Garde la Foi, mes amis! Nous nous sommes les sauveurs de la République! Maintenant et Toujours!
(Keep the Faith, my friends! We are the saviors of the Republic! Now and Forever!)
LonePalm, le Républicain du verre cassé (The Broken Glass Republican)
Posted on 05/22/2007 4:15:10 PM PDT by NapkinUser
My main beef is with your earlier comment in response to my statement arguing that America should continue to prevent WMD proliferation:
This is one thing that I have never quite understood. Where do we get the right to demand no proliferation from another sovereign nation? We can have nukes but we don’t want anyone else to have them. My attitude towards this is; If our enemy launches a single nuke at us then we should launch five at them. --#67We have an absolute right to defend America, its people, and our security. I do not want American leaders to take any chances in that regard. The majority of countries not already nuclear have no business whatsoever pursuing nuclear weapons. I give absolutely zero credence to the notion that they have "rights" versus the United States of America. That's why I read your comments as "globalist." I care more about each individual American life than the entire population of any particular nation pursuing nuclear weapons today. They have no "rights" as far as I'm concerned. This would be an anathema to the politically-correct, but it's how I see it.
Until Americans again believe what their forefathers once believed: that the American people have a destiny to accomplish, we will continue to die. We needn't be squeamish about preemptive attacks on Iran or Iraq, as long as we're willing to crush our enemies with the power we still have.
That said, I reject the current administration's globalist agenda, cloaked behind the war on an idea. You and I are in close agreement in that regard. Yes, I would support Ron Paul before I would support another globalist like Bush. An honest isolationist is at least going to do less domestic damage, and that's where the real battle for America's future is. Gladly, we have alternatives like Duncan Hunter and Tom Tancredo.
Indeed. You're a good man for daring to pose this question.
Dr. Paul feels that 50 years of interventionist policies in the Middle East incited hatred and contributed to the attack on 9/11. After 9/11, Dr. Paul responded by voting to fund and authorize force in Afghanistan. Dr. Paul supports the right of Israel to defend itself, but he opposes subsidizing Israel with taxpayer money, just as he opposes using taxpayer money to send foreign aid to any and all nations. As for alliances, Congressman Paul would follow Thomas Jefferson's advice to avoid "entangling alliances."I'm not quite satisfied with this. It fails to address Soviet intervention in the region. In that way, it reminds me of Chomsky, who blames Americans for doing whatever it took to defend the peace and liberty won in WWII during the Cold War.
However, I could probably support Dr. Paul if he's up against another RNC globalist. Another six years of this and America's goose will be cooked no matter what happens in the Mideast.
‘”Really? How’d that work out?” I guess pretty well. Goldwater won the primary over that loser Rockefeller.’
And then got creamed against a historical mistake named Lyndon Baines Johnson....how’d that turn out?
Because I’m a very cheerful fellow with a typing speed over 100 wpm and a T1 line......(grin)
You listen to the media way too much. You believe who they tell you is the top-tier.
If a candidate consistently polls at about 1%, they are NOT in the top-tier, sucker.
Garde la Foi, mes amis! Nous nous sommes les sauveurs de la République! Maintenant et Toujours!
(Keep the Faith, my friends! We are the saviors of the Republic! Now and Forever!)
LonePalm, le Républicain du verre cassé (The Broken Glass Republican)
>The majority of countries not already nuclear have no business whatsoever pursuing nuclear weapons.<
You are saying;
The majority of countries not already nuclear have no business whatsoever pursuing nuclear technology.
The majority of countries not already nuclear have no business whatsoever pursuing nuclear medicine.
The majority of countries not already nuclear have no business whatsoever pursuing nuclear research.
Just who was it who made us the worlds mother and/or policeman? Do you understand the true meaning of sovereignty? For the life of me I don’t understand why we need our troops in every country in the world and I sure hate paying for them to be there.
If two countries want to fight it out why do we think we need to get in and pick sides thereby creating another enemy for our kids.
I’m not quite satisfied with this.
Yeah, it could have been more comprehensive. However, it is difficult to fully cover all policy contingencies when responding to an e-mail request............
Voters must ask themselves, “Even if I don’t agree 100% with this candidate’s positions, do I TRUST this candidate do do what is right and what is in the best interests of Americans first?”
From my perspective Dr. Paul is one of a very select group who are trustworthy.............
There's your secret globalist streak coming out. I don't care about anybody else's sovereignty except ours. The problem with the Bush administration is that they seem to worry more about Mexico's than ours. It's the same thing. Protect your own interests first. Anything less is betrayal. Once you have a position of strength from which to negotiate, then you can bestow this or that advantage on an ally. The heck with our enemies.
If another country might threaten us, we should deal with it in what ever way we must, using any means at our disposal. I'm non-negotiable on this point.
If you want, we can debate the merits of a select group of America's allies which might want to go nuclear.
The same goes for advanced biological and chemical weapons.
It's utterly insane to discuss issues of "sovereignty" for one's enemies, real, potential, or otherwise.
He does have a certain directness about him that's very good.
Don’t mess with me and you’ll have nothing to fear. Obey my No Trespassing signs and I’ll respect yours. Does that mean that I won’t eavesdrop on you to verify that you aren’t eavesdropping on me? No, it does not. I like to be prepared for ‘surprises’. If installing an encryption system is all it takes to stop you from listening, then I’ll do it. If sending some disinformation your way is the appropriate thing, then count on it being sent.
>>I don't care about anybody else's sovereignty except ours.<<
IMO, those are much better options than asking a couple of thousand young men to die in a war for my ignorance on how to protect my country. I know what combat is and I would have to think long and hard before ever sending troops into it. You've never been there. For five years all it took for me to hit the ground was an unexpected firecracker going off. Lightening crashes would awaken me on the bedroom floor searching for a foxhole. You have no idea how long the memories will keep flashing into their dreams and daily lives. I an not as anxious as you are when it comes to making enemies. I carry no remorse about eradicating them however.
If you want, we can debate the merits of a select group of America's allies which might want to go nuclear.
Are you saying that you want to control your friends too?
The nuclear club is for keeps. Listen to me carefully. There isn't anything I wouldn't do to prevent the scenarios you described that would end with "retaliation."
When retaliation means obliteration for the attacker, they are very careful about whom they attack.
I’m sorry, but you’re not even beginning to change my mind. MAD almost got us killed. I’ll never forget the insanity of it.
Indeed.
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.