Mr.Nick
VIP Member
- May 10, 2011
- 9,604
- 719
Iran however is crazy enough and has enough resources and capabilities to attack us. Ahmadinejad would certainly go on some Middle East conquest if Paul stuck to his no intervention policy.... Ahmadinejad would build a coalition of Islamic countries/states and before you knew it you would have an army the size of China's army heading for the shores of the US looking to do what the Spanish did in South America circa 16th century..
This is pretty sensationalist, that's for sure.
Let's just assume for the sake of argument this was correct. Why do we need to fill the middle east up with hundreds of thousands of troops and spend trillions of dollars stationing them and building embassies? Why can't we just simply state that Country A is our ally, and if you engage them militarily you will have missiles raining down on your capital in a matter of minutes?
Regardless of what you think about foreign interventionism, the way we are going about it is just way too extreme. We have the kind of technology that we don't need to BE everywhere to be able to strike everywhere, if that makes sense.
We have embassies because we have citizens abroad...
We have military bases in foreign countries because our allies want to feel safe and they know we will protect them. That way those said countries have to pay little on defense and pretty much use us as their big brother...
War is a tricky subject... I "supported" the war in Iraq because I wanted to see Saddams head on a post, however we were just there too long and for no fucking reason...
However I believe Iraq was used as some sort of Armageddon for terrorists ... Or in short "you come to us so we don't have to come to you." Many extremists didn't fall for that course of psychology... Of course in the end we ended up fighting people who were not terrorists but people who just didn't like their country occupied.... I can't blame them because I wouldn't like my country occupied either - hell I cant stand OWS and they're citizens.