Last winter or spring I made a post at the Ron Paul forum along the lines of we should air drop a bunch of AKs and ammo near the Darfur refugee camps, a couple people had a coniption fit. I was kinda surprised.

If the "Christian Childrens Fund" adopted this policy, I would have absolutely no problem donating a full 50% of my income to their worthy cause. Food for today, but only to raise a productive "peoples army".

Some Ron Paul supporters subscribe to the hard line view of non-interventionism.

Eh, I've also seen a few express what I can only call racism as well. In a conversation about the invasion of Iraq I know of couple Ron Paul supporters who expressed the opinion that Iraqis were too primitive for Democracy.

Not inexperienced at it, just primitive.

Thankfully I've found that's not the consensus opinion.

Yeah, I've almost considered jumping ship and becoming a Libertarian due to the actions of Politicians calling themselves Republicans, who fail to act in a manner consistent with it's true spirit. The Libertarians point-of-view is that taxpayer dollars shouldn't pay for these conflicts but rather they should be paid for by private interests who have a stake in the conflict. Kinda sounds like a recipe for anarchy. This link http://www.lpmn.org/faq.php to the Minnesota Libertarian Party explains their philsophy, much of which I frankly find unrealistic if not absurd (not to start any fights here or anything).

Some?

I was under the impression that it was a prerequisite.

It's a prerequisite if you subscribe to the Founder's view of foreign and domestic politics.

Oooohh, this could be the start of a long and complex dialog.

I'll take that as a yes and put Carbide Insert under the Ron Paul supporters category.

Take it as a yes if you like, but my statement had nothing to do with Ron Paul.

You just endorsed him by associating his political viewpoint with that of the Founding Fathers!

(If, of course, you believe that the Founders had the right ideas and knew what they were doing, when they formed the greatest system of government ever devised, resulting in maximum liberty and prosperity for all.)

How poetic.

I agree with the non-intervention policy in that I don't think our tax money should go to support foreign causes.

With that said I'm in full agreement with Binky .357. If a charity wanted to collect money for the purpose of buying guns and sending them over to people being oppressed by evil people with guns I'd donate money and time.

I don't like running to our government for every cause under the sun. They can take care of this country and those of us who want to help other can do so on our own time and with our own money.

My argument for foreign involvement is this: The world has become so complex and the economy so global in nature that we almost have been given no choice but to intercede in matters beyond our shores. We NEED (at least today,) foreign oil. Is it ideal? Probably not. There are some very complex issues at work in a world that looks to the US for leadership. (And yes I understand that not ALL of the world looks to us for that leadership)

Yes we do need foreign oil but there is also a marketplace that sets the price of said oil. The problem arises when we decide the price is too high and then use military force or prop up a dictator with aid and military training to guarantee a supply. I don't see how that can be considered moral or ethical. As we use our military to bully others into acceeding to our will fewer and fewer countries will look to us for that leadership and in fact more will reject our lead as it is morally bankrupt and more in line with a colonial ideology which has been proven to not work.
Unless you think the destruction of Saddam and the Baath party, creating a civil war/ sectarian bloodbath, the deaths or wounding of US servicemen and women in Iraq and wasted billions has been cheaper than buying oil at market rates.

Guess I'm just an imperialist at Heart