Spend a Lot of Time On Free Republic
Eating Like a Bird? (Twice Your Weight Each Day)
Give Back a Little and Donate
Sponsoring FReepers will contribute $10
Each time a new monthly donor signs up
Posted on 01/02/2012 8:38:41 AM PST by mnehring
I tend to me more of an idea guy then a personality guy, so just calling someone a lunatic without pointing out why you think he is a lunatic does little to impress me. Is Paul very wrong on Islam and Iran, yes. I am hoping he changes he views there in light of the beatings he is getting in the media on those issues. Much like Newt walked back is amnesty for illegals. On another thread I said that if Paul sticks with his position that it is OK for Iran to have nukes I will abandon my support of him, in spite of the fact that I agree with him much more then I disagree. Iran can not be allowed nukes, period.
If any Republican votes for obama “as punishment” then 1 they do not deserve to be in the party, and 2 deserve every bit of the misery that a second obama term will bring them.
Paul is an old man set in his ways. He hasn’t changed in any significant way in at least the last 20 years. To wishfully think that he will on such a critical issue as Islam is very unrealistic. If he didn’t get it after 9-11 he never will.
By that statement you might as well say that Dwight Eisenhower was nuts and to the left of Obama, it would make as much sense, based from what you wrote about Ron Paul the only former service member amongst all these chicken hawk’s with their chest puffed out acting like they are the greatest generation!
Uhhh, why would any religion like Islam take over America because Paul get’s elected? What you said makes no sense at all, if that were the case it already would be that under Obama.
You’re correct, I just hate to give up on the only small government candidate in the race. The only one that doesn’t just play lip service to the Constitution but actually thinks it really is the supreme law of the land. That buys Paul a lot of good will from me. Plus the country to far to broke to continue to be engaged in nation building wars anymore so most of Pauls’ non interventionist foreign policy will be adopted by necessity. But the Iran nuke thing is just to much to swallow, how can Paul be so stupid. I just don’t understand that.
Yeah the War on Drugs has really worked out great hasn’t it.
Do you know his Libertarian Philosophy?
He would have no problem with the Islamofascist setting up shop here.
After all they blow us up because we don’t show them any “respect”.
To the Left of Obama on foreign policy? More like to the right, the rest of the republican field is to the left.
Probably the same way they fought undeclared wars against France (the quasi war) and later the Barbary Pirates. Built a defence, in their case create a Navy, reestablish the USMC, and take the fight to the enemy. In Frances case off their coast and the Carribean, the pirates in the Mediterranean. Both wars fought by the founders, undeclared, and fought over trade far from America. Taking the fight to the enemy is an old American tradition, not always followed. And sometimes we make mistakes, which are unrelated to the Constitution or the founders as paulestinians would have us believe.
Do we not currently have defensive forces, stationed inside the boundaries of the country to take care of that? Do you think Ron Paul has a problem with the military as present within our own borders? If and when our enemies should ever undertake to put boots on the ground over here . . . well . . let's hope to God our guns have not been confiscated by then, because by then we should have had the blessing of federal powers to assemble and train militias for just such a thing.
Only with THOUSANDS of OFFENSIVE strategic ballistic missiles. There still is NO OTHER DEFENSE. The ABM sites in Alaska can't handle but a few missiles from such as North Korea.
So again, that's a THREAT to other nations. Not a latent militia defense force from the 18th century that is no threat to anyone. Mutually Assured destruction is the policy of the USA right now, and that has worked so far, even though it tends to encourage enemies to "strike first" if they are worried about our stability.
Do you think Ron Paul has a problem with the military as present within our own borders?
He certainly has a problem with the pentagon's budget, mission and scope. Maybe he likes the soldiers though.
If and when our enemies should ever undertake to put boots on the ground over here . . . well . . let's hope to God our guns have not been confiscated by then, because by then we should have had the blessing of federal powers to assemble and train militias for just such a thing.
Actually, spot on that I should mention Killeen. Enemy boots on the ground (just two boots) INSIDE Fort Hood...where ALL these Paul-Approved defensive soldiers who would protect us are stationed...and they are not allowed to carry guns. 13 dead, 29 injured.
Hey! Let's do math!
If there were 21,000 Major Hassan's that our enemies wanted to put boots on our defensive Army bases, well you can calculate 882,000 casualties....decimating the entire active and reserve Army corps.
There's a lot more we can do than to fold our military up as Paul seems to want.
Kinda wondering myself how the founding fathers envisioned dealing with countries that could move nuclear subs off our shores and bomb us everywhere. Put missiles in Cuba and wipe out the east coast.
How the figured that the middle east could control our national interest with their oil reserves, and how another country like china or russia could put more money or manpower on the ground, control those reserves and actually bring us to a standstill over night.
Oh wait a minute .. THEY DIDN’T!
There still is NO OTHER DEFENSE.
Well then, we'd best get crackin'. Wait. We've spent all our cash building Iraq and Afghanistan for people who don't even think like us.
The ABM sites in Alaska can't handle but a few missiles from such as North Korea. So again, that's a THREAT to other nations.
A threat to other nations how? Sounds to me like an opportunity for them to attack.
Defenses against potential enemies do not necessarily have to be set up in 700 places around the globe. Our forefathers were not blind to threats from foreign entities. While they may not have envisioned modern warfare, they certainly did not envision build a worldwide empire as if the whole world was waiting with open arms for Western ideals.
There. I rearranged for better clarity! The thousands of offensive missiles are a threat. Mutually Assured Destruction is a threat.
And some argue that a completely effective missile defense shield is also in effect a threat because it makes the enemy vulnerable to a first strike without being able to retaliate. It shifts the balance of MAD.
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.