So you were or are against McConnell because he wasn't conservative enough . Then you have Rand Paul who is one of the best examples of a Fiscal conservative in Washington and you are not for him. He is also gaining momentum on both sides of the aisle. Who exactly will you vote for ?

I like Rand Paul's fiscal conservatism and it may be enough for me to vote for him in 2016, but his ambiguity on foreign policy and tendency to "blame America first" for the terrorist threat that faces us scares me. Also, I don't see Rand Paul gaining momentum among Republicans, and running to the left of Hillary Clinton on foreign policy is not a good thing, IMO.

 

The way I see national security is that we can continue to sacrifice individual liberty and try to stop terrorist threats after they reach our shores, or we can actively challenge terrorists before they enter our country. As long as our southern border remains wide open to illegal immigrants, we will be inviting terror attacks on American soil, no matter how freedom American citizens surrender to the federal government, and even if our borders were secure, I still value my liberty too much to voluntarily surrender it.

 

Option two is to fight terrorism abroad as threats surface. That does not necessarily mean that American troops need to be deployed at the drop of a hat. A great start would be to support countries like Israel in fighting terrorists in their backyards before they make it to our backyards. Islama-fascists do not hate this country because of our foreign policy - they hate us because we are not an Islamic theocracy, we live in a representative republic, our popular culture is at odds with the Koran, and we have the world's largest economy.

 

I am uncomfortable with what I have heard from Rand Paul on illegal immigration and also his Pollyanna view of foreign policy. He will eventually be forced to articulate some less ambiguous positions on a wide array of policies and those positions need to be less contradictory and more coherent than what I have heard so far.

Where/when has Rand Paul been a pacifist? If he were president, ISIS would most likely never have the weapons and equipment they are using.

Where has he not been a pacifist? Rand Paul has been very vague on where he stands on honoring American commitments to our allies. He has done a great job of pointing out Obama's mistakes, but has implied that doing nothing would have kept terror groups like ISIS from growing strong. I don't find that position credible.

 

I would like to know what Rand Paul would do in response to China's military build up in western Asia, its threats against Japan, and its harassing of our ships and planes in international waters. Ditto for Russia's incursions into American airspace and its real and implied threats against countries having large Russian-speaking minorities. Would he have reneged on the U.S. pledge to provide missile defense systems to Poland?

 

I am not close to the point of saying that I will not support Rand Paul, but so far I hear a lot of campaign rhetoric that seems to pander to liberals, is too long on platitudes, and too short on specifics for my tastes.

Here is the problem the next POTUS will face. The middle east isn't the same middle east that Ronald Reagan faced.

The problem American has now is because we got involved in the middle east in the first place during the Iraq wars etc. we are no longer dealing with governments, we are dealing with terrorist groups and radical groups. If we weren't in the middle east right now I don't think Iris would be so hell bent in destroying America, but because we are still there and still assisting their enemies we are a target also. Terrorist groups will always be around. You can destroy a country but you can't destroy all the people. Because of that you will always have radical groups springing up from now until eternity.

 

It was said way back in 2001 that any war against terrorist can never be won because you will never destroy all of them. You destroy one group, another pops up.

 

HAving a military pressence in the middle east will continue the attacks etc. Did anyone ever hear of Isis back in 2001? I know I didn't. It's a never ending circle and as long as these radical groups can obtain weapons it will never end.

 

So do we keep military pressence in Iraq? If we do we will always be targets to the terrorists groups in that country. Do we pull all of our military out? If we do then the country is taken over by these groups, which is occuring now anyway.

 

Doesn't matter if you threaten them with military action or not Mitch, it won't end anything imo.

I believe that there is. As I mentioned, I believe that Reagan's tenure shows that the U.S. can be feared and respected by our enemies without getting involved in a series of "hot" wars.

 

Reagan did not spend time drawing and redrawing red lines that as enemies kept crossing them, nor did he waste time condemning the actions of sovereign countries around the world in "the strongest terms possible," while threatening military action that never came. He also did not make empty promises to countries and then reneging when the rubber hit the road, as it did in Georgia, Poland, and Ukraine. This country should not make commitments that it has no intention of keeping.

 

 

While I agree that we haven't had much in world leadership since Reagan, he wasn't necessarily a stalwart of not redrawing lines.

 

He long pledged to never deal with Iran and their ilk but later bribed them with arms and weapons to release hostages being held in Lebanon.

 

He went to Beirut as a peace keeper and exposed our marines to a devastating attack killing 241. Then pulled our troops out of the area.

 

He was probably one of the best Presidents in my lifetime but he wasn't perfect, even in his tough stands in the Middle East. :thumb:

I don't think Rand is a pacifist as much as he is an isolationist.

Where has he not been a pacifist? Rand Paul has been very vague on where he stands on honoring American commitments to our allies. He has done a great job of pointing out Obama's mistakes, but has implied that doing nothing would have kept terror groups like ISIS from growing strong. I don't find that position credible.

 

I would like to know what Rand Paul would do in response to China's military build up in western Asia, its threats against Japan, and its harassing of our ships and planes in international waters. Ditto for Russia's incursions into American airspace and its real and implied threats against countries having large Russian-speaking minorities. Would he have reneged on the U.S. pledge to provide missile defense systems to Poland?

 

I am not close to the point of saying that I will not support Rand Paul, but so far I hear a lot of campaign rhetoric that seems to pander to liberals, is too long on platitudes, and too short on specifics for my tastes.

 

I'll ask again: when has Rand Paul ever implied he would be a pacifist when the national security interests of the united states are threatened?

You cannot be a small government minded individual and argue for more war, more intervention abroad. The two are incompatible.

 

Ronald Reagan was ridiculed by the "conservatives" of his time for showing restraint. He was the anaomly.

 

Restraint does not equal pacifism.

Here is the problem the next POTUS will face. The middle east isn't the same middle east that Ronald Reagan faced.

The problem American has now is because we got involved in the middle east in the first place during the Iraq wars etc. we are no longer dealing with governments, we are dealing with terrorist groups and radical groups. If we weren't in the middle east right now I don't think Iris would be so hell bent in destroying America, but because we are still there and still assisting their enemies we are a target also. Terrorist groups will always be around. You can destroy a country but you can't destroy all the people. Because of that you will always have radical groups springing up from now until eternity.

 

It was said way back in 2001 that any war against terrorist can never be won because you will never destroy all of them. You destroy one group, another pops up.

 

HAving a military pressence in the middle east will continue the attacks etc. Did anyone ever hear of Isis back in 2001? I know I didn't. It's a never ending circle and as long as these radical groups can obtain weapons it will never end.

 

So do we keep military pressence in Iraq? If we do we will always be targets to the terrorists groups in that country. Do we pull all of our military out? If we do then the country is taken over by these groups, which is occuring now anyway.

 

Doesn't matter if you threaten them with military action or not Mitch, it won't end anything imo.

 

You really believe that?

You really believe that?

Yea. I think if we weren't there right now they would be putting even more energy into just controlling Iraq and ousting the current leadership.

Yea. I think if we weren't there right now they would be putting even more energy into just controlling Iraq and ousting the current leadership.

 

Then what?

 

They are going to come after us at some point.

Regarding Switzerland's "neutrality" during the WW's. The Swiss appeased the Germans at every corner, and there was nothing there worth the cost of occupying the country which Hitler would have done if he felt it was strategically necessary.

We are perhaps the world's only superpower. Hopefully we gained that mantle because we are the most worthy, and we have principles in favor or human rights which we are willing to support. That support is more effective when we are more powerful (Might Makes Right). As mentioned, there are parties such as ISIS who only respect power. To "negotiate" with them on the basis of humanism is a waste of time.

What is a "G-Bomb"?

 

Is this what he is talking about...https://www.drfuhrman.com/library/gbombs.aspx

 

No, not even close. I am an advocate of foresaking the use of expensive bombs and such in our military operations in the ME, since that doesn't seem to faze our enemies at all. We need to out-crazy them by filling up our bombers with junk cars, old rusty refrigerators, bowling balls and pig entrails and carcasses and drop that stuff on them. I'm of the opinion that if there is the threat of a big glob of pig entrails mixed with bowling balls dropping on their heads, they'll choose someone else to mess with. Plus, it helps us clear out landfill space. The "G" stands for "Garbage."

We are perhaps the world's only superpower. Hopefully we gained that mantle because we are the most worthy, and we have principles in favor or human rights which we are willing to support. That support is more effective when we are more powerful (Might Makes Right). As mentioned, there are parties such as ISIS who only respect power. To "negotiate" with them on the basis of humanism is a waste of time.

 

We were allied with and arming ISIS in Syria when Obama, McCain, Graham, Kerry and the rest of the interventionist crowd began beating the war drums under the guise of stopping Assad because of the humanitarian crisis.

Every time he speaks he makes too much sense.