I can't disagree, but he's a pre-9/11 man. He wants us to "define the enemy", and yet the current enemy succeeds (when it does) by being undefined, by lurking in the shadows and striking out at innocents. The enemy is defined by a fundamentalist interpretation of Islamic ideology and (to be redundant) a hatred of all things foreign to that ideology, but that's not definite enough for the Ron Pauls of the world to stand up against.
Now we just need to find a way to eradicate this scourge on our modern world. Ron Paul thinks privateers and mercenaries are the key to go after non-State actors. While I feel this tool should not be ignored, it shouldn't be the only one we use. Taking out those States who knowingly harbor terror groups should also be a goal. The heck with civilian populations who allow these animals to herd them unchecked.
These groups are attacking us. This cannot go without a swift, violent, and decisive response.
Bush's "Democracy building" exercise has never worked any time it was tried before. Smash them. Destroy them. Then rebuild on the rubble. This ongoing "police action" is lunacy...
The enemy is the states that sponsor the terrorists.
The terrorists are just a weapon, like a tank or a plane, call them proxy troops if you like.
We are down to Iran, Syria and and to a lesser extent Pakistan
Yes we needed to Declare War on 9-12 and taken on all those countries publically and decisivly.
I am a veteran, I have a son going to Qatar in November, and I stand with Ron Paul.
We need better human intelligence as well as more dead jihadists. We can't fight the whole world and can't make a free country 100% impermeable to possible threats (though truth be told, we could just enforce our border laws and make a heck of a dent). We need a scalpel, not a sledge hammer, approach.
If GWB weren't such a multi-nationalist, we would have tightened the borders and leaned a lot harder on Congress to let us drill at home, in the oceans, and in the Arctic by now. It stinks having to be bedfellows with countries that hate our guts (China and of course the ME included). We are a nation blessed with wealth.
No ME ally we've ever had has been our ally once the last dollar or weapon left our hands; this war won't be different. They all tend to hate us once we're gone and resent our "globalism." This leaves two solutions: one - never leave, and two leave become more independent. I favor 2, but as I've said elsewhere, we can't "gut and run" on Iraq (gut their infrratructure and then leave). We need them to stand on their feet and be quick about it, but we can't leave their largely innocent population to the wolves we unleashed.
This is all pre-coffee, so apologies if it veered into a mish-mash. There's more thought a brewing but I decided to just stop...
but he's a pre-9/11 man. He wants us to "define the enemy", and yet the current enemy succeeds (when it does) by being undefined, by lurking in the shadows and striking out at innocents. The enemy is defined by a fundamentalist interpretation of Islamic ideology and (to be redundant) a hatred of all things foreign to that ideology, but that's not definite enough for the Ron Pauls of the world to stand up againstThis is the best -- the absolute best -- description of Ron Paul's Terrorism Problem that I have read yet here on FR. You deserve high-praise and wide recognition for so succinctly summing up the deep inner weakness that makes Ron Paul absolutely unacceptable -- in fact, unthinkable -- as a CIC in time of war, particularly this war. Thank you.