Posted on 04/07/2013 8:15:53 AM PDT by JohnPDuncan
Rand running to the left of Obama on National Security.
Yeah that will work in the Republican Party - lol.
He will take the place of his nutball father on the podium, next election season Debate.
The Liberaltarian argument is completely straw-man fallacy regarding “Republicans to eager to go to war”.
The US became the world's strongest nation by being the last power to enter wars- not by weakening itself by endless wars.
Very true, bttt.
“Boy, this guy is fading fast.”
He sure is. Lindsey Graham will just kill him in the next presidential primary. \s
Rand Paul believes that American actions in the world are the reason that people hate us.
He is as ignorant in foreign policy as Obama is in economics.
His ‘bold’ plan won’t get my vote.
“Yeah that will work in the Republican Party”
We’ll see. Kristol and Krauthammer have not made a single accurate prediction in the last 20 years but maybe they got this one right.
Maybe the country is just waiting for someone to advocate for war against Syria and the democratization of the middle east, to sweep this person into the presidency. We’ll see.
But maybe we can do Orwell one better: we can be at war with both the Eurasians and the East Asians!
I'm so glad that we Americans have become comfortable with our crony capitalist, quasi-fascist economy. It is the perfect complement to our neoconservative foreign policy.
YES and NO.
In Pakistan, the drones should have taken out a lot of Pakistani supporters of the Taliban.
And the ground troops should be pulled out which Obama will largely do (he’s announced his intention) in the next two years.
He’ll leave a tripwire force just like we have in South Korea right now most likely.
Afghanistan will end up just another no-win war stalemate in the post-World War II tradition of Republicans and Democrats.
“Kristol and Krauthammer have not made a single accurate prediction in the last 20 years”
Who cares, they do not represent GOP foreign policy.
“Maybe the country is just waiting for someone to advocate for war against Syria and the democratization of the middle east, to sweep this person into the presidency. We’ll see.”
This is the immature straw man argument that makes Liberaltarians the silly season of the “between the elections” season.
One day we’ll have too many stalemates, too many tripwires and some aggresive nation is going to call our bluff. Somebody as got to break this hopeless endless pattern of growing obligations and that is the appeal of what Paul is talking about.
“Who cares, they do not represent GOP foreign policy.”
I only brought it up because you repeated Kristol’s silly statement that Rand is running to the left of Obama on National Security.
Wilsonian interventionism has never been a conservative principle. Bushes I and II brought this idea to the republican party and all we got out of it was Obama and the Arab spring. This experiment is over. Republicans will never win the presidency again with this platform.
“you repeated Kristol’s silly statement that Rand is running to the left of Obama on National Security.”
Silly must equal true in your world. And many people look at the facts and see that Rand Paul is to the left of Obama on National Security.
“Wilsonian interventionism has never been a conservative principle. Bushes I and II brought this idea to the republican party and all we got out of it was Obama and the Arab spring. This experiment is over. Republicans will never win the presidency again with this platform.”
Neither has Lew Rockwell’s opinions lol, he of the “Wilsonian interventionism” mantra.
Bush I - kicked the Iraqis out of Kuwait.
Bush II - General War on Terrorism
Afghanistan: AQ housed and based, trained via Taliban
Iraq - Credible reports of WMD
(Please inform us if you agree or disagree with these actions and your rationale).
Granted that the policy transformed incorrectly in Iraq, from WMD security interests to the “nation building”, but the initial action was warranted by the intelligence given.
I appreciate knowing that and I’m glad.
Nonetheless I’m rather unhappy with republicans and democrats telling me what jesus would not do.
Apparently a wide array of reasonable things such as dignifying unborn life and respecting marriage are incomprehensible to both parties.
Jesus is inherently political because by rising from the dead he removed the principal argument by which partisans rule.
That’s unacceptable to the partisan.
Jesus affirmed a roman soldier as having the greatest faith in all of Israel. That rather hawkish behavior is a big part of why jesus got killed.
Military bashing has gotten far too fashionable on the right and left.
I support the Iraq war. I’m not changing my mind for ‘warmonger’ straw man arguments laid out by Paul and others.
Genocidal dictators deserve far less peace than the vast peace industrial complex gives them.
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.