Originally Posted by Stubudd
But that's not obama's policy. He's been blowing up people in pakistan and yemen and and afghanistan and god knows where else pretty much nonstop, and hasn't removed any presence that i know of outside of ending the however many years in iraq. I do know of a few bases he's added in various places all around the world, like chile (???).
Paul wanted to bring americans home and use the military to defend this country. Obama isn't interested in anything like that, or if he is, he's doing the opposite anyway. I'm certainly not trying to slam your character, i'm just saying your statement wasn't true. Romney and obama are at one end of the line, paul is at the other. Sorry you took it that way.
What's the first cardinal rule about the President? He tries to be all things to all people. IF he didn't do drones, would he have been re-elected? Possibly, but he wouldn't appear "middle of the road". He doesn't to you or me, but to those that pay less attention he does.
The end goal of Obama's policy is a weaker and less "imperial" American presence abroad. And what is the consequence and mindset behind Paul's FP musings and debate performances? The same. Focus on the end goals of both, and how they both lament and demonize American FP and apologize or justify for terrorist action abroad through their comments and public appearances on American "militarism".
I understand the "niceties" of Paul's plan. I know where it digresses from the President's slow slide to the same place. Paul would do it all in one fell swoop. Obama understands the vagaries of politics and will eek out the same end but even more destructively.
I don't like either option, and believe America has responsibilities to be a beacon of light to the world. Not a bully or brat, as both Paul and Obama seem to believe, but an example of dignity abroad. Of course you, Paul, and Obama would disagree with this premise vehemently. So what's the point of going further.