A state with a brutal dictatorship is "successful"? I've never heard that definition before.
President Bush campaigned on a platform of getting us out of foreign wars, not starting new ones. That's part of why I voted for him in 2000.
In case you hadn't noticed, something happened after Bush was elected.
And 9/11/01 changed everything.
Let's stay out of entangling foreign affairs. Just Say No.
So, as far as your concerned, 9/11 didn't change everything. I can respect the consistency. But I also firmly disagree with your position.
This is a typical position of Ron Paul and those who support him. He believes we should act based on 18th & 19th Century demographics and rules of engagement. What's lost is the fact how the World has progressed since then, and how this has impacted World affairs. Nations are no longer separated by oceans and continents. Nations who are in no real proximity of one another have the power today to severely impact another's safety and prosperity. 9/11 is a perfect example. And it didn't even stem from another "nation" per se; just a group of hate-filled bigots with the ingenuity to make it happen. And crawling into our shell, and removing ourselves from the World stage, is not going to make them go away.
Letters of Marque, disentangling oneself from World affairs simply doesn't work today. Yet it is the agenda of some (not many, but some) to apply Old World practicality to today's involved problems. Not a good idea, and not very safe...
We may "just say no", but will they?