[SJackson]

When Ron Paul speaks about the War in Iraq he sounds like me, and lots of my fellow veterans that I know. Allowing the Army and Marine Corps to be ground down in a voluntary, fool's errand of a war isn't something I find a lot of enthusiasm for....I strongly supported the Cold War, a war worth fighting and in which I fought as a volunteer (1LT - 173rd Airborne Brigade in Vietnam). In my adult lifetime, the only wars I've opposed were in Bosnia and Iraq, neither of which were any of our business and destined to fail. Peacekeeping and nation building aren't in our line and shouldn't be. US forces should be used to defend the US and shouldn't be wasted wandering around the world looking for ancient wars and ethnic hatreds to waste our troops lives on.

You clearly aggreed with a number of wars Paul wouldn't engage in.

You're misstating his position, he isn't solely opposed to nationbuilding, he advocates a complete withdrawl of US troops from the region, and presumably all foreign basing.

Regarding the middle east, we withdraw from Iraq, Kuwait, the UAE, Bahrain, Qatar, clearly no significant sea or air presence. We aren't nationbuilding in those places, we're not looking for ancient hatreds, we're protecting our supply of oil. A concern Paul would let the markets and producers solve, there being no such thing as hatred/religion based terror. Once we're gone, the Iranians and wahabbis will be fine. They're rational, after all, and deterred by our nuclear arsenal, which is why a nuclear Iran isn't a threat.

Personally, I think the power vacumn will be filled, perhaps even by the Soviet bear and not to our advantage.

I'm curious, though it's not a reason to keep troops in Iraq, would you agree with Paul's analogy that there was no slaughter in Southeast Asia as some predicted after our withdrawl?

[caltrop]

I share Paul's belief that we should withdraw from the Middle East and have always believed the region's ancient and byzantine conflicts presented more problems for America than they were worth. In short, that there's nothing in the ME worth an American sprained ankle other than oil - which they'll sell us to keep buying weaponry to fight each other if for no other reason although plenty of others exist.

I absolutely agree there was a slaughter in SE Asia after we left. My problem with the War in Vietnam is it should have been over in six months and not dragged on. IMHO, had we invaded North Vietnam it would have been and there would have been far less regional disruption and slaughter.

I don't agree with Ron Paul on everything, just most things.

I have to leave but I'll check any replies this evening.