I have long been a Ron Paul supporter based on his in-depth knowledge of the Constitution and his common sense approach to applying it at all levels of society. While many pundits agree with me when it comes to Dr. Paul's domestic agenda (which too often gets taken out of context and twisted into something it's not), they are constantly dismissing him for his foreign policy which is labeled passivist, isolationist or simply "wrong".
My response which usually drives Republicans nuts is "when did Republicans become the party of War?". Are the Chinese isolationists? Are the Russians isolationists? The answer of course is no, they are both trading all over the world with everybody in the world, they both have foreign companies doing business within their borders, they are both reasonably easy to travel to and leave from. They even both have standing armies, just not fighting undeclared wars all over the world at a cost in the 100's of millions.
The idea that we can go in to another country, take out the "bad guy" and put in a "good guy" to run things is not only improbable, but morally reprehensible. Yes, there are a lot of messed up people in the world, doing messed up things to their citizens, but our history is no cleaner and one would wonder how well we would have worked things out if we were constantly having other companies intervening in our affairs.
In the attached Link, John Stossel makes a case for Ron Paul's REAL foreign policy....