Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: mnehring

I understand the need to promote stability and be strong. Paul’s concern is in regard to our attempts at setting up cultural, political, religious ambitions in regions where our ideals are not accepted.

While we are dedicated to univeral propositions that addend to civility, we should not be so naive as to expect worldwide-wide acceptation. Where those ideals are not accepted, Ron Paul would prefer dialogue over war. It appears kooky in terms of the status quo, but . . . thinking locally . . . if the drug dealer next door is willing to barter for my services, I would not think it wise to threaten him with “accept Jesus first or go to jail.” At the same time, if that drug dealer would make any attempt to take my life or property he’d be dead before he could say “NaNCY pELOSI.”

I just don’t see Ron Paul as many major threat to American interests. I trust the people of this country and God Who made all things enough that hurling insults at Paul or his detractors is not at all beneficial.


50 posted on 12/30/2011 4:01:44 PM PST by Fester Chugabrew (let establishment heads explode)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies ]


To: Fester Chugabrew
Paul’s concern is in regard to our attempts at setting up cultural, political, religious ambitions in regions where our ideals are not accepted.

You have a very sanitized view of Paul as evidenced by the fact, you aren't even addressing his views in the source article. He uses this as his front statement to the masses, but as we both know, he goes well beyond this to positioning the US and her allies as a force for evil in the world while being apologetic to our enemies. Worse, he gives our overt enemies too much power- for example, encouraging the belief that Al Qaeda attacked us simply because 'we were there', both false in application as well as it gives AQ credence in countries where they have no authority to speak. For example, Osama did mention we have US bases in Saudi Arabia (actually just one but that is semantics). Paul giving lip service to AQ's reasoning first both rejects the history of the Islamist movements but it also gives AQ a false authority as to saying who can or can't be in the region. Our base in Saudi Arabia was there at the invitation of the Saudi government and AQ had no authority in it whatsoever.

To be frank, I see little difference between stuff like this and Paul's going to Iran's state TV and denouncing us, and Hanoi Jane.

51 posted on 12/30/2011 4:15:51 PM PST by mnehring
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson