[Rushtalk] George Will on Why Ron Paul is Right About Foreign Policy and RINO Mitt Romney is Wrong

Stephen A. Frye s.frye at verizon.net
Thu Aug 20 15:20:12 MDT 2015

I agree with the underlying principle of your post.  At the same time, I
question our willingness - and even lust - to spend money to take life, but
balk at spending to save it or better it.  We're an odd species.  We fight
very hard for our right to kill each other.


From: rushtalk-bounces at csdco.com [mailto:rushtalk-bounces at csdco.com] On
Behalf Of Steven Laib
Sent: Wednesday, August 19, 2015 5:54 AM
To: rushtalk at csdco.com
Subject: Re: [Rushtalk] George Will on Why Ron Paul is Right About Foreign
Policy and RINO Mitt Romney is Wrong


The problem is that if we weren't spending horrendous amounts of money on
social welfare then the budget would not be anywhere near as troubled by the
military spending. 
IMO, Military spending is constitutionally mandated.  Social welfare is not
and may not even be permitted.  

Just my two cents. 


On 8/17/15 11:00 PM, Carl Spitzer wrote:

George Will on Why Ron Paul is Right About Foreign Policy and Mitt Romney is
Writes George Will:

Few things so embitter a nation as squandered valor, hence Americans, with
much valor spent there, want Iraq to master its fissures. But with America
in the second decade of its longest war, the probable Republican nominee is
promising to extend it indefinitely.

Mitt Romney opposes negotiations with the Taliban while they "are killing
our soldiers." Which means: No negotiations until the war ends, when there
will be nothing about which to negotiate.

The U.S. defense budget is about 43% of the world's total military spending
- more than the combined defense spending of the next 17 nations, many of
which are U.S. allies. Are Republicans really going to warn voters that
America will be imperiled if the defense budget is cut 8% from projections
over the next decade? In 2017, defense spending would still be more than
that of the next 10 countries.

Do Republicans think it is premature to withdraw up to 7,000 troops from
Europe two decades after the Soviet Union's death? About 73,000 will remain,
most of them in prosperous, pacific, largely unarmed and utterly
unthreatened Germany. Why do so many remain?

Since 2001, the United States has waged war in three nations, and some
Republicans appear ready to bring the total to five, adding Iran and Syria.
(The Weekly Standard, of neoconservative bent, regrets that Obama "is
reluctant to intervene to oust Iran's closest ally, Syrian President Bashar
al-Assad.") GOP critics say Obama's proposed defense cuts will limit
America's ability to engage in troop-intensive nation-building. Most
Americans probably say: Good.

Romney says: "It is unacceptable for Iran to have a nuclear weapon." (Leon)
Panetta says Iran acquiring nuclear weapons is "unacceptable" and "a red
line for us" and if "we get intelligence that they are proceeding with
developing a nuclear weapon, then we will take whatever steps necessary to
stop it."

What, then, is the difference between Romney and Obama regarding Iran?

Osama bin Laden and many other "high-value targets" are dead, the drone war
is being waged more vigorously than ever, and Guantanamo is still open, so
Republicans can hardly say Obama has implemented dramatic and dangerous
discontinuities regarding counterterrorism. Obama says that even with his
proposed cuts, the defense budget would increase at about the rate of
inflation through the next decade.

Republicans who think America is being endangered by "appeasement" and
military parsimony have worked that pedal on their organ quite enough.

Rushtalk mailing list
Rushtalk at csdco.com


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://kalos.csdco.com/pipermail/rushtalk/attachments/20150820/61b3c877/attachment.html 

More information about the Rushtalk mailing list