Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Iscool

I can only address what Ron has expressed in public.

1. He doesn’t think we should have entered Iraq or Afghanistan.
2. He doesn’t want our troops involved in over 100 nations around the planet.
3. He doesn’t want us to pay out foreign aid.

1. So Ron states that we should have a military strong enough to defend us, but gets upset when we use our military after an attack that took down the World Trade Center Twin Towers, one other building, and made another so unsound that we had to destroy it too. This attack accounted for an approximate 30% evaporation of Wall Street liquidity, the exact number of trillions I’m not sure. I believe the total property damage probably exceeded several trillion dollars too. If this trigger wasn’t sound enough, what trigger would it take for Ron to sign on to our using the military to make sure it didn’t happen again?

2. We have troops in many nations. When I first learned of it, I didn’t like it. Then I thought about what would happen if we pulled those troops out. We have those troops there to keep contact with these governments, and to help the citizens of those nations. If we don’t send our troops to do this, will another nation do it? Should we be prepared to allow China to follow in behind us and develop contacts in those nations in our absence?

3. We pay out a considerable amount of foreign policy aid. I’m not real thrilled about it. I am not convinced that ending it really pays off to the degree folks think. Some of that aid helps buy favorable policy decisions on behalf of us and our allies. If we didn’t pay it, in theory we could could find ourselves having to introduce troops to quell a hot spot. In short order that runs up tremendous costs. Military operations can also contribute to a negative impression of the U. S. too. Is foreign aid a constitutional premise? I don’t think so. If it is considered to be an off-shoot of our military expenditures, it might be seen differently. Is it better to pay out a billion or two here or there, or is it better to put 10,000 troops on the ground for six months? IMO, it is debatable.


33 posted on 12/27/2011 1:10:34 PM PST by DoughtyOne (Santorum..., are you giving it some thought? I knew you would.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies ]


To: DoughtyOne

Rick Perry says lets set foreign aid to zero and then state your case.


34 posted on 12/27/2011 1:13:33 PM PST by mylife (The Roar Of The Masses Could Be Farts)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies ]

To: DoughtyOne
"1. He doesn’t think we should have entered Iraq or Afghanistan."

Actually, he voted to authorize the use of force in Afghanistan, considering our intelligence indicated that bin Laden was there.

My opinion of RP is that he would have rather Congress issue a Letter of Marque and Reprisal, which would have been more in line with our Constitution when dealing with a single or small group of miscreants.

The conspiratorial view of nation-building in Afghanistan holds some credence.

42 posted on 12/27/2011 1:43:08 PM PST by Designer (Nit-pickin' and chagrinin')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson