[xzins]

libertarian...constitutional...parties

Both of which have isolationist-type priciples. Both are way too non-interventionist for me.

I FIRMLY believe that Offense in war is the best Defense. And international relations is really just war at a different level.

[Calvinist_Dark_Lord]

Both of which have isolationist-type priciples. Both are way too non-interventionist for me.

Care to specify which particular principles (the ones that Ron Paul actually supports) you object to?

I FIRMLY believe that Offense in war is the best Defense. And international relations is really just war at a different level.

No less an "isolationist and Libertarian shrill" </sarcasm> than Tom Clancy has described international relations as "F#&@!^g other nations" in his novels.

Occupation duty and 'nation building' doesn't even vaguely resemble "Offense". The lesson of Vietnam is that one can not fight a prolonged insurgency war on the insurgent's 'turf'. That's especially true now with the US Military as a shadow of the military of the Vietnam era, or the Reagan buildup in the 80's. We simply can't fight an insurgency war of attrition.

Those 'assets' are going to be needed elsewhere.

[monkfan]

I FIRMLY believe that Offense in war is the best Defense. And international relations is really just war at a different level.

Soooo... peace, to you, is really just "war at a different level"?

Is that right? Chaplain?