I respectfully disagree. Just so you know where I stand, I myself am a military veteran and I wholeheartedly support the war against islamofascism. I'd like to see us crush the islamofascists with overwhelming military force, and boot every radical muslim out of our country.
I believe Ron Paul's vote is wrong, wrong, wrong, but I understand the libertarians' position on not utilizing our military outside the U.S. I don't agree with it, but I understand it. The end result is the same, in that he has failed to support our military, but he's not like the idiot liberals who refuse to acknowledge the threat and insist that we can "talk" to the dear little muslims and reason them out of their hatred. Paul just wants to fight them when they approach our soil, not in other countries.
Again, I'm not defending his vote, just disagreeing with the perception that he's a coward. His position is based on principle, however much you and I disagree with his reasoning.
Both sides of the coin........the pacifist and the isolationist........are the result of naivte and a complete lack of understanding of the concept of evil.
We can't talk nice to the enemy, and we can't sit and wait for them to come here and kill us (which Paul should be smart enough to know that they already did), before we destroy them.
Either way, either side, their 'principles' leave us dead.
IMO, libertarians and liberals would hold hands with each other and walk this country into oblivion. Fortunately, the libertarians are politically impotent and can't do us as much harm tp America as they would like to. Unfortunately, the liberals can. But they are on the same side of the argument, both against military, and against standing for the security of the American people.
It's more than wrong. It's potentially deadly.