I don’t agree with Paul that we should bail on Iraq. I do agree with a domestic policy of smaller government and more individual freedom.
The war is a very devisive issue. I supported it and continue to suppport it. I have also come to realize that we simply can’t afford any more of these wars whether we like them or not.
I would like the United States to meddle less in the affairs of others. It is very expensive and it can often backfire. I am very conflicted on all of the issues.
This war could cost close to a trillion by the time we are done. I think we are around half that already with no fiscal end in sight. If I would have known that going in I might have supported looking at different and more cost effective options of taking out Sadaam.
But part of me not only wants to finish the job in Iraq (we have a duty to give it our best effort), but to also take care of Iran while we have the chance. We have them surrounded. A naval blockade in the gulf could destroy their economy. We could bomb critical sites of infrastructure. I don’t want to invade, just cripple them (hopefully enough for regime change) and then get the hell out.
So I am a war monger that supports Ron Paul. I guess that means I need a therapist.
I don’t think Paul’s policies for Iraq are a good solution for where we are right now. But going forward after this war, I would prefer to see something like a Paul foriegn policy in the future. I would like to pull back and cut all foriegn aid. I would like to get out of every little pissing match. We have enough problems at home.
“I do agree with a domestic policy of smaller government and more individual freedom.”
Hard to find a single conservative that does not support this idea. The question is, how do you reduce the size of government without reducing the need for government solutions to self-induced ills caused by liberal social policies?
“I have also come to realize that we simply can’t afford any more of these wars whether we like them or not.”
You seem aware of the cost of winning. Now, can you guestimate the cost of losing this particular war?
“I am very conflicted on all of the issues.”
We see that! You have lots of company BTW...
“This war could cost close to a trillion by the time we are done.”
You are talking about libertarians favorite subject here, MONEY! Now put a number on the cost of losing this war, in terms of American bodybags on U.S. streets?
“So I am a war monger that supports Ron Paul. I guess that means I need a therapist.”
No... the shrinks in Hollyweird have done enough damage already! LOL
“I don’t think Paul’s policies for Iraq are a good solution for where we are right now.”
This is innocent American life hanging in the balance here. Tell me again why you support Ron Paul?
As the article we're discussing states, this is a different World than it was centuries ago. WE may want to be isolated, but will others allow it? If not, we must be prepared to deal with issues that arise, and if those issues involve war, then they're better served 'over there' than 'here'.
As for 'every little pissing match', insofar as that definition fits, I'd agree. But 9/11 cannot be considered a 'little pissing match'. Nor can the rightly named "War On Terror". These people want to destroy the West and our culture, and turn everyone left into Islamists. Unless we understand this completely, and take this war THEY began to them, that is exactly what will happen should we become the isolationists Paul envisions.
"I would like to pull back and cut all foriegn aid."
America has used foreign aid not just to prop up governments, but to maintain our interests abroad. If we are to curtail all such aid, we become just another country among many, and turn over control of events to whomever sees themselves the arbiters. And rest assured, they will be there. And they will not, necessarily, be friendly. What you're advocating is isolationism, pure and simple, my friend. And in today's World, that a recipe for disaster.
And if Ron Paul isn't astute enough to understand that, he has no business running for President.