Ron Paul Debate.

So, evidently, one of the candidates running to go against Obama, Ron Paul, was booed out of the building at the debate on January 16, 2012. The reason for this was because he expressed his opinion of the U.S. opening up another military base that would cost the country $2 billion more dollars on top of our initial debt. He believes we shouldn't waste the money on it (which I totally agree with) and should cut military spending. Some people are now bashing him saying he wants to lessen our defenses, what those people don't understand is, that IS NOT reducing our defense, it is just getting us out of places we don't belong. Our country has quite honestly become exactly like the system we were fighting against during the Revolution against England. How would you feel if China or Iran placed military bases in our country? We would revolt just as we did in when England was doing it to us. Let's face it, our country is turning into what we were looking to get away from. It's no wonder so many countries want to attack ours when we can't keep to our own business. Ron Paul's opinion is the same opinion our forefathers had. Do we really want more war? More debt? More young soldiers killed? In my opinion, we should be trying to pull away and let the countries figure out their own problems, just as Ron Paul believes we should. We would still have a great defense in our country, we just wouldn't be wasting well-needed money on sending more of our people to go out and be killed. Other candidates can talk a good game, but is what they have to offer what's really best for our country? Is Ron Paul's opinion really so wrong, was the war we fought in 1775 only so we could become the powerful ones? Ron Paul is offering protection along with removing us from places we don't belong, which may help us in the long run. Should Ron Paul have been booed off for wanting to promote peace along with protection? I think not.