YOUR COMMENTS

Wow, it looks like the Ron Paul nutcases are pulling a case of Orwellian doublespeak here. Isolationism isn't really isolationism, it is 'non-intervention'.. I swear these people are like some sort of cult.
- CoryClark1221, Fairfield, IA

No COry, it isn't doublespeak. Isolating means that you will not acknowledge the world. Not intervening means that you will not send in troops to try and, change the world. Your desire to slam Ron Pauls fans falls flat!
- Mr. Mike, Burlington, N.C.

This is one of the best takes on the misguided views of Congressman Paul that I've ever seen. As a Vietnam veteran, I don't want to see the sacrifice of our troops be in vain, because a politician wants to get elected. Kudos on the editorial.
- Stephen Ritter, Ottawa, Illinois

To CoryClark1221: Funny someone from Fairfield, IA (home of the Transcendental Meditation movement's Maharishi University) calling Ron Paul supporters "some sort of cult."
- Steve C., Marion, IA

Hold on, hold on, guys - this is not a hit piece. The UL presented RP's views accurately and stated their opinion. They even gave him an opportunity to respond - what else do you want? Not everybosy is going to agree with RP on everything - _I_ don't agree with him on everything. The UL deserves a 'thank you' for interviewing RP and starting a discussion on the real issues.
- Muni, Manchester, NH

Ron Paul was unfairly labeled as an isolationist
in this editorial. A call for diplomacy is not an isolationist act. The difference between Paul and the other Republicans is that he is not a warmongerer and he doesn't support the perpetuation of an American Empire. He recognizes how current American policy threatens our liberty and security.
- Matt Taylor, Washington, NH

Hi. I'm a Ron Paul "nutcase". I work harder than I have to, pay my taxes, mind my own business, and live below my means. I'm "dangerous and deluded". My thoughtcrime is that I don't particularly care about Darfur or abortion. The former makes the left tremble at the thought that America was not meant to suckle the world at the bosom of the Statue of Liberty. The latter makes the right shudder that perhaps proper function of government is not to pass godly judgment on sinners before God gets a chance. People like me could get the US "invaded or annihilated". Fear me. BOO!
- Mike, Nashua

It sickens me that people think we are somehow safer by sending 1000s of innocent Americans to die in Iraq.

I'm a veteran, I've been to Vietnam. Ron Paul is right, we don't need any more nams and Iraq's, we need to STAY out and trade with people.

The writer should be ashamed in this little hit piece. Slander and ignorance at its finest.
- Brian Hynes, Amherst

Ron Paul's position seems extreme compared to the choices offered by all the other candidates. But I'm reminded by a famous solution to a math problem. The problem is simple to state. To go from A to B first go half way. Then go half way the remaining distance. Again and again. Following that plan you never arrive at B. The solution is to plan to go to 2B. Then the first step gets you to B. Ron Paul can never expect to do all he says. But if we got half way we would be better off. Vote for the stars. Be happy if we make it to the moon.
- Martin Anding, Los Gatos

There is an important distinction to make when discussing isolationism and non-intervention. The former is predicated on ignoring the world diplomatically, economically, etc. However, a policy of non intervention simply means that we will no longer go off on military adventures that lead to unending troop commitments and missions that constantly morph. Eventually, the only definite yield of these actions are dead Americans and new enemies who wish to do us ill. It is not only immoral to pre-emptively attack a nation that has yet to pose a clear and imminent threat, but it is totally unconstitutional. The armed forces are meant for the defense of the United States. It is not the job of the brave men and women to become globocops in conflicts the world over. It is a shame to see the Union Leader, once a bastion of traditional and pro-Constitutional government, call such 'dangerous.'
- Jon Mangin, Greensboro, NC

Wow, it looks like the Ron Paul nutcases are pulling a case of Orwellian doublespeak here. Isolationism isn't really isolationism, it is 'non-intervention'.. I swear these people are like some sort of cult.
- CoryClark1221, Fairfield, IA

Amazing how so many posts above conveniently forget aspects of situations that don't conform to their mind set on interventionistic American policy. That's what Paul-Heads do. They distort, omit, and ignore. Ron Paul is an idiot. He's a one-man show that focuses on parts of the constitution he favors and ignores the rest. He's from a backwaters area of Texas and doesn't see the big picture of international relations or capitalism on a global scale, understand the history of war, or grip the reality of cause and effect. Theoretically a Ron Paul administration could lead us all to nirvana if he could only impose his will on all the other competing nations of the world, and that he cannot do. He's a dangerous dude from Texas whose only contribution is to help people realize how deranged some politicians can get.
- Rockyspoon, Rigby, ID

Obviously, most of the above posters would very much like to stick their heads in the sand and hope that international problems, like Islamic terrorism, would blow over and pass us by. We did that in the 90's, and we saw what happened on September 11, 2001.

Ron Paul is right, in a sense, that no would attack us militarily. But, they sure did attack us: 1993 (WTC I), 1996 (Khobar Towers), 1998 (African Embassies), 2000 (USS Cole), and 2001 (WTC/Pentagon). One pro-Paul poster stated that we shouldn't stop Iran from getting nukes, but in case they do, Israel could nuke Iran. This is an example of clear, logical thinking? Ludicrous!

The Paul-istas logic would have caused the US to lift not a finger to help Europe against Hitler (remember: "non-intervention"), nor help the West Berliners (1948), nor help the South Koreans (1950), nor help the South Vietnamese (1965), nor help the Grenadans (1984), nor help the Kuwaitis (1990).

Sure, no one targets Switzerland, but when did Switzerland ever matter? The Paul-istas wish we would stop "stirring things up" abroad, but waiting for the enemy to attack us before trying to stop them is lunacy. Ask the Dutch how trying to be nice (and non-interventionist) toward the Islamic militants worked out for them.

Horse (ostrich?) feathers to all of you.
- Alan, Fairfax, VA

Even the Democrats seem to want only to cut and run from Iraq. Ron Paul seems to want to cut and run from the world. We can all take comfort in knowing that he has zero chance of being the Republican nominee.
- John Krogstad, Burlington, MA

Blaming the IRS for tax woes is like blaming the town tax collector because you voted for a higher town budget.
Congress is the taxing authority... it is to blame, not the IRS. But then again Congressmen/women hate to mention their at fault for anything.
- John Edward Mercier, Belmont

Dangerous? I am a disabled vet thanks to interventionalism if you want to see danger try war. Ron Paul belives the big danger we face is the lost of our liberty and bankruptcy and I agree. Why did Japan attack us anyway? Maybe if we were focused on our defence and not being on the offence in Europe we could have prevented the attack on Pearl Harbor. Ron Paul speaks the truh. We are less safe because of our nation building and treatys with othes to provide their defence. We create terrorists with our actions not our ideals. With the logic Iran could give a bomb to a terrorist we should do away with our wepons program, after all ho sold Saddam the gas he used on his own people? Any country at any time could sell their wepons to terrorist, millitary dictators or anyone else. The thing to ask is why would we be a target?????????
You say Ron Paul is unrealistic. Is it realistic that we could
continue to spend trillions of dollars on fighting enemy we can not define and strip the American people (who are armed) of their rights and expect them to continue to take this crap? Is it realistic to think that on going war = peace?
Ron Paul is the last chance this country has at restore its Republic. Donate now. Vote Ron Paul in the primary and for president in 08 .
- libertynow4peace, lafayette

To Stephen Boyington, Chester: I'm not sure why being against the IRS makes any of us 'goofballs'. Someone who is asked a question on June 22nd for the first time about people he doesn't even know does not make him responsible for what those people do or not do. There is nothing to 'explain' since he's never once brought it up himself. Stop trying to make it into a political football as others have by putting him on the defensive when there is no need for him to be.

If this is all you have against him, what a pity. You might try making some arguments using real issues, not manufactured ones.
- Jane Aitken, Bedford

So, let's go bomb everybody that appears they might be a problem someday, then all our problems will be solved. Great strategy.
- Andy, Houston, TX

Our vast array of weapons did not beat the Soviet Union. Karl Marx beat the Soviets. Communism was unsustainable simply because it is inferior to capitalism.

If our troops stop intervening around the world, then jihadi leaders will be reduced to loudmouths with no followers. Although extremists may hate the fact that we are not Muslims, Muslims will ignore the extremists if we stop intervening around the world.
- Craig, Delaware

Nations are abstractions. As such, they can no more be threatened, be secure, or have concerns anymore than can the number '4' or the color 'green'. I often find myself in irreconcilable disagreement with both sides in these sorts of discussions.
That said, since Dr. Paul's approach is more likely to result in real benefits for me, I enthusiastically support his candidacy.
- David Loboy, Youngstown, OH

There will probably always be those who truly believe in "peace through war" including, apparently, the author of this article. The logical conclusion of such an Orwellian outlook is that if we want continual peace, we need continual war - and that's pretty much where America is right now. Ron Paul is the anti-Orwellian. Vote accordingly.
- Ian Johanson, Elkhart Lake, WI

Ever since the Union Leader was usurped by the moderates, they lost all understanding and appreciation of genuinely conservative points of view.

Bring back the Richard Lessner, Pat Buchanan, Jack Kenny, and Ann Coulter editorials. Even Bernadette Malone Connolly could crank out a great piece once in a while. Seance with Bill or Nackey Loeb if you must, take a column right, sack the milquetoasts and clandestine liberals there, and I might actually buy a full subscription. Fix the problems, or just keep using your barrels of ink to merely document the fall of America.
- Ed Holdgate, Sandown

Right, the Iranians are a threat - heard that before with Iraq and all the weapons of mass destruction they were suppose to have, but didn't. Here is a fact for you - if the Iranians are a threat in anyway, Israel will nuke them into the stone age. Next if you are concerned about China so much, then don't buy their tainted products. There is a flood of foriegn investment in Russia, and they are stonger as Russia, than the Soviet Union. They have learned that being a global super power is bad for thier people, just as being a world policeman is bad for the American people.
But here is the kicker, so even though we have a huge American presence in Iraq and Afghanistan - supposedly to curb all these actions by crazy mideastern countries - they still want to kill us? They still want to come here and blow things up, they still hate American people. Wasn't going to Iraq suppose to keep them over thier, and make them love Americans and bring Democracy to them all. Never mind I keep forgetting it wasn't any of that, it was all the weapons of mass destruction they had.
- Joe Lawson, Manchester

As Huckabee, Guliani, Thompson, etc. try to break away from the pack, they are all overlooking the one surefire ticket to the top of the top tier. Someone needs to denounce Ron Paul as the anti-American moonbat that he is. His inclusion in Republican debates gives him a facade of credibility and the de facto sanction of the Party. Like Al Sharpton’s similarly inappropriate appearance at previous Democrat forums, Paul is becoming an albatross that could drag down the entire party.
The first candidate courageous enough to say “Ron Paul has no place in the Republican Party” will alienate the kooky crank’s smattering of boisterous supporters, but few if any of them would ever pull the lever for the ultimate GOP nominee anyway. Sending Ron Paul the way of David Duke and Pat Buchanan will demonstrate bona fide leadership—just what Republicans need in our standard bearer and America needs in our next president.
- Steven Fantina, Phillipsburg, NJ

Just a word of warning. The Ron Paul crowd has targed you for reeducation.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=22742

Expect hundreds of posts all cut and paste proving you are wrong (sic) and attempting to make your mind right.

Imagine how they will try to reeducate all of us if Paul wins. Maybe they will create camps to help us concentrate.
- J. Langley, Union Falls

It all about control of the masses or freedom for the individual. Congressman Ron Paul stand is clear. Libertarian candidate for U.S. Senate NH. Ken Blevens
- Ken Blevens, Bow,NH

I wonder if the author would acknowledge the fact that the Cold War was won on two fronts: Political and Economic. Every time we went for the military solution, we lost or had a bloody draw (except for Grenada). If we had successful military actions involved in the cold war, please remind me of them.

Ron Paul is not suggesting disarming our military, he is suggesting a more humble and in my opinion, sane, foriegn policy.
- Will Albenzi, Hudson NH

Ignorant is right. Those who throw away their sword will cause enemies to grin and draw theirs.
Ron Paul is the Republicans' Kucinich, and just as much of a loon.
- John M., Hudson

We maintain bases in almost every country around the world. Considering how much they cost, and how overextended we are, these bases and endless overseas conflicts could destroy us faster than foreign Powers ever could hope to. If we let this go on it will collapse on its own and then we will be unable to mount legitimate needed military action. That's what happened after Vietnam.

The main threat to America in the 80s was foreign authoritarian governments. The main threat to America now is its own government.
- Dave Ridley, Manchester

The reason we are building more bases
over seas in the Middle East is our ahem
"American way of life is not negotiable" said Dick Cheney, you know the guy that used to run Haliburton and isn't really a good hunting partner... Why are we building more bases you ask? We are spoiled, consume way more of the world's resources per capita than any other country and aren't afraid to use any excuse to "protect our National Interests" and American way of life. The same way of life that has created the highest rate of obesity ever and allows us to operate a false economy based on debt. The only reason Americans haven't demanded fiscal responsibility from their government is they're too worried about their personal debt to notice!

Recently Alan Greenspan former head of the Federal Reserve (now there's a topic!) pretty much admitted we fight for oil... That my friend is a very inconvenient truth...We were taught we were the "good guys" not school yard bullies...but hey gotta fuel up the SUV!

Our economy and life styles are based on access to oil, that is irrefutable.
Our national policy of "spreading democracy" is the smoke screen we use to continue to send kids to die for corporate interests, maintaining a life style of gluttony that can only topple in the future when we have eaten all the goodies in the trough...

Concerning the approx. 800 military bases we have abroad how can we not be perceived as Imperialists by the rest of the world? Would we tolerate any other country doing anything even close to that? Heck No!
No I'm not a pacifist, I'm just not willing to deny the obvious.
There's a difference between being militarily strong and DEFENDING your country and being the World Police. I think it was 13 0f the 19 9/11
terrorists were Saudi...we didn't attack Saudi Arabia did we? Why not?
The Saudi's are already in the fold, no need to police them, even though their human rights track record is abysmal, they play the game the way we tell 'em to, that's all that really matters isn't it?
- Bob Constantine, Ossipee

To the supporters of Ron Paul: please try to let him know that the Browns' capture is a great opportunity for him. He can make a statement about what he supported and what he didn't regarding Ed and Elaine. It would do wonders to prevent him being painted as a goofball, like the Browns certainly are. He could show some moderation, and it would go a long way toward convincing some independents that he is a viable leader.
- Stephen Boyington, Chester

Ron Paul is naive. He won't be President of his local Kiwanis chapter, let alone President of the United States of America. His post-World War II foreign policy would get us conquered or annihilated. He is dangerous.
- William Smith, ConservativeBlogger.com, Manchester, NH

This is another non-factual hit piece that will cause myself and other Ron Paul supporters to just donate more.
His stance is non-intervention. It's got nothing to do with "isolationism". He is against nation building and forcing democracy at the end of a gun.
Why is it not clear that we have been creating more problems with our permanent presence, frequent military meddling, and economic extortions? You would have to be of the mindset that we have some right to run the world as we see fit.

It is not at all surprising or strange that the author of this tripe is anonymous.
- Herb Cameron, Canterbury, NH

Non-intervention is a great policy... before we actually intervene. Its a little late for that.
It would have been much cheaper in the long run for President Bush to just say 'no' to Cheney... and shore up US defenses for real, instead of the DHS.
- John Edward Mercier, Belmont

I think his main point is that the US will be safer if we adopt a foreign policy that doesn't go around stirring up trouble around the world. I would tend to agree with him. Dr Paul does stand for a strong national defense along with a formable Navy to protect our shipping lanes. Unfortunately, the US policy, at least in my lifetime (I'm 50) has done little else. It is not hard to see the failures of such a policy in fostering hatred and extemism against the US. Simply put yourself in the shoes of some of the countries that we have been aggressive against or threatened. Iran for example, what would YOU do if China invaded Mexico on a premise that they were an immediate threat to their safety, overthrew the Mexican government replacing it with puppets, imposed sanctions on the US, have their leaders denounce our democratically elected president as evil and a threat to world peace on a daily basis, and threatened the US militarily if we didn't toe their line.

Gee, I dunno but it doesn't take a genius to figure out that a hypothetically insane Chinese foreign policy such as this would make far China less safe than if it were to leave us (and Mexico) be.

The sad truth is that hypothetically foreign policy is not hypothetical at all. It is the US foreign policy and it is totally insane.

When was the last time someone attacked Switzerland? Think a neutral foreign policy might had anything to do with that?
- Rolland, Fremont

I understand your concerns concerning US national security.

1) Why should the US be the only country in the world with so many military bases? It only threatens other countries and wastes US taxpayers' money

2) Your article is so loaded with the same rhetoric of the neocons: what if they attack us here, or there? The world is going to collapse.

Frankly, dear writer, the world has had just about enough with this idea that we are all evil and the US is the only beacon of hope shining in a world of darkness. Please understand the feeling of second rank world citizen it gives us and that this largely contributes to sentiments of anti-Americanism.

Ron Paul's advice is to trade, talk with and travel to other countries. These are recipes for peace... there is NO need for war as a oft-used instrument of international relations: it breeds mistrust, kills many, cripples economies and scares people for generations...
- Francesco Marelli, Oegstgeest, the Netherlands

1) What is really more of a threat to US national security: China's natural expansion into a global power or the fact that China is financing our government's insane runaway $9 trillion national debt? Which, by the way, is continuing to grow in leaps and bounds due in no small part to our continued occupation of Iraq.

2) Diplomacy and rational thinking were just as much responsible for our victory in the Cold War. Otherwise Earth would be a lifeless radioactive rock thanks to our and the Russian's military build up.

3) The North Korea regime is currently being handled very successfully diplomatically. The main reason given by the North Koreans for developing a nuclear weapon was for its use as a deterrent against the US. Why? Because we have maintained a large threatening (to them) military presence right next to them in South Korea for decades after the Korean War. If we had left after rebuilding South Korea's economy and military instead of stay for 50 years several former US and Korean diplomats believe that South and North Korea would have made peace on their own and would be unified by now.

4) The situation is the same with Iran and the Middle East. If we stop invading countries (Iraq) and overthrowing democratically elected governments (Iran in 1953), stationing our troops in their holy land (Saudi Arabia), supporting dictators (Pakistan), what reason is there left for them to attack us with terrorists or even nukes? We would be removing the cause of their hatred. They (Muslims) hate us and attack us because we have been over there meddling in their affairs for decades not because we are a free and great country.

If we truly want to try and fix our country and restore it to a resemblance what our Founding Fathers' envisioned we need to start looking at the true underlying causes of our problems, foreign and domestic. Instead of having knee-jerk reactions to various symptoms without addressing the possible true causes of such symptoms.

Dr. Paul is the only man running for president that seems to have this logical insight and he has my vote.

Monty Congdon
SGT, US Army Reserve
7 year veteran - still serving
- Monty Congdon, Fairfield, IA

If Iran ever attacked us we would wipe them off the face of the planet.

Even if we were to close half of our military bases overseas we would have more than enough. I'm sitting at the bottom of the economic spectrum and I'm telling you we cannot afford a military budget of our size, inflation is killing me. Americans are starving.

Our problem is similar t the Romans: Too large of an army to support, and too small of an army for the job we've given it (world policing). The solution, give it a smaller job (like protecting America, not the WORLD).
- Jeremiah Bell, North Platte, Ne

Isolationism: a policy of nonparticipation in international economic and political relations.

Ron Paul: a policy of free trade, diplomacy, and strong national defense.
- Kyle Brotherton, Edmonds, WA

You're so worried about Iran going after us with nukes, but I think the question is: why is it us you think they'd go after, and not--say--Switzerland or the Netherlands? Ask yourself that question and answer it honestly.

Our foreign policy is what breeds foreign hatred towards us. Every time we stick our nose into an international conflict that doesn't directly concern us, we gain a friend... as well as an enemy.

It's not isolationism if he wants to have open trade and commerce with every nation; it's non-interventionism, a founding principle of America.
- Jonathon, Keene

Could your bias run any deeper than the above article?

Ron Paul has stated over and over he is not an isolationist. He wants to stay out of the affairs of other nations!

What justification can you provide for keeping bases in South Korea? Germany? Japan? Saudi Arabia? UAE?
- Michael Sanducci, Hampton

This piece is another piece that aims ar marginalizing Ron Paul as an isolationist. He is not that. He is non interventionalist. He believes in fair global trade and mediating with other nations. Vietnam is a great example of how talking can lead to good. We now trade with Vietnam and their President even visits here.

Ron Paul is about securing our borders and protecting this country before meddling around the world.

You bring up China! Our unfair trade policies are making China more wealthy and building up their military. Our deficit is leading us to borrow from China. Under a Guiliani or Romney administration that would continue. If McCain is in office we will be in Iraq for many more years.

Like Ron Paul says "We spend money to blow up bridge in Iraq and then money to rebuild them". "Meanwhile our bridges are collasping.

We are 10 trillion in deficit and that does not include the healthcare problems and social security.

Ron Paul is the only candidate that understands we need to get our ducks in a row at home before taking on the worlds problems.

We need change and Ron Paul is the right man to do it.
- Henry Johnson, Concord

In the United States, non-interventionism has often been confused with Isolationism. Critics of non-interventionism frequently add to this confusion by smearing prominent non-interventionist as isolationists. However, true isolationism combines a non-interventionist foreign policy with protectionism (economic nationalism) and strict border controls to prevent international travel and cultural exchange. The majority non-interventionists in the United States reject protectionism in favor of free trade, international travel, and cultural exchange.
- Rosie, Manchester

There are notable differences between the examples given and our current situation:
1. When Ron Paul says "They attack us because we are over there" it is completely correct. The only reason we have Middle Eastern threats today is we've been there. We have military basses there. We have bombed there.
2. My Great Uncle was on the Medusa when Pearl Harbor was attacked. The situation with Imperialistic Japan is far different than the Middle East. The motivations are different. There are parallels with Sept. 11th though. Look at the timetable and casualties. Note that with both, these attacks used a surprise element that would not be effective again for many years. A huge divide is declaring war. We took out Japan on a war declaration. We responded to Sept. 11th in part with military intervention with a country that was not involved or a threat to us (Iraq). Our operations in Iraq are not succeeding because, as with Korea and Vietnam, we did not declare war. Don't let the similarities of the attacks be confused with the motivations that lead to the attacks, as they are very different. We had a war declaration against a real enemy and took care of business in WWII. This is not the same case today with Iraq.

Ron Paul is not an isolationist. He believes in genuine free trade with all countries. When we have commercial ties, we are far less likely to have conflicts. Ron Paul is not afraid to speak with other nations. This is not isolationism. Setting up tariffs is isolationism. Managed trade is selective isolationism and Ron Paul is opposed to that as well.

-Brock
- Brock, Boise, Idaho

Non-intervention and isolationism are not the same thing, no matter how much you try to conflate the two. Dr. Paul's position is not isolationist at all, he proposes we build relationships of trade, commerce, and diplomacy with other nations. These things do not require force or global military presence. Even if they did, we can't afford to pay for our current militarism abroad. We've tried the interventionist method, most people are waking up to the awful results of it. So it's time for a change in direction. It's a policy that is driving us bankrupt, and worse, it isn't working. What Ron Paul says rings true for a lot of folks.... America is starting to take notice of him as a result.
- Kevin Olson, Nashua

Ron Paul is not an isolationist but the author of this article (who would obviously prefer to remain anonymous so I'll just call him Mr Dumas- with a silent b and 2 s's) is obviously not about to let factual reality get in the way of writing a good Ron Paul hit piece...
- Mark Tremblay, Milford, NH

You have your history wrong, it is now common knowledge that pearl harbour was known by top US officials and ignored in order for the US to enter the war. Who did we go after first? Hitler, same with the Spanish American war, Maine is sunk in Cuba, we attack the Philippines. We use the media to spin history and bring us into war, only later to find the truth. When was the last time America was “invaded?” The war of 1812. Ron Paul is about trading with everyone and allied with no one, just like the founding fathers advised, very un-isolationist.
- Stephen, Phoenix AZ

I would have to whoheartedly disagree. Our intervention has caused many more problems than it has solved. History has shown that imperalism is not the answer. The Roman Empire crumbled, a fate the United States hopefully will avoid. But it will not escape the Romans' fate, if it thinks it can spread democracy with the barrel of a gun and justify preemptive strikes on nations.
- Steve, Chapel Hill, NC

Interventionism is just as dangerous as isolationism. Not only that, our preemptive strike against Iraq (which history shows posed no threat to us) has "isolated" us from much of the world diplomatically. Our interventionism in Iraq in the 90s (IE - the sanctions under Clinton which killed somewhere between 250,000 and 500,000 innocent Iraqis) is one of the reasons given by Osama Bin Laden for the attacks of 9/11. Our interventionism in Afghanistan in the 1980s in order to prevent the "spread of communism" essentially armed the Islamic militants you worry about today.

Look, isolationism doesn't work but neither does interventionism. Next time, try suggesting a solution rather than just attacking Dr. Paul and calling him "dangerous". I don't like the militant Middle East either but if we had taken Ron Paul's advice in 2002, we'd have 4,000 Americans still alive, $700 billion less debt, and while Iraq would still be under Saddam, it wouldn't be a breeding ground for terrorists and radicals like it is now. He kept that in check.
- Dave, Concord

Ron Paul is right and the Union Leader is wrong about China. We have NOTHING to fear from China. I am a businessman who works with Chinese companies and I have visited China over 40 times. The Chinese economy depends upon jobs provided by Wal-mart and other retailers who need low-cost products. The two economies are much too dependent on each other for a war to ever occur. There are now non-stop flights from the US to virtually every major Chinese city. The Chinese economy is now more capitalist in nature than ours, and both countries are too ashamed to admit that fact--and for different reasons. North Korea is too broke to do anything to anybody, and Russia cannot put the freedom genie back in the bottle, as hard as Putin might try. As for Iran, the jury is still out on that one, but after our debacle in Iraq, attacking Iran certainly is NOT the answer.
- Kerry Welsh, Redondo Beach