Like I said, I have some reservations about Paul on foreign policy. I would like for him to call Islam what it truly is. Where I agree with him is that we shouldn't be meddling in the affairs of those Middle Eastern countries. Look, that region has been in turmoil since the dawn of time. You're talking centuries-old conflicts and ideas here. After the surge is complete and Iraq is stabilized, we should leave. We should secure our own borders and end immigration from Muslim countries here. Let them stew in their own juices.
If Paul was President, I wouldn't doubt for a second that he would declare war and fight like he meant it. He wouldn't be consulting with the UN or trying to appease "the international community." He'd declare war to Congress and fight it. So FReepers calling Paul a "cut-and-runner" or "being in bed with the terrorists" are really disingenious, considering that Paul has been a staunch supporter of the military up until Iraq.
I do agree to an extent about the coulda woulda shoulda aspects of this. It still baffles me how we could have allowed students from the Middle-East to take flight training focusing only on flight and no landings, but no alarm bells go off. And who in their right mind come to the conclusion that basing our nearest interceptors about thirty minutes from Washington, D.C. or a major city like New York was anything but an example of derelection of duty at the top?
I don't think you're going to get a big disagreement form people based on that comment.
Like I said, I have some reservations about Paul on foreign policy. I would like for him to call Islam what it truly is. Where I agree with him is that we shouldn't be meddling in the affairs of those Middle Eastern countries. Look, that region has been in turmoil since the dawn of time. You're talking centuries-old conflicts and ideas here. After the surge is complete and Iraq is stabilized, we should leave. We should secure our own borders and end immigration from Muslim countries here. Let them stew in their own juices.
I agree on the first two points. I was fairly sure you didn't approve of all his foreign policies. Where I disagree, is the idea that we are simply meddling in the affairs of those Middle-Eastern nations. I don't think we're trying to get them to be just like us. I think of this as us sending in the feds to rid the region of their "Billy the Kids", "Ma and Pa Barker" or Fey Dunaway and Warren Beatty. Once the region is quited down, I don't expect us to remain. And I do expect it to quiet enough were we can, if we play tough.
As for letting them stew in their own juices, I don't mind. I'm just not willing to let them boil over on Europe or America.
If Paul was President, I wouldn't doubt for a second that he would declare war and fight like he meant it. He wouldn't be consulting with the UN or trying to appease "the international community." He'd declare war to Congress and fight it. So FReepers calling Paul a "cut-and-runner" or "being in bed with the terrorists" are really disingenious, considering that Paul has been a staunch supporter of the military up until Iraq.
I know you don't doubt this, but it's up to Paul to make it pefectly clear. You can't expect people to get behind him based on suppositions. It can be very frustrating to his supporters, but there are some things he must do, if he wants the support of pro war advicates. As for bowing before the paper tiger UN, I don't think he should. The international community is a dicey problem. We cannot afford to make it look like we think we're the ruler of the planet, even if there are times when the world's populace would be better off if they would accept that defacto appearance.
The declaration of war is an interesting point. There are pros and cons to a declaration. It's an interesting debate. I've favored it in the past, but I have also heard some rather interesting arguements against it also.
Well, it is hard for folks to understand it when a guy won't get behind a campaign like this one. I know some purists don't like what appears to be meddling, but I find that a really tenous arguement myself. Folks don't see the value of checking on Paul's historic view of the military, when he's unwilling to support what is taking place right now. They view this to be a very important campaign. When someone can't support it, they naturally make some assumptions that may or may not be entirely accurate. It's up to the candidate to clarify the issue or rethink it entirely.
If he feels he has already made the right decision, he won't be able to though.
Thanks for the response.
The kicker here though is what you mean by "meddling," as opposed to looking after legitimate vital security interests in the region.
Do you or Ron Paul think that we could safely disengage and leave the region to their own schemes and strategems, leave the field open to the influence of competitors, rivals, and downright enemies, ignore the growth of Islamic extremism in countries surrounding Iraq, or the Iranians drive for a nuclear weapon? Where and when would you or Ron Paul say that "meddling" stops and pursuing national interest begins?
How about on the Korean peninsula--should we stop meddling there, pull all our forces from the region and leave NoKorea to its own intentions? Stop trying to "meddle in their internal affairs" by opposing their nuclear prgram as well? Most people call that diplomacy, not meddling. It's what nations do. It's how they communicate and (hopefully) get along.