What's new
US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Sen. Paul (r): Romney wrong on middle east & defense spending

shock

Rookie
Joined
Apr 9, 2009
Messages
258
Reaction score
18
Points
0
(Moderator--this is an excerpt containing a URL and comment. Correct me, please, but please don't bar me---I'm trying to comply with statutory copyright requirements)

CNN
October 10, 2012

SEN. PAUL (R): ROMNEY WRONG ON MIDDLE EAST, DEFENSE SPENDING

"***

In the past 10 years we have fought two full wars there, and bombed or sent troops into several others.


This past year, President Obama illegally began a war with Libya, taking sides with the rebels to unseat an admittedly bad man in Moammar Gadhafi. There were several problems with this policy: First, the president did not seek or get the necessary constitutional authority from Congress for this military action. If our Constitution is to mean anything it must be applied even in times of war, when those seeking to exercise power do not find it expedient.


Just as importantly, the Libyan rebels were assisted with virtually no one in the administration or in Congress demanding to know who these people were that we were arming and propping up. No one seemed to understand that in toppling Libya's dictatorship, we were leaving in its wake an unformed, unorganized government without a centralized structure, one that would have a difficult time keeping order among the more than 100 tribes that make up Libya.


This "act first, think later" foreign policy has real consequences. We've seen our embassies and consulates stormed in more than one country. Our diplomats and security team were killed. Our flag is being burned, our country mocked.


The proper response to this would be to step back and think of whether we really need to be involved in these countries in the way we have been. Instead, both parties rush headlong into more places they don't understand, exemplified Monday by Romney urging action to arm Syrian rebels and topple President Bashar al-Assad.


But just who are these rebels? What will they do when in power? Is this really in our vital national interest?


Opinion: Romney's foreign policy twilight zone


We've been 10 years in Afghanistan and we can't identify friend from foe. Do you think we can, with certainty, identify friend and foe in Syria?


Before taking our country closer to war, shouldn't we at least ask the viewpoint of the significant Christian population in Syria? News reports indicate they are wary of the rebels and are either sitting the fight out or siding with al-Assad. Al-Assad is by no means a saint but Christians flocked to Syria from a war-torn Iraq because they feared al-Assad less than the Islamic government we brought into being.


Before getting deeply involved, should someone ask: Are these rebels going to be implementing the death penalty for criticism of Islam?


There is ample evidence the rebels are being funded and armed by the most extreme Islamist elements and governments in the region. Is that where we want our funds and weapons to end up? We need to stop and think before we act.


I am not an isolationist or a pacifist. I heartily reject both labels. I believe in engagement in the world, with trade, commerce, diplomacy and a foreign policy that projects the greatness of America and her people. I would not hesitate to vote to send American troops to war to protect our country and our vital national security interests.


Opinion: Obama, Romney -- Ignore Afghanistan war at your own peril


But we are in too many places, too often, and we don't seem to even know the reason -- or where we will end up when we're done. This foreign policy has created more enemies than it has vanquished. It has siphoned trillions of America's dollars. It has cost tens of thousands of casualties in the loss of the lives and limbs of our soldiers.


We owe it to ourselves, our soldiers and our children to take a more careful look at our foreign policy, to not rush into war, and to not attempt to score political points with wrongheaded policy ideas.
***"


http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/10/opinion/rand-pa..

========================================================

Rand Paul, a Republican who is a US Senator from Kentucky, has confronted Romney's
Middle East foreign policy,
and has also criticized Romney's
favoring the increasing rather than the decreasing of America's military expenditures.

Such an unusual challenge represents the views of middle-of-the-line Democrats, liberals, conservatives and anti-war voters, and, one may now suppose, that of a substantial number, if not many, Republicans as well.

Senator Paul's father, an influential, well respected, and and of late a candidate for the Presidency, Congressman Paul of Texas,
has refused to endorse Romney.

And now, for whatever reason, Senator Paul, called a turncoat by some Republicans and called a patriot by other Republicans,
is now campaigning for Romney.

Voters,
particularly those slow in making up their minds,
along with those voters who are having a difficult time making up their minds as to who to vote for,
now may be giving added consideration to the fact that
Obama has withdrawn us from Iraq,
where our Shock and Awe and "Hang 'em high" tactics
have resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis,
with benefit, if any, only to the European Union,
and consolation, if any, to Israel,
and where we have wreaked destruction upon much of Iraq, including Baghdad, formerly regarded as the Paris of the Middle East,
a place where during the time of Saddam
tourists, prior to our intervention, could walk the streets all night long without fear of harm.

And such voters also may wish to consider the fact
that Romney would continue to keep us in Afghanistan indefinitely
while Obama has pledged,
and Biden has underscored Obama's pledge,
for us to be out of Afghanistan by 2014---
a place where for more than a decade we have killed tens of thousands of Afghanistan
both in a futile but bloody and harsh effort to occupy and control Afghanistan as an oil and gas corridor for the passage of Central Asia and Middle East oil and gas to the European Union,
and also as a means of blocking the flow of such products to China and to the East.

SHOCKLEY
 

Dissent

Rookie
Joined
Aug 5, 2012
Messages
3,131
Reaction score
213
Points
0
Location
FEMA region 4
He's right but he is still a douche bag who rode his fathers coat tails and used his supporters to get elected only to turn full blown neo con on us...I will never support the son of a bitch again.
 

Paulie

Diamond Member
Joined
May 19, 2007
Messages
40,769
Reaction score
6,370
Points
1,830
One of the many reasons why his earlier endorsement of Romney was no big damn deal.
 

Paulie

Diamond Member
Joined
May 19, 2007
Messages
40,769
Reaction score
6,370
Points
1,830
He's right but he is still a douche bag who rode his fathers coat tails and used his supporters to get elected only to turn full blown neo con on us...I will never support the son of a bitch again.

Full blown neo con?

Huh? :confused:
 

Dissent

Rookie
Joined
Aug 5, 2012
Messages
3,131
Reaction score
213
Points
0
Location
FEMA region 4
He supports Willard,he endorsed Willard while his father was still in the race for president and now he is campaigning for Willard...he is not one of us...he used his fathers name and supporters to win the election and then turned on us.I hope he doesn't run in 2016 because I don't want him trying to steal support from Johnson who has already said he will run again and hopefully he can get the 5% needed to get the 90 million in funds to run a good campaign.
 

Paulie

Diamond Member
Joined
May 19, 2007
Messages
40,769
Reaction score
6,370
Points
1,830
He's right but he is still a douche bag who rode his fathers coat tails and used his supporters to get elected only to turn full blown neo con on us...I will never support the son of a bitch again.
WTF? :eusa_eh:

You didn't hear? Rand's so neo con these days that even Lindsey Graham was like 'this young man, albeit very attractive, is crazy"
 

Kevin_Kennedy

Defend Liberty
Joined
Aug 27, 2008
Messages
18,336
Reaction score
1,723
Points
205
He supports Willard,he endorsed Willard while his father was still in the race for president and now he is campaigning for Willard...he is not one of us...he used his fathers name and supporters to win the election and then turned on us.I hope he doesn't run in 2016 because I don't want him trying to steal support from Johnson who has already said he will run again and hopefully he can get the 5% needed to get the 90 million in funds to run a good campaign.

Campaigning for and endorsing Mitt Romney was inevitable and irrelevant. Much more worrying is him voting for sanctions on Iran, and his talk about banning foreigners, read Muslims, from taking flight lessons in the U.S. I wouldn't say that makes him a full blown neocon, but it does mean he's no libertarian. That said, he's still probably the best Senator at the moment, and there's no reason we can't support him where he's right.
 

USMB Server Goals

Total amount
$166.00
Goal
$350.00

New Topics

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top