Basically, they want us to leave them alone right and not have any bases over there.  I don't even really see the point of bases on land anyways when we have the aircraft carrier fleet that we have.  Putting one or two carrier fleets in the region is enough power to stop most countries in their tracks.

The question is will they stop their Anti-American hate if we actually did pull out of those countries or would they just continue to chant death to America.  My guess is that they would continue the chant but I don't see any point in land bases over there myself. 

How would most Americans like Saudi Arabia or any other Muslim nation to have a base inside the USA?  Probably wouldn't like it too much. 

The bases are only a part of it so just removing tropps and bases won't be enough to completely remove their frustrations.

The 2 other major factors are our killing of innocent civillians with no consequences and our interference with their national politics.
We kill their children with no legal repercusions and overthrow their governemnt sto install dictoars favorable to us (which fail).

Who wouldn't be pissed to no end?  The way to get them to stop the hate is to change policy. 


The saddest thing is, we do not have an enemy we did not help create.  untilw e realize that at the federal level, we're doomed to create new enemies no matter what we do to the ones we already have.

The bases are only a part of it so just removing tropps and bases won't be enough to completely remove their frustrations.

The 2 other major factors are our killing of innocent civillians with no consequences and our interference with their national politics.
We kill their children with no legal repercusions and overthrow their governemnt sto install dictoars favorable to us (which fail).

Who wouldn't be pissed to no end?  The way to get them to stop the hate is to change policy. 


The saddest thing is, we do not have an enemy we did not help create.  untilw e realize that at the federal level, we're doomed to create new enemies no matter what we do to the ones we already have.

I don't think Paul is all that talented, honestly. He's more genuine and has a better understanding of - and more respect for - the Constitution than the average politician (which is not really saying much), but he doesn't really do all that great a job articulating why he believes what he believes. I like him and agree with him on most things, so the fact that he succeeds in making himself look like such a fucking oddball all the time makes me sad. (Although even at his absolute nuttiest, he's still the sanest man in Washington by a damn sight.)

I kind of think no Republican with an actual shot at becoming president wanted to go up against Obama because they know the media has his back and the whole thing boils down to a sort of beauty contest anyway thanks to an increasingly unsophisticated electorate, rendering Obama essentially unbeatable even in a shitty economy. Since it's just kind of Romney's "turn" after he's spent most of the past decade running for president, he's the one who gets to play Bob Dole to Obama's Clinton, and the serious contenders will try their hand in 2016, assuming the country makes it that far.

Isn't that the same as Democrats vs Bush Jr? We didn't see any decent candidates until Bush was out either.

Yeah. In fact, Mitt Romney is startlingly similar to John Kerry, and if Kerry couldn't unseat an unpopular Bush (though Bush only became epically unpopular during his second term), I don't see how Romney stands a chance against a similarly unpopular Obama who will have the media working overtime for him.

I suspect the bigger problem is that the Repub candidates have to appease the nutty core of their party, I.E. the ones who bother to vote in primaries when in reality they need to appeal to independents/moderates who aren't affilliated. Elections aren't won by appealing to your base, essentially X % of people will vote Republican anyway, the swing voters win elections. By the time they do actually manage to have a candidate, that person will be dripping with all the dirt and promises made to people who don't matter to the cause anyway and Obama can run a relatively clean campaign in comparison and pick apart all the various promises and indiscretions bought up.

I can't really comment on the media situation as I don't watch the news!

I don't really think so. Assuming it's Romney who wins, he's as bland and inoffensive as a politician can get. Even when he panders, he does it in a remarkably bloodless way. That lifeless, John Kerry like image is what's going to do him in because the most telegenic guy wins, period. That and the fact that it's incredibly hard to beat an incumbent. For all voters' bitching about how much they hate Washington insiders and all their giving Congress a 9% approval rating, 90% of incumbents cruise to reelection. Except for 2010 when it was a veritable bloodbath for incumbents and only 85% won.