Posted on 01/03/2008 9:15:39 AM PST by doug from upland
For those who have doubts that Ron Paul would be an acceptable commander in chief, your doubts would have been absolutely confirmed if you listened to him this morning on WHO 1040 talk radio in Des Moines, Iowa.
He came on Jan Mickelson's show at about 8:50am, Pacific Time. I was the second caller.
After complimenting him on his commitment to the Constitution, I asked a question about foreign policy. If any of you can pull the podcast, you can hear the conversation.
The question went something like this: Dr. Paul, if a shipment of nuclear tipped missiles was heading from North Korea to Iran, knowing the position of Ahmadinejad and the mullahs, would you stop that ship or sink it?
His answer was stunning. He very quickly answwered, "No, why would we do that?" After that question back to me, he commented that there was almost zero chance of that happening. He said that if he knew they planned to use them against us, he would take action. But they know they would be obliterated.
I wanted to challenge him further over Iran's stated goal of destroying Israel, but I was apparently cut off by the host and couldn't do it.
There you go, folks. Dr. Paul is an unthinkable commander in chief.
It's a "strawman" argument. Where else would military troops be than "where attacks are happening"?
Your weak point may be your lack of knowledge on things military. The purpose of military forces is to kill people and break things. A demonstrated capability and willingness to kill people and break things has an added benefit of providing a deterrent effect, but that is not a primary purpose nor an end objective, and cannot replace the primary purpose.
In any military action, it is generally easier to kill people and break things if the military is actually located where said people and things exist.
I hope this little explanation helps you with your "problem".
That would doubtless depend on whether or not he determined we had provoked them by our presence in the Persian Gulf.
They would be at home, in the United States.
The argument being made was that we stuck our troops into the middle of places where it was likely people would attack them, when we had no business putting them there.
Then, when they get attacked, we count it as justification for launching a strike.
Stupid place to keep your military. Their adversaries aren't "back home".
The argument being made was that we stuck our troops into the middle of places where it was likely people would attack them, when we had no business putting them there.
Seems you are wrong on that last point. The military is in the Middle East precisely because that is where their current "business" happens to be. Just as they are in South Korea, Japan, Okinawa, Taiwan, Germany, etc. etc. All are much closer to their "business" than "back home".
Why you cannot grasp such a simple concept is baffling.
As I explained back at the beginning, I am not arguing my own position. The statements I am making are the opinion of Ron Paul, and you may call them stupid if you like.
My point was that this was not a joke, but a serious discussion, and deserved to be addressed on it’s merits and not just laughed off.
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.