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 ...
First, we don't really know where Osama is. He could be in a villa in Rawalpindi, protected by the Pak intelligence service, for all we know. But assuming he is in Waziristan...that's a huge area, and finding him and hitting him with a Hiroshima-sized bomb (which actually would require very precise targeting in those mts.) is not an easy feat. Then there's the little matter of having a nuclear-armed Muzzie nation with 150 million people falling into the hands of extremists when the present military govt. is shown to be unable to defend its turf against the U.S. infidels.
You have the same foolish idea about al Qaeda that the Clintons did: that it's a little criminal conspiracy which will die when its nominal head is killed, rather than an international organization with thousands of members and millions of petrodollars funding it. Even if al Qaeda were liquidated tomorrow, there is still Hezbollah, Hamas, etc. Italy hasn't been able to eliminate the much weaker Mafia in centuries of trying, despite imprisoning scores of its leaders.
Uh..Ike ended the Korean War by threatening use of our nuclear weapons. A dramatic preemptive escalation of a little "police action."
This is my last post to you. I don't want to waste time debating with someone who lives in a dream world of fantasy and dogma.
Yeah, its a fact most people want a 'strong leader' and someone who will 'run the country'.
Paul doesn't want to 'run the country'.
Paul's strength is that he is willing to stand up and say 'no' to runaway government.
Yup. In a few years, Iran will have IRBMs and ICBMs with nuclear warheads. But don't trouble your aging little brain, Dr. Paul. Go back to the adulation of the antiwar Left, the neo-Nazis, and the potheads.
Ron Paul is, in effect, an extreme antiwar Democrat. How? Because a Congress with a majority of Democrats, RINOs, and centrist statist Pubbies will never pass any of his domestic programs, but the Demonrats would love to pass his bailout from Iraq, Korea, Japan, and Europe. Bring the boys home, Ron, and let's all have a big libertarian pot party to celebrate!
I think Paul is the best nut running
I don’t believe Ron is an isolationist, he is more like Conservatives “used to be”.
Like Eisenhower, he used military force, or the threat of force, in a prudent manner, such that actual force was scarcely necessary or beneficial.
Ron Paul is getting pigeon holed with anti-war-code pinkos, and that is as far from the truth than you can get.
When did it become popular for Conservatives to wage war? I never, in my lifetime, remember anything like that.
Most of these fallacies are coming from ignorance of true conservative values. Someone hears a phrase that includes withdrawing troops, and all of a sudden that turns into “anti-American, troofers, etc.”
“global security....”
You said it all. Why is America the world’s Policemen? Why should we send our beloved troops to wipe up somebody’s elses mess?
True. However, someone said Germany had not attacked us prior to our declaration of war which is not true.
When North African muslim city-states attacked our shipping in the 19th century, Jefferson sent our military over there and defeated them. However, he did not set up military bases there or try to extend hegemony.
Yes, Eisenhower stayed in Germany and Japan after the war. In that instance, the populace was more-or-less happy with our presence. Also, both countries had been unified prior to the war. Iraq is a artifice of British map-making and was never unified.
All in all, two very different situations and hard to make a comparison.
I think you consider the rest of the world to be "us" i.e. "our body." Ron Paul sees "us" as just the USA. Hence his analogue of "the body" is USA and not the whole world as implied by your statement. So, your difference with him is that you are one world internationalist and he is not, he is merely an American patriot.
Our military did root them out—we attacked the Taliban and routed them. RP voted for this action.
>>>>I TRULY wish it WAS so simple as the taliban and Afghanistan! I really and truly do! But clearly al-qaeda is also our enemy, just as we had two enemies at the same time in the nazis and the Imperial Japanese as well as global warfare! In this case global jihad.
Right now we’re engaged with al-aeda in Iraq, only because we’ve drawn foreign fighters there! Al-qaeda, al-aqsa, taliban, Islamic jihad, hamas, hezbollah...it’s not just one group it’s militant Islamofascism we the west face on many fronts.
Islam has attacking the west for over 1,500 years.
>>>>Yup and much like the crusades, it’ll keep going on and on...their agenda allows them only one outcome, global sharia law or utter destruction.
A little late to nip it in the bud.
>>>>Too late to quit and withdrawal and hope that appeases them! We have zero evidence such a disastrous policy would work!
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.
>>>>Nothing wrong with doing all of the above, but these extremists aren’t going to be won over with American blue jeans alone either! They hate the west, hate free trade and hold their own people hostage disallowing them to participate in the first place! These people will only understand one thing!
They are not here and can’t get here.
>>>>They ARE here and obviously CAN get here since they ARE here. The group up in Buffalo, the group in Ft. Dix, the group in Tampa, the LAX conspiracy...these extremists are right HERE and ALL OVER here! To what degree is STILL unknown!
The jihadis use our presence over there to recruit.
>>>>>It really doesn’t MATTER WHERE we are so much that we ARE!
Let me give you an example...we heard from the Palis they had to have Gaza, so now that they have it, do the Jews have peace? NO! It isn’t ABOUT meeting the Jews half-way, they simply want it ALL!
France is appeasing them and what have they gotten in return? Paris on fire periodically that’s what! For that matter ALL of Europe, other than violence and the endless march toward sharia law there’s no other discernable purpose!
Indonesia’s the same way.
We could just butt out, but eventually one day, we’ll be surrounded with sharia law on both oceans!
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.
>>>>>Not the exclusive reason. The greater reason Mushariff can’t be effective is because so many militant jihadists hell bent on world domination are right there IN Pakistan, long before the Iraq liberation, and REGARDLESS of where western presence is! To pretend that if we somehow withdrawal from the middle east and these lunatics will just stay put is suicidal!
If the endless appeasement of Hitler didn’t teach that very important history lesson I suppose nothing ever EVER will!
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.
>>>>That was but one excuse...I also heard it was due to being poor, but turns out that wasn’t it either. OBL is rich by anyone’s standards. But to suggest OBL was pretty much a silent non-threat and not up to anything until we had bases on Saudi soil, just doesn’t hunt!
We now have bases in Kuwait, Afghanistan & Iraq...what it DOES prove is we’re NOT Imperialistic, we were asked to leave and we did...but what we got in return was 9-11!
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.
>>>>It has EVERYTHING to do with it! We’re simply faced with two to three choices...fight them on their lands or fight them on lands between theirs and ours or fight them here.
Sorry but that’s just the reality of it and the overwhelming mountains of evidence we have are supportive of that fact!
We’re in a war now, like it or not, & it’s very different from any we’ve seen...no single country, no single border with every conceivable tactic...on many fronts, by virtually every means: communications, transportation, economics, etc.
I do agree our defenses should absolutely be improved, but even if this was fortress America, you can rest assured they’d come!
To say nothing of how immoral it is to not stand up for the weak, it’s not like the UN will ever grow a pair!
Meanwhile China is building a military that’s surprisingly modern and large. We simpy have to have global presence in the 21st century. Unfortunately our enemies are global...al-qaeda, last I heard was in well over 82 countries.
If we had a viable UN I’d agree 100%!
Yes, and every candidate on the stage said they would continue to try and resolve the situation with diplomatic means--McCain, Romney, all of them.
Your position of immediate attack on Iran doesn't have the support of any politician.
Well, no, actually they would come after us in several ways: uncontrolled illegal immigration, uncontrolled terrorist infiltration, and so forth. Terrorism is far more dangerous when it is state-sponsored. One of the things we have been trying to do is to end that kind of state sponsorship and support of terrorists.
Thanks for your good thoughts. There are some on this site who think a people without a military anything, who have to steal our planes for missiles, improvise bombs, and blow themselves up are a threat to us. They are alarmists of the worst kind. When they don't include China as the major threat to us, they amount to propaganda pushers.
These countries and continents have money, technology for nuclear weapons, or nuclear weapons. No country, China or whoever is going to invade a country with nuclear weapons.
These troops should be on the U.S. border defending against the invasion from Mexico and the 3rd world coming in through the U.S. borders.
If we don’t have a strong economy then we don’t have a military either. these 3rd worlders that McCain and Democrats are importing will vote for socialism which will bankrupt the U.S. protecting rich Europe and Japan will also raise the deficit and not help the U.S. economy either. this is hundreds of billions being sent to Europe every year. It is just not feasible. the only foreign place U.S. troops should be is in Iraq because Of the war against Islam and because most of the oil is there and we need that oil to run our economy, country, and military.
Well, I’m glad you are a patriot and active in politics even though we disagree on foreign policy.
I think you consider the rest of the world to be “us” i.e. “our body.” Ron Paul sees “us” as just the USA. Hence his analogue of “the body” is USA and not the whole world as implied by your statement.
>>>>I wish it WAS possible for the US to just be a separate entity from the world, I really do!
But the US is indeed very much a part of the world, and a huge one at that.
I don’t think people have any idea that our military does more in aid as it does in warfare, anytime a country gets into trouble with tsunamis, earthquakes etc. they look for help and the UN, NATO pitch in but without us there would be huge extra suffering.
I’m not saying we’re the end all for everyone, but we can’t just let the rest of the world go to hell and expect we’ll go on unscathed either!
So, your difference with him is that you are one world internationalist and he is not, he is merely an American patriot.
>>>>>>>They’re not mutually exclusive ideals! In fact, I’ve often heard Paul is not an isolationist, for free trade, for a strong etc. Yet he offers no way to protect people doing the trading!
It’s as if our navy will never need refueling from anywhere but the US! They have to be able to pull into ports to refuel, etc.
Same for planes. This requires some kind of either US presence or some allied presence to accomplish this.
Well look at our allies willing to keep security! Very few.
It’s not exactly like Paul can just pick up the bat phone and get a superhero to suppress thugs! Quaint but ummmm...not realistic to say the least!
Same to you!
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.