The plan culminates with the "definitive victory" of "one-and-a-half billion Muslims" and the establishment of a global Islamic caliphate by 2020.""

So what you're saying basically is that we need to wipe them all out, in order to get them all. So we shall Nuke the entire middle east, huge swaths of Africa, Nigeria, Indonesia, Pakistan, and Bangladesh.

Of course this doesn't apply to Iran I reckon, since OBL was a Wahhabist, and that sect is violently opposed to the Shiites, which is the dominate sect of Islam in Iran.

Other the Glenn Beck, the Kagans, or Bill Kristol, do you have any intelligence professional that agree with your assertions?

Michael Scheuer who worked in the CIA for 20 plus years, and was in charge of the agency's Bin Laden unit, and has written four best sellers on the subject agrees with Dr. Paul, as to how our foreign policy should be conducted.

As do ex-CIA officers Ray McGovern, Robert Baer, and Phillip Giraldi, along with some others that whose names escape me now. Who do you got? A political hack like John Bolton?

You really need to know what you're talking about before you run off, and get a bunch more people killed.

Chasing the 12 Iman.

While you looking in the encyclopedia pull out the dictionary also. You will find that Liberty, Liberal, Libertarian, and Libertine come from the Latin "Liber," "Libera," and "Liberum". For those that don't know they all mean the same thing. Why then all the misunderstanding? Most people don't know or care, they are happy with the way things are now and want to keep it that way, BTW look up conservative while you’re at it. The United States was founded on the principles of Liberty all our Founding Fathers were "Classically Liberal". Modern day Liberals have high jacked the word Liberal to mean anything but Liberty to associate themselves with our Founding Fathers and comments made to help continue the myth don't help. When compared to our Founding Fathers I see Paul as a Moderate that wants to return to made what made this Country great. Does Paul have all the answers and do I agree with everything he says no. I do know this; he is of known stable character that when he does makes mistakes will err on the side of Liberty.

Many Republicans now agree: If the GOP listened to Paul on domestic and economic issues, their "brand" would look a lot better.

And if we follow his insane foreign policy, we should all buy our wives and daughters burquas, and a prayer mat to kneel and face Mecca. Ron Paul is completely irrelevant except for a possible third party run, which would keep Chairman Obamao in office, which is exactly what he is against. This crazy old man needs to retire and get out of the way and quit muddying the waters.

wjmccrindle has put it very well, as he always does. Ron Paul has some good ideas on the domestic scene. On foreign affairs he is so far out that he isn`t even in left field.

Richard Ryan

Lamar,Missouri - Birthplace of Harry S Truman

Cowering fear causes some to reject Ron Paul's founding father-like foreign policy. I maintain that the world will always be dangerous and I (like Paul) believe in a strong DEfense. However, there's a Constitution solution to Elder's & wjmccrindle's urge for expanding our empire: if you want the president to become a crusading king with unilateral warmaking powers, amend the Constitution to grant him/her that power. Until then, defend it, along with Paul!

The importance of Ron Paul is how he has revealed the philosophical division among "conservatives". Some submit to the U.S. Constitution, and some submit to the U.S. Constitution when and where it agrees with their opinions. I think that is a fair statement.

I would challenge anyone to demonstrate where in our Constitution we are supposed to be involved in the political affairs of foreign countries.

The concept of foreign affairs being some part of our "National Security" is nothing more than propoganda pushed onto the citizens of this country. If we are attacked by a country then we should defend ourselves as a country. If we are attacked by individuals or group from within a country then we should defend ourselves as a country by eliminating those individuals or groups.

What foreign country wouldn't disown any radical group from within its borders when faced with the choice between we attack the entire country or they assist us in eliminating the group responsible for the attack on us?

Ron Paul scares the establishment politicians because he doesn't want to play along with the carefully constructed game they have crafted of cheating the American citizen out of the freedoms that were recognized in our Constitution.

He is popular with younger voters because he is against the continuation of years of legislated socialist programs that rob them of their labor to fund votes by those that believe they are entitled to something, other than freedom to succeed or fail based on their own ambition.

But it would suck so bad to have to actually grow up and be responsibile for ourselves and not be on the government teat that we are not likely to ever return to a point where the government is not ruling over everything we do.

The freedom would be too overwhelming to anyone that has always been able to rely on the government for food, clothing, shelter, retirement, medical aid, welfare checks, and told what to eat, what to learn, how to vote, who to hate, and why they will make better decisions for you than you ever could.

XCpt->

"What foreign country wouldn't disown any radical group from within its borders when faced with the choice between we attack the entire country or they assist us in eliminating the group responsible for the attack on us?"

Are you kidding? What do you think GW Bush was all about? Here's a quote: President George W. Bush on October 7, 2001, "Every nation has a choice to make. In this conflict, there is no neutral ground. If any government sponsors the outlaws and killers of innocence, they have become outlaws and murderers themselves. And they will take that lonely path at their own peril."

How well do YOU think this has been working? Or should I ask, what is it you are supporting, if not what President Bush said? Just why is it you think that we went into Afghanistan and Iraq, (and liberated Kuwait before that?)

All this talk by Libertarian about war, foreign engtnaglements, and the Founding Fathers make me think that they should read history. Particulary about some early problems like the Barbary Pirates and why the heck we built those frigates. They should also consider what our Founding Fathers knew very well: we are maritime country and always have been. Just why do YOU think we have a Coast Guard and a Navy? Why do you think President Reagan ordered the navigation exercise in the Gulf of Sidra that PO'ed Momar Gadafi?

IF the isolationism proposed was EVER a reasonable policy, and I question that, then with the "small" world we live in today with transcontinental flight and ICBMs, it is not policy for the modern age.

People often quote TR's admonition about speaking softly and carrying a big stick, but then forget that when it is necessary at times to wack someone with that stick, you can't flinch from your duty.

Get a grip! Peace through strength works. Hiding your head in the sand gets you attacked. Read some history. Get a clue.

History tells the story of how over-confident "really smart" presidential advisers manipulated the truth in order to "save" us and the world from inevitable calamity if we didn't "act" militarily. That history contains the names "Vietnam" and "Iraq". Just having the willingness to assert American power as we "wisely" deem necessary leaves the door open to men with power, -but no knowledge of the alleged enemy, to make horribly bad and extremely costly decisions which cost them nothing but cost others everything. There are very strong arguments to be made on both sides, but history shows that our willingness to pull the trigger on foreign military involvement gets put to use in stupid conflicts that clearer-minded thinkers would have recognized as black holes in which we would have no flashlights. And so we've paid the price, and our children will be paying the price all the days of their lives just in paying the interest on the money we borrowed because we didn't want to inconvenience ourselves with paying for our involvements out of our own pockets.