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 ...
All of it--try reading about the history of conservatism and the biographies of well-known conservative like Taft, Eisenhower, et al.
If he wasn’t so stupid about our country’s defense, I could settle for him.
As it is....NO.
If I had to pick between Ron Paul and McPain, I’d take Ron Paul.
I agree but there are those who say you are wrong and/or lying.
Islamo facists would cheer on Paul too in his quest to remove the United States from the world state militarily.
He is incompetant when it comes to defending this nation.
So, what part of our military was lacking? I understand the FBI was tracking many of the hijackers--they just didn't pick them up. Funding levels were adequate so no need to spend billions more or invent a new bureauacracy.
The government was in charge of airline safety and they failed us miserably. Adding more government is not the conservative answer.
Our security is not at risk as a nation, we are vulnerable to terrorist attacks. I don't see how 14 airbases in Iraq will help prevent airline hijackings here at home.
“I dump on Ron Paul an awful lot for his foreign policy ideas. That said, I would have voted for him in a heart beat over McShame or Huckster. He would also be a million times better than Hildabeast or Obamanation.”
Exactly what do you think would happen? I am certainly interested in defense and would change my mind if compelling arguements were presented.
If our military is rooting these rat types out of their nests on foreign soil, how is that not INFINITELY better than waiting for these monsters to respond to another attack on U.S. soil?
Better to kill a disease in it’s infancy with a little antiseptic, bacteriocidal handwashing as opposed to letting it take over 90% of the body before introducing anti-biotics!
Being a Dr. you’d think he’d be able to appreciate such a comparison!
If these deranged murderers are busy with their jihad on their own home soil, it’s only obvious to rational people
that they’ll have less time and resources and bodies to attack on OUR soil!
I think it’s insane to wait for something like what the Chechnyens did to Russian children attacking them in their school and murdering them.
If something happened like that here, you’d quickly know what a tragic threat to our security as a nation would truly look like! Everything from the economy to potential blowback against muslims here would cause utter chaos!
On Iran’s military.......
“...... they have nothing. They don’t have an army or navy or air force. “ -Ron Paul
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_of_Iran
And also this is not exactly comforting.....
“There’s nobody in this world that could possibly attack us today. I mean, we could defend this country with a few good submarines.” -Ron Paul
Wow.
I do not even want anyone in office that believes that.
Let alone get into the white house.
Couple that with comments about how 9-11 was our fault somehow?
Forget him.
There are many things that would make Paul’s philosophy great in a President.
But I don’t think Paul could be a good President, even if he didn’t have what I believe to be the wrong view of terrorism.
He just does not impress me as a person who could run the country.
Meanwhile Ron Paul should drop out, because if he cares about the republican party, he should realise that we need our nominee to be picked by more than 50% of the voters to be viable, and he distracts some votes. He tried, he failed, he can’t win enough delegates to even be a factor.
No, the Muzzies will come in triremes powered by Christian galley slaves. Then Pres. Paul will issue Letters of Marque, and wooden square-riggers financed by private entrepreneurs, with crews of dope-smoking libertarians, will sink them. /s
A small-"t" trident? I thought Ron Paul's military thinking was essentially 18th century, but it seems he is going clear back to the Greco-Roman era now.
I assume you mean a Trident sub, and by 20MT you mean 20,000 tons, which is just about the power of the Hiroshima nuclear bomb. So we are talking about nuking Osama on the turf of nuclear-armed Pakistan, right? Gosh, a stroke of sheer genius. Why didn't anyone else think of that? /s
The Pakistani’s don’t have anything that will reach us.
We won’t have any bases near enough.
So we kill Osama, and a few hundred of his like in the hills of Pakistan. What is anyone going to do about that ?
In time, they will thank us.
Eisenhower an isolationist? I mean like wow, dude, wasn't he the man who led a huge American invasion of Europe, even though Germany never attacked the U.S. directly as the Islamofascists did? Wasn't he the President who kept huge occupation forces in Europe, Japan, and Korea long after WWII, when he could have just kept a few SAC bombers to deter the Soviets (according to Paulinista thinking)?
The only place U.S. troops should be is in Iraq/Middle East and the U.S. border.
Pull U.S. troops out of Europe,Japan and S. Korea. They can pay for their own defense instead of the hundreds of billions per year that U.S. tax payers have been paying to defend these countries and continents.
Pull the U.S. troops out of Europe and Japan and put them on the U.S. border to stop the McCain inspired invasion of illegals from Mexico.
U.S. troops should be in the Middle East to fight Islam and because of the oil.
Paul is actually right on limiting government and the constitution and I think he is against illegal immigration too. He seems unelectable though because to some he seems to be cooky and because some say he is for not wanting to fight the Middle East wars.
Our military did root them out--we attacked the Taliban and routed them. RP voted for this action.
Better to kill a disease in it’s infancy with a little antiseptic, bacteriocidal handwashing as opposed to letting it take over 90% of the body before introducing anti-biotics!
Islam has attacking the west for over 1,500 years. A little late to nip it in the bud. That sounds a bit flippant so let me say that I don't believe military action is going to solve this ancient problem. Maybe I'm wrong but I think we can wear them down by engaging the world in free trade.
Being a Dr. you’d think he’d be able to appreciate such a comparison!
I don't know if RP enjoys metaphors or not.
If these deranged murderers are busy with their jihad on their own home soil, it’s only obvious to rational people that they’ll have less time and resources and bodies to attack on OUR soil!
They are not here and can't get here. The jihadis use our presence over there to recruit. Iraqis didn't mind jihadis went they came to kill Americans, they kicked them out when the jihadis couldn't help themselves from attacking their hosts. This shows that the jihadis are not welcome in Iraq or in other islamic countries.
For instance, our occupation of Iraq has made it more difficult for Musharif (sp) to take on the jihadis because of popular sympathy for them.
Our Prince Sultan airbase in Saudi Arabia energized OBL to attack us. That base has since been dismantled and I'm surprised no one says Bush is an appeaser for doing so.
I think it’s insane to wait for something like what the Chechnyens did to Russian children attacking them in their school and murdering them.
If something happened like that here, you’d quickly know what a tragic threat to our security as a nation would truly look like! Everything from the economy to potential blowback against muslims here would cause utter chaos!
Again, stopping jihadis from penetrating our borders and killing children has little to do with the military being in North Korea, Germany, or Iraq. It has to do with border security and internal security. I understand your fear of terrorist attack, but Ron Paul does not advocate taking down any security measures.
I appreciate your post and your concerns, America is still worth fighting for--we just differ on the the most effective way to do so.
Eisenhower was no isolationist and neither is Paul. Eisenhower was adamantly against pre-emptive war--wouldn't even talk about it. Bush, however, has made pre-emptive war an official policy of the U.S.--a very unconservative policy.
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.