Republican debate

#426
#426
Scarborough says GOP institutional folks complaining that they don't want to spend next summer constantly on defensive, having to explain away or excuse Newt's latest acerbic remark.
 
#427
#427
lawgator1 said:
Scarborough says GOP institutional folks complaining that they don't want to spend next summer constantly on defensive, having to explain away or excuse Newt's latest acerbic remark.
Click to expand...

Then I suggest they throw some money at Huntsman. Conservatives are tired of Dole/McCain types.
 
#429
#429
If Ron Paul would simply just say "pass" when asked about foreign policy he might have a shot. He is too naive on foreign policy and on that issue he should probably be running on the other side. I am convinced Romney gets the nomination with Newt having the second best chance.
 
#430
#430
volfanjustin said:
If Ron Paul would simply just say "pass" when asked about foreign policy he might have a shot. He is too naive on foreign policy and on that issue he should probably be running on the other side. I am convinced Romney gets the nomination with Newt having the second best chance.
Click to expand...

Or, as he said last night, maybe Congress needs to actually declare war and you can bypass Ron Paul all together...

It would be a Constitutionally acceptable approach.

I don't see why the foreign policy issue is such a big deal if you can still have Congress execute a war if they chose to.
 
#431
#431
volfanjustin said:
If Ron Paul would simply just say "pass" when asked about foreign policy he might have a shot. He is too naive on foreign policy and on that issue he should probably be running on the other side. I am convinced Romney gets the nomination with Newt having the second best chance.
Click to expand...

Yeah, because our foreign policy has been so successful.

Like Rasputin said, Paul would go to war if congress declared it, and that's how it should be. Basically we would be putting a real foreign diplomat in the white house. Somebody who will negotiate to avoid war.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#432
#432
nbakerld said:
Yeah, because our foreign policy has been so successful.

Like Rasputin said, Paul would go to war if congress declared it, and that's how it should be. Basically we would be putting a real foreign diplomat in the white house. Somebody who will negotiate to avoid war.
Click to expand...

He keeps saying that it's ok for Iran to have a nuke and he understand why they want one.

He continues to blame the US for Islam wanting to kill us all, on this issue he is no different in his thinking and the far left.
 
#433
#433
nbakerld said:
Yeah, because our foreign policy has been so successful.

Like Rasputin said, Paul would go to war if congress declared it, and that's how it should be. Basically we would be putting a real foreign diplomat in the white house. Somebody who will negotiate to avoid war.
Click to expand...

I agree with this post 100%. However, I also understand that you can't negotiate with the islamo-fascists. It's a different kind of war. I also don't think if we simply bring all of our troops home off of foreign soil the arabs are going to suddenly be our best friends.

And one last concern, if we bring all of our troops home from foreign lands, will other countries such as China not see that as a sign of American weakness? It's a question to ponder and I don't have an answer.
 
#434
#434
volfanjustin said:
He continues to blame the US for Islam wanting to kill us all, on this issue he is no different in his thinking and the far left.
Click to expand...

So the US has done nothing to instigate the problems over there? Really? Are you kidding? The enemy of my enemy is my friend. We back Saddam because he is the enemy of the Iyotollah (sp). We back The Mujahadeen because they are the enemy of the Soviets. Saddam invades Kuwait because they need money to rebuild Iraq and The Kuwaitis are not willing to raise oil prices (cut production) in order to help them finance the rebuilding of Iraq after the Iran/Iraq war. Now Saddam is the enemy. We station troops in Saudi Arabia to protect their interests and a potential invasion from Iraq. Now we pizz off Bin Laden.

Ron Paul is telling the truth, sorry if you don't like the taste of it.
 
#435
#435
theFallGuy said:
I agree with this post 100%. However, I also understand that you can't negotiate with the islamo-fascists. It's a different kind of war. I also don't think if we simply bring all of our troops home off of foreign soil the arabs are going to suddenly be our best friends.

And one last concern, if we bring all of our troops home from foreign lands, will other countries such as China not see that as a sign of American weakness? It's a question to ponder and I don't have an answer.
Click to expand...

He kept wanting to bring up the Cold War last night. It's not the same. They were not willing to die, these terrorists are willing to blow themselves up for their cause.

I agree with you, if we completely left the region they would see it as weakness. These folks know one way and that's force. You can't negotiate with these radicals.
 
#436
#436
theFallGuy said:
I agree with this post 100%. However, I also understand that you can't negotiate with the islamo-fascists. It's a different kind of war. I also don't think if we simply bring all of our troops home off of foreign soil the arabs are going to suddenly be our best friends.

And one last concern, if we bring all of our troops home from foreign lands, will other countries such as China not see that as a sign of American weakness? It's a question to ponder and I don't have an answer.
Click to expand...

We had a stalemate in Korea and lost in Indochina. How much more weaker could the Chinese perceive us? Their opinions about us are probably already set right now anyways.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#445
#445
volfanjustin said:
He keeps saying that it's ok for Iran to have a nuke and he understand why they want one.

He continues to blame the US for Islam wanting to kill us all, on this issue he is no different in his thinking and the far left.
Click to expand...

It's actually very different thinking from the far left. The idea is to freely trade with every nation, and then you don't have enemies. There are no instances in modern history that I know of where countries who traded with each other (fairly freely) went to war with one another.
 
#446
#446
volfanjustin said:
He kept wanting to bring up the Cold War last night. It's not the same. They were not willing to die, these terrorists are willing to blow themselves up for their cause.

I agree with you, if we completely left the region they would see it as weakness. These folks know one way and that's force. You can't negotiate with these radicals.
Click to expand...

Those are exactly the reasons Ronald Reagan gtfo out of the Middle East.
 
#447
#447
nbakerld said:
It's actually very different thinking from the far left. The idea is to freely trade with every nation, and then you don't have enemies. There are no instances in modern history that I know of where countries who traded with each other (fairly freely) went to war with one another.
Click to expand...

I wonder what the stats are on sanctions on countries, how many times have those nations went to war.
Sanctions in itself is an act of war imo.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#448
#448
nbakerld said:
It's actually very different thinking from the far left. The idea is to freely trade with every nation, and then you don't have enemies. There are no instances in modern history that I know of where countries who traded with each other (fairly freely) went to war with one another.
Click to expand...

I don't recall WWI or WWII being an issue of free trade.
 
#449
#449
theFallGuy said:
I don't recall WWI or WWII being an issue of free trade.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure about WWI, but WWII was clearly influenced by sanctions. Germany's economy was crippled by the sanctions left over from WWI. Hitler came to power by rallying Germans against the rest of Europe partly based on the sanctions.

We were sanctioning Japan to the point they felt the need to attack us. They needed rubber, and fuel and we wouldn't trade with them. They were actually forbidden by Germany to attack us, but they did it any way, because they were desperate.
 
#450
#450
And my source is New Dealer's War but I'm sure you can find info on that elsewhere.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement

Back
Top