Posted on 04/27/2015 7:35:18 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
Edited on 04/27/2015 10:05:42 PM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
Interesting, not because it’s a surprise that Ron Paul’s son feels this way — remember this? — but because this is a subject that every Republican in the field, Rand included, would probably prefer to avoid during the primaries.
Or am I wrong about that? Could this be a smart play for Paul, especially given how it’ll make Jeb Bush squirm?
(Excerpt) Read more at hotair.com ...
I don’t think we needed to send troops to fight Ebola.
If you think that’s an “idiot” position - if you think Obama was right to send troops to fight Ebola — then I can’t help you.
IMHO the Soviet Union would have collapsed anyway and I don't believe there would have been a WWIII as the Soviets were not hell bent on destroying the world or themselves. Now think about who is hell bent on destroying us and the rest of the world.
It's no coincidence that the government of Kuwait was one of the largest foreign contributors to the Clinton Foundation.
Do you really want to start measuring our military involvement in an area by time?
Obama has done that and pulled us out for no good reason, we are still in Germany and Korea and Japan, and that was useful, we protected and reshaped those countries.
we replaced Saddam — Iran’s enemy — with a government of Shiite Iranian allies.
The Iraq war was worth every penny of the $1 trillion that we borrowed from the Chinese, to pay for it! NOT
It’s a bit late now.
To use the Godfather analogy, Saddam was a pimp. Iran is the Barzini.
Oh, nonsense, we didn’t create Bin Laden, and if you would prefer to have the Soviet Union back, and whatever they would have done or wiped out during the last 30 years after winning in Afghanistan, then you are just insane.
Doesn’t anyone remember what the free world faced in 1983. at least what was left of it?
Interesting, but academic, since the policy toward Iraq and the diplomatic and military strategy completely changed with Obama and affected the behavior of the Iraqi government, regardless of who was in charge. Obama’s behavior left a void filled by Iran, especially after he dragged his feet to assist against ISIS, allowing Iran to get even more influence over Iraq (which apparently they were fine with based on reports of the diplomatic efforts)...and given his behavior on the nuclear deal that only increased their power in the entire region more - none of these moves would have been made by the Bush administration. You have no credible rebuttal to my point.
Why do you keep ignoring what Rand Paul actually thought, and said?
I'm certainly no fan of Barack Hussein Obama, but it's pathetic for any so-called "conservative" to blame him for something that was signed, sealed and delivered by his Republican predecessor before he ever took office.
I guess I can understand why so many folks on this site can't bring themselves to admit that the U.S. campaign in Iraq was a complete disaster under George W. Bush, but the facts clearly indicate that this was the case.
It seems that we did what you wanted to do, just put time limits on everything.
Or in the very least not sit around and twiddle thumbs with a threat on the march and not take action until they already were consolidating territory.
Conflating “Republican” and “conservative”? I hope not.
Certainly Obama was not bound by the SOFA. And the Iraqis wanted US troops to stay.
Which was ... ?
Moral men fight evil. There is no moral relativism for butchery.
Why not?
And the Iraqis wanted US troops to stay.
Which Iraqis?
Saddam was not Iran’s enemy.
Sorry, I can’t have a conversation with someone denies reality.
Didn’t you read the post? It was only one sentence.
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.