'Fight them over there vs. over here' a false choice

[Kevin_Kennedy]

There is no area in which Republicans have further strayed from our traditions than in foreign affairs.

Generations of conservatives followed the great advice of our Founding Fathers and pursued a restrained foreign policy that rebuffed entangling alliances and advised America, in the words of John Quincy Adams, not to "go abroad looking for dragons to slay."

Sen. Robert Taft, the stalwart of the Old Right, urged America to stay out of NATO. Dwight Eisenhower was elected on a platform promising to get us out of the conflict in Korea. Richard Nixon promised to end the war in Vietnam.

PAUL: 'Fight them over there vs. over here' a false choice - Washington Times

 

[Xenophon]

The idiot GoP simply adopted the FDR/Truman thing about being world police and now they can't let go.

Why do we have to 'fight them' anywhere?

I find I really don't care who runs Iran as long as they leave me alone.

 

[Chris]

The idiot GoP simply adopted the FDR/Truman thing about being world police and now they can't let go.

Why do we have to 'fight them' anywhere?

I find I really don't care who runs Iran as long as they leave me alone.

 

[Mad Scientist]

The idiot GoP simply adopted the FDR/Truman thing about being world police and now they can't let go.
Why do we have to 'fight them' anywhere?
I find I really don't care who runs Iran as long as they leave me alone.

Sounds like the attitude most Americans had just before WWII.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

The idiot GoP simply adopted the FDR/Truman thing about being world police and now they can't let go.
Why do we have to 'fight them' anywhere?
I find I really don't care who runs Iran as long as they leave me alone.

Sounds like the attitude most Americans had just before WWII.

Most Americans, not counting the government whose "neutrality" vastly favored the Allies.

 

[garyd]

And with good reason. There was no good reason to believe that the Nazis (or for that matter the jihadist) are willing to limit the scope of their operations in any way shape or form.

Paul is clearly wrong on several counts. First, we are no longer bogged down in Iraq and will be out of there in a couple of years with any luck at all. We would have been out of there in a couple of years no matter who won the last election. Like it or not we won that little set to. The victory would have been even quicker had not Rumsfeld had his haed up his ass and been more willing to listen to the commanders in the field.

2nd You can never be so strong that no one would dare attack you. 9/11 showed that. The power disparity between the US and the entire third world is such that in a straight stand up fight even fore going the Use of nuclear weapons in an all out total war a la WWII we could kill 90% of them for the loss of not more than 200 or 300 men. Everyone knows that. That's why the Mullahs in Iran are scrambling to build a credible nuclear deterent.

3rd the world is full of assholes. It always has been and very likely always will be. Giving assholes a free hand in the rest of the world simply guarantees that we will eventually be fighting them here whether we like it or not. Even Jeffereson himself founf it necessary to ally with some unsavory types in the middle east to shut down the barbary pirates in 1803.

Paul's first paragraph is dead on. We should surrender no American freedoms whatever because some clown in a foreign country thinks we ought to. After that it's ostrich time.

 

[Xenophon]

The idiot GoP simply adopted the FDR/Truman thing about being world police and now they can't let go.
Why do we have to 'fight them' anywhere?
I find I really don't care who runs Iran as long as they leave me alone.

Sounds like the attitude most Americans had just before WWII.

And what did the US get out of WWII, besides killing nearly half a million americans?

How exactly was supporting Stalin better then defeating Hitler?

What was the good benifit for supporting a fascist thug like Chiang Kai Shek?

How did the US benifit by prolonging the two biggest slave empires in the world, the UK and France?

The USA did the heavy lifting, but for what?

 

[garyd]

Because had we not done so The odds are better than even that Hitler wins. And Patton was right as soon as we were done with Hitler we should have just headed East.

 

[Xenophon]

Because had we not done so The odds are better than even that Hitler wins. And Patton was right as soon as we were done with Hitler we should have just headed East.

A 'Hitler win' is the same as a Stalin win.

The only difference is the Russians hid the bodies better.

 

[Gunny]

There is no area in which Republicans have further strayed from our traditions than in foreign affairs.

Generations of conservatives followed the great advice of our Founding Fathers and pursued a restrained foreign policy that rebuffed entangling alliances and advised America, in the words of John Quincy Adams, not to "go abroad looking for dragons to slay."

Sen. Robert Taft, the stalwart of the Old Right, urged America to stay out of NATO. Dwight Eisenhower was elected on a platform promising to get us out of the conflict in Korea. Richard Nixon promised to end the war in Vietnam.

PAUL: 'Fight them over there vs. over here' a false choice - Washington Times

It's sound strategy. Why mess up your own yard?

 

[AllieBaba]

Because had we not done so The odds are better than even that Hitler wins. And Patton was right as soon as we were done with Hitler we should have just headed East.

A 'Hitler win' is the same as a Stalin win.

The only difference is the Russians hid the bodies better.

Nor did they enable the Japs to bomb Pearl Harbor.

 

[Xenophon]

Nor did they enable the Japs to bomb Pearl Harbor.

If the USA had not provoed Japan over China, they never would have attacked.

Funny how the US never provoked the UK or France or even Russia over China, isn't it?

You are a conservative are you not?

You should understand how the left has been hoodwinking you since the 40s to the point that you now support their agenda as your own.

FDR wanted to be 'world cop.'

 

[AllieBaba]

What the hell does "provoed" mean????

 

[AllieBaba]

P.S. I'm as disgusted with the current fake GOP politicians as I am with the dem ones.

P.P.S. I'm drinking tonight and posting from home. I apologize for any stupidity in advance. Though I don 't think I have enough to become truly stupid. Still, you never know.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

And with good reason. There was no good reason to believe that the Nazis (or for that matter the jihadist) are willing to limit the scope of their operations in any way shape or form.

Paul is clearly wrong on several counts. First, we are no longer bogged down in Iraq and will be out of there in a couple of years with any luck at all. We would have been out of there in a couple of years no matter who won the last election. Like it or not we won that little set to. The victory would have been even quicker had not Rumsfeld had his haed up his ass and been more willing to listen to the commanders in the field.

2nd You can never be so strong that no one would dare attack you. 9/11 showed that. The power disparity between the US and the entire third world is such that in a straight stand up fight even fore going the Use of nuclear weapons in an all out total war a la WWII we could kill 90% of them for the loss of not more than 200 or 300 men. Everyone knows that. That's why the Mullahs in Iran are scrambling to build a credible nuclear deterent.

3rd the world is full of assholes. It always has been and very likely always will be. Giving assholes a free hand in the rest of the world simply guarantees that we will eventually be fighting them here whether we like it or not. Even Jeffereson himself founf it necessary to ally with some unsavory types in the middle east to shut down the barbary pirates in 1803.

Paul's first paragraph is dead on. We should surrender no American freedoms whatever because some clown in a foreign country thinks we ought to. After that it's ostrich time.

We'll be "out" of Iraq in a few years assuming that Obama keeps his word and something doesn't pop up between then and now that he decides to leave them there, and even if he does keep his word "out of Iraq" means a permanent military presence.

Yes, if you incite hatred around the world eventually someone is going to take it too far and attack you, 9/11 certainly did prove that.

Yes, the world is a dangerous place. However, we are the most technologically advanced country in the world and no Middle Eastern country poses a serious threat to us.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

There is no area in which Republicans have further strayed from our traditions than in foreign affairs.

Generations of conservatives followed the great advice of our Founding Fathers and pursued a restrained foreign policy that rebuffed entangling alliances and advised America, in the words of John Quincy Adams, not to "go abroad looking for dragons to slay."

Sen. Robert Taft, the stalwart of the Old Right, urged America to stay out of NATO. Dwight Eisenhower was elected on a platform promising to get us out of the conflict in Korea. Richard Nixon promised to end the war in Vietnam.

PAUL: 'Fight them over there vs. over here' a false choice - Washington Times

It's sound strategy. Why mess up your own yard?

Well Paul is saying that we don't have to have that as an option.

"We do not have to pick between interventionism and vulnerability. The complexity of our world is exactly why the lessons of our past should ring true and demand a return to a traditional, pro-American foreign policy: one of nonintervention."

 

[Article 15]

Given our wide open borders the whole 'Fight them over there vs. over here' thing makes me chuckle.

 

[AllieBaba]

Nobody incited hatred amongst the Islamic extremists. Their hatred begins and ends with them. And it is, after all, their sworn duty to conquer and kill Christians and any non-Muslim nation.

Likewise, we never incited hatred amongst the Japanese.

 

[AllieBaba]

Given our wide open borders the whole 'Fight them over there vs. over here' thing makes me chuckle.

And should make us all feel good about fighting them over there. If they aren't bombing us here now, as they profess (and have proven) they want to do, obviously the strategy works.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Nobody incited hatred amongst the Islamic extremists. Their hatred begins and ends with them. And it is, after all, their sworn duty to conquer and kill Christians and any non-Muslim nation.

Likewise, we never incited hatred amongst the Japanese.

You don't think all the bombings, interventions, sanctions, and our military presence in their countries had anything to do with why they don't like us?