Originally Posted by SDW2001
I'm wary of getting into this again, but I mean pretty much never using the military except in cases of obvious self-defense (after a direct attack, for example). I mean removing troops from all foreign countries. Neither of these is realistic, IMO.
We have no legal or moral authority to invade and occupy sovereign nations, especially when they have not attacked us.
That's not necessarily true. Congress has the power to "declare war," but the President is the Commander-in-Chief. There is nothing in the Constitution that prevents the President from using the military without a declaration of war. Additionally, there are many reasons that declaring war formally today is not always appropriate or desirable, from asymmetrical threats like terrorism to laws on the treatment of POW's.
The president was never meant to have the power to tie our troops up in perpetual, endless war.
I'm sorry, I think that's incredibly naive and frankly, dangerous. It sounds wonderful to proclaim that we "won't tell anyone else what to do." But the world doesn't work like that. Iran possessing a nuclear weapon is a very serious problem...not just for us, but for the region. Their are very extreme elements within its government, from the Mullahs to President Ahmadinejad. They are exceptionally anti-Israel and anti-US.
Israel has 300 nukes. I think it can take care of itself.
From Iran's standpoint, they're the ones being pushed around by nuclear nations like Israel, the U.S., China, Russia, Pakistan.
Them attaining a nuclear weapon could very easily push the entire region into war.
What's going on over there now? A friendly game of tag?
Perhaps Iran getting nukes - in combination with the U.S. getting out of their face and minding our own business - would actually serve to calm things down a bit. You know, the whole "peace through strength" thing.