Replies

If you understand the Al Qaeda / Muslim Brotherhood program, you will realize that buying into their narrative implies great joy when the US pulls the plug on support for any of its client states in the historical territories occupied by Islam: whether Israel, Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Morocco, Tunisia, Yemen, Iraq, or traditional NATO ally Turkey. They also have designs on states like Algeria, Libya, and Syria, whose rulers are not congenial to their program. As the US pulls back, AQ and MB influence will grow and their potential for eliminating the secular rulers in the various client states, and those that are secular and less visibly “US pawns” will grow. They’ve made considerable progress in Turkey, and now Egypt, though there is ‘less than meets the eye’ so far in Egypt.

Nature abhors a vacuum and so does power. All our enemies will move in as we move out. Enemies such as Mulsim Brotherhood, China, Russia, Iran and Al Qaeda

Ron Paul would have us be purist libertarians begging on the free market for foreign oil and all foreign resources. Actually this is our current policy. Meanwhile China locks up oil and gas into long term contracts. Stupid and beyond stupid to depend on buying oil etc on the free market

Your response sort of begs the question ... why are we spending so much money and expending so much military might and so many lives, if Middle Eastern oil can be secured, "locked up" in your terms, via long term contracts? Which is the logical approach? The one you attribute to China, or what has been our own to date? And, has Rep. Paul made any indication at all that he would oppose it?

Not that I am aware. Many with libertarian leanings are naive about the world outside our borders, including those who seem to think this country and it's constitution could survive the free-for-all of unfettered immigration, legal or otherwise. You have a fair point in that. Contracts, however, international or otherwise are a legal and constitutional approach and would not be opposed.

Strange it certainly is, when China of all countries, would appear to be taking a more constitutional approach than the country to which that constitution belongs, wouldn't you say?