Posted on 04/18/2015 12:31:47 PM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum
NASHUA, N.H. — Rand Paul lashed out Saturday at military hawks in the Republican Party in a clash over foreign policy dividing the packed GOP presidential field.
Paul, a first-term senator from Kentucky who favors a smaller U.S. footprint in the world, said that some of his Republican colleagues would do more harm in international affairs than would leading Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
smaller U. S. footprint =
Larger Chinese footprint
Larger Russian footprint
Larger Iranian footprint...
Rand, sit down and shut the F up!
I’m sure the rhetoric from the White house will reach the level of my high school’s sophomore locker room.
They are ideologues who sieg heil along right in lockstep.
I prefer Cruz’s midway position between those of Rand and Rubio. Rand is for less engagement/entanglement. Rubio has pretty much adopted the McCain/Grahamnesty approach.
Cruz wants to supply Ukraine with weapons.
“To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations;”
I want Paul to please explain to the rest of us the “Law of Nations”
Probably so...
Obama has given us the living proof of that hasn’t he.
Even with an Islamic Traitor in the White House, the Democrats from top to bottom stand in support of him.
If someone tells me they’re a Democrat today, I completely write them off.
I do note folks love to claim they’re Conservative, even if they buy into the bilge the Left sells. They know...
There’s just no excuse any longer.
I’m all for the U.S. military taking on Mexico to stop the Invasion and takeover of our country.
Not sure why all these guys spend their time sending armies 13,000 miles around the world to fight other people’s wars when the real war is right here in the Southwest, where an enemy nation on our border is steadily and successfully occupying our territory and taking over power in our government.
Wonder when one of these guys is gonna talk about that.
In ENGLISH, Sr. Arbusto.
A real news organization would have used “debate” instead of “bicker.”
Things are going to become very interesting.
Somewhat of a broad brush there. Let's analyze things a little more deeply...
Instead, Cruz argued for immediately passing a new free trade treaty with Ukraine and “looking at existing treaties between the United States and Russia, and considering abrogating those treaties.”
“More important than aid is expanding economic trade — expanding mutually beneficial commerce, helping open the door for energy to flow to Ukraine in the private market,” Cruz said, speaking exclusively to POLITICO after addressing AIPAC’s Texas delegation Tuesday afternoon.
He said Russia should be kicked out of the G-8, but that the United States shouldn’t wait on its allies for further action. That includes, Cruz said, re-initiating plans to move forward with the missile defense system in Europe, which Obama scaled back while in earlier discussions with Russia.
The crisis in Ukraine, he said, proves that his vision of Republican foreign policy is the right one, for both the GOP and the country — and is “very much the same as Ronald Reagan’s,” invoking the former president, as he often does.
He rejected the idea of choosing between the interventionism and isolationism that have become the two poles within the Republican Party — two sharply different visions which are represented in his mind, respectively, by Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.).
“My foreign policy views are different from both of them, and I would suggest [those views] represent a third point on the triangle,” Cruz said. “I agree with John McCain that we should be a voice for freedom, but I agree with Rand Paul that we should be exceedingly reluctant to employ U.S. military force. That being said, we have a military for a reason—it is to protect our national security.”
“If we are to employ military force, it should be guided by the central touchstone of U.S. national security interests,” Cruz said. “And if we are called to use military force, we should have a clear, defined objective, we should go in with overwhelming force, and then we should get the heck out. I don’t think it’s the job of the military to engage in nation building, to endeavor to build democratic utopias across the face of the earth. “
In Eastern Europe, Cruz believes the choice is clear.
“There is an important U.S. interest in standing with Ukraine. Ukraine wants to stand free and with the West, and Europe, with America, and it is in our interest to speak out in defense of freedom,” he said. “And speaking out matters, by the way.”
Cruz criticized President Barack Obama for what he said was five years of showing weakness toward Putin and abandoning international allies, arguing that the president should have had stronger policies and stronger support for the people who’ve fought against repressive government in Ukraine, Venezuela and beyond.
“Ukraine began as a power play when the government was poised to move into the West, into Europe, and Putin pulled them back,” Cruz said. “Our support should have been unequivocal at the time — and at this point, when Russian tanks massed on the borders of the Crimean peninsula and then began to move in, the response of the United States was muddled and equivocal, which gave Putin no reason to fear meaningful consequences.”
bicker? oh please... no bias there...
Just summarize it for us, I’m not interested in reading articles to write your post for you and try to guess at your thoughts.
Yes they are.
It means giving up US sovereignty over to the U.N.
So far, I'm still pulling for Cruz. Then, I like Walker.
So far both have touched my issue nerves on the most issues near and dear to me. Cruz hasn't disappointed on a single one yet.
Both of these guys have proven they can push back. Both will make the nation understand it's OK to push back. So far. Cruz has done it with more style i.e. he's been more Reaganesque.
When either one catches that contagious Reagan American optimism, either one can run away from the field like Secretariat at the Belmont Stakes.
On foreign policy even Graham is easy on the ears. His problem is his domestic agenda leaves thinking people throwing up with such intensity, we can't hang around to hear the foreign policy part of his speech.
The only good part about Bush is his honesty. He groin kicks me, looks me in the eye and says, "There, I groin kicked you. I'm going to do it again and again. You're only job is to like it."
That's hard to warm up to. At least his nit with brother waited until he was out of office to do that. Does that make Jeb the bigger nit wit? I don't think he can raise enough money to overcome that.
Three hundred paratroopers are Ukraine now.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.