Unfortunately, we're discussing on solving the problem on both extremes of the issue. Paul wants to withdraw from the ME immediately and hope that they don't come over here. That's unacceptable to me. What's also unacceptable to me is building permanent bases there, continuously staying in the Middle East for years, possibly decades, and basically continuing fighting ...and fighting...and fighting...all the while our military becomes depleted to the point of a draft.
Whether or not Paul is wrong or right isn't the issue. The fact of the matter is that there's going to have to be some type of compromise brokered here on the war, or say hello to the Rats holding the WH and Congress. The vast majority American people don't want to continue the war, but the base of the GOP wants to keep fighting the war. I don't know about you, but the smart money's on the American people.
I am confident that if Paul is President and if we were attacked, there's no doubt in my mind that he'd take out the trash immediately and retaliate rather than screwing around with the UN. His comments here are discouraging, but I'm not going to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Because for me, when it all boils down, Paul would do a much better job at protecting America than the Democrats, and I'd get the possibility of Constitutional, limited government as a bonus.
I see our war in the ME against Islamic fascism as a retaliatory war. We didn't start this. They did. None of the evidence I've seen to date, and I've seen a lot, leads me to any other conclusion. We either go there and destroy them, or we WILL get hit again here.
I don't like the way the war is being fought, but it still needs to be fought. Duncan, IMO, is the best man for the job.