Who supports who 'round here... and why?

Hey Virgin - Any sentence about Maggie should start with a worshipful tone. You could take a hint from Blackhawk - "the Empress of La Moata, she who has no equal, Princesa Malhumorada, Maggie” That was a good one. Back to the discussion - For the record, Princess Crabby supports her bad boyfriend, John McCain. Maggie's original point: "Of course it is. Unfortunately, it's not always an option and when it isn't you need a strong military, preferably where they can be most effective." Kevin's response: Never have stated that we don't need a strong military. I'm a staunch advocate of being the best-trained and equipped SOBs on the block. Some nicer housing, better pay and medical care would be pleasing as well. It's the proper employment of said military that is the issue here. I'd prefer to husband our regiments and save our bayonets until truly needed. Not fritter them away in 3rd world crapholes on endless, non-objective wars. The era of gunboat diplomacy is over and it's time we realized it. The fuzzy-wuzzies have more than “sharpened bits of fruit” to fight with now. H/T to Blackadder Goes Forth Maggie's response:

I do not view the war in Afghanistan and Iraq as frittering away. Both campaigns have serious worthwhile objectives in my mind. If we can achieve one or both, our security is enhanced. How can we not benefit from the demise of the Taliban? How can we not benefit from the security of one less tyrant in the world? As far as other international deployments, such as Germany, the DMZ, Japan, those serve a purpose as well. Don't you think that our military is improved by it's contacts with other cultures and peoples and militaries? I do. I think that's part of why we engage in all those joint exercises. For as long as Americans are going to be abroad for business or pleasure or humanitarian work, our military needs to be part of a "world-wide" network and not just sitting on our borders waiting. Further, I do not believe the age of gunboat diplomacy is in the past. Far from it! There are certain elements in this world that only understand force. They need to see our overwhelming power to keep their crazy thoughts somewhat in check. Our presence isn't going to deter every little nutter, but you can't count the ones who have a look and tuck their slingshot in their back pocket and go home. I've never seen Black Adder and so I have no response.

Yu-ain In the interest of brevity, not my strong point… “Some legal scholars maintain that all military action taken without a Congressional declaration of war (regardless of the War Powers Resolution) is unconstitutional; however, the Supreme Court has never ruled directly on the matter.” So your citation is that *some* people share your viewpoint? Not exactly convincing. Not exactly the question I asked either. I never said we didn't have to declare war*. I said that such declaration of war did not have to be Titled "Declaration of War". Additionally, that legislation, created, voted on, and passed by both houses to send US Troops onto foriegn soil to depose a foriegn gov't is in fact a declaration of war whether it's title is "Authorization to Use Military Force" or "Declaration of War". If your definition of progress is less freedom, the continued growth of government socialism, the degradation of our American ideals and the destruction of our inalienable rights, then I call that sort of ‘progress’ evil. Hmmm. I seem to recall not to long ago that most states didn't allow concealed carry. Now, the majority of them do. While I still don't think it is constitutional to have to submit to ID requirements, a background check, possibly a waiting period, pay for it out of my own pocket just to "keep" an Arm, then have to pay for a class, pass said class and then pay a fee to the state to allow me to "bear" said Arm, I will still vote for concealed carry laws where the right to carry is not currently protected. You may see voting for such laws as giving the state the power to regulate that which they shouldn't in the first place and hence an 'evil expansion of the gov't', but I see it as increasing the freedom of people to carry where they didn't have any before. Does that mean I stop there. NO. But you can't go from "Gun Free State" to Vermont style carry in one step. And thinking you can is like thinking you can jump the Grand Canyon. I'll take the bridge, thankyouverymuch. Re: Blowback. I’ve never said that we deserved it. I have stated some of the possible reasons behind the motivation for the attack. Just like I stated some reasons behind the motivations for 'Wee Wifey' getting beat. Both come to the conclusion that if she'd just stop antagonizing him, he'd stop beating her. And that is a morally repugnant position. The answer is not "give him what he wants", it's put his a$$ in jail and remove him from society. Apples and Oranges, you are comparing a domestic situation/policy vs. a foreign situation/policy. And yes, they are different. If my neighbors were being attacked, yes, I would help them. Glad to hear it, but they are not different. Groups have no more rights than individuals do. If an individual has no right to violate the rights of others, then a nation has no right to violate the rights of others, whether inside their nation (house) or outside it. If the Communist Chinese invade, rape, pillage, fold, spindle, mutilate, conquer and subjugate Tibet…. Do we send in the 82nd? Or perhaps for a more relevant topic, do we go to war to defend Taiwan if/when the Peoples Liberation Army invades? Why or why not? This is a question of practicality, not of morals. Do we morally have a right to do so. Yes, I believe we do. Whether or not it would be smart is a different question. If I were to see 20 members of the Crips beating up on old lady, I would have the moral right to intervene on her behalf. However, unless I could follow the rules for a gunfight I probably wouldn't as me dieing along side her, didn't really help her all that much. But, as I said, that is an issue of practicality, not of moral rights. How about the Democratically elected Governments of say… Algeria, Lebanon, ‘Palestine’, Chile, Iran, Vietnam, take your pick of Central American Countries etc. The sad reality is that we interfere all the time in other nations internal affairs; militarily, diplomatically, covertly or overtly. We DO meddle in other nations business, friendly or not, all the frickin’ time. That you think Iran is a legitimatly elected gov't shows that you know less about foriegn affairs than you suggest. They may have 'elections', but knowing that when you vote for the wrong person your wife may be gang-raped in front of you as punishment, you kind of know who to vote for. When we start arming rebels in France and Canada, let me know. You and I may disagree on some policy, but I think we can at least we can agree that our military deserves the full support of our nation. Especially so when they are sent in to war, declared or not. Absolutely. *Although I don't believe a single missle strike qualifies under any definition of war either and hence doesn't need a declaration of war for it, but that's a different discussion.

As for who I support, that is a tough one. Fred Thompson is the closest to me Ideologically. However, he has generally shown a poor ability to actually execute well. Not so much on when to jump in or style of campaign (He's giving us what we say we want, but not what we actually do), but there has been more internal squabbles that ought not have been there. Romney/Rudy has shown the greatest ability to execute of the group. Romney has been excellent at running his business which speaks well to his ability. And New York is basically the size of a small county already. However, I'm not at all thrilled with their positions. Candidates are supposed to run Right in the Primary and back left(center) in the general election. If this *is* their rightward stances, frankly, I'm scared. McCain: The Ds only pretend to like him when he sells his party down the river. The Rs won't like him for having sold them down the river. When you start off with both sides mad at you, you're pretty much screwed on getting anything done. And what he does get done will be by gaining Dem support by selling Rs short. Huckabee: Maybe if the POTUS I was electing was the Pastor Of The United States. . . . Maybe. . . . But then again, likely not. For President? Not just No, but H&$# No! Paul will stand in the way of progress, because even the progress will still be unconstitutional. And as much as Dr. Paul wants to jump the Grand Canyon in a single bound, he just ain't gonna make it. Dump the baggage of mild conspiracy theorist (NAU, etc.) and his carelessness with his 'Brand' in the newsletter issue (will he be any more careful with *our* brand?) and he gets dropped like a hot potato. So my choices are: 1) Someone who will likely be poor at executing anything that I do like: Fred 2) Someone who will likely be good at executing things I don't like: Rudy McRomney. Well, I'm generally a fan of gridlock, and the primary is the place to cast 'protest' and ideological votes, so I'm going with Fred. When it gets to the general election, I'll probably vote for any of them as a 'live to fight another day' effort. But I might rather have a D in the White House for the Rs in congress to fight against rather than Huckabee in the WH to have the Rs in congress fight along side. As I said, I'm generally a fan of gridlock. The less gov't does, the better.

also, I believe that "Declarations of War" have certain implications on how we fight the war and why that would also effect our relationships with other nations. 1) Declarations of War are against nation states (ie, Declare War on Japan). Since the Taliban was not the recognized government of Afghanistan by most nations, including ours, it could not be said to be legally representing the people of Afghanistan. Thus, its acts could not be placed directly at the feet of the people. The people are basically hostages. To have declared war on the nation as a whole would have instantly legitimized the Taliban and made any agreements of security, defense or other between other nations and Afghanistan invokable. We would have been violating multiple laws and ethics by making such a declaration and placing all citizens of Afghanistan under the flag du guerre. This is one reason why I have a problem with Dr. Paul. While he is busy telling his followers of his grand strategy to insure constitutional rule, he is obviously not a constitutional scholar or scholar of international law nor has anyone on his legal team that has any comprehension of such facts. NOt only is it a legal issue Declaring War on an entire nation without a legitimate government, with its attendant invokable treaties it is not something you want went you want to limit the involvement, expense and casualties. 2) Declarations of War directly express our intent to be at war on our own behalf (whether in defense or otherwise). While we complained about the UN here for some time, it did actually act as a legal cover that also kept direct participation on Iraq's behalf based on treaties and membership to organizations (like the Arab league) from acting with or directly supporting Iraq. Again, this is legal wrangling that has direct impact on how we would have had to fight the war. Since we declared the use of force under a UN resolution, may nations felt obligated by their agreement with and membership in that organization to at least not actively participate or directly interfere. Thus limiting the scope of the war and not turning it into a regional or global conflict. Also, by not placing the entire Iraq nation under the flag of war, we allowed certain elements of citizens to be able to cry off from participating. Including elements of the military (which we then may have botched by totally disbanding it). That includes the possibility that France, Russia, China, Jordan, Syria, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, etc, etc, etc would have felt by treaty or membership obligation or as a direct defense of their own "interests" obligated them to defend, arm or otherwise become directly involved in the support of Iraq and its government. While the proxy war was egregious enough, this, again, has regional and global implications. Now, we have discussed here the question of whether direct and total war against the state of Iraq would have been more effective and deterred the eventual guerrilla war. I have not personally made up my mind on that though I lean heavily towards it would not have made a difference and may have been more costly in the end with human lives. As to whether we should have gone to war in Iraq, I believe it was a matter of time and did serve direct purpose in shortening the over all war against terrorism and the possible human, infrastructure and economic cost. As for Ron Paul's positions, I believe his isolationism is dangerous. In every instance where the United States attempted to remain outside of international interaction including the military power to back it up, we have not been stronger, but have been weakened both physically and economically. Any intent not to protect our citizens and their property outside of the United States means that we leave them open to attack and demise. Whether we like it or not, we are a global economy. In fact, have been so since the pilgrims landed and the resources of this nation have been opened up for export. For this bizarre isolationist tendency alone I reject Dr. Paul. He would leave our citizens and their property vulnerable to attack and destroy our economy. And, I don't just mean shipping containers full of materials or raw product, nor of factories in other nations, but to include their intellectual property (copy righted materials such as computer designs, software, books, music, iPods, televisions, electric engines, medications, etc, etc, etc). all of which would limit, inhibit or other wise damage the economic capabilities of our citizens AND this nation. How exactly does this translate to the defense of our nation or upholding the constitutional declarations to do so?

...in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity,

Wow. Kevin and the Paulian isolationists really have no clue about global economics, our interests therein or the need to protect it and our citizens abroad (why we sacked the Barbary Pirates). Not only doe sit have economic implications, but also implies that our nation is weak and possibly open to attack. Worse, by not protecting our own interests, we leave our allies vulnerable to attack or subversion. We leave those resources, which are vital to the survival of the United States, open for interdiction by any nation who has a beef with us or decides that they should rule the world. This includes not only energy resources but minerals and other raw materials and food stuffs, like sugar, wheat, rice, etc. Isolationism is a ruse. It's ostrich with its head in the sand. It's opossums playing dead. Both of which are passive defenses and both of which leave the animal vulnerable to be eaten by lions, tigers and bears. Secondly, we do not live in a world of fortresses anymore. That went out the window the first time a cannon blew a whole in the castle wall. It is even less so today. Our defense is not on how strong our walls are, but on how strong our relationships are beyond them. Once those outside relationships are gone, we are under siege. Who will come to break that siege when we have left them high and dry to their own defenses or left them vulnerable to their own siege and destruction? Has no one in Paul's organization studied medieval history? An isolated fortress under siege who has no allies or none remaining will be destroyed from starvation, disease or through treachery (ie, someone opening the port door).

Um, all I was doing was pointing out there appears to be (currently) a very real reason why we have not been doing the formal "Declaration of War" thing, vice really dropping into the discussion one way or another...

Yu-ain I provided you with a quick reference point, and don’t have the time to craft a legal position paper thesis that you would or would not accept. The materials are available to support or oppose either point of view. The over riding concern should be that our military is NOT committed to war unless our representatives are bound to support the military operations and not stab them in the back at the first chance it becomes politically expedient to do so. The requirement and responsibility was written into the Constitution for a reason. Quibble over legalities, semantics, whatever. The sad historical fact remains that the last time we ‘won’ a war was the last time we declared one. And not a single elected official has been held accountable for the body count since then. Not one. I am not an all or nothing ideologist, unless it is a step away from freedom, liberty and/or the restoration/protection of our rights. I was quite active in CCW here in the 90s and this argument went round all the time. CCW in Missouri was a step backwards from the Jim Crow laws and a return to the time before they were crafted when a ‘free man’ did not have to worry about carrying arms. I didn’t like the ‘permit’ BS, but it was a move in the right direction, that is, a baby step towards the restoration of our inalienable rights. If legislation sucks up more of our freedom, expands the socialist government or is un-Constitutional, then that’s not progress. If it is only a baby-step, such as CCW permits, towards restoring freedom, then I’m for it. I’d prefer Vermont carry and believe that should be the rule of the land, but I’ll take some freedom over none and work towards removing the choking regulations as a future goal. Again, your wife beating analogy is an inaccurate comparison. I’m not going into his house and by my actions causing him to beat his wife. He’s beating his wife for whatever reason, but my actions didn’t provoke his behavior. Those are his actions, not mine, I don’t bear the burden for his actions or the reasons behind them. Yes, he’s a scum bag and since it’s an issue in our country, should be handled appropriately. Our intervention into the internal affairs of other nations does however, directly impact upon them and will lead to various emotions/reactions. Whether that’s elation or hatred is subject to the person/faction in question. They are sovereign nations, love them or hate them, friends or enemies, they have their own laws and cultures. We have no right to meddle in their affairs anymore than they have the right to meddle in ours. For example, we would resent Chicom troops enforcing UN resolutions in our country, and take appropriate action to expel them, so it shouldn’t be difficult to understand why nations/factions around the world react as they do to our military on their turf. They resent our interference and bodies begin to pile up. We placed ourselves into the fray, poking our nose into their internal affairs. In this instance, yes, and in many other interventions, we did/have provoke(d) a reaction by our actions. There is direct action or responsibility on our part. As an issue of practicality, then you are going to have to set a standard for what ‘morals’ or ‘interests” you are going to fix bayonets over. I’d prefer to save our bayonets for the conflict(s) that directly threatens our national security. There are indeed tragic armed conflicts going on the world over, that doesn’t mean we should be throwing our military might into Darfur, the Congo, Burma, Colombia et al. Our national security is not threatened by any of these horrible conflicts. The free elections in Iran I was referring to, was the one where we overthrew Massadegh and replaced him with the Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlavi to protect our oil ‘interests’. You remember the Shah don’t you? The dictator that Carter ‘let’ fall from power and which then led to them sacking our Embassy in Teheran? I loathe this woman, but “In 2000, U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine K. Albright stated, "In 1953 the United States played a significant role in orchestrating the overthrow of Iran's popular Prime Minister, Mohammed Massadegh. The Eisenhower Administration believed its actions were justified for strategic reasons; but the coup was clearly a setback for Iran's political development. And it is easy to see now why many Iranians continue to resent this intervention by America in their internal affairs." Our meddling in their elections and internal affairs led to the rise of fundamentalist Islam in Iran and is a direct reason why we find ourselves in the mess in the gulf today. That… ‘blowback’ theory folks seem so quick to discredit on this board. “When we start arming rebels in France and Canada, let me know.” Look up the Fenians, though not exactly government sponsored, but most certainly quietly condoned. It’s an interesting military intervention in 1860’s Canada nonetheless

The ad-homineim personal attacks launched on Dr. Paul; He is crazy, he is kooky, etc. are never explained, just launched as drive-by smears or innuendo. Typical dirty politics, if you can't kill the message, then kill/smear/diminish or demean the messenger. Yet, of all the candidates, he is the only one who has been correct on the greatest issues facing our country. Those being; our economy (and by extension the destruction of our currency), the unchecked expansion of the Federal government, the loss of our Constitutionally guaranteed liberties and the war in Iraq. Hard to find why any of those policies are 'kooky.

Maggie, Er, Correction. All Knowing Goddess of Love, Lust, Irish Whiskey and Bounteous Bosoms, this unworthy Kern humbly submits the following in rebuttal. Ah, so now I have ADD and supposedly harbor conspiracy theories? Nice attempt lassie, but no Connemara for you. Well, perhaps, I might share my Irish… But your opening sadly reminds me of all the ad-hominiem attacks against Dr. Paul, all those un-substantiated ‘kooky’ smears. At least you will discuss them and be ‘fair and balanced’ pffffft…. Onward. American interests. How about "Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations – entangling alliances with none." ~ Thomas Jefferson, for American interests? I’m a hard-core capitalist. I run my own biz remember and about the most NPC biz outside of porn one could be in these days. I’m also an eeevul corporation (insert insane cackle)…. But my corporation doesn’t have the deep pockets and back room access of some of our more disreputable boss hawgs from Wall Street. Far as I know, no Marines have waded ashore to secure my bank loans or plantations. Yes, our military HAS been used repeatedly to prop up the corrupt corporate fat cats and their bank accounts at the cost of military blood shed. An easy example, though certainly not the only one, is Central America. They are called the ‘Banana Republics’ for a reason. Again, I would reference you to “War is a racket” by Smedley Butler, one of my Corps greatest Commandants. No conspiracy here, them’s the hard and dirty, if unpleasant facts. My Marine Corps owned the Caribbean for years doing the dirty work of bankers and corporations. Again, just because it’s unpleasant to hear, doesn’t make it inaccurate. And as a snark regarding Prez earning power, what was Bubba Clintons bank account like before he took office, vs. what it is now? For that matter, I’d be interested to know if anyone ever conducted a study of our past Presidents on this issue. I’d be curious to see the results. Our policies make Castro relevant. We give him stature. Without the nasty gringo Uncle Sam to blame for his nations situation, he would have little to no regional, never mind inernational, standing and be just another puffed up, insignificant jefe. Ditto Hugo Chavez, save perhaps Venezuela’s oil revenues. Why do you think there are chants of “Yankee go home!” in Central/South American countries? Gringo is not a term of endearment. The question regarding Cuba was why are ‘free’ Americans not able to travel there, not if we like lemmings should all jump over a cliff. Why are we ‘isolating’ them as a Country of one? I thought we were supposed to avoid being isolationists? Of course I keep referencing past events. They shape the present and the future. Americans have short memory spans, most of the rest of the world does not. Memo: Kill your TV! As for Mao, his successors are still in power; Tiananmen Square wasn’t all that long ago and there is eventually going to be a major problem with them over the issue of Taiwan. Unfortunately, their military and economy will be in much better shape than ours because they are able to build it up with the debt we owe them! The targeting technology given them by Prez Bubba may come back to haunt us big time. “We shall hang the last capitalist with the rope he sold us”…. Just something to consider. Why was the answer in Iraq to ‘go’ as you phrase it? By what rational and what were those reasons again? Had we been attacked by the mighty Iraqi military? No, our attackers on 9/11 were mainly Saudi and the Taliban harbored their leadership. Iraq had nothing to do with it and the reasons and rationale for our attack keeps changing so as to fit the current political climate. Mugabe IS irrelevant. His despotism has no effect on the national security of the United States; let the OAU take care of it. Good luck on that count. And yes, our Government does value Zimbabwe less than the Gulf. Don’t delude yourself. However, you would have a much better (though still invalid) excuse for attacking Iraq, because according to you (and REALPOLITIK), we need the energy resources and geographic location that Zimbabwe lacks.

Kevin - I have two seconds before I leave for the gym.

Ah, so now I have ADD and supposedly harbor conspiracy theories? Nice attempt lassie, but no Connemara for you. Well, perhaps, I might share my Irish…

You do *pop* around and you don't always color in the lines here. It's not a huge insult. It just makes it hard to carry on out here. Someone makes a point and you make two different ones. Hardly an attack. As far as conspiracy theories, you are the one saying we are in the Gulf only to benefit fat cats and Wall Street. You were the one who asked yesterday "And what interests would those be, the Clinton interests, the Bush interests, bankers’ interests and/or corporate interests?" That's a conspiracy theory. I'll work on the rest later. But how's this for a change of subject? I have ADD too!

Yes, our military HAS been used repeatedly to prop up the corrupt corporate fat cats and their bank accounts at the cost of military blood shed. An easy example, though certainly not the only one, is Central America. They are called the ‘Banana Republics’ for a reason. Again, I would reference you to “War is a racket” by Smedley Butler, one of my Corps greatest Commandants.

Let me quote again what I said, if we do not protect our citizens, big or small, rich or not so rich, and their property, real or intellectual, their ability to make money directly impacts our economy. Jefferson did not believe that we should not interfere to the point where our ability to economically thrive as individuals or as a state is damaged or destroyed. Maybe folks who like to talk about Jeffersonian non-intervention should actually read history, read the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. Both those documents were either authored by or had major input by Jefferson. His "non-intervention" was more directed at and concerned for intervention in US politics and economy. The Monroe doctrine was also more concerned about the potential that other nations would interfere in our region and directly impact our physical, political and economic security. As JM points out, Barbary pirates and Louisiana Purchase. Not to mention US intervention in California and Texas (supported with money and guns) in order to insure that territory came to the United states. we flooded the area with settlers, too. But, back to the fat cats and Wall Street...pardon me if some folks are able to make money that results in economic growth for the country. I cringe whenever libertarians start talking about these people and money as if they were quasi socialists. If we do not protect our citizens property or persons, here or abroad, we severely limit their capability of creating economic wealth. Doing so severely impacts the economic security of the United States which in turn impacts our ability to function, to purchase materials and weapons for defense, etc, etc, etc. That is totally against any founding principles. In fact, contradicts them in ways that are beyond description at this time of night. but can be summed up by the founding documents everyone is so interested in. Declaration of Independence

He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance. For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world: For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:

Constitution of the United States

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Section 8

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States; To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes; To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures; To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States; To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

Now, read all of these things and tell me again that the United States constitution is some how not meant to protect the personal or intellectual property of its citizens, here or abroad, with force as necessary and is not meant to intervene or otherwise act to do so. Its simply preposterous.

This is the typical moral equivalence many of us around here rail against. To equate the wolf (China) attacking the sheepdog (US) as the same as the sheepdog defending the sheep against the wolves is... well, I can't be nice and say what it is.

I agree whole heartedly and it certainly does not make me think any better of Ron Paul or his supporters. I had enough of that garbage from peacenik wannabes and Democrat BS artists. Based on Ron Paul's theories as expressed by Kevin, we should not have been involved in WWI or WWII because they did not essentially have anything to do with our security; at least not until Japan attacked in us in WWII which they would not have done had we not had naval ships and bases around the Pacific or been supporting England and Russia with materials against Japan's ally Germany. If we expressed your moral equivalence to its end that is where we come out, Charles Lindbergh. Nor, I think, would the libertarians have fought Communism for over fifty years but went on blithely as they surrounded and eventually subsumed us. I am very serious when I talk about the fortress under siege. While you claim it is "non-intervention" not "isolationism", you mistaken Paul's own comments that he would withdraw all US forces to the US border. That IS isolationism and it does effectively destroy any protection of US property or economics or citizens abroad. You can pretend its something else, but it isn't. Neither is it particularly brilliant to allow economic and political allies to be destroyed. Fortresses protected by oceans that our economically and politically viable based on its own resources within its own walls do not exist. they are easily under siege and eventually destroyed. I, frankly, never want to experience a war where we have to fight it out on our own borders and land because we refused to send our military abroad. The utopian fantasy world where we don't have to give a rats farthing about other nations, their politics, security or economy, does not exist. I know you and Paul want it otherwise, but it doesn't. And that, my friend, is one reason why I think Paul is "crazy". He longs for a world that does not exist. He thinks he can make a few orders, sign a few bills and make it so. He can only change our course, and not that of the world. that change would be disastrous for the US, its citizens and its allies. I would vote for Hillary "we're going to take some from you for the greater good" before I would vote for Ron Paul.

I'm with Jim, with a double Bushmills. Cheers

*lured by echoes of Dulcinea’s sweet, sultry siren song…* Wow! Looks like somebody had a pah-tay here! *spots popcorn on floor* Ten second rule! *munch, munch, gag* OK, fifteen second rule. Someone lose a couple of blouse buttons? *surveys bloodstains and blast damage* Man, it’s been three years already. Look, Starbuck is a chick. Boomer is a cylon. Baltar is probably a democrat. Get over it. Peace out! *ducks incoming spiked heel* Go Fred!!