[John Kilduff]

[ QUOTE ]


Re: My Ron Paul comments.

(snipped for focus on the following)

...I do stand by my comment that his policies, foreign especially but also domestic, are unfeasible and his foreign policy makes a mockery of the advances of the 20th century...

I think pulling out of the UN and being isolationist and solely self-interested to the point of absurdity may be better than the Bush foreign policy, but it isn't the best foreign policy the US can take into the future, not even close...

To the person who asked earlier, yes I am Canadian, I don't know if that disqualifies me from being able to speak on the matter.

[/ QUOTE ]

So would you object if the USA were to implement a foreign policy similar to, oh, say, Canada's foreign policy?

My impression is that Canada, while retaining membership in the U.NH., does little or nothing in the way of interventionism in its foreign policy (non-intervention is a policy and stance Ron Paul favors). Maybe Canada does a token amount overseas in terms of intervening if and when the U.N. says it should, I don't know.

I'd like to know if you would support the USA doing about as little intervening overseas as does Canada. Oh yes, and if you would support the USA having about as many military bases overseas as does Canada.

I'm asking because I think those would be the approximate real-world effects if the USA were to implement something akin to Ron Paul's foreign policy. Except for retaining membership in the U.N. (which you favor), the real-world effects would be that the USA would get out of the rest of the world's internal affairs for the most part, just like Canada. Or do you think that that would somehow be unfeasible or that it would be making a mockery of the advances of the 20th century?

So, what do you think about this? And thanks for reading, by the way.