Why is this "gray area" of our foreign policy so hard for you to see?
The scaling back of our troops abroad will force countries, in which we have bases, to defend themselves.
We are supposed to be engaged in a "war on terror", but our borders remain liquid. As to why there is little homeland defense, I don't know... thus creating a gray area of understanding. (Afterthought: Though "free trade" appears in the acronym for NAFTA, it had nothing to do with it and everything to do with merging to create a North American Union. I guess, in contrast with the European Union.)
I already said I was speaking on the Ron Paul policies, not my own views RO, please try to pay attention, of course I can see that, it was my point, I brought it up before you did.
I agree with you, we should scale way back, but Ron Paul does not want to scale back, Ron Paul want an immediate removal of all troops on forsign soil, Ron Paul's inability to see the gray areas is my point. I do not want someone who would be an isolationist, that will cause more harm than good.
I don't claim to be an expert on American foreign relations, but I was over there with the 2nd Marine Division out of Camp Lejeune (Want my callsign, too?). We were in there and out of there, which is the kind of action that should take place. Not these prolonged, money-sapping engagements.
Still, if we didn't have something to lose (oil trade), we would not have gotten ourselves involved. There is a lot of gray area in our reasons to support this regime, condemn that regime in the Middle East but I believe it all revolves around their oil.
Again, I agree, go to "win" then get out as fast as possible would be fine most of the time, but sometimes we need to do more as well. Europe owes it's success to the American military being there but America has also had a great deal of trade with Europe that offered a lot of prosperity to America as well. Leaving Europe now completely with a promise to never come back for any reason would cause Europe a lot of instability.
Now that may be good too, but our relationship will be very bad if we do this and trade will certainly suffer greatly even if a major war did not get started.
I am only capable of seeing what I deem a viable candidate because I vote on principles and I never, ever, ever compromise.
You are voting in the gray area where there is a margin of error. That margin of error allows you to say things like, "Well, McCain was never a 100% conservative." or "I never fully agreed with McCain on that...". Whereas, I am voting on who I deem will defend our Constitution, uphold the values of our Founding Fathers, shrink the scope of government, and end the welfare state.
You have no intention of voting for things that will result in a little discomfort or inconvenience your little world in some way. So continue voting the same old socialists, neo-cons, and the lesser evil; and I will continue to vote for liberty.
If the person you vote for you "KNOW" cannot win then in my mind your really voting for the other side. Don't you think that is what the liberals want? Splinter us apart, make us fight among ourselves then sit back and win the elections because people refuse to vote for who can win under the false claim of "purity"?
Your playing their game RO.
Did you ever read the speach by Richard Lamm about how to destroy America?
The main point was to use multiculturalism to divide people, to pit us against each other..............................Well this is the same thing RO. Divide the various conservative minded people against each other then win and take control by default.
