Posted on 08/28/2014 7:53:52 PM PDT by Plummz
Paul expanded on his remarks and offered a detailed rendering of his views on foreign policy that, regardless of their merits, are undoubtedly innovative for a man likely to seek the GOP's presidential nomination in 2016. … :
While Muammar Gaddafi, or Syrian dictator Bashar Al-Assad, or Iraq’s Saddam Hussein—deposed during the George W. Bush administration—were certainly bad actors, Paul wants to know: who takes their place?
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
he certainly is bringing insight to the debate. The insight that toppling Middle East dictators empowers Middle East Islamic fanatics. Happened in Iraq and Libya - and it’s happening in Syria as Obama and John McCain aid the jihadists who are fighting Assad.
I don’t agree with Rand Paul on a number of things, but he talks more common sense on foreign policy than McCain Hillary Obama.
No, he is just parroting the libertarian weakness that Reagan disliked so much.
I the one hand, Paul is filled with the Libertarian aversion to project power but on the other hand, this administration and various actors within it leave such a wasteland of results from bad policy that anyone can give a valid critique.
LOL, spoken like a true paulite.
Paultardation takes its toll, doo-dah, doo-dah...
Krauthammer On Obama’s Foreign Policy: ‘The Strategy Is To Do Absolutely Nothing’
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3198284/posts
when somebody can’t say anything more than LOL, you know you’ve won the argument.
Rand Slams Congress for Funding Egypt's Generals: 'How Does Your Conscience Feel Now?'Sen. Rand Paul is hammering his fellow senators for keeping billions in financial aid flowing to Egypt's military -- even as Cairo's security forces massacre anti-government activists. [by "anti-government activists" is meant church-burning Christian-murdering jihadists][Posted on 08/15/2013 5:44:10 PM PDT by Hoodat]
Rand Paul On Shutdown: "Even Though It Appeared I Was Participating In It, It Was A Dumb Idea"I said throughout the whole battle that shutting down the government was a dumb idea. Even though it did appear as if I was participating in it, I said it was a dumb idea. And the reason I voted for it, though, is that it's a conundrum. Here's the conundrum. We have a $17 trillion debt and people at home tell me you can't give the president a blank check. We just can't keep raising the debt ceiling without conditions. So unconditionally raising the debt ceiling, nobody at home wants me to vote for that and I can't vote for that. But the conundrum is if I don't we do approach these deadlines. So there is an impasse. In 2011, though, we had this impasse and the president did negotiate. We got the sequester. If we were to extend the sequester from discretionary spending to all the entitlements we would actually fix our problem within a few years.[Posted on 11/19/2013 12:16:51 PM by Third Person]
sorry, but Reagan would be a weakling by your standards. he didn’t invade any countries, unlike bumbling George Bush. Difference is, Reagan gained victories without invasions - he beat the Soviets and ended the Cold War.
Bush’s invasions just led to new wars.
Laughing at a child like post asking if a conservative is a Hillary supporter because he recognizes that Rand Paul is a liberal idiot, is the natural response.
Well said.
You are building up quite a collection of silly posts, but don’t tell me how I see Reagan.
I served under Reagan, and in fact went back into the military after a decade out, BECAUSE of Reagan and his foreign policy aggressiveness, that looked like it was finally the “push them until they fight or retreat”, that many of us had been praying for.
Reagan didn’t invade any countries (except for a weekend in Granada). reagan even pulled our Marines out of Lebanon instead of going to war, after the barracks bombing.
In contrast Bush invaded two countries, and both wars were disasters.
Those are facts, friend. You can call me silly for telling the truth, but facts are facts.
if you “served under Reagan” that means you didn’t see combat, because Reagan didn’t get us into any wars.
Reagan was fighting all over the world, and invaded and conquered one country, where you call our dead and maimed wounded on a “weekend” outing, while the rest of us were on pins and needles, especially in Europe where we were being very aggressive, and the tension was high, we were losing about 2400 men a year in those quiet times, more than we were losing in our efforts to penetrate into the Arab world.
You really are just a punk, you have no credibility on military issues or Reagan.
Fact: Gadhaffi kept Jihadists under control in Libaya.
Yes. Self Preservation.
Rand Paul is right on this. These bad dictators were/are bad people but did not send suicide bombers to United States.
Libya used communist terrorists. Much better. I opposed all of these wars, but Rand doesn't get the threat. Saying we messed things up and should leave ignores the actual threats.
OK, Rand, Then why did we support the jihadis and the Muslim Brotherhood. You know the answer. Why not admit it to the American people. Or are you afraid that if you go too far, you might have a sudden heart attck, plane crash or suicide?
Do you disagree that Gaddafhi and Saddam were better at fighting Islamists than their replacements?
No, and your limited view shows the same kind of thinking of Obama and Jimmy Carter, leave the Soviet Union, or Saddam Hussein alone, and life will be fine.
It is your and Obama’s weakness that is destroying the gains we made by taking Iraq.
Rand Paul is as silly as you guys.
It’s cool that you agree with Rand Paul in the points he’s making on foreign policy in this article. That certainly was not evident in your bizarre off-topic rants posted upthread.
"Islam is a religion of peace." -- George W. Bush
I damn near vomit even just typing that sh!t.
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.