Ron Paul’s Foreign Policy: Peace & Respect – Not Intimidation, Bribes & War

Ron Paul: The Soviet Union detonated its first nuclear bomb on August 29, 1949, leading to the doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction, shared by both the USA and the Soviets. The unwritten agreement by the two super powers deterred nuclear war with an implied threat to blow up the world, if need be, to defend each of their interests.

I well remember the Cuban missile crises of October 1962, having been drafted into the military at that time. Mutually Assured Destruction had significant meaning to the whole world during this period. This crisis, along with the escalating ill-advised Vietnam War, made me very much aware of the problems the world faced during the five years I served as a USAF flight surgeon.

It was with great pleasure and hope that I observed the collapse of the Soviet Empire between 1989 and 1991. This breakup verified the early predictions by the free market economists, like Ludwig Von Mises, that communism would self-destruct because of the deeply flawed economic theories embedded in socialism. Our nukes were never needed because ideas are more powerful than the Weapons of War.

Many Americans at the time were boldly hopeful that we would benefit from a generous peace dividend. Sadly, it turned out to be a wonderful opportunity wasted. There was to be no “beating their swords into plowshares,” even though history shows that without weapons and war there’s more food and prosperity for the people. Unfortunately, our leaders decided on another course that served the special interests who benefit from constant wars and the arbitrary rearrangement of national borders for control of national resources.

Instead of a peace dividend from ending the policy of Mutually Assured Destruction, US leaders opted for a foreign policy of American world domination as its sole super power. It was all in the spirit of Woodrow Wilson’s idealistic goal of “making the world safe for democracy” by pursuing a war to end all wars.

The mantra became that American exceptionalism morally required us to spread our dominance world-wide by force. US world dominance, by whatever means, became our new bipartisan foreign policy. There was to be no peace dividend, though our enemies were virtually non-existent.

In many ways America had been “exceptional” but in an opposite manner from the neo-con driven foreign policy of the last 20 years. If America indeed has something good to offer the cause of peace, prosperity, and liberty it must be spread through persuasion and by example; not by intimidation, bribes and war.

Maintaining world domination is based on an intellectually and financially bankrupt idea that generates dependency, war, loss of civil liberties, inflation and debt, all of which contribute to our economic crisis.

Saddest of all, this policy of American domination and exceptionalism has allowed us to become an aggressor nation, supporting pre-emptive war, covert destabilization, foreign occupations, nation building, torture and assassinations. This policy has generated hatred toward Americans and provides the incentive for almost all of the suicide attacks against us and our allies.

To continue to believe the fiction that the militants hate us for our freedoms and wealth may even result in more attacks against us — that is, unless our national bankruptcy brings us to our knees and forces us to bring our troops home.

Expanding our foreign military intervention overseas as a cure for the attacks against us, tragically, only guarantees even more attacks. We must someday wake up, be honest with ourselves, and reject the notion that we’re spreading freedom and America’s goodness around the world. We cannot justify our policy by claiming our mission is to secure American freedoms and protect our Constitution. That is not believable. This policy is doomed to fail on all fronts.

The policy of Mutually Assured Destruction has been gone now for 20 years, and that is good.

The policy of American domination of the world, as nation builder-in-chief and policeman of the world, has failed and must be abandoned—if not as a moral imperative, then certainly out of economic necessity.

My humble suggestion is to replace it with a policy of Mutually Assured Respect. This requires no money and no weapons industry, or other special interests demanding huge war profits or other advantages.

This requires simply tolerance of others cultures and their social and religious values, and the giving up of all use of force to occupy or control other countries and their national resources. Many who disagree choose to grossly distort the basic principles shared by the world’s great religions: the Golden Rule, the Ten Commandments, and the cause of peace. Religions all too often are distorted and used to justify the violence engaged in for arbitrary power.

A policy of Mutually Assured Respect would result in the U.S.:

  • Treating other nations exactly as we expect others to treat us.
  • Offering friendship with all who seek it.
  • Participating in trade with all who are willing.
  • Refusing to threaten, bribe or occupy any other nation.

Seeking an honest system of commodity money that no single country can manipulate for a trade advantage. Without this, currency manipulation becomes a tool of protectionism and prompts retaliation with tariffs and various regulations. This policy, when it persists, is dangerous and frequently leads to real wars.

Mutually Assured Respect offers a policy of respect, trade and friendship and rejects threats, sanctions and occupations.

This is the only practical way to promote peace, harmony and economic well-being to the maximum number of people in the world.

Mutually Assured Respect may not be perfect but far better than Mutually Assured Destruction or unilateral American dominance.


  • NorthernNHLiving

    You need more servers as it’s taking a friggin’ long time to load! Only plays for a few seconds then stops to load….very hard to share the word here about Ron Paul when people won’t take the time to listen.

  • Colt45Rainman88

    You have to be of legal age to vote, yet I say you should also be required to study each candidate and their issues.

  • kaldemvor


    You need to switch parties 3 months ahead of the primary OR YOU WILL NOT BE ALLOWED TO VOTE.

    If you want to vote for Ron Paul in the primary, YOU HAVE TO BE REGISTERED AS A REPUBLICAN or you will not be allowed to vote.


    Switch now if you are a democrat or independent or you will not be allowed to vote in the primary.IF DR PAUL LOSES PRIMARY, NO ELECTION.

    Let’s get moving NOW people.THANK YOU and spread this

  • IndianaPolitico

    The Constitution Day Money Bomb brought in almost 1 million, let’s keep the momentum and let’s keep donating before the end of the reporting quarter on the 30th.

    Vote this up, For Liberty!

  • Democracy420

    14 Rick Perry fans who want to start World War 3

  • LeJimster

    VVVV more intelligence than you can handle VVVV

  • KingDingaLing090

    More delusional babblings from an idealogue.

  • ericr2009

    Just as Ron Paul stated, people are blindly willing to distort facts to support their war-mongering attitudes.

    Hatred towards the US is fueled by our foreign policy. This is opposite of what most people believe–that nations in the Middle-East hate us because of our freedoms.

    Freedom of religion is a basis of our bill of rights. Why is it suddenly okay to disrespect Islam? I do not agree with some of their beliefs, but we also have no proof that they are planning a US invasion.

    • Ben

      “Freedom of religion is a basis of our bill of rights. Why is it suddenly okay to disrespect Islam?”

      Just because you have the right to practice Islam (and you are a Muslim) doesn’t mean that I don’t have the right to speak the truth about your radical, unbeliever-hating religion that was founded by a pediophile warlord. In the entire fourteen hundred year history of Islam it hasn’t stopped killing people for one moment.

      To rip off a phrase for you RP goons, people don’t hate your religion because of its freedoms, but because of your foreign policy of rape, subjugation, and violence.

      The penalty prescribed for Muslims who leave the faith is DEATH.

      So if you want to tell me that I “disrespect” Islam then fine. I do. You have the right to practive your religion here in America but no one has to “respect” you.

  • merculiv

    As Alex Jones mentioned a few months back type in the Google search engine Ron Paul exploding or Ron Paul growing and it will flood the internet with more searches and gain more viewers and supporters. Just a good tip for all the supporters! Pass the word to others!!! Thank You!!!

  • minifancier

    When Ron Paul sticks to the Constitution, I’m with him, on most things.
    But when he gets into foreign policy, he is a loon. And that video is a good example of it. Period.

  • minifancier

    He seems to be entirely naive about human nature. Evil exists and it manifests itself by evil men. Being nice isn’t going to change that only might changes that.
    RP don’t want anything that smacks of any outsider having anything to do with any American domestic policy.The basis of Islam is domination of anyone who isn’t a Muslim. To Blame America first, sounds like a Obama rerun. Is NOT right.
    I had no intention of supporting RP, now I have REALLY NO INTENTION of supporting him.

    • JFB

      And your plan is…. kill ’em all?

      • Ben

        Where did he say that?

        He’s right. Islam is not a “religion of peace”. If you belive that, you are ignorant.

        Once you accept the reality that Islam wants to dominate the entire world, to subjugate non-believers, to kill apostates, you will understand why they will never be happy with anything less than absolute domination.

        “But they hate us because of our foreign policy!” blah blah blah.

  • JoshuaEvanPowell

    I’m not American, but have a great deal of respect for Ron Paul and many of his policies and beliefs. I truly hope he can make it.

  • brownspottedbanana

    i asked this girl next door if she’d let me give her oral sex, she said yeah. she’s coming over in an hour 😉

  • KDanagger

    Ron Paul looks very presidential in this video. Kind of reminds me of Regan – only better. He looks you straight in the eye all the time. Totally different from our current “president” – who is looking down his nose at you on the rare occasions when he isn’t looking at his teleprompters. This man is REAL – not some puppet controlled by the global oligarchs. He understands what freedom is truly about – and that it’s not about a government controlling our lives.



  • crazykong2

    Historic speech! Thats what America and the world needs .Ron paul is good for president.

  • KDanagger

    The democratic ideology has historically been anti-war. Your party has betrayed you. The US is now engaged in at least 5 wars – all of them undeclared and with no clear purpose.
    It is critical that democrats or any other non-republican party realize that Ron Paul is the only reliable anti-war candidate. If you live in a closed primary state YOU MUST RE-REGISTER AS A REPUBLICAN IN ORDER TO GET HIM NOMINATED.
    Part affiliation is morally meaningless. It exists as an attempt to restrict and confuse.

  • Najavii

    ‘Mutually assured respect’ LOVE it. Great response. Grand leadership!!!

  • lordofthemanor25

    Kingdoms are good

    Republics are neutral – good or evil

    Federations are neutral – good or evil

    Empires are evil

    See the pattern

  • Ben

    Maybe if Ron Paul didn’t want to occupy and invade other countries he shouldn’t have voted for the September 14th 2001 resolution that allowed the president to do just that.

    Oh, but Ron Paul is so very “consistent”.

    Personally, I don’t have a problem with “respecting” other nations. But then again, I ask myself, did we treat the nation of Japan exactly the way we would have wanted to have been treated after they bombed Pearl Harbor? No.

    You do know that we were attacked on 9/11. We were attacked by a terrorist group that was being harbored by the Taliban, which happened to be serving as the makeshift government of Afghanistan at the time. If they had their way, they’d be returning to power. And if Ron Paul has his way, they will too.

    Ron Paul saw this clearly three days after we were attacked. Ten years later, his feeble mind if a little fuzzy. He says we should treat all nations with respect. I guess placing the Taliban back in charge would be very respectful.

    Anyway, this man is a douche. This coming election year is his last hurrah, then he’ll retire to Texas. That’s wonderful. Your man will never be president. In fact, he won’t even be a congressman in eighteen months. Maybe he can make a living touring the country and speaking at KKK rallies or lunatic conspiracy theorist conventions or something. It’s so sad to see an old man losing his mind.

    • ridehard

      How’s the weather where your at ? Oh, Sorry ! Guess You Can’t See From Your Mother’s Basement !

    • Jean-François

      A war against Al-Qaida is not a war against a whole ethny – here the pachtouns -. About 10,000 foreign Arabs were trained in Afghanistan when the US invaded – they are gone – but the talibans are mostly considered as the legitimate force by many pachtounes. That is why during the US invasion the Afghan talibans were not considered “terrorists” while the Arabs that were captured there were almost necessarelly Al-Qaida members. The whole story since then has been the same than elsewhere – nation rebuilding, occupation, a puppet government that would collapse if the US troops withdraw, a western type model that had to be revised constantly because a western democracy cannot be implemented in such a country. In 2001 the talibans had their own ennemies like the Northern Alliance, but the US plan was not just to expell/liquidate the 10,000 Arabs and back some rebel leaders, it was to transform the country. It failed.
      Not only Pakistan, but even the Iranians were left out of any solution because the US had decided that Teheran was part of the “axis of evil”, so it meant more troops without any compromise with Iran or Pakistan. In 1998 Iran came close to declare war to Afghanistan following the massive slaughter of shiites and the murder of its ambassador in Kabul, but the same propagandists who say that a withdrawal is impossible are trying to promote the idea Iran = Al Qaida = Talibans today. Big lie.