Posted on 04/08/2010 2:01:58 PM PDT by Christian_Capitalist
The Libertarian Party of Kentucky recently held its nominating convention for 2010 elections and failed to nominate a candidate for Senate. Similarly, the Constitution Party of Kentucky is rumored to be avoiding the Senate race ostensibly because of Rand Paul’s presence in that race. Rand Paul, a Republican candidate for the open U.S. Senate seat in Kentucky is currently ahead in polling by double digits and is largely considered the frontrunner. Rand Paul is the son of Congressman and former Libertarian Party Presidential candidate Ron Paul.
K. Joshua Koch, vice chair of the Kentucky Libertarian Party, was an early supporter of the younger Paul’s run for Senate. George Whitfield, one of the organizers of the Libertarian Party meetups in Kentucky, was also an early supporter and made a donation to Rand Paul’s exploratory committee.
Chuck Baldwin, the Constitution Party’s 2008 Presidential nominee, has had good things to say about Rand Paul too, calling him a “sincere conservative-libertarian”, in contrast to “Big Government neocon” John McCain.
Rand Paul is considered a friend to ballot-access reformers according to Richard Winger, editor of Ballot Access News. He is well-educated on the unjustness of current ballot access laws.
Vote for the man, not his father, if you read his policy positions I think you will be very impressed.
Thanks for the spelling correction.
There’s a reason that Letters of Marque haven’t been used since the 1800s. We have to disagree on foreign policy. Why do you believe it is not sustainable? Why would you want mercenaries?
As the founders (who were vehement in opposition to mercenary forces like the Hessians) understood, Letters of Marque are the complete opposite of the mercenary approach.
I'd pose the question to you instead: Why are for the current reliance on a mercenary army? Unlike the citizen military envisioned by the founders, our current military has become almost a textbook example of the standing army (similar to the current French Foreign legion) they condemned. It is a professional force geared to foreign rapid occupation (much like the foreign legion), much like the old British army which they had fought. It isn't even limited to citizens anymore. Like the old Roman Empire in its declining years, in fact, the current policy is to automatically grant citizenship to illegal aliens who serve. What could be more "mercenary" than that!!
By contrast, I want to return the military to the citizen-army concept of home defense. The founders wisely supported Letters of Marque because of their suspicion of old world standing armies. They regarded an authorization of a Letter of Marque as a purely temporary (not mercenary) solution to occasional foreign threats.
It is sustainable for the obvious reason that we are brok and can't afford it anymore. We spend a trillion dollars per year maintaining our current empire, which now includes bases in well over 100 countries. If we cut that money, we could balance the budget in less than two years without a tax increase. The founders rejected that kind of empire.
Why would you want mercenaries?
As the founders (who were vehement in opposition to mercenary forces like the Hessians) understood, Letters of Marque are the complete opposite of the mercenary approach.
I'd pose the question to you instead: Why are for the current reliance on a mercenary army? Unlike the citizen military envisioned by the founders, our current military has become almost a textbook example of the standing army they condemned. It is a professional force geared to foreign rapid occupation, much like the hated redcoats. It isn't even limited to citizens anymore. Like the old Roman Empire in its declining years, in fact, the current policy is to automatically grant citizenship to illegal aliens who serve. What could be more "mercenary" than that!!
By contrast, I want to return the military to the citizen-army concept of home defense. The founders wisely supported Letters of Marque because of their suspicion of old world standing armies. They regarded an authorization of a Letter of Marque as a purely temporary (not mercenary) solution to occasional foreign threats.
Our current empire is unsustainable for the obvious reason that we are broke and can't afford it anymore. We spend a trillion dollars per year maintaining our current empire, which now includes bases in well over 100 countries. If we cut that money, we could balance the budget in less than two years without a tax increase. The founders rejected that kind of empire.
Ron Paul et al lie-bertarians = tools of the DemoCrap Leftist agenda.
Neither. I disagree with cut and run when he blames America, and not the terrorists for 9/11.
Me too. Can't stand those America blamers. Right now there are bunches of them saying that our President is going to destroy America by unilaterally disarming. Garbage. Just more blaming America. When our foreign policy is to entirely disarm then that is the right foreign policy. Because it is ours, and it can't be wrong. If somebody nukes us, because we have entirely dismantled our defence apparatus, it would not our President's fault. Saying it could be is nothing but blaming America. All good conservatives know that American foreign policy is infallible and cannot ever be wrong, and nothing bad that ever happens can be blamed on any policy that America ever had or will have. We never contribute to it or make any mistakes.
The real mystery, considering this, is just how much these good conservatives who properly hate those who "blame America," people like Giuliani and McCain, like to argue and debate about how important their experience is. What possible difference does experience make? Heck, it doesn't even matter if the person setting policy thinks about it in the first place. Whatever our policy is it will be right, and nothing can be our fault, and so why worry? If our president not only disarmed us, but gave the bombs all to Al Qaeda, and they bombed us into the stone age, it still wouldn't be the fault of the president, because his policy is our policy, and that means it is never to blame.
You aren't one of these people suggesting that America's policies can be wrong and could lead to an attack on us are you? I certainly hope not.
Clearly you have a point in this particular quote of Wolfowitz. Quit being a passive-aggressive sneering dolt like the Pauls. What conclusions are you drawing? What policy prescriptions are you making?
Well, if instead of mere partisan counter-battery fire, you actually want to discuss a broad outline of ideas... well, great.
Here's what I think:
Now, you might say "But that'll just leave the place a mess, and another dictator would probably arise soon enough." Well, yes; but with the arguable exception of Turkey (and even then, only in the last century), Islamic countries tend to lapse into crazy dictatorships from time to time, regardless. Democratic elections bring radical Islamist parties to power, and even dictators who are "our S.O.B." one decade, become "the next Hitler" in the following decade. I just don't think that you can achieve any kind of stable peace, and kind of permanent accomodation with these people -- and IF that's truly the case, then long-term occupations just increase the cost of dealing with them.
So: Short, sharp punitive retaliations to attacks, send in the legions to smash the offending government, leave their capitol a waste, etc. -- and then leave.
"There is one target with such enormous strategic importance that for it be taken out is so unthinkable that literally everything hinges on it – not just today but permanently. This target is ground zero of a balance of power strategy that has been operational for 1400 years. It is a granite cubicle called the Kaaba. Inside it is a black stone, which Muslims believe was found by Abraham and Ishmael. For hundreds of millions of Muslims, this is the holiest of relics. If these two religious objects inside Mecca were ever obliterated, the survival of Islam might be called into question." -- Dr. Gary North (former chief aide to Ron Paul)
That's my general view of the overall situation. It's not 100% in agreement with Dr. Paul's approach, but I can agree with him on several broad ideas -- most notably the general sentiment of preferring to have as little to do with the Muslim world as possible.
Acerbic Wit award for the thread, so far.
I have a short attention span, boil it down for me Shakespeare.
Oh, good grief. I get called a "troll" because I'm allegedly not interested in substantive discussion -- and then when I actually try to discuss policy in specifics, it's too long??
(Sigh). Alright, fine. Let's try this from the top, the abridged version. I'll try to even put the key points in bold.
Clearly you have a point in this particular quote of Wolfowitz. Quit being a passive-aggressive sneering dolt like the Pauls. What conclusions are you drawing? What policy prescriptions are you making?
So: Short, sharp punitive retaliations to attacks, send in the legions to smash the offending government, leave their capitol a waste, etc. -- and then leave.
That's my general view of the overall situation. It's not 100% in agreement with Dr. Paul's approach, but I can agree with him on several broad ideas -- most notably the general sentiment of preferring to have as little to do with the Muslim world as possible.
Again. Too long. Keep it simple. You ain’t running for office (or are you...) so you don’t need a policy paper.
Now I’m not saying you’re incredibly stupid, but...
Your item #1 doesn’t address the complaint you made in quoting Wolfowitz. The fact is that even having people with American passports on “Muslim soil” is sufficient motivation for Al Qaeda recruiting.
And they certainly won’t notice the difference between “punitive expeditions” and other operations.
But believe me, I’m not saying you’re stupid.
Okay. Well, consider this -- I'm not saying you're stupid; but if you'll notice, no-one who's actually studied Al-Queda recruiting (from Paul Wolfowitz to Michael Scheuer to Ron Paul) besides you actually claims that American tourism is anything of a major contributor to Al-Queda recruiting. It may annoy the extreme Imams; but it doesn't motivate the dumb, young punks to leave their camel farm and strap on a vest full of dynamite.
For that matter, it's not even the short, sharp punitive expeditions that substantially aid in Al-Queda recruiting; Reagan's Bombing of Libya was not cited by Bin Laden as a major reason that he ordered the 9/11 attacks, nor has it been cited by many (or any?) of the terrorists we've captured as a motivation for their enlistment in the Islamist-terrorist cause.
It is, as virtually everyone who has actually studied Al-Queda recruiting (from Paul Wolfowitz to Michael Scheuer to Ron Paul) will tell you, the long-term occupations -- with foreign troops in-country, military regimentation of the local populace, collateral damage killing civilians, and the other unintended-but-real harms of long-term occupation -- that serves Al-Queda as the substantial propaganda aid to their recruiting.
Implying that a takeover in Iraq would eliminate the need for U.S. forces in Saudi Arabia, and thus reduce the appeal of terrorist groups for new members, Wolfowitz said: ‘I can’t imagine anyone here wanting to spend another $ 30 billion to be there for another 12 years to continue helping recruit terrorists.’
-- Washington Post, March 2, 2003
As the analysts who have actually studied the issue will tell you, it's the long-term occupations that serve as "Osama bin Laden’s principal recruiting device" -- as you will surely realize if you are not incredibly stupid.
Not that I’m saying that you’re incredibly stupid, or anything. I'm certainly not saying that, mind you.
Amazing. You should be embarrassed to make such a statement and present it as truth. How stupid do you think we are?
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.