Replies

Yes, of course. He'd bring them home from most places in the world, including Kosovo, South Korea, Japan, as well. Have you watched any of the GOP debates? (They're all on Youtube if you couldn't find the time.) Like I said, it's better to get your information on him from sympathetic sources, or straight from his own material on Youtube or his online writings. I haven't read a Foreign Policy of Freedom yet, but it probably goes in to some detail about his positions.

The main obstacles to withdrawing our troops from overseas after the Cold War ended was terrorism and the expansion of China's economic power. Power projected conventionally (with large troop movements) is rarely the correct approach to fighting asymmetric wars. Economic power, is the real place to exert effort on preparing for war. A strong, vibrant economy gives us the freedom and initiative to develop technology for fighting future, or even concurrent asymmetric war.

In my view, we have almost missed the opportunity to alter our foreign policy significantly toward a peaceful stance. It is not too late to do that. We do not need to allow terrorism to interfere with our overall nation-to-nation relationships. Ron Paul acknowledges that violent terrorism is out there, but he talks about its origins in our Cold War stances (which are obsolete now, in my personal opinion). For example, Israel no longer faces enemies funded by Soviet communists. Israel is well-prepared to defend itself now that we have helped it get on its feet. We do not need to defend the Saudis. Especially, we do not need to defend them. They are the reason whey we were in Kuwait, as I have mentioned. Our foreign policy is more about the Saudis than any other country. It's time we change that. Which candidates are serious about it? Only Ron Paul. The others just talk, but they talk about your diversion, e.g. 'cholesterol' instead of the real economic guns being pointed at our heads.