Posted on 02/21/2008 6:18:29 PM PST by markomalley
Why did you once like him, but not now? Seems like lots of Freepers once held him in high regard, but when it came time to challenge the globalist agenda, everyone turned chicken.
OK, I’ll take you up on the implied challenge. Ever read Sun Tzu? Can you name for me his cardinal rule of war that this administration has completely ignored?
Perhaps the assumption is being made that military people contribute and vote based entirely upon military issues. And perhaps the assumption is being made that the Iraq War soldiers/vets are contributing and voting mostly on the issue of the Iraq War.
What if these assumptions are incorrect? They could be way off base. What if military personal are much broader than that in their consideration of American national issues?
What if military people who do focus mostly on military issues also believe that there should be Constitutional declarations of war? What would be wrong if military people, who are willing to fight and die for our nation, also believe that the USA should not be involved in nation building?
What if military people believe that U.N.O. influence/dominance in U.S. policy is outrageous and wrong? What if military people believe that the US should ignore, or even get completely out of the U.N.O. ?
Who would suggest that our military personnel are so narrow in their education and understanding of our nation’s policies, issues and problems? Maybe they have come to understand that, as important as the U.S. Military is, there is much more than military issues on which to elect a president.
I could very easily understand military personnel voting for Congressman Paul. There are many and varied issues at stake.
This is being Posted by a 6-1/2 year longevity, Viet Nam era Air Force Veteran. I studied conservative politics while I was in the Air Force, and often found myself at odds with American military policy (including rules of engagement and nation-building). I voted absentee from my Air Force post overseas in 1976, and I voted in consideration of a much wider range of issues than military ones.
I would think that military personnel who contribute to Ron Paul are students of many varied issues confronting the United States today.
Excellent point. Lefties and Paulites like to use the term “chickenhawk.” Dems have also actively recruited military to run for office. It is all interconnected.
Like I said, resorting to leftist tactics when it comes to Dr. Paul. Sad.
Apparently the administration has no one in it who has read Sun Tzu. Because if someone had, there would be no mistaking the principle “if you know yourself, and you know your enemy, you need not fear the outcome of a thousand battles”.
So who’s the enemy? The administration can’t name one. I can (’Islam’), but the administration insists that is not who we are fighting. Can you?
You should have seen this place back in '99-'00. Paul was to FR what Fred Thompson was a few months ago.
All because of the war. Never-mind that Paul believes that terrorists should be dead just as much as McCain or any of the other Republicans want them to be. Now there's going to be a Democrat who'll REALLY get the troops killed by monkeying around with timetables and deployments. If most Americans support winding down the war, wouldn't it make sense for conservatives to nominate someone who'll bring home the troops without the BS and still be a credible Commander-in-Chief and at least secure the borders and still fund the military than to leave it to the Democrats who'll do more damage, domestically and foreign policy-wise?
He didn't challenge the "globalist agenda," he showed himself to be a crackpot on matters of defense. Different thing altogether.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1974294/posts
By the way, here’s a sample of Ron Pauls’ opinions on foreign policy from 1999, when a President we didn’t like was running the show. You won’t find any inconsistency in it.
All I know is that I’m on active duty, and most of the people that I hear mention Paul usually use the term crazy in the same sentence.
I don’t know where the stats come from. I know a lot of officers that gave to Thompson and I don’t even see his name on the list, so go figure.
Check that link in post 70. Were you saying he was a crackpot when Kosovo was happening? Honestly now.
For the record, I don’t agree with his foreign policy 100%, but you have to admit, he’s clearly committed to the Constitution above politics.
You do not see how our military is being used as a tool of the globalist agenda, against the interests of the US as a nation?
Do you even know the official reason why our troops are in Iraq?
See section III number 6.
Considering you are one of the most vehement Paul haters, I would say he has more sanity and integrity in his little finger than you have in your entire body.
The good news is, (sarcasm) in order to smear Dr. Paul you don't have to prove it, you just have to post that claim on thread after thread and have your cronies chime in with words and phrases like "surrender monkey", "traitor", "isolationist", "kook" etc.
Referring to the part that starts “Now the general is the safeguard of the state”?
How many delegates does he have...14!?
He's a joke.
Sell your BS someplace else.
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.