The line of reasoning, advocated by Joseph Haynie, is typical of most Republicans that ignore the consequences of aggressive foreign policy.
To begin with, the oceans never provided America with a defense against invaders. The American Revolution and the War of 1812 were both fought against a country which happens to be more geographically isolated than the United States. It is a testament to the British Empire that oceans provide no defense from the determined.
The other fallacy stipulated seems the eternal mistake of all those in favor of continual war. Sept. 11, 2001 justified America’s invasion of Afghanistan, which Ron Paul favored, in pursuit of Al Qaeda only. To forward that tragedy as justification in any other invasion is ridiculous, just as a police officer cannot justify ticketing every passing motorist because one motorist sped.
Finally, Haynie postulates, “the fight was brought to us, and will be continually brought to us if we do not do anything about it”. Therefore, we should continually bring war upon other nations. The fortune of America is eternal war.
I support Paul’s foreign policy precisely because the zeitgeist of the current foreign policy is logically absurd.
Besides, Ron Paul and the Constitution require simply that if America desires to fight a war it need only have Congress formally issue a declaration of war. Is it not in the Republic’s best interest that all war, in all circumstances, be declared solely by Congress and not the, sometimes overzealous, president?
Junior economics major