off wrote: > Stop policing the world, spend the money at home > for better security at ports etc. > I'm all in favor of security, but we must stand up and fight the terrorists where they live and breed. It is impossible to make U.S. borders 100% secure. And I'm not in favor of the federal government spending a lot of taxpayer money on social projects like a nationalized social security medical program or giving U.S. taxpayer dollars to fund government schools.
> Right now, the US is open to attack due to no money > to pay enough border guards, and high tech security > that could be possible, to do the ambitious things > You don't need high tech gadgets to make the border between the U.S. and Mexico secure - all you need is a border patrol and a long fence like Duncan Hunter installed in San Diego county. > the nutcase Bush thinks he can do for free. > Over 50% of U.S. voters voted for the Republican Party AFTER the Allied invasion of Iraq. > Ron Paul's plan is the only viable one. The 9/11 > commission and the CIA both concluded the main > facter US was attacked was because of US military > bases and involvement in Saudi Arabia and elsewhere. > You need to face the facts: the U.S. is going to have forces in the Middle East for a long time. We've had U.S. forces in Europe and the Far East for over fifty years. We have treaties to uphold. > Ron Paul is the only one with a rational plan. > It is not rational to think that Ron Paul will be the Republican nominee. And it is not rational to think that U.S. voters would vote for someone like Ron Paul. The majority of voting Americans are not in favor of withdrawing U.S. troops from NATO and withdrawing from the U.N. The majority of U.S. voters are not in favor of pulling all U.S. troops out of Europe, the Middle East and the Far East. And the majority of U.S. voters are not in favor of retreating from the war in Afghanistan or Iraq. Ron Paul's plan to get elected is not rational, it is idealistic.
