[dennisw]

I certainly think Ron Paul would work to do so and would have done so in a more constitutional and organized manner than the current administration. He discusses this himself here. More importantly he would drastically reorganize foreign policy to lessen the threat of terrorist attacks by removing the incentive of terrorists to attack us. This is not "giving in to the terrorist," but moving towards a non-interventionist foreign policy that is healthier for us in terms of economy and national defense.

What are some of those incentives to hit us? Any specifics?

[marsh_of_mists]

None. They just woke up one day, decided to strap bombs to themselves, and blow themselves up. /s

Actually, isn’t it common sense that our government’s foreign policy might have consequences? Our government’s chess-game-like intervention in the internal affairs of third-world countries across the sea over many decades has consequences. It has exacerbated terrorism. For example, the US presence in Iraq is what makes guys like Ahmadinejad more popular. Its presence in and support of Saudi Arabia gained Bin Laden much support in earlier years. We accept the fact that US foreign policy has consequences when we talk about the disastrous effects Carter and Clinton’s foreign policy had abroad. Why can’t we accept the same under Eisenhower, Nixon or Bush?

I’m up way to late and have to go to bed so this will be my last response here. I just hope we are all really careful in learning what every candidate believes and what they’ve done in politics, before making a decision on who to give our votes to.