On foreign policy I just can't get behind Paul's almost isolationist views on foreign policy. I know it may not be the best setup in the world but every nation throws around it's weight to accomplish goals that will benefit the nation and it's people, and it would be ridiculous for the US not to do the same.
Dr. Paul adheres to the "Just War Theory" put forth by St. Augustine ((you are not allowed to post links yet)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_en.wikipedia(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/wiki/Just_war_theory"]source[/url]), which lays out four conditions that must be met before a nation engages in warfare :
1) The damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;
2) All other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;
3) There must be serious prospects of success;
4) The use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power as well as the precision of modern means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition.
The main gripe he has against current policy is that there isn't enough debate among the people through their representatives on the merits of going to war; rather, the entire nation is dragged into wars on the whims of the president. The U.S. Congress, according to the U.S. Constitution, has the sole authority to declare war, but hasn't done that since World War II. The president is not allowed to declare war and may not use military force unless the United States is in imminent
danger (as in, there will be an attack within hours or days).
A vote on warfare should be a heavily weighed decision as lives and treasure most certainly will be lost in such a conflict, and should be one of the most important votes a congressman or senator may make. If Dr. Paul were President of the United States, he would by no means be a pacifist, but also wouldn't want to carelessly get involved in armed conflicts around the world. If some catastrophic event in the world occurred that could potentially harm the security of the United States, he would go to the Congress and then ask them to deliberate whether or not there is indeed a genuine threat that cannot be solved through diplomacy, and if the Congress decided that it was and voted to declare war with specific objectives to achieve, then as the Commander-in-Chief, he would carry out those objectives as quickly and judiciously as possible to minimize bloodshed and destruction. Most importantly, soldiers should not linger after the objectives have been achieved and "nation-building" should not be engaged in.
The use of force and violence should be the absolute last resort to solving any problem. Pre-emptive is quite the opposite of that viewpoint.