If you disagree with Paul that we shouldn't be sending foreign aid boondoggles to countries who'll use it against us one day, or stop meddling in the affairs of other nations, then you're not a conservative in the traditional sense.
Hey, nothing wrong if you like early 19th century foreign policy... ‘cept this is the 21st century. I don’t consider nation-building to be a dirty phrase.
Your ‘traditional sense’ comment is somewhat valid. I would ask if you thought the shrinking of the planet might make some of the traditional tenets somewhat untenable at this jucture though.
When you’ve got people from Middle-Eastern nations traveling to Europe and the U.S. peddling the terrorist dogma, aren’t we somewhat compelled to respond?
We were attacked by terrorists. Just because they weren’t a viable government’s leadership, isn’t it just as necessary for us to respond? Should we have waited until more attacks before responding?
It seems to me after the Cole, the embassy bombings, the barrak bombins, at some point we had to stand up and say, “Enough is enough!” Do you disagree with that?
In light of 09/11, you don’t think going after the terrorists where ever they were was a conservative action?
I ask this, because I do. And I happen to think that Saddam Hussein was a figurehead for terrorists, even if he wasn’t “THE” figurehead.
He paid out $25, to the families of suicide bombers in Israel. He violated the restrictions placed upon him by the international community. He made public statements calling for the destruction of the U.S.
I’m not sure how many cheeks some people think the U.S. should have turned before taking serious action.
What are your thoughts on this?