmoozing passengers about the ship's finery and promising that they are part of a record-setting trans-Atlantic voyage. All is going well. The ship is making great progress. She is the finest product of modern engineering. She is unsinkable! Wait — what is that big, white thing up ahead? Too late. Too late......

WOW, good one Conrad!

You don't need to mothball the fleet. Pearl, Guam and Guantanamo can stay obviously.

I am referring to inland bases in Germany and Korea specifically.

They aren't defending the merchant fleet or much of anything.

The US Fleet is part of our NATIONAL DEFENSE and not considered for budget cuts BY ANY MEANS! Even RP doesn't want that! He want's the foreign "bases" (in non-US countries) closed!

Why are we paying MILLIONS of dollars protecting their borders when we can't protect our own?!

I agree that we need to end this major military presence throughout the world. I also admit that I can't imagine a need to maintain so many troops on our own shores.

For those who are not re-upped what jobs will they have?

You're thinking backwards on this.

We don't cut payment to the troops, we bring them and their money home which goes into our economy rather than that of a foreign nation.

Think about a town here that loses it's local military base.... the local economy ALWAYS suffers. Now, think about the impact on these foreign nations if we bring our troops, and their money, HOME! Economies would be boosted phenominally in each locale they reside! Not only that, we would have troops available for our border security if needed (one of the jobs our gov't is supposed to do and doesn't!).

Bringing the troops home, cutting the expense of keeping the bases open and transporting men and machines.... A GOOD THING!