I'd be wary of trusting Rand Paul as a so-coined-by-media, 'Libertarian'.His father has distanced himself from him, he used underhanded threat-tactics when questioned by an independent reporter for RT recently(Abby Martin), he's a bought and sold team-player being groomed for yet another puppet-regime primary.
He's seems a solid prick.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=osg0RYAP2cs

Yeah well, after this, all tests will go unspoken, as they always have with regard to elections in the US...
I find the synchronicity interesting with his middle name, but that's as far as it goes-has nothing to do with my opinion of the puppet regime's choice #2 for Dem candidate-both are bought and paid for lackeys, and dangerous for the country.
I pray daily for an Electro-Pragmatic pulse to hit muslims and the christians scientologists and Mormons, and especially atheists, that will wake them allllll the fuck up to their collective lack of consciousness, and attachment to this planet-Oh, and I hope that one day the UN building will be used as low-income housing for the working poor....former members of the CFR...I wanna see Queen Beatrix picking up garbage on the highway, and the Rockefeller's entire family serving meals down to the soup kitchen....a Scientology soup kitchen!!

By the way, if you think that a man's church affiliation has nothing to do with his ethics, sensibilities, or world view....you're an idiot.

"a new military leader will have to step in"
Golly you don't think such a military puppet regime might possibly be in absolute lock step conformity with the Cheney/Wolfowitz strategic goals for the region do you? Nah.

@MINK, the reason the United States has no problem with Pakistan having nukes is that it does not share in any of the motivations or history of Iran, which, as I outlined above, keep the US from even considering their development of a domestic power program...

Namely, Pakistan, has never really posed a threat to Israel, either by denying its existence, or by funding Palestinian terrorist organizations in Lebanon... so therefore, the NeoCons and the Israel lobby are pretty much unconcerned with their activities. Also, as we've already been over in regards to Iran, the history of our relationship with Pakistan has been much less volatile and on the whole, we have been much less involved with Pakistan: never had a puppet regime in place there, nor had it overthrown, nor have the Pakistanis ever taken any of our diplomatic staff hostage or called us "The Great Satan"... and really, Pakistan is almost entirely removed from Middle Eastern ideological/historical conflict by virtue of its location, national identity and history... in fact, I believe the CIA has it grouped within its South Asian bureau. Also, unlike Iran, whenever we have asked something of Pakistan, be it the old regime, or the new one, they have almost always complied... they funneled money and arms to the mujahidin for us in our proxy war against the Soviets in Afghanistan, and later, in 2001, when we needed their airspace and access to bases on the ground to support operations in Afghanistan, Musharraf rolled over and complied, becoming a surprise ally in the Bush Administration's 'War on Terror'... clearly, Pakistan is a much more cooperative state than Iran.

Also, everyone knows that if the Pakistanis are going to nuke anyone, its going to be India, but, even though India is also our ally, they are no where near as dependent upon our support for mere existence as is Israel. Also, its pretty apparent that even though both India and Pakistan are now nuclear, its highly unlikely that they are going to start a war with one another because a) India is so much bigger and wealthier, and in a conventional war Pakistan would pretty much be screwed... and b) the minute a Pakistani nuke was launched (which, they have yet to prove they can actually do- they have detonated them, but as for firing one at something, that is left to be proven), India would launch five right back, and arguably, Pakistan would be less likely to recover from such an incident as it lacks the economical fortitude, population, infrastructure and resources of India. In the meantime, international pressures from most of the industrialized first world nations (ie, America and the EU) on which India depends for much of its commerce, keep it in check from attacking Pakistan on a whim. So, it would appear that, in this case, the possession of nuclear weapons has successfully kept these two rivals at sort of a standoff, and the region on the whole has been more peaceful.

There is, however, considerable apprehension right now in the States about the current situation in Pakistan, as no one likes to hear the words 'nuclear' and 'unstable government' in the same sentence. I do think though, that seeing as how all major parties involved in the power struggle in Pakistan: Musharraf, Bhutto, and Sharif, are in close contact and by all appearances, past and present, friendly to US and EU concerns for overall stability in the region, whomever it is that gains control will likely continue to the toe the line in regards to nuclear discretion.

That, in short, is why no one cares that Pakistan has nukes and there is such a furor over Iran possible getting them.

MarineG,

I think the trouble is with the concept of fighting 'terrists'. There isn't "al-Q" coming from all over to Iraq to fight there. Does that even make sense? So Iraq is like a pest trap where Japanese Beetle fall in the water?

Look, the vast, vast majority of people there with guns are insurgents, aka pissed off people who have lived there their whole lives. I guarantee if some country occupied your hometown you would also become an insurgent. Now we have sectarian war and ethnic cleansing going on.

The US has no business staying there. It would be one thing if anyone in the puppet regime even wants us there, but they don't. It would be another thing if the US was doing a good job with even basics like water, electricity, infrastructure, but they haven't. We have left people stuck with almost NO electricity. Wasted billions on rebuilding projects, lost billions of money that just vanished. Guns are being given and sold to who know what, all over the place. If we wanted peace there, we would be ARMING BOTH SIDES.

The goal is to keep it as unstable as possible to keep access to the oil. It is the biggest screw up and illegal war in modern history. Staying there makes less sense especially when people admit what a bad idea it was in the first place.

So you came home drunk from the bar and wake up next to a 350lb, one legged, inbred 45yr old cougar. So you keep dating her because you were duped, and you already invaded her. You already setup shop, and it's going to upset her if you leave...

How come the only person who says sensible things is characterized as crazy.
Flat tax isn't crazy, not nuking countries isn't crazy, withholding funding for the Iraq war isn't crazy.

Anyone who says it hurts the troops is insane. Trust me, the military has more money than God. They can afford the withdrawl, heck they can afford to keep fighting, they just have to less fund the millions of other active weapons development programs.

Right now half of the forces in Iraq are private contractors. The military funding is SOOOO minor compared to the $100k per provate contractor coming out of your tax dollars to fund DynCorp, Blackwater, Halliburton, etc. This is the first large scale privatizing of our military.

The only reason US military is still there is that Iraq would kick out private contracted forces in a second... So the military has to stay until all the permanent bases are established and a puppet regime is set up.