Ron Paul vs. Insanity

[qwerty]

After watching Ron Paul in the last debate, it should become much more self-evident that Ron Paul is the last sane man in the GOP. In particular, I liked the exchanges between John McCain and Ron Paul, and then Tom Tancredo and Ron Paul.

Apparently, the simple logic behind Ron Paul's argument against non-intervention is way over-the-heads of the other candidates. Whether or not the U.S. wins every battle in Iraq really is inconsequential in terms how successful the geopolitical agenda is. For those who didn't pay careful attention to what I just wrote, I wasn't diminishing the consequences in terms of blood and treasure. What I am saying is that the U.S. can win every battle, but still not achieve military victory.

Unfortunately for Senator McCain, he must not be aware that this is an occupation. It is fairly hard to win an occupation. It is the occupation itself that fuels the insurgency, and no matter how many battles the U.S. wins, as long as the battles never end, military victory will be elusive.

There is yet another fallacy in McCain's thinking: Conflating a military victory with success. In other words, even if the U.S. were to achieve a military victory, what do We-the-People win?

MORE; http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/viewArticle.asp?articleID=44163

[sirachman]

Can someone make a Digg for this so I can Digg it like hell?!
I dont know how:(

[Rex]

already dugg:

http://digg.com/political_opinion/Ron_Paul_vs_Insanity_Ron_Paul_is_the_last_sane_man _in_the_GOP

[TheEvilDetector]

I think the neocons are the intellectually inferior evil goblins.

1. To bring decent security to Iraq you have to lock the country down real tight, like a police state on steroids.

2. If you do 1, then you wont achieve a stable peaceful democracy, which is the exit point.

3. If you want democracy, you have to open the country up, but then you can achieve 1.

What to do?

Exit.