While I want to believe that we are all wholesome and good and that everyone benefits from our military's occupations, I know how unlikely that is given how radically different our government can be from one administration to another, from one state department to another.
Unfortunately, good intentions aside, we have taken on the burden of defending so many nations that they themselves have become dependent upon us.
They then spent the money they would have spent on their own defense on progressive/liberal government and social and welfare programs.
They have weakened themselves on our dime and become dependent upon us. Whether an unintended consequence or not, this situation cannot be sustained.
I contend that our military's foreign occupations are not supported by the spirit of the Constitution and our Founders knew that.
World history has multiple examples of failed empires like ours will soon be if we don't get back to Constitutional principles.
Being the world's policeman is not in the Constitution.
There are shades of gray to the term ‘occupation’ and all I am saying is that it is the responsibility of the MSM to force some clarification from Mr. Paul.
A generic broadside against US foreign policy is not good enough from a guy campaigning for President.