The American Conservative’s (very belated) endorsement:
"Paul came by his congressional nickname�??�??Dr. No�??�??honestly. Anyone combing through his lengthy record will find many lone stands and idealistic statements that ignore the maxim that politics is the art of the possible. We are under no illusion that he has much chance of winning the GOP nomination this election cycle.
Nevertheless we urge a vote for him. This campaign sends a signal to both parties that a significant number of Americans value their country�??s great Constitution, that many conservatives reject wiretaps, waterboarding, and senseless wars. There is far more realism in Paul�??s analysis than can be found in those Republicans who believe that Washington�??s policy of borrowing billions from China to pay for the occupation of a growing number of countries is desirable, much less sustainable.
Ron Paul has been a breath of fresh air in an otherwise desultory Republican campaign. Long may he run."
Oh, the American Conservative. David Frum would probably call it the “Unpatriotic Conservative.” Anyways, I only recently discovered AC, thinking about subscribing. Would replace National Review as my Conservative mag.
Peden pulls ahead, and no doubt he is getting support from outside sources who otherwise wouldn’t know much or care about this race for the Texas Congressional seat save for the Ron Paul wave of nuttery.
Hmmm - when Paulnuts use the term “blowback”, I now know exactly what they mean.
Peden pulls ahead, and no doubt he is getting support from outside sources who otherwise wouldn’t know much or care about this race for the Texas Congressional seat save for the Ron Paul wave of nuttery.
Hmmm - when Paulnuts use the term “blowback”, I now know exactly what they mean.
[/quote]
Aye. Must silence Anti-war voices within the Republican Party. And quickly! We’ve got a date with Iran coming up.
Edit: Meh, nevermind. If the GoP is determined to be the war party that’s their concern, and no longer mine.[/quote]
Sloth,
The GOP isn’t determined to be the “War Party,” though it is determined to be the “No Surrender Party” and the “Strong Military Party.” War shouldn’t be a default option - but it needs to be a real, viable option, particularly in order to give teeth to negotiations with parties who only care about that possible eventuality.
Edit: Meh, nevermind. If the GoP is determined to be the war party that’s their concern, and no longer mine.
Sloth,
The GOP isn’t determined to be the “War Party,” though it is determined to be the “No Surrender Party” and the “Strong Military Party.” War shouldn’t be a default option - but it needs to be a real, viable option, particularly in order to give teeth to negotiations with parties who only care about that possible eventuality.[/quote]
Don’t mind me, I’m an unpatriotic surrender monkey.
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
The GOP isn’t determined to be the “War Party,” though it is determined to be the “No Surrender Party” [/quote]
Please explain who is it not surrendering to.
[i]Sur-ren-der
v.tr.
To relinquish possession or control of to another because of demand or compulsion.
To give up in favor of another.
To give up or give back (something that has been granted): surrender a contractual right.
To give up or abandon: surrender all hope.
To give over or resign (oneself) to something, as to an emotion: surrendered himself to grief.
Law To restore (an estate, for example), especially to give up (a lease) before expiration of the term.[/i]
I know you’re not the kind to fall for cheap rethoric, and your answer is baffling me. I’m sure you have some rational explanation for using that expression, but I just can’t put my finger on it. Let us know what it is.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Oh, the American Conservative. David Frum would probably call it the “Unpatriotic Conservative.” Anyways, I only recently discovered AC, thinking about subscribing. Would replace National Review as my Conservative mag. [/quote]
You should have asked me, I would have told you about it sooner.
AMCon is Pat Buchanan’s pet project. It’s frequently referenced by Justin Raimondo over on Antiwar.com, whose articles I once posted here on a regular basis.
Edit: Meh, nevermind. If the GoP is determined to be the war party that’s their concern, and no longer mine.
Sloth,
The GOP isn’t determined to be the “War Party,” though it is determined to be the “No Surrender Party” and the “Strong Military Party.” War shouldn’t be a default option - but it needs to be a real, viable option, particularly in order to give teeth to negotiations with parties who only care about that possible eventuality.[/quote]
What conditions have to be fulfilled for you to declare victory in Iraq? When will you say “We have won, our soldiers may now return with honor.”
[quote]
BostonBarrister wrote:
The GOP isn’t determined to be the “War Party,” though it is determined to be the “No Surrender Party”
lixy wrote:
Please explain who is it not surrendering to.
[i]Sur-ren-der
v.tr.
To relinquish possession or control of to another because of demand or compulsion.
To give up in favor of another.
To give up or give back (something that has been granted): surrender a contractual right.
To give up or abandon: surrender all hope.
To give over or resign (oneself) to something, as to an emotion: surrendered himself to grief.
Law To restore (an estate, for example), especially to give up (a lease) before expiration of the term.[/i]
I know you’re not the kind to fall for cheap rethoric, and your answer is baffling me. I’m sure you have some rational explanation for using that expression, but I just can’t put my finger on it. Let us know what it is.[/quote]
Think of it in the context of a decision of whom to elect as Commander in Chief. I don’t want to support someone who would acquiesce at the drop of a hat in a conflict - Carter and Mondale seemed like they were ready to surrender the fight against the Soviet Union, for instance (under the auspices of “realism” no less…).
We need an CiC who, in the opinion of the other world leaders (or perhaps also those like Bin Laden, assuming he’s still alive), would both utilize the military if he thought it necessary and who wouldn’t pull out if we suffered a casualty. It’s not only important in that exact scenario, but it’s important in the discussions/negotiations that might give rise to, or avert, that scenario.
What conditions have to be fulfilled for you to declare victory in Iraq? When will you say “We have won, our soldiers may now return with honor.”[/quote]
We could have declared victory and gone home after the first week.
What’s been going on since then is a rebuilding effort. Because stabilizing the region was one of the goals - and surely among the most important goals - of going in, it seems to me that making sure there is a stable government is the key metric. Making sure the Iraqi Defense Force is capable of defending that government is a necessary ancillary goal.
Yep. That should knock some sense out of the warmongers.[/quote]
I think all the sense has already been knocked out of them. You probably want to knock sense into them.
How’s this scenario: Recession occurs, thousands of families lose their homes and jobs. Low middle class is hit hard, and the already poor become poorer.
All those poeple falling on hard times is a golden recruitment opportunity for the army. Young kids, fresh out of school, unable to find decent jobs… people with families to support getting sick of working 2 jobs at fast food joints.
McCain, if elected, wants to increase troop levels from 750,000 to 900,000 and increase the defense budget to cold war levels. What do you think will happen in the ME if the US finds itself with another 150,000 volunteer soldiers? Maybe Tehran gets a nice set of permanent US bases to match those in Baghdad.