Svensker... Hillary wants to keep the nuclear option "on the table" with Iran -- that's not scary and extreme?

That's foreign policy and statecraft. Realpolitik and pragmatism, not utopian idealism.

-- L.W.M.

Personally, I see Paul's non-interventionist policy as pragmatic. Why CAN'T Americans visit Cuba and trade with Iran? Why DO we need bases all over the world? Wouldn't the US be much less likely to be involved in silly wars and "incursions" if we weren't bothering other people? And wouldn't we save a sh*tload of $$ if we did these things? Money that could be well spent on something useful.

Why is it "nutty" (or as you put, "utopian idealism") to consider becoming a non-interventionist country, but it is not "nutty" to threaten countries that have not harmed us, or to be spending billions upon billions of "national defense"? Personally, I think the latter is "nutty".

Close the bases, allow trade with all. Calling the threatening of other countries with military power "statecraft" is Orwellian, if ya ask me. Which you prolly dint.

Ron Paul is an isolationiist who thinks the world will be a Happy Place if the Great Satan of the Evil U.S. Government stands down. Not much different than OBL. To be sure, we have to keep the fringe lunatics of every persuasion away from the nuclear trigger.

Why CAN'T Americans visit Cuba and trade with Iran?

We have done both. Not under the current regime. Under Clinton.

LWM, your first argument is simply a smear, not an argument. Beneath you.

Paul -- or other isolationists -- have never stated that they did not want to engage other countries. They just don't think it's appropriate for our government to intervene in other countries. That's a debate that needs to be had -- are we an empire, or are we a country whose government should pretty much keep itself to itself and whose citizens are free to travel and trade around the world? Some people -- you apparently -- believe there is a middle ground between these two positions. Fine, make your argument for it, rather than saying Ron Paul sounds like OBL.

As for Clinton, yes, I agree, we were much more free under Clinton than under Bush. However, Clinton came up with the Eschalon plan, and had Ms. Albright who felt the hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqi children was "worth it" if it kept Saddam's head down. He also invaded Serbia, which I believe to have been as much a moral travesty as the Iraq invasion -- altho thankfully much shorter lived and less expensive.

Clinton had plenty of faults -- the fact that they are not as egregious as GWB's faults doesn't make him a superhero. For all the Clinton lovers out there, I also think it is interesting the Bill has not come out against the worst excesses of the Bush regime -- whereas Jimmy Carter and Al Gore both have. I don't believe Bill and Mrs. Bill really think that what GWB did was so bad, they're simply not impressed by how he did it.

For those who said that Ron Paul didn't really oppose the Iraq War, except to vote no on the AUMF -- Paul was very active and outspoken in the run-up to the war, also opposing the Patriot Act and Homeland Security.

http://antiwar.com/paul/archives.php?offset=120

There are plenty of things to argue against on Ron Paul's positions, but to claim that he didn't take them, or only "faked it for the cameras" is silly.

Astounding. If a soldier disagrees with the Bush Administration, he a) does not exist; or b) is a traitor; or c) is a jihadist. I don't get out enough (and I'm planning on staying IN from now on!).

What hindsight?

How about foresight:

http://antiwar.com/paul/?articleid=5669

You're welcome to search all of the antiwar.com archives for lots more pre-invasion foresight.

Oh, I forgot, anyone who had "foresight" about the war was just making a "lucky guess". Yeah. Well.

And whether or not all of the American people or none of them support the war at this point -- it was still dumb, unncecessary, illegal and immoral, no matter the outcome.

Fortunately, it seems that some Americans have had the scales fall from their eyes. You seem to keep obsessively gluing yours back on every time they slip just a bit.

Hillary

Had to vote in favor of giving Bush war authority at that time. The possible downside of opposing was too great.

-- The Notorious W.E.S

If Dems HAVE to vote for illegal wars, HAVE to vote for torture, HAVE to support breaking laws, in order to get elected and to rule -- why should I want to elect them? What do they have to offer that the Rethugs don't? (Hey, I'm a Dem! Yay torture! Yay law breaking! And, hey, I'll tax Big Oil!!!! Yippee!!!)