Being Critical and Realistic

I have been and still remain a Ron Paul supporter. I feel that I, unlike many people in this country, still support him despite certain ideological differences. I agree with him on the eradication of the IRS, the decriminalization of certain drugs, and his views on helping the current state of the economy. However, there remains a difference between Dr. Paul and myself. I refused to comment on how I felt about his foreign policy until I read some of his book "A Foreign Policy of Freedom". I've read a lot of this book and see how consistent he has been during his time in office. He, unlike most or all politicians, has never swayed back and forth on his political views based on the current state of things in America. He goes by what the Constitution says and lays out. From reading his numerous speeches, I have to say that he is very well read and very intelligent. However, I disagree with him on one very crucial aspect: American foreign policy and intervention. Dr. Paul believes that the world would run efficiently if countries only had economic relations with each other and did not intervene in each other's autonomy. That sounds great, but it won't work in today's world. Why do I say that? Take a look at WWII. Both Germany and Japan were imperialistic powers looking to broaden their influence and their hegemony. Being a pacifist, isolated world superpower would not have worked. Other countries have shown their quest for more power and look to war as a means to their ends...more land and power. Dr. Paul's assessment would work if every country and every leader were to sign a global treaty promising that each country only be involved in their own business and not to intervene in others. However, this would do great damage to what the United States is and represents. Many people criticize the US government for a number of things that it has done in the past. What many people fail to recognize is that they are living in a country that is only what it is today because of those choices in the past. Sure, training Afghanistan to fight the Soviet invasion backfired on us. But doing this prevented the deaths of many US soldiers and the possible declaration of war between the US and the Soviet Union. In other words, it could have been a lot worse. Making a decision during the climax of a situation isn't easy and could ultimately be wrong. However, I would rather choose to get involved to deter a possible problem than to deal with it after it has become extremely powerful and detrimental to the interests of the United States. That is why I disagree with Dr. Paul on this issue. President Harry Truman, on March 12th, 1947, stated, 'I believe that it must be the policy of the United States to support free peoples who are resisting attempted subjugation by armed minorities or by outside pressures". This was the beginning of American intervention throughout the world in the name of freedom. It was also the end of what Dr. Paul and the forefathers believed, no entangling alliances. Sure, this aggressive foreign policy hasn't worked 100% of the time, but then again, what foreign policy has? The answer to that is none.
McCain has flip-flopped on his stance on torture, his view towards the Christian elites, etc. Obama has flip-flopped on his stance on gun control, Israel, foreign policy, and campaign funding. If any of this is confusing, you haven't been paying attention and fulfilling your duty as a citizen. You see, neither of these candidates have stuck to their guns. Each of them have swallowed their pride and gone against their beliefs in order to gain electoral support. History tends to repeat itself. With that in mind, I ask "How do you know that Obama or McCain will follow through on their promises and their policies when both of them have a history of flip-flopping"? I still think that Dr. Paul is the best candidate that is running for president and I wish that other voters were just as critical towards their candidate as I am with mine.