Comments Subscribe to Personal Liberty News Feed Subscribe to Personal Liberty

Ron Paul Defends Foreign Policy Stance, Confounds Other Candidates

August 12, 2011 by  

Ron Paul Defends Foreign Policy Stance, Confounds Other Candidates

Fans of Ron Paul, by now used to his airtime snubs in primary debates run by the mainstream media, were no doubt pleasantly surprised when their candidate’s unconventional foreign policy stance garnered a significant amount of time late in Thursday evening’s Iowa debate. Along the same lines, supporters of former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum were treated to their choice’s spirited opposition to Paul, resulting in a net gain of more screen time for him as well, although Representative Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) did get in a few jabs of her own.

“Asked by Fox News channel anchor Chris Wallace why Paul was ‘soft’ on Iran in his opposition to economic sanctions against the country, Paul told the debate audience that the threat from Iran was small when looked at through the lens of history,” read a The New American article, noting that Paul had “schooled” Santorum and Bachmann.

Paul said: “Just think of what we went through in the Cold War when I was in the Air Force, after I was drafted into the Air Force, all through the Sixties. We were standing up against the Soviets. They had like 30,000 nuclear weapons with intercontinental missiles. Just think of the agitation and the worry about a country that might get a nuclear weapon someday.”

The article reports that Santorum took offense with Paul’s stance, having himself authored a sanctions bill against Iran while serving as a Senator: “Iran is not Iceland, Ron. Iran is a country that has been at war with us since 1979. Iran is a country that has killed more American men and women in uniform in Iraq and Afghanistan than the Iraqis and the Afghans have. The Iranians are the existential threat to the state of Israel.”

“The senator is wrong on his history,” Paul responded. “We’ve been at war in Iran for a lot longer than ’79. We started it in 1953 when we sent in a coup, installed the Shah, and the reaction — the blowback — came in 1979. It’s been going on and on because we just don’t mind our own business. That’s our problem.”

Bachmann later defended Santorum and, pointing out her position on the House Select Committee on Intelligence, said: “As President of the United States, I will do everything to make sure that Iran does not become a nuclear power.”

However, at least one person believes Paul came out on top of the rhetorical skirmish. Conservative commentator Jack Hunter thinks Ron Paul is “right on Iran,” writing: “Ron Paul is the only candidate that has pointed out that the last time America went to war with a supposed major threat in the Middle East over the possibility it was harboring terrorists and might have WMDs — every justification for that war turned out to be absolutely false.”

Special To Personal Liberty

You Sound Off! is written by our readers and appears the last Wednesday of each month. If you would like to submit an article or letter to the editor for consideration for You Sound Off!, send it to by the Friday before the last Wednesday of the month. To be considered, a submission should be 750 words or less and must include the writer's name, address and a telephone number. Only the writer's name will be published. Anonymous submissions will not be considered.

Facebook Conversations

Join the Discussion:
View Comments to “Ron Paul Defends Foreign Policy Stance, Confounds Other Candidates”

Comment Policy: We encourage an open discussion with a wide range of viewpoints, even extreme ones, but we will not tolerate racism, profanity or slanderous comments toward the author(s) or comment participants. Make your case passionately, but civilly. Please don't stoop to name calling. We use filters for spam protection. If your comment does not appear, it is likely because it violates the above policy or contains links or language typical of spam. We reserve the right to remove comments at our discretion.

Is there news related to personal liberty happening in your area? Contact us at

  • s c

    You need to change one detail, Marcy. The Iraqi slimer did use WMDs against the Kurds. That is a FACT. Simply because WMDs weren’t ‘found’ does NOT mean they didn’t exist. In GB’s case, it means he waited too long, and when he got serious about finding those WMDs – it was too late and they were ‘gone.’
    You worded it in such a way as to prop up America’s progressives who still go through their daily GB mantra. GB was no conservative, and he’s still not a conservative. His problem was in finding ways to delay the finding of those WMDs. Anyone who says they never existed is a liar or a psychotic.

    • Jana

      I had a family memeber that was there in 2003 and then in 2004 and his unit was gassed twice. Thankfully the ones using it weren’t that proficient with it and it went down wind of them both times.
      This is a FACT! I got it directly from someone who experienced it.

      • Jana

        I need to start proof readin, I meant member.

  • Cawmun Cents

    Strangely,ignoring conditions until they prove to be a problem,
    never seems to pan out for the good.

    They tried that approach before WW2.
    It cost over 50 million lives.
    That was before the Nuclear Age which we now find ourselves in.

    Can Ron Paul afford to be wreckless in dealing with threatening madmen in the nuclear age?Apparently so.
    That is the only fault I see in his reckoning.

    I happen to agree with his stance on many things.
    However this one will hurt him in the election cycle,were he to be the nominee.Which I doubt since it would make sense to nominate him.

    Clearly the debates were rather mundane.
    I would like to see more emphasis on who represents themselves as who they are,versus who they need to be to get elected.
    In that scenario Mr.Paul is top dog.

    Integrity is most important.
    He(Ron Paul)seems to be a man of integrity,in as much as a politician can be a man of integrity.
    At this he seems to accel above the rest,at this point.

    So far he seems to be the most honest of the current batch…I hope he wins a primary or two.
    But it does not bode well for the nation if he does not.-CC.

  • texastwin827

    Greatly disappointed in our so called “conservative” media (i.e. Fox News). Barely a mention that Ron Paul was barely beaten by Michelle Bachman in the Iowa Straw Polls, or that he came in ahead of Rick Perry’s write in votes did.

    It would seem that Fox is just as quilty as the liberal media is, in “picking our candidates for us”.

  • David B

    Ron Paul was almost entirely absent from Fox News reporting last night, giving the impression that he was not at all part of the front runners for nomination.

    In my opinion Ron Paul would be the best man for the job, as he would do what needs to be done and he would do it with integrity, unlike the Fox news chosen candidates which all seem to garner a personal agenda.

    The USA cannot afford to play games any longer, it needs to recover from its economic train wreck. More rhetoric is worthless, the USA needs a real leader who is willing and able to get the job done.

    I’m not a huge fan of Paul’s foreign policy stance, I think he needs to be holding a much stronger stance, one that sends a clear and decisive message to the enemies of the USA, but as a fiscal and social conservative, Ron Paul is unmatched. It’s liberty or nothing.


Sign Up For Personal Liberty Digest™!

PL Badge

Welcome to,
America's #1 Source for Libertarian News!

To join our group of freedom-loving individuals and to get alerts as well as late-breaking conservative news from Personal Liberty Digest™...

Privacy PolicyYou can opt out at any time. We protect your information like a mother hen. We will not sell or rent your email address to anyone for any reason.