Posted on 02/02/2008 3:04:58 PM PST by Cruising Speed
"There is far more realism in Paul’s analysis than can be found in those Republicans who believe that Washington’s policy of borrowing billions from China to pay for the occupation of a growing number of countries is desirable, much less sustainable."
(Excerpt) Read more at amconmag.com ...
“Please answer WHY then do we need troops all over the globe?”
Because the chinese threat is DIFFERENT from other threats in the world.
We are enablers of freedom on the global stage like it or not. We do so with our military presence, often times it is for pure deterrence, just like our nukes in silos here at home.
Legions of freedoms defenders abroad, keep us safe at home, and the world is safer too.
Maybe we lose a city.
But if we were to shirk our military duties around the world, as Ron Paul so desires, and let islmao facists build an extremist empire.
We could lose our entire nation.
Sorry but the islamo-fascists have already purchased our nation through the glories of “free trade”. They own major shares in our banking and finance sector, much real estate and are heavily involved in the transportation of trade goods into this country. The ‘terrorists’ have won.
Oh, now we are supposed to be world conquerors? Searching out and crushing any country we deem a threat?
Are you from around here?
Historically, a country is ‘liberated’ from a foreign oppressor as France was liberated from Nazi Germany.
>>>>>So you’re saying the definition of liberation is only defined by the so called liberator?
Or are you saying what we did for Iraq isn’t different from what Germany did to France?
As for providing security...for whom? A whole lot of Iraqis have been killed.
>>>>People die in wars. People die during peace too.
Some 24 MILLION Iraqis are no longer under Saddam’s thumb. Saddam was a terrorist and the world is a better place with him and his sons gone.
While Iraqis had zero US security many more still died.
Iraq, unlike Germany or Japan, is an artifice of British map-makers and not a ‘nation’ as such.
>>>>Don’t have any idea how that’s relevant...they’re still a country recognized as such by the rest of the world. It really doesn’t matter how they became a nation, only that they are.
Also with a far better chance now of being a nation that participates in peace with the rest of the world...under Saddam Iraqis fought an 8 year war with Iran, invaded Kuwait, launched missles at Saudis and Israel and brutalized it’s own with wmd’s.
You simply can not suggest Iraqis were better off under Saddam’s “guidance”!
Binding the three Iraqi factions together with oil money may or may not work. It is nation building, something we chided Clinton on and something Bush directly opposed in 2000.
>>>>We liberated Iraq, it would be irresponsible to simply leave, that was the lesson of WW1. It wasn’t that we invaded Iraq to nation build as much as it was to remove a lunatic at war with all his neighbors at one time or another, and hellbent to become even more dangerous in the region. I never saw him or his sons turn over a new leaf!
“Really? Then why pray tell did we let the UN write the Constitution for Iraq and allow them to install a ‘power sharing’ government? It was the single largest contributor to the civil war going on there now.
The only thing we enable is the transnational corporation going into politically unstable countries so that they can reap their enormous profits off the US taxpayer.”
wrong.
Islamo facists are the single largest contributor to sectarian violence. And the surge has slammed talk of “civil war” so badly not even democrats talk that propaganda much anymore.
Paul will never be President.
He is a libertarian trying to use the republican party for that purpose. And failing magnificently.
Nobody is buying.
They provoked and attacked us and we’re draining the swamp!
Did you know it was costing us billions just to enforce the no fly zones?
“Oh, now we are supposed to be world conquerors? Searching out and crushing any country we deem a threat?
Are you from around here?”
Holy hyperbole Batman!
Good God, talk about putting words in my mouth.
Look up liberation and vigilence in the dictionary.
I guess we shouldnt have given the Soviet Union a tough time! LOL
What do you think we’re doing? Only difference is we’re doing it right so we don’t have to revisit this issue! It takes time but to come home NOW and snatch defeat from the jaws of victory is just INSANE!
And to what purpose do socialists like Arnold Schwarzenegger, McCain, Romney others use the republican party for? For I don’t see a ‘republican’ among ‘em.
Romney or McCain at least wont get us nuked like Ron Paul would.
Globalism, no. Action in our national interest around the world, yes.
What other republicans are talking about the Constitution and restoring Constitutional government, btw?
That’s funny one of the Ron Paul supporters told me that China’s NOT a threat, now you’re saying they are? Now I’m as confused as Paul and his supporters!
Well OK, not really...
Actually Ronaldus Maximus Reagan advocated a strong US military overseas.
It’s better to face threats abroad closer to their source than it is to fall back to defensive lines.
“You should be more afraid of hillary and obama,than of a fellow republican.”
I am.
Ron Paul is a libertarian.
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.