Skip to comments.Rand Paul: Romney's wrong on Middle East, defense spending
Posted on 10/10/2012 2:39:57 PM PDT by Colonel Kangaroo
This week, I will campaign for Gov. Mitt Romney. I believe this election will and should be about moving America back from the edge of the abyss on which we stand, where our debt and spending threaten to overwhelm and drown us. Romney's belief in free markets, limited government and trade make him the clear choice to lead our country come January.
I do not, however, support a call for intervention in Syria. And, if such intervention were being contemplated, it is absolutely necessary that Congress give any such authority to the president. No president, Republican or Democrat, has the unilateral power to take our nation to war without the authority of the legislature.
At times, I have been encouraged by Romney's foreign policy. I agree with his call to end the war in Afghanistan sooner rather than later and with his skepticism of, and call for reform in, foreign aid, but I am a bit dismayed by his foreign policy speech Monday, titled "Mantle of Leadership."
Sen. Rand PaulRomney chose to criticize President Obama for seeking to cut a bloated Defense Department and for not being bellicose enough in the Middle East, two assertions with which I cannot agree.
Defense and war spending has grown 137% since 2001. That kind of growth is not sustainable...
(Excerpt) Read more at cnn.com ...
Rand is right.
We have no real allies to back in Syria.
The “opposition” is in reality the culmination of (a) a decade long secret U.S. State/Cia program to work for “regime change” in Syria, working predominately thru U.S. foundations and NGOs, funded by U.S. “one/new world” types (b) Saudi funding of it’s own on that same track, (b) the Muslim Brotherhood carrying most of the operational water inside Syria.
It is foolhardy for the U.S. to believe that it has any real long term interests in Wahabi-Saudi fundamentalism or the Muslim brotherhood.
That’s a sad but true state pf where Syria is headed if the “opposition” succeeds - deeper into the hands of the Wahabi fundamentalists and the Muslim Brotherhood.
It will be no different than how we helped fund the Mujadhadeen to oppose the Soviets, using anothe alliance of convenience with the Saudis and the Islamist government of Pakisan. We got a strengthened Al Queda and a Taliban dominated Afghanistan.
In all of this the U.S. government’s foreign policy has in effect been a tool of Middle East interests that are not in reality “allies” of ours.
Malaki in Iraq keeps moving closer to Iran and refusing to forcefully go after Iranian backed terrorists in Iraq.
Karzai will make a deal with the Taliban to “share power” in some fashion after we pull out, on the misguided supposition that it will be a path to peace. If it produces any peace it will be short lived as the Taliban use the legitimacy of being part of the government as a mere stepping stone to dominating again.
Romney is wrong if he thinks additional American deaths in the Middle East will be seen as a projection of American power and will, because minus a World War II style total war agenda for total victory, there is no mission worth supporting in Afghanistan; and there is no American public support for conducting ourselves that way over there.
"Peace through strength" or entitlements. Good luck explaining to Grandma that her SS and Medicare needs to be cut for the defense budget.
You give a false choice.
Entitlements will be reformed and the chart is irrelevant as those rates are unsustainable.
“The idea that questioning a military budget alone makes you an appeaser is nonsensical.”
Paul nuts are appeasers, not questioners or “efficient military” reformers.
“27 days before the election and this dipstick thinks its his turn to be heard.... hes an idiot!”
Bingo...which makes me think he is just a little smarter version than his numbnuts dad.
It never ceases to amaze me how many global police interventionists have suddenly sprung up on this site ever since Romney got the nomination.
Since Nov 2, 2011”
I guess you missed these stories then...
My morale would be low too if Obama was my CIC. The troops support finishing the mission in Afghanistan, not retreating like a Paultard coward.
Get back to me after you actually read the article you linked. The army morale is low because of the expected drawdown and reduction in forces not your inane fantasy of them being overdeployed isolationists.
“Entitlements will be reformed and the chart is irrelevant as those rates are unsustainable.”
The chart isn’t irrelevant precisely because no one knows how entitlements will be reformed. The old folks who are on the receiving end of Medicare and SS vote. Any candidate who tells them they’re going to take a hit so our military will continue to suck up funds even after the end of the Iraq & Afghan wars is going to lose. Big time. The military budget, like it or not, is going to get cut. Preaching otherwise is mastabatory fantasy.
Yea LOL, they’ll jusr forget about us and leave us alone,
I mean these muslim nutobs who want the world to be sharia will just say, hey mohammed don;t bother with America they are alright they left us alone to get stronger.
We are supposed to learn from history not frigging repeat it
He does realize that we're setting up base just north of Amman, Jordan already...right? Syria is going to fall to al-queda and what is at stake in Syria? A known pile of WDMs.
The problem as I see it is not so much about not getting involved in Syria as it is about being on the wrong side of this thing. And that ....that is the 0bama error.
This leaves Romney with either supporting Assad or al-queda. Personally if I were President and we're so concerned over these WMD's? Get the 'damn' intel from Israel and bomb the depots and storage facilities to oblivion. Then let them sort out their civil war.
Talk about clueless.
Here's another story for you to munch on, since you're such an expert on military morale...
Do you realize how stupid you look when you respond to me saying the military isn’t having problems with recruiting and retaining troops by linking an article about low morale due to a reduction in forces?
That was the main reason cited for low morale, that and bad leadership. Not overdeployment, but the reduction in forces that you Obama and the Paultards want, but that the troops do NOT want.
“The military budget, like it or not, is going to get cut. Preaching otherwise is mastabatory fantasy.”
Only if Obama wins.
I love you Liberaltarians, you are nothing close to being conservative and fail to realize that conservatives believe in growing the economy, which brings in much higher revenues.
Hell, you guys are a step n a half away from being ObamaZombies.
Honestly, they’re too ignorant to see how foolish they look lol.
...nor to see that they support the “butter over guns” argument of the most liberal of Dems, Obama and the OWS crowd.
Bub, you don't know what you're talking about. I work with the military each and every day as part of my job, and Rand Paul is absolutely 100% correct.
So stop digging and put the shovel down.