Posted on 10/14/2007 8:00:02 AM PDT by theothercheek
Have you ever noticed that presidential candidates Ron Paul (R-TX) and Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) sound like conjoined twins when it comes to the Iraq War (second item) and U.S. foreign policy? Here’s how Paul answered Chris Matthews’ question on whether we went to war in Iraq over in the most recent Republican debate:
It's neocolonialism that you have to maintain your supply routes and your natural resources.
But I think there's still a lot of those kind of people around, and they believe - you know, we were told it was about oil and jobs when it first started in 1990, and this is just a continuation of that war. Indeed, this war is a mistake; it was a mistake to go in. It's very costly, and it has a lot of economic ramifications. We're going broke. We have this huge deficit. We're spending nearly a trillion dollars with maintaining our empire overseas, and that's a cost. Right now we owe foreigners $2.7 trillion. No wonder they have money to come back in here and buy stuff up, and then we object; but that has to do with our monetary system, as well as our foreign policy.
His libertarian supporters insist that every breath Paul takes and every move he makes is within the scope and intent of the U.S. Constitution. For instance, Paul believes the Iraq war is illegitimate, because Congress did not authorize military intervention with a formal declaration of war – a point he again brought up in the debate.
An editorial in the New Hampshire Union Leader accused him of "unrealistic and dangerous isolationism," because he "seems to think that the only national security threat America faces is from a direct military assault on our soil." In his response to that editorial, Paul’s explanation that "a non-interventionist foreign policy is not an isolationist foreign policy" clearly demonstrates just how unrealistic and dangerous his ideological purity is. The Stiletto gives this round to the Union Leader.
Note: The Stiletto writes about politics and other stuff at The Stiletto Blog.
Where have all the paulistinas gone?
My favorite board game :) I have taught my children many a lesson playing it.
Offense, defense, patience, and most importantly long term strategy
Maybe the pin heads in the State Dept should be required to play it once a month to keep their heads half way screwed on right
Both your statements here are factually incorrect.
Both your statements here are factually incorrect.
Hemp Festival?
did ronpaul marry a hot wife with a toung stud too?
Defense wins football games. But this isn’t football. :-D
Other than the US, there is no country in the western hemisphere that could pose a significant military threat to any of its neighbors. Well, maybe Brazil.
There is no country in the world, outside of Russia, that poses a significant threat to the US. Even Russia is not a threat to invade the US. Let the Eastern hemisphere keep on fighting their wars, but we don’t need to be part of them.
Just because Ron Paul is an idiot, doesn’t mean Bush isn’t one too. We have an Islamic republic in Afghanistan, too, not just Iraq. And he’s taking the side of the Turks - even though their usefulness to us ended when the Berlin Wall came down, and have complicated our effort in Iraq - against Christian Armenians. Every chance he gets, Bush sides with illegals against Americans, and with Moslems against Christian. I’m done with him.
Actually playing Risk, the person that controlled Australia was the major player in the game as it could only be attacked from one country. In order to make things fairer, we changed the rules so that Australia could be attacked from some African nation.
But if you want to put it on the Risk level, the person that controlled Australia was a favorite to win the game. Rarely would anyone control any other place except maybe S. America.
In the Risk game sense, we should withdraw from the rest of the world and make our internal defenses the best they can be. Who is going to attack us when we have massive armies and navies ready to go out and wipe them out?
Actually playing Risk, the person that controlled Australia was the major player in the game as it could only be attacked from one country. In order to make things fairer, we changed the rules so that Australia could be attacked from some African nation.
But if you want to put it on the Risk level, the person that controlled Australia was a favorite to win the game. Rarely would anyone control any other place except maybe S. America.
In the Risk game sense, we should withdraw from the rest of the world and make our internal defenses the best they can be. Who is going to attack us when we have massive armies and navies ready to go out and wipe them out?
Well then this discussion is going circular, because in making my analogy, I was pointing out that's the WORTS thing you can do. It's what that nut Ron Paul wants. 'nough said.
Paul’s wife already has her tongue pierced, too?
Hold on a second, you are basing your views of America's role in world politics on a board game? And Ron Paul is a wacko?
I don’t think interventionism (invading countries so they can become democratic) and isolationism are our only choices. George Bush’s invasion of Iraq was ill-conceived “interventionism”. Reagan’s negotiate-but-verify and intelligence priorities along with covert operations to help people within their own countries gain freedom - these are the things we should be doing.
‘There is no country in the world, outside of Russia, that poses a significant threat to the US.’
All information regarding nuclear weapon proliferation to the contrary, huh?
Sheesh.
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.