Free Republic
Browse · Search
RLC Liberty Caucus
Topics · Post Article

To: Dreddnafious

A.Q. did some serious stuff in Somalia, Embassies, Towers twice, the Cole.. and have been quite a seed bed for arms and money and training.

But they’re not the big picture.

The big picture is Islam has been trying to conquer for a thousand years. A small portion of the world has not seen this battle for the since the fall of the Ottoman Turks. This happens to be the part of the world we are most familiar with.

So we think it’s just A.Q. It’s not, it’s serious, it’s deadly, it’s been going on for a very long time, it’s been getting much stronger lately.

Paul is oblivious to this. Of all the candidates only Kucinich is close to this level, IMHO, of ignorance of history and security.

So, in my view, Paul as CINC and chief executive could do great longterm damage at a critical time in world history.


217 posted on 12/17/2007 3:20:56 AM PST by D-fendr (Deus non alligatur sacramentis sed nos alligamur.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 210 | View Replies ]


To: D-fendr

Well, that’s when you come down to the brass tacks man.

Reagan believed we would defeat the soviets because capitalism and liberty is a better system than communism and authoritarianism.

History proved him correct.

I believe if we can chuck off the yoke of socialism that we’ve been rolling to since the Cold War ended that the superiority of our ideas will dwarf them.

Take away the oil revenues and the king of saud is ruling from a mud hut.

I think a less splayed version of our foreign policy could do a lot of things for us.

#1 being getting the price of oil back to reasonable levels($30 a barrel pre-war $90 today)

Stated bluntly, I trust in the free market, above and beyond simple fiscal issues.

We can win through force of arms, and we should always maintain that ability to do so, but we can win permananetly through the superiority of our ideas. We just need to live up to them.

There’s another big issue I have, and feel free to wear me out about it, but there is very little difference between warfare and welfare. Both empower the federal government to do things we normally wouldn’t stand for.

The libs cry for welfare, and some conservatives cry for warfare, and each are equally convinced that what they ask for us vital to our success or survival.

When I say I’m not impressed with AQ, I mean I’m not afraid to go head to head with fundamentalist extremism based on merit.

At some point in time, our economy won’t be based on oil. Maybe 30 years, maybe a hundred, but likely in our lifetimes.

If the M.E. is still a backwards wasteland of despots and religious fanatics by then who will care?


224 posted on 12/17/2007 3:36:18 AM PST by Dreddnafious
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 217 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
RLC Liberty Caucus
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson