Paul takes an extreme inflexible polar position and thinks somehow that gives them Constitutional virtue based on superficial attachment to Jefferson's 'foreign entanglements' statement regardless of circumstances plus a little biblical turn-the-cheek stained glass morality.
I've heard the elder Ron argue that we shouldn't have even fought WWII. Should that include the War of 1812 or the Revolution itself? What looks like moral virtue to them, to me looks like hamstringing the US to the point where we do nothing even if they are on our doorstep ready for carnage and conquest. That is a religious, not a policy position, in a country of Separation of Church and State. Preach that sermon at the worship center of your choice, it's not something that can be considered foreign policy.
Maduro is not just a drug dealer. He was conspiring with others to bring us down. I don't call that a 'foreign entanglement', I call that a clear and present danger. And he is right on our doorstep and was escalating with his ties to terrorists and enemy nations and a willingness to foster them on his home soil.
And the whole 'letters of marque' thing. Who is going to fill that role. The only private armies I know of are either Russian mercs, the Cartels, or the towelheads, all of which are on the wrong side of the line. It's time for libertarians to grow up about that stuff. There are exactly zero actors on the stage that could fit the bill. It is a relic of the past.
