At least this article on Paul offers reasons to oppose him

http://dailycaller.com/2011/12/22/thedcs-jamie-weinstein-ron-paul-and-the-nazi-century/

But, promoting a non-interventionist doctrine doesn't equal isolationism and pacifism. Paul was in the military. The author wonders what would have happened during WWII if Paul had been President and claims that Germany would have controlled much of the world. If we go back to WWI, and if we had not interfered, especially in the post-war arrangements which, in concert with interference from Britain and France, pressured Germany for years into an impossible situation, there might not have been a WWII. The central banks manipulated so much that's it's hard to untangle, but without the interventions, things could have been a lot different (read Lords of Finance). Beyond guessing about things we'll never know, let's look at what non-interventionism means. It means we defend our country from attack, but we don't intervene in the affairs of other countries. If a President Paul found himself with a dilemma regarding a country which was committing mass murder, and no other country would help, I'm sure Paul would make the right decision, since he promotes life with a passion, but the key is that Paul will not easily committ American troops. Our Founders wanted us to be careful with war, and we should be careful with war.

America should committ her troops only after exhausting every other means of resolution and then only if our national security is at stake. Regarding help for a nation in which mass murder is taking place,  even then we could recommend innovative NGO military solutions where defense units not tied to a government are available for these rare castrastrophes. The point is to think of ways to avoid war, not to invent excuses to go to war.

America and its military

As we get close to 9/11 old feelings of rage toward our enemies will re-surface, but this should be time for calm, reasonable reflection. After a decade of retaliation and the War on Terror, perhaps it's long overdue for a reassessment of the War on Terror and our role in foreign affairs.

I'm not a hawk, but I'm not really a dove in the sense of being a pacifist. When we were attacked on 9/11, I felt rage and a desire for revenge, especially as I saw innocent people jumping from the windows -- it was a deep, soul-shaking experience. Now that we've responded and the world knows that if we're attacked, we'll create much damage, it's time to look at Afghanistan and Iraq and ask outselves if we are still fighting terror or are we caught in a political morass of nation-building. Libya will likely turn into an unmitigated disaster -- Libya didn't attack us, so our foreign policy doctrine has led us down a dangerous road of intervention.

I think this 9/11 remembrance should be for the victims and their families, and to remind us that the 21st century demands a new relationship between America and the rest of the world, especially the mideast. I don't agree with those on the Left who instinctively blamed America for the attack on 9/11, but western countries, especially since WWI, have a history of intervening in mideast affairs, and these interventions have caused many resentments through the decades leading the the present. It's time to pull out of the mideast, to offer free trade, but come to an agreement -- you leave us alone militarily, and we'll leave you alone militarily. The mideast countries have to find their own way, and our history with the mideast started from the beginning of America -- it's been riddled with good and bad relationships, but now it's time to stop intervening -- to leave and let the region do what the region will do, and as long as they don't attack us, we have no business with them militarily.

Morning Joe 8/22/2011 -- Libyan success?

On Morning Joe today panel talk surrounded the Libyan rebels in Tripoli. Richard Haas, Michael Steele, Mike Barnicle and, later, Ed Rendell, Andrea Mitchell and David Ignatius, all gave their analysis of the situation. Steele and Haas called for caution, a wait and see approach to determine what happens next. Ed Rendell was more eager to give Obama credit and then went on to say we should use our military in partnership with NATO to do this anywhere people need help. Steele reminded Rendell that NATO draws a bright line when it comes to helping people in the deepest parts of Africa, plus, Haas asked what we should do if China cracks down on her people. Rendell is simply looking for short-term political advantage, which is how most partisan Democrats are spinning this so far.

David Cameron was shown in a clip praising the freedom-loving rebels and claiming victory for democracy. Britian should know better than other nations about the danger of premature victory speeches and grand designs in the mideast/northern Africa. David Fromkin, in his book A Peace to End All Peace about the peace talks regarding the mideast following WWI, wrote this:

Over and above any specific decisions there was a general sense that something was fundamentally wrong with the Peace Conference itself. In a general sense, and for the public that judged the Allies by their wartime promises and expressed principles, it was the way in which decisions were made that constituted a betrayal. Decisions, by all accounts, including those of the participants, were made with little knowledge of, or concern for, the lands and peoples about which and whom the decisions were being made. This was true even of the peace terms imposed in Europe, and was even more so of those imposed by Europeans upon the distant and unfamiliar Middle East.

Shortly after the Great Powers designed their plans for the Middle East, the plans fell apart, and we know the history up until now, and once again big statements are made about the potential to influence the Middle East through intervention and benevolent guidance. The Morning Joe crew spoke of the need for NATO to work with Libyans to create a workable government. Libya will soon be in chaos, and as it churns and gyrates like presently in Egypt and Tunisia, the media and pundits will move along to another story -- anything to divert attention away from reality and the failures of foreign intervention.