More meanderings from on this:
Despite the (still) prevailing hawkishness within the GOP, I feel that the tides are turning. Republicans are starting to understand that we are FLAT BROKE and we can’t financially sustain these wars. We are being bled dry just like the mujahedeen (al Queda) did to the Russians in Afghanistan.
I am going to hate my self for doing it, but I couldn’t help myself at the time….(heh!) (edited slightly)
Look, for the argument, Iraq and Afghanistan is that money spent there is foregone – done, over, a sunk cost. I don’t think we should have gone into Libya (our national interest was what again?) and shouldn’t go into Syria (our national interest would be what again?) or similar situations. And I believe that we can close a lot of our overseas bases. And there is waste in the Pentagon. But China is rising and the Islamofascist war against the West is not over just because Obama says it is over. And Europe is about to have a mighty mental midget fit over the euro and its sense of “German Europeanism” (after all, he who owns the deutsche mark for bailouts makes the rules). Thus, consider it safe to assume that the world is not using Prozac and not being anywhere close to achieving a “mellow state of being”.
That said, we do have interests outside of our borders that must be attended to. Yes, we are flat broke and thus, need to be wiser with the military budget. But what is causing us to be flat broke right now is NOT the military budget but the Welfare State budgets and stuff that the Feds should not be doing (ignoring enumerated powers or just being ignoramuses about them). The defense of the country IS a Constitutional duty, as well the defense of American citizens. Those should be funded before the Welfare State. Our major problem is that our version of ” the mujahedeen ” are ones that we have inflicted upon our selves – elected politicians that have no problem in overspending other peoples’ money that we don’t have in the first place.
Sidebar: funny that – that spending on Welfare is considered “mandated” but the Constitutionally mandated defense is considered “discretionary”.
I watched the latest debate (the Huck and Attorneys General (OK, -2 debates now)). STILL, no one has asked Ron THE direct question! His answer was that the attacks on the Twin Towers were acts of violence and slid away from being acts of terrorism. The direct question that has not been asked is this: Are the Feds responsible for protecting American citizens BEFORE such attacks happens again, or is your world / Constitutional view point such that the Feds can only act AFTER such an attack? Is only reacting after people have died permissible and that being pro-active before people die is not? Be careful with your answers here, folks.
Thus far, the implication is that the answer to that latter question is true for Ron Paul’s philosophy – and many Conservatives believe it to be true based on his answers and how he answers the questions. Now, I am no great fan of the Patriot Act, but I am also no great fan of seeing another scenario where thousands of innocent Americans die either. His answers on Israel, and by implication our other allies as well, have made a lot of people very uncomfortable as well.
