Quote:I'm curious about something.  If the United States sees what you've defined as a "regional conflict" as something more than that, should we get involved?  For example, WWII was pretty much a regional conflict up until Japan bombed Pearl Harbor.  They did so because of an embargo the US had placed on them which was squeezing their oil resources to the limit, preventing them from expanding their power any deeper into Asia.  Again, that triggered WWII.  Yet, as Japan bombed us, we entered the conflict in Europe, basically fighting two wars at the same time.  Are you suggesting we should have stayed out of that regional conflict in Europe and ceded it to Germany?  Heck, isn't that what the Brits did when they sent Neville Chamberlain to negotiate a deal with Germany that assured there was no interest in expanding their military involvement beyond Czechoslovakia?  "As long as you don't invade us, and you promise to stay in the regions you say you will, we're okay with that."  That worked out well.

 

The mindset you express in saying you're fine with letting Russia and China step into the void created by our pulling back is pretty much the same viewpoint that allowed the Soviet Union and China to expand their sphere of influence and oppression, and to murder tens of millions of people in the process.  

 

Mao Zedong, a guy that progressives today love to put on t-shirts and idolize, was responsible for tens of millions of lives being lost under his reign.  There are some who have served in the current administration who have expressed admiration for what Mao Zedong represented. 

 

In the Soviet union, between 1917 and the mid 1950's, they also tortured and murdered tens of millions.  The United States knew they'd have a problem with them during WWII, which is why many Nazi scientists who were involved in German missile technology were ushered out of Germany and given safe harbor in the US.  That certainly helped with our missile and space programs, so there was some motivation there, but there was also a lack of trust with our ally during WWII. 

 

The US can't go off and strong arm every potential conflict, but it also can't just stand back and allow the Soviet Union to re-form, or for China to expand their domain. 

 

What is truly scary about allowing either of these powers to expand their footprint into regions like the middle east is that they will no doubt help support regimes who have nothing but ill intent for the US and our interests.  That can't be ignored, and it won't go away if we just pull back and focus on our borders (which we're not really defending anyway).

 

I think it's incredibly naive to think that we should just allow these countries to fill that void. 

 

Whoever this country decides to elect to lead the nation in 2016 needs to have a firm grasp of what the role of this country is on a global scale.  They don't need to be a hawk who wants to send our troops and resources into truly regional conflicts.  But, they do need to have a good sense for which of those conflicts has the potential to become a real issue for this country or our interests/allies in the Middle East and Europe.  If you cede the Middle East to China and Russia, you're basically opening the door to more of the kind of chaos we're seeing now in the Middle East, and it will be allowed to spread.  As it does, allies like Israel and Jordan are directly in the cross hairs,  Giving up and pulling back from this ultimately leads to the spread of oppression into Europe and even Africa.  At what point does the US get involved in your international vision? 

 

Very true and is also an example of how Kim Il Sung and Kim Jong Il treated their people.  What is even more in common is the elder Kim IL Sung was a firm believer and follower of Joseph Stalin.  While Stalin wasn't an "isolationist" like Kim Il Sung, and later Kim Jong Il, much of what he did is what the far left in this country want us to do.  Take from the "rich" and give to the "poor".  "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need".

 

Those words in politics of today have been transformed into "wealth distribution" and "fair share".

 

Regarding "intervention" and how it affects us, what is going to happen if the angry mullahs in Iran actually get their hands on a nuclear weapon?  What would really happen if Iran is allowed to stop/attack/board/confiscate ships traveling through the Straits of Hormuz?  That is very much related not only to us, but the rest of the world.

 

What about Egypt and the Suez canal?  Do we let radicals take control of it?  I personally have been through the Suez Canal on more than one occasion as well as traveled to/from the Persian Gulf region by ship and aircraft several times.  The importance of "policing" the area is vital not only to us, but the rest of the world.

 

The idea of "letting other countries handle their problems" is ludicrous.  What happens in other parts of the world does in fact affect us here at home.

 

To get back on topic, I want a President that will be strong when it comes to foreign policy and be pro-military.  I also want a President that will be tough on immigration, and take measures to actually close our borders.

 

I want a President that will take measures to make business in this country profitable and desirable for large companies.

 

I want a President that will let me keep more of the money that I earn (cut taxes).

 

I want a President that will cut/eliminate useless government agencies and programs (Department of Education is the first one that comes to mind).

 

The bottom line is we need a strong and actual LEADER in office.  We need someone with actual EXPERIENCE being a leader, not a "community organizer".

---