Posted on 10/07/2011 7:01:48 AM PDT by Cincinatus' Wife
Last week Republican presidential hopeful Rick Perry announced to an audience in New Hampshire that he would be willing to use American troops to battle Mexican drug cartels. In Mexico. Yes, really.
Im sure the comment has already faded from public memory. Or if it hasnt, it will soon, given the length of our collective attention span. But this kind of foreign policy suggestion should concern any sane individual. Lets think about some of the details of such a plan.
Some of its prominent features would include: a tropical climate, guerilla warfare, a civilian population that is, at best, indifferent to the U.S. military. And at worst, actively hostile to it, and best of all, loosely defined objectives for victory that could never really be achieved because they are so nebulous.
Maybe Im wrong, but that sounds vaguely similar to another situation we found ourselves in. It starts with a V ... oh yeah, Vietnam. One of the jewels of American history.
It seems like a lovely idea to send American men and women to fight in unfamiliar territory against a well-funded and well-armed guerilla army again. After all, it worked so splendidly before.
Ive also heard drug lords are the kind to give up easy, so it shouldnt take long. As much as I enjoy needless interventionism in foreign policy, I do have another question for Governor Perry: How exactly would we pay for such a delightful excursion? I can tell you, for certain, the answer isnt tax cuts.
As we consider cutting funding for education, health care for the poor and the elderly, and social security to fix the deficit we already have, I can definitely see how going into Mexico to kill marijuana growers seems like an awesome idea. Whats more glamorous? Shootouts in the Mexican jungle or grandma having money to pay for her medication?
Maybe we could get Mexico to pay for it. Theyve got a thriving economy and no major political issues, right?
The cowboy attitude is fun in movies. We all enjoy a good straight-talker with a six-shooter on his hip, always ready to pull the trigger if the situation calls for it. I have to say, though, I really dont think that attitude makes for solid leadership in the real world with real consequences.
If this is a sign of what we can expect from President Rick Perry, I want absolutely no part of it. Ill be honest with you; I wasnt going to vote Republican in this presidential election anyway.
But if the best the Republicans can do is a hot-headed, shoot-first- and-ask questions-later kind of candidate, they are in deep, deep trouble.
Maybe Im wrong about the Republican chances with Perry as a candidate, but if we choose to elect him, we are all in deep trouble.
IF you'd rather NOT be pinged FReepmail me.
IF you'd like to be added FReepmail me. Thanks.
*****************************************************************************************************************************************************
Guess they forget that Blackjack Pershing chased Pancho Villa across northern Me-hee-co. Didn’t catch him, but sufficiently scared the Mexican government that eventually they contained him and he was killed.
She did. She was posting up fresh threads at 3 a.m., no kidding.
If it comes down to those two, I’ll not vote for either. They are both RINOs and not worthy of my support.
That said, I will vote for whoever is running against Ubama. I’m not stupid.
In the meantime, I am committed to seeing Herman Cain get the nomination because he is the best man of the bunch that is running.
Their pretty good at swimming the Rio Grande. Do you think they could swim the Sea of Cortez?
And back in the mid 1800’s the Texas Rangers spent a whole lot of time across the border killing bandits who’d committed crimes in Texas. Those bandits thought once across the border they’d be safe. Texas Rangers didn’t see it that way.
Exactly. These “potheads”, are helping Islamic TERRORIST enter this country.
It is just a matter of time before the picture posted is in an American neighborhood.
How so?
Cain will find a reason to leave the campaign, I’m still waiting for his Fundrasing total for this quarter. Then you will see that these msm push polls mean NOTHING.
How exactly does Rick Perry fit in this category? There is a proven record that Mitt Romney fits this. Whereas the record on Perry does not in any way fit that category. Even Ronald Reagan fit the same category as Mitt Romney with the exception of gay rights.
Have you taken the time to look at the history, character and ideas of Mr. Cain?
If you have and then done a apples to apples comparison to Romney and Perry, you wouldn’t have to ask this question.
At least that is my opinion.
I have seen Perry up close and personal as my Governor and I can only say that he talks a good game when running for office, but once the confetti is swept up, he’s just another empty suit. All show and no go.
Romney is the choice of the same people that gave us John McCain, Bob Dole, John Boehner and Mitch McConnell. If that doesn’t bother you, then I don’t know what to tell you.
Cain’s IOWA campaign staff even quit because they said Cain was not taking his campaign seriously.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2789200/posts
(Post 126)
A while back, we stopped and had lunch in Hondo on the way to Utopia, Texas (I believe it was the Dairy Queen) and it literally was a museum of photographs of early Texas Rangers in the area.
Would you mind putting it in your own words. You seem bent on characterizing Gov. Perry when I asked you to tell me your reasons for supporting Herman Cain. Please.
The Conquistadors destroyed empires that engaged in child sacrifice. It was a great day for South America when they made land
BULL! Now you crossed the line. No good reason to post crap like that. Leave Reagan out of this equation. Perry is going to rise or fall on his own. He's running against Romney, NOT Reagan. You devalue your argument with this BS.
I've been calling Perry a Reagan conservative and he is. That is the argument you should be making. Not looking to take pot shots at Reagan to make Perry look better.
Sorry, to offend you. Reagan was one of our greatest Presidents ever. And I do not believe anyone can stand in his shoes. However, the Brady bill was under Reagan along with tax increases. Reagan was a pro life President. However, on June 14, 1967, Ronald Reagan signed the Therapeutic Abortion Act, after only six months as California governor. He did this knowing it was veto proof. Those happen to be the facts of his record.
First off, the Brady Bill was signed into law by Bill Clinton. There were no increases in federal income tax under Reagan. He lowered the top rates from 70% to 28%, the lowest rates in 50 years! The Therapeutic Abortion Act of 1967 was a bill meant to deal with difficult abortion cases. It was the California liberal medical community who let the genie out of the bottle, abusing the bills original intent and turning it into a 100% abortion on demand legislation.
Perry is on the ropes and you do not help his effort lying about Reagan's record and comparing him to Romney. Do you understand that?
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.