SemperFiUSMC
Master
- Jun 23, 2009
- 3,480
- 38
Fair enough rebuttals and definitely some food for thought. I dislike the "loon reference" simply because "name calling" is a sophomoric debate tactic. I'd like to think that we as a people are capable of taking larger leaps back towards liberty and economic freedom than what you're willing to concede but I'm also sadly inclined to believe you may not be completely wrong on this point.
Thanks for taking the time to answer, I always appreciate well reasoned posts.
Oh and as far as the "homework" I'd say that a position of non intervention doesn't mean he's "Pro Nuclear Iran", I think it mean's he just not directly opposed to it since he doesn't see them as a direct threat to our nations security. I for one am inclined to agree with this position.
I tried to come up with a word that worked better than loon, but I just couldn't. Maybe far outside the American mainstream would be better a better description of some of his policies.
IMHO the most important power contained within our Constitution is the power to protect the United States from all enemies, foreign and domestic. Without the mandate to protect America there is really no need for any United States. A simple treaty among states would be sufficient to conduct commerce. Iran has stated America is the great Satan and seeks its destruction. As a matter of policy, they, or any other nation that stands our enemy by their choice, should not be allowed to possess weapons that can be launched against us. That is not to say we should necessarily launch an attack against them, but as a nation we should use all of our goodwill and all our power to ensure that they cannot launch an attack against us.
Whether you think him a non-interventionist or isolationist (these are definately different terms), Ron Paul displays indifference or ignorance to Iran's threat capabilities. As with many of his other policies his argument is academic and does not represent the real world threats this nation faces. I do not want a warmongering President, however I do want one that recognizes threats to America's existance as such and will do whatever is necessary to eliminate those threats. There is no greater role for our Commander in Chief than to protect the sovereignty of this nation.