Ron Paul has never said we didn't have the right to protect ourselves. If we don't know where that transmission came, we don't know that it originated from an Iranian source or a source even related to those speedboats. These are all regional issues that we've gotten involved with that are still giving us headaches. I'm not ready to say we shouldn't have been involved in the Afghanistan/Soviet deal, but the Iran/Iraq thing and the Iraq/Kuwait thing could probably have been handled by regional entities. These entanglements have cost us billions of dollars and can we really say we are better off for them? The middle east is still a mess and I think a strong argument can be made that it would have been better off without our past intervention. Our involvement has gotten in the way of a natural, regional solution. We have intervened to not allow freedom to work in the middle east. Would the world be full of nothing but joy and sunshine if we wouldn't have intervened? Nah. But those billions of dollars could have been spent of national defense and other domestic issues and I don't think we'd be any worse for it. We'd probably be better for it. We give three times as much money to Arab nations as we give to Israel. We are propping up both sides of a tense situation. Our involvement in regional issues brings at least as much trouble as it does resolution. If given the choice, most Americans would rather spend that money on domestic programs (or better yet, keep the money they earn and spend it as they see fit). Our government is forcefully taking our money to forcefully spread democracy around the world. Temporary results may be achieved by force, but long lasting and true change comes through free will. The reality is all will never be right in the world. It seems most candidates think we can one day achieve a worldwide utopia if we continue to concern ourselves in regional affairs on the other side of the world. If we embark on a war on evil, we are doomed to failure. We will never eradicate terrorism or hatred, particularly by force. So I ask you, who is living in reality?
Your ignorance is showing. We have military bases all around the world and in places where oil isn't an issue. You are doing a lousy job of convincing anyone to vote for Paul. In fact, you probably do more harm to Paul.
Again, I never said he didn't. But Rex_B is talking like we didn't have a right to protect ourselves. Exactly, but don't you think the fact that the transmission came at the exact time the speedboats were buzzing the ships is a bit more of a coincidence? And regardless, the voice said the ships were going to explode. That is a threat to our military. The bottomline is that this stuff already happened, so its no use saying we should've done this or we could've done that. It won't change anything today. Exactly, all will never be right in the world, but it seems there are some here who think it will if we just run away with our tail between our legs. I'm living in reality because I understand the perceived threat to our nation, whether we've got military assets abroad or not. And it seems I done roped myself back into a discussion that I'd already said I was done with. That's what procrastination will do.
That statement is my point. Why would this be "run away with our tail between our legs"? What are we trying to prove, that we can spend more money touting our military? The US borrowing from the Chinese and the dollar in the crapper seems much worse than your scenario.
Really? Then what were you getting at when you said: Sounds to me like you're arguing we didn't have much of a reason to retaliate if necessary. Good for you. But they're there, and they will be for awhile. Even if Ron Paul wins (and that is a huge snowball's chance in hell), there is no way he'd be able to shut those bases down.
What was I saying? That they weren't a threat, the same thing the captains said. If they were a threat then I'm sure the captains would have made another decision. Are you denying that? And no those bases won't be there much longer when WE ARE BROKE!
