Email Message
This form does not yet contain any fields.
    « Free speech rights were not violated | Main | Obama said limited government and economic freedom don't work »
    Tuesday
    Oct232012

    Pro-strength and anti-war

    Mitt Romney has effectively presented himself as an anti-war candidate while being strong on defense. This is what America should project as we move further into the 21st century. War has to be the last resort, and only in cases of national-defense. Romney doesn't have time, and Americans aren't focused on it, but going forward America has to develope a new doctrinal approach to intervention in cases of a dictator gone mad who's murdering his/her people who don't have an effective defense. This philisophical problem is simple on one hand -- surely a strong and capable nation like America should help defenseless people from mass murder -- but on the other hand America has to remove itself from the role of Global Police. The UN is useless, so a different solution must be found. Romney would do good to begin thinking about this.

    The world certainly needs a country to begin leading the way to peace and prosperity -- this is such a cliched term, but it's totally pertinent to global needs. The world is in financial trouble, and the principles of economic freedom are needed now more than ever. To open up the global economyto innovation and creativity has mind-blowing potential. If we, the world, could stop the wars, the killing and destruction, the religious extremism, the war on business, the waste of socialism, the tendency for the few to dominate the many, and allow free people to produce and create to best of their abilities -- it would be astounding. Yes, we need strength and a superior defense at home, but the world is in dire need of widespread, peaceful production and trade -- America can lead the way. Political means have led the world astray -- economic means will save us all. It's a lot easier to be peaceful and spiritual when bellies are full and shelter is secure. This utopian outlook is laughed at by realists, but shouldn't we start in that direction?

    PrintView Printer Friendly Version

    EmailEmail Article to Friend