Actually, Ron Paul's stance on our foreign policy is the exact opposite of what you describe. 
 
He is against the US's foreign policy on principle (as are most libertarians). He doesn't like imperialism, and doesn't think military interventions are in the best interest of America or the countries intervened upon. He's also actually read the constitution, which clearly only gives congress the power to declare war for the common defense or general welfare of the United States (and most certainly does not mention occupation or nation building). He's specifically stated he does not want to be the "leader of the free world", as he only wishes to lead America, and others only by example. He even wrote a book about it: 
http://www.ronpaulforeignpolicy.com/ 
and numerous articles: 
http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/topic.php?id=10 
 
Dr. Paul has been the most outspoken critic of the US's foreign policy that I know of, and he's been speaking out for all of his 20 years in congress. What is sad is that its taken this long for him to really get much attention. 
 
Only Dr. Paul, Mike Gravel (who deserves respect for what he accomplished with the Vietnam war), and Dennis Kucinich oppose the war on truly moral grounds, and oppose unneeded war against Iran as well. Kucinich still wishes for the US to intervein for humanitarian reasons (such as in Darfur), and I'm not sure of Gravel's position on similar conflicts.

Guest