• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

So who's everyone think is most likely not going to lead us to war? I think Ron Paul!

Re: So who's everyone think is most likely not going to lead us to war? I think Ron P

Specifically, all of them. Certainly Israel would immediately lose credibility without the implied threat of our military support. Taiwan would be far more vulnerable than they are. Japan would be forced to pay for their own defense, thus reducing the efficacy of our relationship with them. Iran would certainly feel much less constrained in its effort to obtain nuclear weapons, and to exert its influence in Iraq and Lebanon. NATO countries, like Japan, would be forced to spend much more on their own defense, and thus we would lose considerable leverage there. North Korea could be expected to increase its aggression and resume development of nuclear weapons. Then there are unpredictable hot spots like Libya, Kuwait, or Serbia that would go undefended. Pick a place.


You seem to be confusing humanitarian interests with economic ones.

And if our relationship with Japan turns bad because we don’t give them free things, we didn’t have much a relationship in the first place.

I know I am not going to convince you to stop being so scared of things, but that is really the problem. The world isn’t the issue, it’s your cowardice.
 
Back
Top Bottom