It would scare me much more if Ron Paul went on to win the election. He’s the one who would opt to have little or no US military influence around the world. Which one’s better when we have such enemies these days? And our current leader making things worse every time he lifts a finger?
What’s silly is how pervasive this idea is, and yet how absent the facts are to support it.But, there are evil people in the world who wish to see us destroyed, and Paul voters can’t accept that fact.Rob
I don’t know. He might think differently if Americans were actually willing to pay for the military out of their own pockets.
As a Canadian, I worry as much about the politics in your country as I do in mine. There is nothing more important to the security to Canada’s freedoms then a strong, healthy United States. Your foreign policy has been right far more then it has been wrong and your brave men and women in your armed forces deserve the utmost respect and appreciation for the sacrifices they have made for lasting peace in the western world.
Well, if you are a tax paying American, then you already pay for the military out of your own pocket. I sure do.
Christ was about turning the other cheek and loving your enemies as you love your brothers. Peace through strength is satanic. It is something I’d chalk up to the Sith (for all you star wars nerds out there)
Oh come on savior…there is a difference between national defence and the military profit that Ron Paul was talking about…JP II was very strong on being anti-war…how do you reconcile that?
Thank you for that well thought out response. I know that Romney needs to say what he needs to say to gain the nomination of that party…but his rhetoric is scary…I liked Paul’s speech and I think that he said that we can have a great national defence without the war profiteering…now that is a position I think very consistent to the heart of social teaching in our church…
I think americas best bet for the future isn’t increasing the military but using it better. Bring everyone home and secure our airports/seaports/borders etc. The biggest threat right now I would say is the cartels spilling over the southern border. It would go a long way to show the world america wants to change from its idealistic holier than thou policies of the past by getting its nose out of everyone elses business and tending to itself. I mean russia wouldn’t be concerning us if we weren’t putting missile shields in poland and keeping such a strong presence in germany. The soldiers should be here at home, not out in the middle east fighting a losing war. That’s just my opinion though.I am SO not a fan of Romney’s but I would rather have a president willing to keep our military strong than one who will cut funding to it while he is also giving missile information to former, and potential future, enemies as Obama wants to do. As much as I would like to see peace throughout the world, the sad reality is that we have too many enemies, Iran being one of our worst, that want to see us wiped out. If we don’t maintain our dominance / strength, we will be dominated.
At this point in international politics, reality must be acknowledged. What we wish for, and what we have, are two very different things right now.
Actually Catherine you are right…what I meant to say is that America seems to be stuck on maintaining war profiteering too…which is different than a healthy military…do you think that the US should be more coordinated with its limited military resources to work closer with the UN in global problem spots…or do you like the “go it alone” Bush approach? I obviously am on the left of this issue and agree with the writer that there are other approaches than just military…and I think it is sad when a candidate for President has to appeal to an American super power past…
Hi Peggy in Burien, that’s our neighbour down from BC right?! Yes, I agree with you in terms of military families and your right…I was not against a military power that is strategic and able to defend the United States what I was hearing from Romney is an opening of the door to what Ron Paul calls “military profiting”…in terms of commenting upon your country…which way do you want it? Our country has been very supportive of the American efforts but the United States is a super power and the decisions it makes does affect my country…does that make sense? And when I lived in Texas for a year I can honestly say that most Americans, most Republicans and even most Tea Partier’s that I met believed in a strong national military BUT not in the war profiteering…so hope that clarifies things a bit Peggy…
Oh yes- Iran would love that!! We did not become great by rolling over and playing dead. We became great by being strong. We are weak(er) now, thanks to the current administration - but we can be strong again if we change our leadership.
Peace through strength can either be black or white. Nations simply couldn’t come to be without power being exercised by peoples. It just depends on who holds that power. Watch Captain America and you’ll see what I mean.
Hello Lil…I’m a Canadian so my commentary was not so much involved in the politics…I honestly don’t know how Ron Paul could realize an idealistic libertarian state in our world, but what I was referring to was military profiteering…US military influence around the world is both a blessing and a curse, one that the US has adopted for itself after WWII and perhaps its time to reassess given the Soviet Union BUT also given China…perhaps it would be easier on America to partner more with other countries in NATO or UN Operations with respect to problem spots…so without commenting upon the internal politics of your country, I can be worried about a president who has just open the door to building a greater military machine…when a strategic military is more useful…thoughts…?
Mis infomation.