Most conservatives would be hard-pressed to find much that they disagree with Ron Paul on when the topic of discussion is fiscal policy.  Low taxes, free markets, low regulation, and adherence to the Constitution -- how does a right-thinking individual find fault with any of those sound ideas?

Where Ron Paul loses me, and many other conservatives, from what I've been reading, is when he starts discussing his foreign policy views.  To be more specific, it is his views on Iran going nuclear that cause me the most concern.

I'm by no means a foreign policy expert, but I don't think it takes one to have serious concerns about Ron Paul's answers during recent debates.  Seeing no major problem with  Iran, the #1 state sponsor of terrorism according to the State Department, having  nuclear weapons, and finding moral equivalence with the U.S. and other nations having these weapons because Iran happens to be "surrounded," seems naïve at best and suicidal at worst.

Russian roulette is a lethal game of chance where, if it's played long enough, one side will pay the ultimate price.  Fortunately, most people and nations aren't crazy enough to play this game.  But the situation with Iran extends well beyond the traditional "game" of Russian roulette.  This is where moral equivalence comes into play.  The United States already has a fully loaded weapon pointed in the direction of Iran, yet due to the moral constraints of our nation, Tehran is still fully intact.  Does Ron Paul really think that Washington, D.C. or Israel wouldn't be a smoking pile of ruins today if Iran had the same capabilities as the U.S.?  Terrorists and terrorist states don't seem to worry quite as much about a little thing called "mutually assured destruction" as other nations do.

Due to Iran's worldview, attempting to get its hands on a nuclear weapon seems more like the equivalent of a known child-killer (who is more than willing to die) pointing an empty revolver at a child's head while vowing to pull the trigger as soon as he's able to gain hold of the missing bullets.  This child need not concern himself with what he did to provoke this treatment, as just being a child is enough in this case.  If there is any interest at all in protecting this child, there's absolutely no way the aggressor can be allowed to come into possession of those bullets.

So which child (or city) would Ron Paul be willing to sacrifice first if elected president?  Ron Paul roulette would be a dangerous game, indeed.

Scott blogs at www.politiseeds.com.