CorruptUser wrote:Saying the US is out of Iraq because mercenaries are used instead of soldiers is like a mafia boss saying that the hitman hired to kill you wasn't part of his family so you should stop complaining...
In the end I guess it depends on to what extent you consider an oversized embassy to still be a military presence. The actual terms of our relationship with Iraq have changed (see KE's ninja post above mine that I just saw when I hit preview), and it still represents a significant down-sizing in total force size, so I do consider it a proper withdrawal.
CorruptUser wrote:And can anyone explain the difference between hitmen and mercenaries? Mercenaries are just hitmen with heavier equipment, right?
are meant to intimidate or assassinate, generally being associated with illegal activities, mercenaries
are hired to act as soldiers, supplementing your already existing forces. If you don't see any difference between a soldier and a hitman, then, sure "just hitmen with heavier equipment". Similar in that they both take money to perform actions that relate to violence, they're not quite the same.
Cathy wrote:There are some parts of Paul's stances that I definitely want, like ending the War on Drugs and less World's Policeman... but he has too many other views that fly in the face of my personal stances for me to seriously consider switching my vote to him.
In the lesser of two evil categories, Paul's not top of my list.
This is basically how I feel, though I'm pretty sure I've said so already.
I was thinking earlier, actually, and one of the side effects that'd be nice about a lot of those positions- being able to cut military of police funding and redirect it to more worthwhile causes, such as science or healthcare- would not occur with Paul, as he'd just be cutting the funding. Which would still be an improvement, mind you.
KnightExemplar wrote:On the other hand, the Ronpaul's attitudes often sound like dangerous isolationism to me. At least based on the debates that I've seen, he goes as far as to say we shouldn't even be sending in Spy Drones into Iran to keep tabs on their nuclear program.
Eh, I'd be against outright isolationism, but I do feel we've gone way, way, way, too far in the opposite direction. A lot of our oversized military funding is to the benefit of the rest of our western allies, such as the NATO members. The basic goals we'd have throughout the world that our military power gives us would still be accomplished, just it'd be with a mix of US, British, Canadian, etc. military power. Obviously, we also get to have even more of our goals projected with our military the way it is, but the important, basic goals would still be accomplished one way or the other, as they matter to the rest of the west too.