Posted on 02/05/2013 3:32:55 AM PST by Lazamataz
Yep he “served”:
Paul earned a Doctor of Medicine degree from Duke University’s School of Medicine in 1961, and completed his medical internship at the Henry Ford Hospital in Detroit and his residency in obstetrics and gynecology at Magee-Womens Hospital in Pittsburgh.[12][13] Paul served as a flight surgeon in the United States Air Force from 1963 to 1965 and then in the United States Air National Guard from 1965 to 1968. Paul and his wife then relocated to Texas, where he began a private practice in obstetrics and gynecology.[13]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Paul
“Flight Sugeon” in the “Guard” (means he is/was a Uber-REMF!).
If I were Rand, I’d have the old man committed or at least disable his twitter acct. He’s been nuts for a long, long time but this is over the top.
(I assume you purposely misused the pronoun ending Paragraph 4?)
I’m with you on this. There’s plenty of places to make a stand against the dumber aspects of our foreign policy, but standing atop the grave of a dead serviceman isn’t one of them. I get the spirit of what he’s saying, but absolutely the wrong venue.
I hear your point. I will cogitate on it.
As I have stated here, as well. I looked at libertarianism for about 3 years before I saw that they were stupid in the sense of answering a direct attack that the enemy stated was an act of war, and they take nonconservative views towards family issues and abortion, voting more in line with the left than not. Sorry, libertarians, but it just doesn’t cut it. Kyle was not shooting(as a sniper) for the fun of it. He trained to protect his troops against other snipers. You couldn’t even say anything good about him trying to help a fellow soldier, either. How very crass of you, Mr. Paul.
I’ve found it is sometimes easier to have sensible discussions with liberals than with Paulsheviks.
In all fairness, I think RP is less a peacenik than he is an old fashioned isolationist, along the lines of Pat Buchanan.
This has a long and storied American history going way back.
Its first big impulse came with the Spanish American War and the Philippine Insurrection. The US quickly defeated Spain, and booted them out of the Philippines; but it then had to deal with the Muslim “Moro Pirates” in its swampy interior. A nasty, protracted and bloody occupation that taught the US a lot about unconventional warfare.
This gave rise to the Anti-Imperialist League, which lasted from 1898-1902, and at its peak claimed 30,000 members. Their big fear was that the US was following Europe’s failed footsteps in becoming a colonial power.
Then when World War I was ongoing, but the US was not yet involved, the anti-war isolationist movement wanted no part of “European wars” between royal houses, but after the US joined the war, using the excuse of “unrestricted submarine warfare”, the anti-war movement pretty much collapsed into something like Code Pink.
However, inspired by the Russian revolution, socialists of the IWW were eventually able to muster a coalition with the labor unions into a large block, which the US government then split up by getting the cooperation of union leader Samuel Gompers.
After the war, the socialists were still active, since socialist-communism didn’t yet have the horrific reputation it has today. And they were able to apply pressure to significantly downgrade the US military and ignore foreign nations and their strife.
But even with World War II, where opposition to the war was heavily suppressed, there is still an undercurrent with the attitude that “If foreigners want to kill other foreigners, let them. Not our problem.”
Yes, Laz, he served his obligatory time, as the government helped him through medical school.
I hate to say this, but we no longer have the luxury of having the ocean of protecting us. It ended when Japan bombed Pearl Harbor..
That much is obvious. But their greater impulse is for the US to “go Canadian”, and just not involve ourselves with foreigners any more, for any reason other than a small amount of balanced trade and a bit of tourism. If we ignore them hard enough, eventually they will ignore us, is their rationale.
Don’t look for rationality or reason in that, and while it isn’t really as xenophobic as it looks, it is just not as xenophilic as is the pestilence that is “internationalism” today.
Up to a point, there is a bit of sense in what they are saying. For example, if Europe wants to ruin itself by recreating royalism, except with gray EU bureaucrats as the “nobles”, and everybody else as peasants, well, no skin off our nose. Likewise, if the Africans in country ‘A’ wish to exterminate the Africans in country ‘B’, our responsibility is little more than to diplomatically deplore the situation.
Granted, they do have some degree of isolationism, seeing no need for the US to import foreigners when we have unemployment here.
Our primary concern should be both to prevent nuclear war, because radioactive isotopes tend to travel great distances; and likewise that no extraordinary contender to world domination arises, at least enough to threaten us.
As long as that happens, we should mind our own business, is the theory.
All of the kids at Sandy Hook lived by the sword too?
Did all of the babies murdered via abortion incubate by the sword?
Paul cemented his status as a gibbering, maniacal asshat with this one.
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.