Forget partial term Senators for POTUS whose only experience is giving a speech on the Senate floor before losing the vote on the same issue.
The GOP equivalent of Obama,
I don’t think Rand would go around the world and make baseless threats and lines and not backing them up with ANYTHING making him like “Barry the president boy who is constantly crying wolf...”
"... But she [the United States of America] goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own."
Just my opinion but Putin illustrates the shortcomings of Ron Paul’s foreign policy. Reagan’s approach gives longer term stability though it it’s far more costly.
It’s a tough line to walk. Globalization has really been a curse on humanity, complicating the very familiar nature of conflict and cooperation.
Rand Paul will have to answer a lot on the issue of foreign policy, but I don’t think the issue is as daunting as this commentator makes out. Not only do most people now agree with Rand Paul’s non-interventionist philosophy, but none of the situations outlined are as clear cut as something like WWII.
The correct question is what will putin do when a real man and a real American named Cruz is elected president.
I don’t believe that Putin’s foray into the Crimea is something we need to respond to. They essentially walked in without a shot and remain there without firing a shot.
This speaks volumes about the geographic and demographic and political facts on the ground. Launching into mainland Ukraine would no doubt have a different result because the facts are not the same.
Still, for the most part the article is spot on. Ron Paul believes all of our wars are optional or caused by us. The fact is that not all wars are optional. You don’t always get to decide if you are at war; if the other party is at war with you, you’re at war like it or don’t. If your allies are attacked you’re at war or you are soon without allies.
Its not always an easy calculation. But if they are at war with you, you’re at war. If you see your security as requiring alliances, then you sooner or later will have to make good on your promises or see your alliances melt away like butter under a hot light.
He could say, "I have been against using the United States military as the world's police force. I am against preemptive war. I am against endless engagements costing billions of dollars and thousands of lives. Unfortunately, war is an inevitability and must be used but it should only be used in the most dire circumstance. That is why I will move away from the doctrines of the past which advocated tactical military strikes, swift limited engagements and nuanced and complex foreign diplomacy and say that the policy of the US military will be total annihilation of any enemy we deem to be a sufficient enough threat that war is necessary. We will increase military spending to achieve an overwhelming force capable of taking on any and all foes. If I ask congress for authority to wage war and congress authorizes military engagement with another country, it will be the mission of the US military to see that the country should cease to exist."
Rand does NOT have a special need to prove anything extra to any of us. What gall. I will listen and make up my own mind without needing anything more than a candidate’s principles and general way of dealing with things
I like Rand Paul because he really is intersted in rolling back the Police state but I think Ted Cruz is going to shake out as the complete package for 2016.
Only one person can be President but we still need guys like Rand Paul in the Senate. A lot of them.
By the way if Rand Paul gets the GOP nomination I’ll vote for him.
In what magical kingdom is Rand Paul a frontrunner for the 2016 GOP nomination?
Well, Libertarians are selfish, but a true libertarian would fight for liberty.
I don’t believe Rand Paul would lift a finger for the Ukrainians. But I could be wrong.