Skip to comments.
'Fight them over there vs. over here' a false choice
The Washington Times ^
| 2009-07-01
| U.S. Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, 14th District
Posted on 07/03/2009 9:11:35 AM PDT by rabscuttle385
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 121 next last
To: djsherin; bamahead; traviskicks; Bokababe; dcwusmc; exit82
He does make a rather cogent argument for a foreign policy of non-interventionism here.
2
posted on
07/03/2009 9:13:06 AM PDT
by
rabscuttle385
("If this be treason, then make the most of it!" —Patrick Henry)
Comment #3 Removed by Moderator
To: rabscuttle385
We need to "fight them over there" they say, so we don't have to "fight them over here." This always struck me as a bogus argument in the first place. Any politician truly dedicated to ensuring that we don't have to "fight them over here" would demand that we protect our borders. Yet the same people giving us the above line were surprisingly unconcerned that enemies of the US could easily sneak across the border and wreak havoc on our own soil.
4
posted on
07/03/2009 9:18:57 AM PDT
by
freespirited
(Is this a nation of laws or a nation of Democrats? -- Charles Krauthammer)
To: JackRyanCIA
True. And Republicans do not need to be confused any more than what they are.
parsy, who notes the way your sentence was worded.
5
posted on
07/03/2009 9:23:05 AM PDT
by
parsifal
("Knock and ye shall receive!" (The Bible, somewhere.))
To: rabscuttle385
If we actually had intelligent immigration laws that were properly enforced and we actually acted like we have a second amendment, they wouldn’t come over here, because they’d be denied entry or shot if they somehow got in and tried something.
To: rabscuttle385
Ron Paul once again demonstrates 18th century logic in the 21st century.
His arguments would be acceptable if there were no such thing as strategic nuclear missiles or bio-weapons.
If a stopped clock is right twice a day, does that mean you should live you life by it?
7
posted on
07/03/2009 9:24:24 AM PDT
by
Mr. Jazzy
(No greater friend, no worse enemy -The United States Marine Corps.)
To: rabscuttle385
Of course he does, but as par, the writer arguably fails to recognize that if one wishes to be a super power, a foreign policy of non-intervention is a liberal myth, one mainly reserved for liberalist, internationalist, isolationist, and transnationalist political paradigms.
8
posted on
07/03/2009 9:28:59 AM PDT
by
cranked
To: Mr. Jazzy
His arguments would be acceptable if there were no such thing as strategic nuclear missiles or bio-weapons.Sure, and his arguments about government intervention in the financial sector would be acceptable if there were no such things as collateralized debt obligations or credit default swaps.
Oh, and I forgot, the Second Amendment is also a product of "eighteenth century logic."
9
posted on
07/03/2009 9:30:26 AM PDT
by
rabscuttle385
("If this be treason, then make the most of it!" —Patrick Henry)
To: rabscuttle385; djsherin; bamahead; murphE; Extremely Extreme Extremist; Captain Kirk; Gondring; ...
***If we must fight, we should do so with overwhelming force, win as quickly as possible and promptly withdraw.***
WHAT A KOOK!
10
posted on
07/03/2009 9:30:41 AM PDT
by
djsherin
(Government is essentially the negation of liberty.)
To: rabscuttle385
I’d probably agree with him if there were no airplanes, ballistic missiles, submarines, ships and satellites.
11
posted on
07/03/2009 9:31:12 AM PDT
by
VeniVidiVici
(ABC-AP-MSNBC-All Obama, All the time.)
To: Mr. Jazzy
His arguments would be acceptable if there were no such thing as strategic nuclear missiles or bio-weapons.So that's what Obama's going to use on us? I thought he was just going to destroy us from within with socialism.
Comment #13 Removed by Moderator
To: VeniVidiVici
Who needs those things to attack or destroy America? We just decided to commit national suicide. The rest of the world just needs to pull up a chair and watch America in her death throes.
To: VeniVidiVici
And those things can’t be defended against unless we have troops all over the world?
15
posted on
07/03/2009 9:37:16 AM PDT
by
djsherin
(Government is essentially the negation of liberty.)
To: mysterio
16
posted on
07/03/2009 9:38:01 AM PDT
by
rabscuttle385
("If this be treason, then make the most of it!" —Patrick Henry)
To: rabscuttle385
"1. We do not abdicate American sovereignty to global institutions...
2. We provide a strong national defense, but we do not police the world...
3. We obey the Constitution and follow the rule of law...
4. We do not engage in nation-building...
5. We stay out of the internal affairs of other nations..."Yeah, he sure is crazy./s
17
posted on
07/03/2009 9:38:52 AM PDT
by
murphE
("It is terrible to contemplate how few politicians are hanged." - GK Chesterton)
To: JackRyanCIA
18
posted on
07/03/2009 9:39:00 AM PDT
by
Lurker
(The avalanche has begun. The pebbles no longer have a vote.)
To: rabscuttle385
Duck buddy, because here it comes...
19
posted on
07/03/2009 9:40:26 AM PDT
by
Boiling Pots
(B. Hussein Obama: The final turd George W. Bush laid on America)
To: rabscuttle385
We tried fighting them over here, it ended badly on September 11, 2001.
20
posted on
07/03/2009 9:41:11 AM PDT
by
usmcobra
(Your chances of dying in bed are reduced by getting out of it, but most people still die in bed)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 121 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson