John Bolton: President Reagan would be rolling over in his grave to hear Rand Paul praise him

The Right Scoop ^ | Apr 17, 2014 at 10:58 AM

[ansel12]

With the public getting to see what effect Obama’s weak, libertarian like foreign policy is having on Russia and Chinese aggression, the public probably won’t be eager to have a libertarian foreign policy follow Obama’s libertarian policy.

[rbmillerjr]

“John Bolton is a big-government globalist”

Actually, no he is not. He is a realist who understands that nations like China, Russia, and Iran are countries that have foreign policies that state openly and precisely, that they are security threats to the United States.

[Nifster]

Well there you go...the Alex Jones wing of the libertarian party has officially weighed in

[Paul R.]

Saudi Arabia is #4 in the world in defense spending. They might drop back to #5 next year due to an exchange rates technicality, but, still, compare Saudi's figure of $59.6 billion last year, to Russia at 68.2 billion.

http://uk.reuters.com/article/2014/02/05/arms-world-survey-idUKL5N0LA32520140205

Israel only spent about $18.2 billion in 2013, but they get a lot of bang for their buck.

Iran spent $17.7 billion on defense last year. Most of their arms are obsolete. They could still give a land invader lots of trouble, but in this case, the invader need not occupy any one location for long. Once Iran's limited gasoline sources (reserves, refineries and input terminals) are destroyed, serious defense would grind to a halt.

Saudi has modern weapons, and though much less populous than Iran, including hired guns, Saudi Arabia has a population of nearly 30 million to draw from. Jordan, Kuwait, Bahrain, and the U.A.E. might assist. Saudi is also growing closer to Pakistan:

http://www.voanews.com/content/saudi-pakistan-military-ties-getting-stronger/1855116.html

A possible scenario might even be for Saudi to strike and attempt to encourage Iran to lash out (hit) Israel, giving Israel excuse to join in.

Also of note is Saudi's rejection of a seat on the UN Security Council, in late 2013, in displeasure with the West, the UN, and the US in particular, over Syria. This and the defense spending sounds much like Israel's "do what we need to do" philosophy.

A determined Saudi-Israeli effort could do the job, though with significant casualties...

[miliantnutcase]

Were all fighting for the same end goal. The faction crap needs to stop... Bottom line we want federal government reigned in to it’s constitutional boundaries, we want our debt paid down, we want our borders protected, we want to keep our guns, we want our freedoms. The end.

[Nifster]

What you just listed isn’t what Rand Paul wants....he doesn’t care about the borders and has said so.

[miliantnutcase]

Don’t know what he wants for sure. He’s a politician trying to cater to big money donors right now. It’s just not a reason to lump him in with all libertarians.

[Nifster]

He is a self professed libertarian who choose to run as a R to get elected

[miliantnutcase]

That’s what he needs to do. I supported that decision, I’ve been turning more libertarian with age but I still wouldn’t vote for a 3rd party yet.

[Nifster]

goody for you. I am a conservative and chose to vote for conservatives

[miliantnutcase]

I’ve held my nose and voted for GWB twice, McCain and Romney. None of them were conservative. :-[

[katiedidit1]

N. Korea had nukes since the 80’s. You sound like a dem blaming Bush for N. Korea’s nukes

[Hugin]

N. Korea had nukes since the 80’s.

You are much mistaken. NK exploded it's first nuke on October 7, 2006. Up until they exploded it, the best US intelligence estimates were that NK was 3-5 years away from getting a bomb.

As for Bush, following 9/11 he spelled out in no uncertain terms that the worlds most dangerous regimes would not be allowed to get the worlds most powerful weapons. He specifically mentioned Iran, Iraq and North Korea, calling them the "Axis of Evil". He followed through with Iraq, but get so bogged down in nation building there that it was soon clear to everyone there was no political will in the US to preemptively go to war again. So he basically played out the clock on Iran, for which I do blame Bush. As far as NK was concerned, any attack was off the table one they tested their first nuke. My point is not to bash Bush who is a good man making tough choices, but to warn against drawing lines in the sand that you later back down from.

[Hugin]

Typo correction, NK tested their first nuke on Oct. 9 2006.

[katiedidit1]

North Korea did not decide to reactivate its nuclear weapons development program as a reaction to George W. Bush’s labelling it a member of the Axis of Evil. North Korea was actively working on nuclear weapons during the hey day of the Clinton and Kim Dae Jung attempts to engage North Korea on friendly terms.

A recent study by the Congressional Research Service noted that “North Korea’s secret uranium enrichment program appears to date from 1995 when North Korean and Pakistan reportedly agreed to trade North Korean Nodong missile technology for Pakistan uranium enrichment technology.”

“The Clinton Administration reportedly learned of it in 1998 or 1999, and a Department of Energy report of 1999 cited evidence of the program,” the study added.

Also, at the National Defense University, a 1999 study group chaired by Richard L. Armitage, now deputy secretary of state, and including Paul D. Wolfowitz, now deputy defense secretary, concluded that the 1994 agreement had frozen “only a portion of [North Korea’s] nuclear program” and that Pyongyang was “seeking to develop a covert nuclear weapons program.”