Rand Paul's Foreign Policy Team...So Far

[erowe1]

I don't like the looks of this so far.

[Feeding the Abscess]

This feels like old news. He's had thugs advising him his entire political career. He had foreign policy briefings with Dan Senor multiple times before joining the foreign affairs committee, as well. Though it's interesting that some of those who hounded people like myself when we questioned these appointments as they happened are now starting to worry a bit.

I'm just curious as to why this is being brought up at this time.

[Feeding the Abscess]

Ron had no team of advisors and it showed.

Daniel McAdams. There were others as well, Michael Scheuer being one.

[r3volution 3.0]

So, the imperialists and neocons can be on the team if they're "knowledgable," and interventionists can go on discrediting themselves in episode after episode, but noninterventionists have to act interventionist out of fear of having their views discredited? Has being 'discredited' stopped the neocons? This sounds perilously close to the Strangelovean "we've got to increase or 'surge' troops in country X, before we can withdraw them" hawk cocktail the neocons once asked everybody to drink.

How about Rand simply announce, "we are changing US policy" upfront, and letting the world just deal with the change, rather than participate in undeclared wars, and thus war crimes, colonialism, drone bombing, torture, etc, as if nothing has changed? What would truly discredit us is to take office perpetuating, even temporarily, the evils we have been complaining about, from principle, for many years. The Reagan administration similarly when downhill when it announced, soon upon taking office, that it favored raising the debt limit---which led to it continuing to capitulate on almost every other fiscal front.

You're implication that gradually shifting toward non-interventionism is equivalent to maintaining the status quo indefinitely is obviously false - so all your rage against the status quo (while righteous) is misdirected when you direct it at me. As for the merit of a gradual shift; if you can't see how withdrawing all US forces overnight (thereby throwing regional powers into a radically different security situation with no notice whatsoever) could generate conflicts which could easily be avoided with less dogmatic withdrawal strategy; or if you can't see how it might be politically damaging to our cause to have the world explode in violence the day after we implement our policies; then I really don't know what to tell you.

[klamath]

Daniel McAdams. There were others as well, Michael Scheuer being one.

Thanks for giving me a laugh. micheal scheuer you say? One of RP advisors eh and therefore by the logic put forth in this thread the man he would have based his discisions on.....

Micheal Scheuer on obamas dismantling of enhanced interrogation techniques. (Torture)....

In surprisingly good English, the captive quietly answers: 'Yes, all thanks to God, I do know when the mujaheddin will, with God's permission, detonate a nuclear weapon in the United States, and I also know how many and in which cities." Startled, the CIA interrogators quickly demand more detail. Smiling his trademark shy smile, the captive says nothing. Reporting the interrogation's results to the White House, the CIA director can only shrug when the president asks: "What can we do to make Osama bin Laden talk?"

Americans and their country's security will be the losers. The Republicans do not have the votes to stop Obama, and the world will not be safer for America because the president abandons interrogations to please his party's left wing and the European pacifists it so admires. Both are incorrigibly anti-American, oppose the use of force in America's defense and -- like Obama -- naively believe that the West's Islamist foes can be sweet-talked into a future alive with the sound of kumbaya

Of course I knew this about Scheuer all along but what I didn't know until all you RP jihadists informed me was presidents such as RP takes all the advise of his advisors....

[supermario21]

I would rather have Justin Raimondo be a FP advisor than Dan McAdams.

[69360]

It's worrisome that he has a former John McCain staffer on his foreign policy team.

Meh, staffers don't always share the boss's views. Sometimes it's just a job.

Does anybody think Rand really needs foreign policy advisors?

This is window dressing.

Yes absolutely he does. You need experts in specific nuanced areas to advise you. It's almost impossible for one person to keep up with the politics and conflicts of every country in the world.

Why can't Rand just assemble the kind of policy team his father had? Other than some controversy about Bruce Fein, what was wrong with them? Like the news about "Cato being onboard," Rand's entourage is increasingly looking more establishment than change oriented.

They lost and honesty never really presented a cohesive policy.

[NIU Students for Liberty]

They lost and honesty never really presented a cohesive policy.

About the only cohesive and consistent points articulated by both of Ron's campaigns were in regards to foreign policy. Just because you may not have agreed with him does not mean his views were unclear.

On the opposite end, there is nothing consistent nor clear about Rand's foreign policy, seeing as how he has been criticized by Republicans for not being up front about his intentions/views (Israel comes to mind).

[Peace&Freedom]

You're implication that gradually shifting toward non-interventionism is equivalent to maintaining the status quo indefinitely is obviously false - so all your rage against the status quo (while righteous) is misdirected when you direct it at me. As for the merit of a gradual shift; if you can't see how withdrawing all US forces overnight (thereby throwing regional powers into a radically different security situation with no notice whatsoever) could generate conflicts which could easily be avoided with less dogmatic withdrawal strategy; or if you can't see how it might be politically damaging to our cause to have the world explode in violence the day after we implement our policies; then I really don't know what to tell you.

I wasn't calling for a 'dogmatic' withdrawal strategy, I was calling for NO withdrawal from rejecting tyranny. There are things we simply should not tolerate participating in, from day one of a constitutional, libertarian administration. There can be no transitional or "incremental" retreat from committing genocide, torture, assassinating civilians, or other war crimes. NONE. Continuing the current policy means continuing to commit them, period. How damaging it would be to extend the current rancid path, thus giving the other side the opening, forever more, to say "even libertarian Paul, once in the White House, embraced an interventionist foreign policy..."

Freedom and rights, just war protocol, constitutional adherence et al can be lost incrementally, but they are not regained incrementally. We need to flatly acknowledge that. Yes, give the other governments prior notice (as I had already said), but then proceed to change policy. Adverse consequences to a shift to a consistent non-interventionist policy MIGHT be potentially 'damaging,' but the compromising path others are recommending unquestionably WILL be actually damaging to our cause, in the short and long run. And no one answered my point that the myriad ways the neo-cons have been discredited has not 'damaged' their cause a bit, so why are we fretting over it?

[Shane Harris]

Daniel McAdams, Justin Raimondo, Scott Horton

[r3volution 3.0]

There are things we simply should not tolerate participating in, from day one of a constitutional, libertarian administration. There can be no transitional or "incremental" retreat from committing genocide, torture, assassinating civilians, or other war crimes.

You seem to have a very narrow view of US foreign policy, as if the only issue is the WoT. That's not what I had in mind for gradual phasing out. The droning, rendition, the Afghan War...sure, end them tomorrow. That's all trivial from a geopolitical point of view. What I'm talking about are the deployments and commitments that play a major role in regional balances of power - phase those out gradually, rather than all at once. East Asia, Europe, Persian Gulf....By keeping forces there a little longer we're not "committing genocide, torture, assassinating civilians, or other war crimes," we're just paying a bit more. Well worth it if it prevents major regional wars from breaking out after we leave, which would scuttle our policy public-relations-wise.

And BTW, it's not just timing. There are lots of other issues you'd have to deal with which "bring em home" overlooks. US allies rely heavily on US-provided logistics and technical support. If the US leaves all of the sudden, many former allies might find themselves nearly helpless for a period of time, until they can replace the US-dependent systems. Whereas that problem could be easily avoided if we simply notified them in advance and gave them time to prepare.

[Peace&Freedom]

Daniel McAdams, Justin Raimondo, Scott Horton

That's what I'm talking about. Ron had these advisors or core of friends, who actually represent a will to change things. Why can't Rand use the same band? I mean, we know GW Bush brought over lot of people from GHW Bush's reign. Hillary as President would bring lots of Bill's guys into her administration. Why aren't the Pauls following this pattern?

[supermario21]

I nominated Raimondo because he has less baggage. McAdams has some sketchy things in his background and goes on RT all the time. I appreciate Raimondo's principled stand to refuse to go on state-sponsored television. Rand bringing these other guys on would torpedo him faster than him than almost anything else.

I just hope Rand preserves as much of his ideology from when he was a youngster riding around DC with Lew Rockwell and his dad.

[Peace&Freedom]

You seem to have a very narrow view of US foreign policy, as if the only issue is the WoT. That's not what I had in mind for gradual phasing out. The droning, rendition, the Afghan War...sure, end them tomorrow. That's all trivial from a geopolitical point of view. What I'm talking about are the deployments and commitments that play a major role in regional balances of power - phase those out gradually, rather than all at once. East Asia, Europe, Persian Gulf....By keeping forces there a little longer we're not "committing genocide, torture, assassinating civilians, or other war crimes," we're just paying a bit more. Well worth it if it prevents major regional wars from breaking out after we leave, which would scuttle our policy public-relations-wise.

And BTW, it's not just timing. There are lots of other issues you'd have to deal with which "bring em home" overlooks. US allies rely heavily on US-provided logistics and technical support. If the US leaves all of the sudden, many former allies might find themselves nearly helpless for a period of time, until they can replace the US-dependent systems. Whereas that problem could be easily avoided if we simply notified them in advance and gave them time to prepare.

Third time--I did say we give the world notice. And I am precisely referring to ending the broader host of COVERT as well as overt activity that makes up US foreign policy, that keeps creating the pretext or logistical support for foreign intervention. But we should not hold implementing the non-interventionist approach hostage to dozens of tripwire-troop deployments around the world, that were and are placed there precisely to stall or defeat their being unembedded. Not to mention the issue of the nations affected being "helpless" is questionable, in that the covert manipulations of groups in those regions by Western intelligence is what is cultivating the "threats" to those nations in the first place.

[nayjevin]

Just bring home all the secret operations, instigations, spooks. Leave the nice guys who play soccer with the locals and build bridges there for a few weeks. Or not?

[Brett85]

I nominated Raimondo because he has less baggage. McAdams has some sketchy things in his background and goes on RT all the time. I appreciate Raimondo's principled stand to refuse to go on state-sponsored television. Rand bringing these other guys on would torpedo him faster than him than almost anything else.

I just hope Rand preserves as much of his ideology from when he was a youngster riding around DC with Lew Rockwell and his dad.

According to Eric Dondero, Ron and Rand used to argue all the time about foreign policy issues.

On road trips, the two would hold nonstop debates, Ron striking purist positions on foreign policy and military interventions while Rand hewed closer to Republican orthodoxy. “They would have knock-down, drag-out fights,” said Eric Dondero, a Ron Paul aide.

“I’d be driving. Dad would be in the back fumbling with the map,” Mr. Dondero said. “And they’d go at it.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/26/us...ance.html?_r=0

[r3volution 3.0]

I did say we give the world notice.

We can't leave right away and also give them advanced notice, can we?

And I am precisely referring to ending the broader host of COVERT as well as overt activity that makes up US foreign policy, that keeps creating the pretext or logistical support for foreign intervention. But we should not hold implementing the non-interventionist approach hostage to dozens of tripwire-troop deployments around the world, that were and are placed there precisely to stall or defeat their being unembedded. Not to mention the issue of the nations affected being "helpless" is questionable, in that the covert manipulations of groups in those regions by Western intelligence is what is cultivating the "threats" to those nations in the first place.

Nonsense. The CIA did not create the rivalries between the regional powers in East Asia, Europe, or the Middle East. They're real and of local origin, and there's good reason to think they'rll flare upagain badly if we leave without first giving a new balance of power a chance to emerge.

[Feeding the Abscess]

Thanks for giving me a laugh. micheal scheuer you say? One of RP advisors eh and therefore by the logic put forth in this thread the man he would have based his discisions on.....

Micheal Scheuer on obamas dismantling of enhanced interrogation techniques. (Torture)....





Of course I knew this about Scheuer all along but what I didn't know until all you RP jihadists informed me was presidents such as RP takes all the advise of his advisors....

Ron didn't shift his rhetoric to accommodate his advisors, and generally chose people who shared his general foreign policy worldview, whereas Rand employs rhetoric that resembles the positions of his advisors. Whether that's simply stylistic flourish or a true change in position isn't quite clear, which is why people are concerned with the people Rand is choosing to advise him. It's not hard to see why people could come to two different conclusions when taking these two situations into consideration.

[extortion17]

Sorry, but barf.

a barf bag is needed on certain helicopters I guess sometimes if ya' can't flatten the rotors fast enuf to auto-rotate,
you shouldn't really need one over cyberspace unless you got other issues but . . . ok your sentiment received,
and expected from this forum - wait until we talk VP picks again for Rand !

Hey, Condi was there with Colin Powell et al. in the autumn of 2001 while Ron Paul was on the floor of congress
suggesting that we invoke that part of the Constitution the Elbridge Gerry's wealthy ship merchant family wanted
and which was used most in the War of 1812 btw,
Gerry and the rest of the 55 included that clause in that document of the Summer of 1787 virtually unanimously.

for RP in the autumn of 2001 as recorded in Federal Register and A Foreign Policy of Freedom, it was to essentially treat it as air piracy . . .
no definitive nation-state target - a new enemy, sorta

Instead we get Faux News Hannity making pirate jokes . . . yeah, ok . . . have another iceball/snowball thrown at your fat head Sean

The OP talks about Condi Rice's Elise - but let's see, who does the Kentucky Senator get on his team to win California in 2016 ?
An unknown (?) . . . yeah some, but a heavy hitter from the Bush43 cabinet onboard with Rand - someone who knows alot of the sheeeet going on. Who ?

Now if you want to puke your lunch, or just get that yummy regurgitate burp, try this as your Commander-in Chief . . .




But best not to lose your lunch in the cockpit or pull other John McCain flight or flight deck like the USS Forrestal antics . . .
or attach anything even mildly associated with the Panama-born US Senator to the Rand campaign . . . jus' sayin' . . . imho



Peace

[kcchiefs6465]

You seem to have a very narrow view of US foreign policy, as if the only issue is the WoT. That's not what I had in mind for gradual phasing out. The droning, rendition, the Afghan War...sure, end them tomorrow. That's all trivial from a geopolitical point of view. What I'm talking about are the deployments and commitments that play a major role in regional balances of power - phase those out gradually, rather than all at once. East Asia, Europe, Persian Gulf....By keeping forces there a little longer we're not "committing genocide, torture, assassinating civilians, or other war crimes," we're just paying a bit more. Well worth it if it prevents major regional wars from breaking out after we leave, which would scuttle our policy public-relations-wise.

And BTW, it's not just timing. There are lots of other issues you'd have to deal with which "bring em home" overlooks. US allies rely heavily on US-provided logistics and technical support. If the US leaves all of the sudden, many former allies might find themselves nearly helpless for a period of time, until they can replace the US-dependent systems. Whereas that problem could be easily avoided if we simply notified them in advance and gave them time to prepare.

Bring them all home, yesterday.

We are doing more in the region to promote war than to promote peace (they fly missions of those bases bombing various regions of the world, collect data in bulk on everyone, plan and effect coups, promote and sponsor dictators etc.). The citizenry of the countries largely despises our military presence. (there have been countless instances of drunk driving related deaths, assaults, public intoxication, rapes, murders etc. and the people are fed up.. a few [very] large protests have resulted) It costs a fortune (I could pull up some statistics on it later as I just got off work and have a splitting headache). Also, the reasoning behind those bases aren't often for the reasons you cite, that being, they largely aren't to ensure regional stability. They are often to control certain areas and maintain global hegemony. Certain connected players are enriched greatly at the expense of all. It makes us less safe, not more. Not even to mention that it will never happen if the phase is to be gradual (it will never happen anyways regardless, but still). They are growing at an alarming rate. Cutting back gradually will not even keep up with their growth and as well, there will always be an excuse to keep a base here or there. For 'national security' of course.

Even if a war were to break out, which could happen with us being there, to be clear, it would not be worth paying the billions of dollars a year in perpetuity to keep these bases operating on the chance that it may have prevented it. These countries ought provide their own defense. Burdening posterity with unpayable debt, to protect people in relatively rich countries who do not even want us there is not simply foolish it is immoral.

I could write a lot more on the matter if you'd wish. I don't think people particularly read my walls of text though.

There are practically countless reasons, across the entire spectrum of logical thinking, to bring the troops home today.

[klamath]

Ron didn't shift his rhetoric to accommodate his advisors, and generally chose people who shared his general foreign policy worldview, whereas Rand employs rhetoric that resembles the positions of his advisors. Whether that's simply stylistic flourish or a true change in position isn't quite clear, which is why people are concerned with the people Rand is choosing to advise him. It's not hard to see why people could come to two different conclusions when taking these two situations into consideration.

When RP really want to be elected he would shift his rhetoric. He did not really want to be elected president but he sure wanted to be elected to the house and in those races he did. Why did he work so hard getting medals to the "universal soldiers" he hated so much? Why did he vote for the GWOT? Why did he pull more earmarked money into his district than the district paid out in taxes? One reason. GETTING ELECTED AND REELECTED.

[Peace&Freedom]

We can't leave right away and also give them advanced notice, can we?



Nonsense. The CIA did not create the rivalries between the regional powers in East Asia, Europe, or the Middle East. They're real and of local origin, and there's good reason to think they'rll flare upagain badly if we leave without first giving a new balance of power a chance to emerge.

By announcing what we'll do before taking office, we're giving them notice before pulling out. And the CIA et al did not create the rivalries, but they have certainly been the preponderant agent for fomenting them into massive and ongoing conflicts, especially in the last generation. Left to their own devices, wars the rivals may have conducted without our influence would have resolved their conflicts long ago, but then that would not have served the US empire's purposes (of keeping them divided and fighting, so the West could better control their regions and resources).

[r3volution 3.0]

Bring them all home, yesterday.

We are doing more in the region to promote war than to promote peace (they fly missions of those bases bombing various regions of the world, collect data in bulk on everyone, plan and effect coups, promote and sponsor dictators etc.). The citizenry of the countries largely despises our military presence. (there have been countless instances of drunk driving related deaths, assaults, public intoxication, rapes, murders etc. and the people are fed up.. a few [very] large protests have resulted) It costs a fortune (I could pull up some statistics on it later as I just got off work and have a splitting headache). Also, the reasoning behind those bases aren't often for the reasons you cite, that being, they largely aren't to ensure regional stability. They are often to control certain areas and maintain global hegemony. Certain connected players are enriched greatly at the expense of all. It makes us less safe, not more. Not even to mention that it will never happen if the phase is to be gradual (it will never happen anyways regardless, but still). They are growing at an alarming rate. Cutting back gradually will not even keep up with their growth and as well, there will always be an excuse to keep a base here or there. For 'national security' of course.

Once again, I'm only talking about the major commitments: which means Japan, S. Korea, Taiwan, Europe, the Persian Gulf. Our views are not contradictory. We could immediately close down all the little spook-bases, stop the covert actions, stop the droning, etc - and still withdraw from the major commitments gradually, rather than all at once. The stuff you're talking about is not of any geopolitical importance: if we stop droning Pakistanis or renditioning Afghans, it's not going to cause a regional war. Hence I see no reason not to stop it right away. It's different with the major commitments in Japan, S. Korea, etc. By phasing those out over, say, two years, the only downside would be the additional cost - it wouldn't entail killing or torturing anybody. Those troops in Japan et al are just sitting in barracks, they're not out their fighting a war. So let me sit a bit longer, that's all I'm saying.

Even if a war were to break out, which could happen with us being there, to be clear, it would not be worth paying the billions of dollars a year in perpetuity to keep these bases operating on the chance that it may have prevented it.

I'm not talking about permanently retaining those commitment in order to permanent prevent wars. After we leave, there will be wars, sooner or later. My idea is simply to leave gradually and carefully so that the wars are delayed long enough that non-interventionism doesn't take the heat.

These countries ought provide their own defense.

Yes they should, and they can, but not overnight. It will take time for [insert US ally] to get up to snuff.

[r3volution 3.0]

By announcing what we'll do before taking office, we're giving them notice before pulling out.

They're not going to radically change their policy based on the campaign promise of one politician who has yet to even get nominated, let alone elected. So that "notice" is not good enough.

And the CIA et al did not create the rivalries, but they have certainly been the preponderant agent for fomenting them into massive and ongoing conflicts, especially in the last generation. Left to their own devices, wars the rivals may have conducted without our influence would have resolved their conflicts long ago, but then that would not have served the US empire's purposes (of keeping them divided and fighting, so the West could better control their regions and resources).

Exactly how is the US responsible for the rivalries between China and Japan, China and Taiwan, Russia and Europe, et al? And tell me again why those rivalries would just vanish when the US leaves? Just asserting it over and over doesn't make it so. Make the case. Show me the evidence that the PLA officials threatening Taiwan are actually based out of Langley.

[kcchiefs6465]

Once again, I'm only talking about the major commitments: which means Japan, S. Korea, Taiwan, Europe, the Persian Gulf. Our views are not contradictory.

Those were the countries that I was referring to. The people of Germany are tired of 'us,' the people of Japan are tired of 'us,' the people of Korea are tired of 'us.'

The people of the Persian Gulf are tired of 'our' involvement with puppet governments, dictatorial governments.

We could immediately close down all the little spook-bases, stop the covert actions, stop the droning, etc - and still withdraw from the major commitments gradually, rather than all at once.

They do not answer to Congress, operate under a different section of US Code, and the president by and large is powerless. Bringing troops home from the places that are known about would have more substantial an impact than attempting to shut down CIA black sites around the globe. The information regarding those is compartmentalized and often not available to even those with the highest security clearance. I'm sure the president receives briefings but the people giving these briefings are still drowned by bureaucratic wishes to tell tales of efficiency as well as leave certain details out. Plausible deniability, in some cases (though the president is certainly aware of a lot).

The stuff you're talking about is not of any geopolitical importance: if we stop droning Pakistanis or renditioning Afghans, it's not going to cause a regional war. Hence I see no reason not to stop it right away.

It appears you've missed what I was talking about.

It's different with the major commitments in Japan, S. Korea, etc. By phasing those out over, say, two years, the only downside would be the additional cost - it wouldn't entail killing or torturing anybody. Those troops in Japan et al are just sitting in barracks, they're not out their fighting a war. So let me sit a bit longer, that's all I'm saying.

You should come home. I'm tired of paying.

I'm not talking about permanently retaining those commitment in order to permanent prevent wars. After we leave, there will be wars, sooner or later. My idea is simply to leave gradually and carefully so that the wars are delayed long enough that non-interventionism doesn't take the heat.

That makes sense. The problem is that they speak out of both sides of their neck.

Yes they should, and they can, but not overnight. It will take time for [insert US ally] to get up to snuff.

The ones who spy on American citizens? Would they not be able to spy on [insert foreign country]?

I agree with you. I simply disagree in your stating that we should be where by and large no one but a particular government may want us to be, which is funded by way of stealing from all and/or burdening posterity, for a second longer than right now.

[Peace&Freedom]

They're not going to radically change their policy based on the campaign promise of one politician who has yet to even get nominated, let alone elected. So that "notice" is not good enough.

Exactly how is the US responsible for the rivalries between China and Japan, China and Taiwan, Russia and Europe, et al? And tell me again why those rivalries would just vanish when the US leaves? Just asserting it over and over doesn't make it so. Make the case. Show me the evidence that the PLA officials threatening Taiwan are actually based out of Langley.

Just to update, I'm not making a case I didn't make. Again, I didn't say the intelligence regime created the rivalries, BUT IT HAS FOMENTED THEM INTO ONGOING CONFLICTS. Nor do we have to 'change their policy,' just inform them of a change in ours. Clearly, when Paul is the President-Elect, notice would then be timely. A recent Snowden revelation from Global Research confirms the role of Intelligence in creating the "threats" to the US and other regions:

"The former employee at US National Security Agency (NSA), Edward Snowden, has revealed that the British and American intelligence and the Mossad worked together to create the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS).

Snowden said intelligence services of three countries created a terrorist organisation that is able to attract all extremists of the world to one place, using a strategy called “the hornet’s nest”."

http://www.globalresearch.ca/isis-le...reveal/5391593

[Christian Liberty]

According to Eric Dondero, Ron and Rand used to argue all the time about foreign policy issues.



http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/26/us...ance.html?_r=0

I have to wonder if some of that was planned considering the other "radical" stuff he believed back then, like thinking social security was comparable to the Soviet Union.

[r3volution 3.0]

Those were the countries that I was referring to. The people of Germany are tired of 'us,' the people of Japan are tired of 'us,' the people of Korea are tired of 'us.' The people of the Persian Gulf are tired of 'our' involvement with puppet governments, dictatorial governments.

I could care less about foreign public opinion, my goal is to avoid needless wars.

They do not answer to Congress, operate under a different section of US Code, and the president by and large is powerless. Bringing troops home from the places that are known about would have more substantial an impact than attempting to shut down CIA black sites around the globe. The information regarding those is compartmentalized and often not available to even those with the highest security clearance. I'm sure the president receives briefings but the people giving these briefings are still drowned by bureaucratic wishes to tell tales of efficiency as well as leave certain details out. Plausible deniability, in some cases (though the president is certainly aware of a lot).

The President and Congress could control the CIA if they were so inclined. The reason they don't is a lack of will, not a lack of ability.

You should come home. I'm tired of paying.

Ah, typo, should have read *them* rather than *me.* I'm not in any barracks!

I agree with you. I simply disagree in your stating that we should be where by and large no one but a particular government may want us to be, which is funded by way of stealing from all and/or burdening posterity, for a second longer than right now.

The shortest distance between two points is a straight line - true in geometry, not always true in politics.

[r3volution 3.0]

Just to update, I'm not making a case I didn't make. Again, I didn't say the intelligence regime created the rivalries, BUT IT HAS FOMENTED THEM INTO ONGOING CONFLICTS.

Meh, I'm not going to argue about the exact nature of the US role in the long-simmering conflicts of Eurasia: did it create them, foment them, facilitate them, encourage them, fuel them, accelerate them, etc? The point is, if the US exits Eurasia, the odds of those simmering conflicts boiling over increases - the more so the more rapid the exit. I think that's pretty obvious. If you disagree, we'll just have to agree to disagree.

[Peace&Freedom]

Meh, I'm not going to argue about the exact nature of the US role in the long-simmering conflicts of Eurasia: did it create them, foment them, facilitate them, encourage them, fuel them, accelerate them, etc? The point is, if the US exits Eurasia, the odds of those simmering conflicts boiling over increases - the more so the more rapid the exit. I think that's pretty obvious. If you disagree, we'll just have to agree to disagree.

You're 'not going to argue' over it, except you did argue that I claimed the the US created the rivalries, and only backed off when I corrected you, twice. I say again, these rivalries, in most cases already would have been resolved by conflict or settlement, were it not for Western military or covert activity. It's pretty obvious you believe the US should have an ongoing interventionist role in "doing" something about foreign conflicts, regardless of the speed of our exit out of specific theaters. I say we mind our own business, stop presuming our government's motives are altruistic, and stop extenuating conflicts to keep them unresolved, so as to benefit the US's Empire-building interests.