BUMP!
Posted on 12/19/2007 11:36:37 AM PST by SJackson
MANCHESTER, N.H. (AP) - Campaigning in New Hampshire today, Republican Ron Paul says he would lift sanctions on Iran and order the U.S. Navy to pull back from its shores.
Paul says if the U.S. relieved pressure on Iran, people would breathe a sign of relief, interest rates probably would not go up and oil prices probably would drop.
Speaking in Manchester, Paul said the Bush administration has been looking for war with Iran.
The Whiskey Rebellion took place on our own soil. Please provide more details or links regarding other conflicts so I might assess their impact on National Security at the time. Meanwhile, your assessment of Ron Paul sounds little more well-informed that those other folks who froth at the mouth over Bush.
I'm not your research assistant, you should be able to google "Barbary wars" without any help.
But I'll give you a hint, the line "to the shores of Tripoli" in the Marine Corps Hymn comes from this.
Meanwhile, your assessment of Ron Paul sounds little more well-informed that those other folks who froth at the mouth over Bush.
What is there to assess? MoRon Paul's own quotes pretty much spell out what kind of nutjob he is. I think that most of the Paulistinians would realize the same thing if they put their bongs down long enough to clear their brains.
"Without defining the enemy there is no way to know our precise goal nor to know when the war is over."
Not exactly the words of a fellow would would sit there and let cancer grow until it chooses to go away. The cancer needs to be identified and eradicated. Ron Paul seems to advocate a smarter way of dealing with our enemies. He most certainly does not advocate giving into them.
What do you think Washington and Jefferson meant when they warned us to avoid entanglements in the affairs of other countries? Do you think we should be giving billions of our dollars to Egypt? Why?
The balance of your frothing is not worthy of reply. No substance.
When Congress makes a decision I reckon we’re all bound to follow it to some degree, while at the same time we may individually oppose the action in principle.
Our military presence in the region is primarily to facilitate, or protect, our ability to purchase oil. No? I mean, that is the specific national interest you believe is threatened on the part of Iraq as it used to be, and Iran as it is now. Right?
They keep getting better and better.
Of course it is, it is a reality of life.
I’ve know lots of psychos in my time; they would be offended by your comparison.
Why stop with Iran? Why don't we just take over the whole fricken world? Why not Mexico? How about Canada? The French suck don't they?
The world and the U.S. were drastically different at that time. The only major countries the U.S. was likely to become "entangled" with were Britain and France, who were involved in warfare almost continuously for decades at a time, particulary in the time period of Washington, Adams, & Jefferson. There were factions in this country who advocating siding with Britain or France. That's the context in which those founders made their statements. Had they meant an absolute, enduring ban on "entanglements," they could have specified it in the Constitution. Taking Washington out of context is like the liberals' endlessly citing Jefferson out of context as allegedly advocating a "wall of separation between church & state."
In fact we did entangle with them. We had a mutual defence treaty with France obligating to support them militarily against the Brits, withdrew from that, negotiated a treaty with the Brits, ended up in a war with France in the late 1790s, and, of course, later the War of 1812. Not to mention attacking the Spanish out West and in Florida. All the while warring against the Barbary Pirates. We were a heck of a warlike country in our youth, entangled all over the place.
You misconstrue and misrepresent Paul. He voted for authorization of military action against terrorists. He is smart enough to know that nations do not attack other people unless their way of life is threatened, and in this case pluralistic, representative government threatens the way of life for people who prefer to be enslaved by tyrants. He is not ignorant of threats against our country, but speaks strongly in regard to securing our borders while carrying out trade with the rest of the world.
Your hyperbole doesn’t hold water.
Jonestown Koolaid?
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.