“That hurts him but his heart is still against the political establishment and their schemes to increase our national debt and fight limited wars under international rules and authority.”
I think if Paul could make that argument more effectively, it would do him a lot of good: that he’s not against all wars but against poorly executed, limited ones that don’t have the full national backing needed for a massive engagement and a decisive victory. I think that’s his point. And he’s right.
"Winning the war...." march in, kill the bad guys, march out.
Oh wait.
Dither for a while about who the bad guys are, march in, kill the bad guys, march out.
Oh wait.
Evaluate collateral damage. Decide who the bad guys are. March in. Gather and evacuate the collateral damage. Kill the bad guys. March out.
Oh wait.
Have an argument about "concentration camps." Have an argument about right and wrong. Have an argument about force versus diplomacy. Have an argument about freedom of religion. Have an argument about America's place in the world.
Oh wait.
Forget it. Whine that no one likes us. Eat more cake.