Posted on 06/06/2007 3:51:56 AM PDT by animusliberti
No exageration as to the years, actually more like 70 or 80 years.
Reasonable discourse is welcome.
With public "education" the way it is, it's no wonder at all that most Americans don't know the history of their own country, or the world, or the Constitution, or our form of government.
Where were we?
I don't think enforcing U.N. accords are a vital national interes.
Since we don't agree on what is a vital national interest, I think we just agree to disagree.
I wish you only the best.
Actually, i am right, and a preemptive strike was not needed. Even though the political reasons were as you have stated, i agree with Golda Mier's conclusions.
Where i would disagree is that the Mier government should have raised the armed forces to a hightened state of alert and preparation, including the activation of some reserves.
The delay in getting Israel's relief forces organised and into the fight is what caused the peril to Israel.
Military movements could have been discreetly made that would not have endangered Israel, nor unduly alerted the Egyptian and Syrian forces that the game was up. Certainly Kissinger would have had no objections.
Enjoy your blind allegiance to the Stupid Party.
We must stop the N. Koreans too. And China, Russia, India, Israel, Pakistan--where ever nukes abide. I'm no less comfortable with these guys having the bomb as Iran. However, the first nut-case out of the box gets to eat our response. Just hope that if it happens, we haven't a democrat in as president.
Having a nation, that we had already had to fight, break the grounds of a ceasefire repeatedly is a danger to our vital national interests just as winning in Iraq now is in our national vital interests. Certainly I think rational people can disagree on such a matter but there has to be some common ground somewhere.
Actually what he did, as he usually does, was totally screw up. He completely butchered what “Just War” dogma actually says. Iraq qualifies on all grounds. Once again, Ron Paul is proven completely wrong.
You just shot yourself in the foot.
A look at my prior posts should have shown even a Paulite that I'm neither a party partisan nor a member of a cult of personality.
In fact you should have seen my posting with the following pix from just hours before your allegiance caused you to so blindly make your charge. ( Invasive and Ineffective ):
You’re correct friend.
With out Ron Paul, us Republicans are just handing the White House to the Dems...
Oh, and Ron is the best! God bless him. I pray for GOD to continue to give him strength every day. I encourage everyone here to pray for him as well.
And I also pray for the people that don’t like Ron. GOD says to pray for your enemies.
Thanks,
John Reed
Austin, Texas
You’re correct friend.
With out Ron Paul, us Republicans are just handing the White House to the Dems...
Oh, and Ron is the best! God bless him. I pray for GOD to continue to give him strength every day. I encourage everyone here to pray for him as well.
And I also pray for the people that don’t like Ron. GOD says to pray for your enemies.
Thanks,
John Reed
Austin, Texas
On that particular question, I will admit that Paul could have handled it better, but he was still making the case for a right to life issue, and I respect him for that.
It was a silly picture and more of a commentary on the would-be artist than of those pictured. It reminds me of something that could have received funding from the National Endowment of the Arts during the Clinton administration.
“...Dr. Paul is the only one that can be trusted 100%. IMHO.”
I might consider Tancredo or Hunter. But I don’t have any doubt about Paul’s conservatism. Everyone here maligning him is simply trying to avoid the truth he’s spoken about declaring war being a necessity for the actions we’ve taken. The proof of his warnings’ salience is in watching the left delight in our Iraqi and Afghan misadventures.
Someone who thinks making Congress explicitly declare war before the U.S. military may take action against another country is a bad thing, admits implicitly that they think the Constitution is a bad thing.
Who continues to write this drivel.
How was he defending a right to life with that answer?
If we were at war we’d have mobilized, not gone to the mall. The president would have told Congress a number and gotten it, not negotiated over it. You’re right that if we’re fighting a war we should win it, but what’s stopping us right now from winning is that Bush has never given our soldiers rules of engagement to fight it, and refuses to take off the gloves and fight the sedition that the left promotes here. How do we win a war when the Commander-in-Chief won’t fight?
I agree with pulling out of the middle east and letting them fight each other. Then they’ll all wish the US was their ally against their neighbors. Staying out of both WWI and WWII longer than the rest of Europe was what turned the US into the superpower it became. While everyone else was using up their resources fighting, we sold them goods and made them loans. Europe suffered and the US prospered. Now China’s doing the same thing we did then.
What’s happened to the Republican Party? It used to be the party of minding our own business. They’ve totally bough into the “democratic”, progressive, interventionist foreign policy platform. “The world has changed, we can’t stay uninvolved, we need to spread our values” is exactly the position Wilson eventually sold to the public, and they bought it.
Wilson, Democrat, Advocated globalism and interventionism, takes US into WWI to defend our allies and build peace. Helps create the League of Nations. Opposed by Republicans.
Franklin Roosevelt, Democrat, takes the US into WWII because US is attacked, to fight Nazism, and fight Fascism. Helps create United Nations. Begins US involvement in Middle East and US alliance with Suadi Arabia. Helps rebuild Europe. Opposed by Republicans.
Truman, Democrat, takes US into Korea and the Cold War to defend our allies and to fight Communo-Fascism. Helps create NATO. Helps rebuild Europe. Opposed by Republicans.
Eisenhower, Republican, former General, negotiates end of Korean War. Warns against having a powerful military. As an alternative to a strong military and entering military conflicts with Communo-Fascists, he advocates building weapons for deterrence.
Johnson, Democrat, takes US into Viet Nam because US forces are attacked and to fight Communo-Fascism.
Nixon, Republican, takes US out of Viet Nam, opens dialog with Russia and China. As an alternative to the arms race and entering military conflicts with Communo-Fascists, he advocates economic competition.
Reagan, Republican, increases dialog with Russia. Ends Cold War through economic victory without ever sending troops to any Soviet country.
To quote President Reagan:
“Ron Paul is one of the outstanding leaders fighting for a stronger national defense. As a former Air Force officer, he knows well the needs of our armed forces, and he always puts them first. We need to keep him fighting for our country.”
Were Wilson, Roosevelt, Truman, and Johnson the true conservatives? Were Washington, Eisenhower, Nixon, and Reagan just wrong? Ron Paul voted to go after the terrorists who were involved in 9/11. He voted against granting the president authority to go into Iraq. He wants the troops home, to guard our borders.
George Washington defeated the British (the most powerful empire on Earth at that time) on American soil. The British were still right next door in Canada and sailing off our coasts. Here’s what President Washington said:
“avoid the necessity of those overgrown military establishments which, under any form of government, are inauspicious to liberty, and which are to be regarded as particularly hostile to republican liberty. In this sense it is that your union ought to be considered as a main prop of your liberty, and that the love of the one ought to endear to you the preservation of the other.........The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible........Why quit our own to stand upon foreign ground? Why, by interweaving our destiny with that of any part of Europe, entangle our peace and prosperity in the toils of European ambition, rivalship, interest, humor or caprice? It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world; so far, I mean, as we are now at liberty to do it...”
I don’t disagree with you much. Ron Paul does however. If elected President his goal would be to bring the troops home as quickly as possible. I would hope another person would decide that the best course of action would be to win as quickly as possible.
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.