So the answer is to sit back and do nothing I think that would be a big mistake. That is the reason I will not vote for Ron Paul.
This for starters... http://www.zerohedge.com/news/russi...mbat-alert-prepares-take-out-european-missile This was in direct response to this... http://www.zerohedge.com/news/aircr...-us-urges-americans-leave-country-immediately
So losing more life, treasure and possibly facing a Global War is worth it compared to simply letting the people in their own regions handle their own problems?
During the Cold War we never actually went to war wit Russia because we were able to talk it out and they actually had nukes. A lot of them. Nowadays we have multiple bases across the middle east. Iran has 0 nukes but China, Russia, Israel, and many other countries have many nukes. Iran might get ONE nuke and we want to invade and go to war with this country? Let's say they do get a nuke. Then what? They sure as hell won't be using it. The leaders in Iran do actually have brains in their heads and realize how outnumbered and outmatched they are. Not to mention that Iran has no means of delivering a nuclear weapon to the U.S. I find it amusing that we as U.S. citizens understand that Iran would be destroyed the minute they decide to use a nuclear weapon but for some reason there are still some of us that don't think the leaders in Iran understand this as well. So we have two options. Waste more American lives and dollars trying to prevent Iran from getting a nuke or letting them get a nuke and wasting zero American lives and zero American dollars. Which is better to you?
Why do they want to make nukes? If not to use them way make them? I am not saying fight them but they do need to be monitored not ignored.
Wouldn't be the first time the US has had nukes pointed at it. We survived then, we will survive now.
Ron Paul is not going to sit back while we get nuked. He's just not going to spend trillions of dollars to police the entire freaking world when there is no imminent threat.
No imminent threat? I am not saying all the danger in comming from Iran. There are alot of other countries that hate the US you can find terrorist right here in the US. There is a threat to the US and if it is not monitored we are all in danger. Monitoring and wasting lives are two different things.
I'm going to be honest with you, I don't agree 100% with ron paul on foreign policy. I will however take his approach over the alternative. I think our spending habits are more important than any other simply issue in the long run, for our national security and our general well being. But really there is no imminent threat. Down the road, maybe. But nobody is dumb enough to attack the US at this point.
No one thought that 9-11 could happen either. I hope your are not a 9-11 disbeliever and think our own government bomb itself. Even if there is no threat we still need to watch what the rest of the world is doing.
Well that doesn't support your theory at all, because even with war hawk bush in office 9-11 still happened. There's an argument to be made that if we were not intervening so much, 9-11 wouldn't have happened. Which would make ron pauls approach ironically one of stronger national security.
I agree there are two many agencies. we could put one to work monitoring with direct contact to the military. The problem wasn't that they didn't know it was the chain it had to go threw to get to the right people. I still think monitoring is a good way to prevent threats. We need to down size the chain.
Monitoring would be a tiny fraction of what we do now. Our military budget is beyond massive. We need major cuts, and Ron Paul will do that. Besides, he wouldn't be dictator, and he wouldn't be president for eternity. And as I said before, any other president who continues this spending binge may very well put us at more future risk than even the most insane isolationist.
Druid Paul freaks. Dont mind me..its my meds.. Paul ran on those positions for congress..and lost doing it 3 times for president. Great leadership talent.
He hasnt lost 3 times as this is his 3rd time. Atleast you admit its your meds now. You might want to discuss that with your shrink. Perhaps up the dose. Perhaps then you wont feel the need to troll.
Sounds like all the other anti ron paul types. Looks like the "he's too old" argument wore thin so now they're just throwing (*)(*)(*)(*) at the wall to see what sticks.
10 pro Paul threads here alone right now as I type. 1 anti Romney thread. 1 for MB. You guys are over the top in your blind faith in the un proven. Isn't there a new straw poll you need to post ?
If you dont like the threads dont reply to them. All you are doing is bringing them to the top of the page. You are welcome.
The easiest form of brainwashing is repetition. This is why I'm unmoved when people mention how he never flip flops. Of course he doesn't, he's an ideological candidate who has an agenda, that agenda being converting more people to isolationist libertarian thinking more so than actually becoming president.
