Unfortunately so will our leaders meaning nothing will change. That is part of what separates our good leaders from bad ones. Here's an example. Who wiped out Iraq's first attempt at making nuclear weapons and likely ended the program? Who was our POTUS that time who did not try and stop it? A wise move on his part and a different foreign policy as well.
A lot of our problems in the M.E. would be resolved in this fashion if we would stay out of a few nations business rather than try and run the Middle East. The current Iran situation could possibly have done been resolved by our ally if we had done as much. We or rather our Sec of State was too busy micromanaging that nations problems to let them get free'd up to do anything.
Well, whether you agree or disagree with what Ron Paul said, your discussion and others about it shows that it wasn’t some crazy nut-job thing to say, that we could use a debate about wrong ideas, and that Rudy went for the easy point, without showing any real understanding of the complexities that face the next president trying to navigate the middle east.
Rudy’s philosophy would bomb Pakistan the moment they do something to bother us. Since every nation will do something to bother us, we won’t have any allies. Some like that idea, but an entire middle east with most of the world’s oil all united in a common hatred for our country — that’s not a good thing.
That’s Jimmy Carter thinking, that led to Iran being our blood-enemy.