Personally, I don't think the US Military should be used to "defend our values". That's what we did in Kosovo and Libya...darn near in Syria. I think that's both silly and dangerous.
I believe we should focus instead on defending our critical interests.
Our fighting men and women are tiring. We're running out of money. We need to come home and regroup...replace equipment. Rest. Train. Introduce new equipment and tactics. Build, Build Build.
Our critical, strategic interests will be at stake soon enough.
Unlike what the press thinks, I believe that public discourse is a GOOD thing
Winning the CPAC straw poll is not much better than winning some online poll. CPAC skews young and libertarian, of course Rand Paul and his father are going to win there. Nature abhors a vacuum, if the United States isn’t the leader, Russia, China or the Caliphate will step in and lead the world.
Agree 100%.
I don’t think American troops should be used to defend the interests of multinational corporations and global bankers.
We are required to help our allies if we have a treaty. I have absolutely no problems with that.
Me neither. Although I have never heard Rand Paul speak, I have heard he is superior to Cruz. Although I would love to see Cruz get the nomination, I could be happy enough with Paul. I do think Paul has a better shot at the nomination. There are a lot of young people who are big fans of his father.
I do, but its a mistake to let communists, Saudi royals, and Muslim Brotherhood decide what those interests are.
Fair enough, and I certainly agree about open debate. And it’s still early in the game, so everyone knows these polls are meaningless for any other purpose than chatter.
But the dilemma will be how to avoid a repeat of the circular firing squad where conservatives, liberatarians, and moderate “Reagan Democrat types” who are sick and tires of Obama and his brand of “hopey changey” will sacrifice the good for the sake of the perfect. Some are going to jump on every Rand Paul thread with anti-libertarian hatred and some are going to maintain that Ted Cruz isn’t eligible to be POTUS right up to election day.
We need to remember who the real enemy is, and to bear the Buckley Rule in mind and get behind “the most conservative candidate THAT CAN WIN”.
“”Back in Kentucky, McConnell’s campaign literature reflects the support of Paul with a prominently placed “Rand Paul endorsed” seal on direct mailing sent out this month.””
PAUL/RYAN 2016!
(Just Goofin’...)
Typical antagonism from BI.
57 percent of respondents, when asked about the U.S.’s “role in the world,” identified with this statement:
“Nearly 70 years after the end of World War II, it’s time for our European, Asian and other allies to provide for their own defense.”
Only 37 percent, on the other hand, agreed with this statement:
” As the world’s only superpower, the U.S. needs to continue to bear the responsibility of protecting our allies in Europe, Asia and other parts of the world.”
I associate myself with both of those. The only reason Europe & Asia don’t protect themselves is because THEY don’t have to. WE do it for them. It’s time for a change.
No more nation building, no more world policeman. Our military is far too precious to be wasted (killed & wounded) on such political fantasies.
I think the idiots in the media are trying to turn a “non-issue” into a fight to divide conservatives. It worked last time and we ended up with Romney.
Only 37 percent, on the other hand, agreed with this statement: " As the world's only superpower, the U.S. needs to continue to bear the responsibility of protecting our allies in Europe, Asia and other parts of the world."
A false contrast. US allies should be providing their own defense as the first question suggests. The 2nd question, though, should be: "As the world's only superpower, in order to avoid great loss of life in establishing D-Day type beachheads on other continents, the US should work with other nations to maintain forward staging areas, especially in vulnerable regions."
Well, I suppose that makes me a part of the 37 percent.
Please note, however, that this does not necessarily require boots on the ground. In fact, I would certainly not support the idea of our placing American military personnel in Crimea now, to oppose the Russians.
But I would support our sending advanced weaponry to the Ukrainian rebels. And not just small arms, either--AK 47s really do not hold up very well against T-90 tanks--but sophisticated warplanes and tanks, with which to oppose the Russian invaders.
The press is nuts. This isn’t a feud. It’s how policy gets made. It’s what adults do which is likely why liberals don’t get it.
I agree with all that you said. And, I must say, I do not trust Paul, mainly because of his amnesty shenanigans, but I agree with this statement:
“N early 70 years after the end of World War II, it’s time for our European, Asian and other allies to provide for their own defense.”
Of course Paul won. He punted on Ukraine. And he didn’t mention his support for illegal alien amnesty.
Being 30+ months out from the election, lets not get into a big fight over conservative candidates. I’m not going to trash Paul, Cruz, Palin, Walker or Carson until things shake out. And not even then. Hopefully one of these candidates will move to the point where we can beat the establishment RINO.
Personally, I don't think the US Military should be used to "defend our values". That's what we did in Kosovo and Libya...darn near in Syria. I think that's both silly and dangerous. I believe we should focus instead on defending our critical interests.That's my take on things. Let's take care of us first; if we do that, most everything else sorts itself out. Excepting treaties; I'm a stickler for abiding by those. You can't trust someone who doesn't stick to an agreed deal, and that goes for nations too.