The single thing which I don't agree with Ron Paul on is that he's not a 'friend of Israel' and he fully supports the Democrats' "bleeding retreat". His domestic policy is spot on, and I would agree that we need to not get involved in any more confrontations, two things are pretty evident:
1) We need to support our allies. Israel is more our ally than almost any other country, argueably moreso than Britain but not moreso than India. They are also the only bastion of US interest in that part of the world, which is critical given our need for oil.
2) Once you've started a war, there are only two ways to finish it: win or lose. There is no retreat without loss, as history tells us about Vietnam. As much as I'd wish it to be otherwise, we can not retreat from Iraq (and shirk the current attacks from Iran, which Iran has made unfortunately linked to Iraq) without a loss in worldwide opinion of our military might that is much, much more severe than we encountered after Vietnam. N Vietnam was supported by the Russians wholeheartedly, and we were much more closely matched than we are now against the ragtag Islamists. If we retreat, we'll have every crackpot group htinking they can take a chunk out of the US and face marginal consequences.
I like the philosophy behind isolationism, but unfortunately it's not something htat is currently possible. You can't get there from here; you've got to go around, and the trip is much more arduous than you'd like. "Regression" in such a fashion would probably take longer than the progression of expansion took.
Seemingly in contradiction to his "anti-war", anti-expansionist stance is his opinion on illegal immigration. As he has written himself on a number of occasions, he is very much for open borders; this is congruent with a stringent Libertarian view shackled with a fundamental misunderstanding of what illegal immigration from Mexico is. It isn't "just" immigration by illegals. It is very much invasion and cultural conquest of foreign (our) lands, and is fundamentally incompatible with athe sovereignty of the United States.
As such, I can not vote for Ron Paul in good conscience, despite the overall girth of his views with which I find agreement. While I distain "compromise", as it leads to rot, his is stances are not even pragmatic; they're verging on dogmatic. Ideologues are dangerous not just when they're Marxists, Islamists, and Fascists; they're dangerous in every stripe.
