Withdrawal would lead to chaos? As long as we're there, violence will remain high, since we're the target:
"
Attacks against British and Iraqi forces have plunged by 90 percent in southern Iraq since London withdrew its troops from the main city of Basra, the commander of British forces there said Thursday."
Nation-building strengthens our national defense? Quite the contrary, it weakens us by spreading us thin, bankrupting us, and galvanizing people to take up arms against us:
"
The U.S. military isn't ready for a catastrophic attack on the country, and National Guard forces don't have the equipment or training they need for the job, a commission charged by Congress reported Thursday."
Since we haven't raised taxes to fight this war and maintain this overall foreign policy of policing other countries, how do you think we get the money? That's right, we borrow from Communist China, which means they have us by our economic testicles and can tell us what to do at the threat of calling us on our debt to them. Between that and inflating our money supply, our currency collapses. As we learned from the Soviet Union (and every other empire in history), when the economy collapses, so does the military strength.
Ron Paul gets more donations from veterans and members of our military than all other Republican candidates combined, and more than any candidate of either party. They understand that his foreign policy positions make the most sense (and is supported by research, read up on "blowback"). Meddling in the internal affairs of other countries was happening before 9/11.
Remember how the Republicans viciously criticized Clinton for going into Haiti, Kosovo, etc.? Remember how we supported the overthrow of the Shah, only to have? Remember how we backed bin Laden and al-Qaeda when they were fighting the Soviets? Hell, remember how we buddied up with Saddam-led Iraq for several years, even allowing him to acquire from us the WMDs we would later berate him for having?
Well, considering Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, had far fewer terrorists before the invasion, was much more stable before the invasion, and was under secular rule before the invasion, this is nothing more than a continuation of those same ill-conceived Democrat-concocted policies (read up on "neoconservatives," aka leftists who slowly took over the upper echelons of the GOP and used to be laughed at as "the crazies").
Ron Paul had it right when he pondered aloud in one of the debates something along the lines of "we borrow $10 billion from the Chinese, give it to a military dictator in Pakistan who we're now working to undermine, even as we promote democracy in Iraq."
And we don't even bother to look for bin Laden anymore, despite the fact he's probably in the mountains between a country we occupy and a supposed ally of ours whose military dictatorship we fund. That's why Paul has put forth legislation to use letters of marque and reprisal to hunt down and kill or bring to justice bin Laden and other members of al-Qaeda. Terrorism requires small-scale, tactical operations with an emphasis on intelligence-gathering and human resources, not the wholesale invasion and occupation of entire countries.
Even Ronald Reagan decried nation-building, and learned firsthand its follies when he pulled troops out of Lebanon, saying in his memoirs that he would never have had them there in the first place if he had fully understood how irrational the region's politics are.
"Ron Paul is one of the outstanding leaders fighting for a stronger national defense. As a former Air Force officer, he knows well the needs of our armed forces, and he always puts them first. We need to keep him fighting for our country." -
Ronald Reagan
Speaking of conservative icons,
Barry Goldwater Jr., son of the equally conservative Republican who paved the way for Reagan,
has endorsed his former congressional colleague Ron Paul, as well as campaigned for him.
Also, if you want further examples of how a belligerent foreign policy can have counterproductive results, you need only read about how the president of Iran is losing favor with Iran's actual ruler:
"
There are numerous possible reasons for Ahmadinejad's loss of support, but analysts here all point to one overriding factor: the U.S. National Intelligence Report last month, which said that Iran suspended its nuclear weapons program in 2003 in response to international pressure. The report sharply decreased the threat of a military strike against Iran, allowing the authorities to focus on domestic issues, with important parliamentary elections looming in March."
he doesn't like mccain, just that he hates everyone else even more, and says ron has 0% chance
John McCain has a 90.9% chance of winning the GOP nomination according to the election prediction markets, which have a better predictive track record than polling, at the time that I write this. Why vote for a sure winner? At least cast a protest vote. Paul will probably outlast both Huckabee and Romney to become McCain's only remaining rival.
By the way,
McCain has flip-flopped on his position regarding withdrawal from the occupation of other countries.
Ron Paul would put America first by securing our borders, strengthening our military, and following a foreign policy of national DEFENSE, which doesn't involve us getting mired in far-off lands while we're being bankrupt and left wide open to attack here at home. We should have the ability to quickly and forcefully respond to attacks or imminent threats, but otherwise we should leave everyone else alone. Anything else is not conservative, not American, and not wise.
