[SJackson]

BTW, how did the founding fathers envision a local militia defending against Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles?

Probably the same way they fought undeclared wars against France (the quasi war) and later the Barbary Pirates. Built a defence, in their case create a Navy, reestablish the USMC, and take the fight to the enemy. In Frances case off their coast and the Carribean, the pirates in the Mediterranean. Both wars fought by the founders, undeclared, and fought over trade far from America. Taking the fight to the enemy is an old American tradition, not always followed. And sometimes we make mistakes, which are unrelated to the Constitution or the founders as paulestinians would have us believe.

[Wallace T.]

BUT all our interventions prior to 1898 were short lasted, with the exceptions of the War of 1812 and the Mexican War, which were fought with neighboring countries and involved both protecting our existing land borders and expanding them (unsuccessfully with British ruled Canada, successfully with Mexico). We did not engage in nation building or regime changes. With the exception of West Germany and Japan, our nation building attempts have been failures. The Germans and Japanese are/were industrial nations with a large, well-educated and basically secular oriented middle class. The Muslim Middle East and Southeast Asia are not that way.

With a national debt of $16 trillion, almost incalculable unfunded government and private debt, a declining industrial base, and the worst educational system of any Western democracy, the United States cannot sustain the international role it has for 70 years. Irrespective of Ron Paul's unrealistic vision, this nation will need several decades to rebuild the sort of power needed to become preeminent once again. We have tried to provide guns and butter. Given the choice, the electorate will likely choose the latter. Realistically, the government will be able to provide neither sooner than later.