both parties played their role and I hope we hold them both accountable. Have you seen any of Kerry's talks on Syria, Libya, etc.?

I also don't feel theres been more justification for our actions in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, or Egypt than Iraq. So changing parties didn't help... at all.

The US under Obama managed to avoid getting involved in a civil war in Syria, despite much rhetoric form the Republicans telling people how weak that supposedly made Obama look. If you prefer to stay out of such conflicts, would you really consider voting for the party that was enthusiastically calling for intervention?

> despite much rhetoric form the Republicans telling people how weak that supposedly made Obama look

As I said, look at Kerry's talks. He's very much a part of the Democrat establishment and completely contradicts what you're saying.

Now, look at Rand's position on these same countries. The false dichotomy you're presenting is exactly that - false.

Doesn't say much for the opposition party... why were the Democrats so easily duped?

The American people were duped. And it wasn't easy; they had to create a lot of lies, some coming straight from the CIA (being pressured to create a case for war). They put on quite a show at the UN. And when the people get behind something, politicians have to take notice; after all, they can't wield any influence on the process if they don't get voted in. The mood in the country at the time was vengeful, hawkish.

And really it's a separate issue. The point is, who would you rather vote for? Would you really prefer voting for the really successful liars?

I would rather vote for neither party. Liars vs. people too stupid to protect us from the liars, while simultaneously wagging their fingers in our faces, claiming to be smart, and pretending they weren't duped by the liars.

Not an inspiring choice.