Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The Republican presidential candidates showed their party’s lack of a single national security vision a decade after the Sept. 11 attacks, differing over the pace of withdrawal from Afghanistan, aid to Pakistan and what to do with illegal immigrants already in the United States.
Here's the link.
Thank you for starting this thread, I guess there weren't many of us watched this debate, I did.
I was appalled at all the war mongering, but that's not new. Ron Paul was the star imo, everything he says makes sense to me.
As for immigration, why are they talking about granting citizenship to certain degrees, such as engineering? The issue is, why aren't we turning out our own engineers and chemistry majors? Why do we have to import them?
Romney's no fly zone in Syria is a horrible idea. We have made such a mess out of Libya, plus all the lives lost. RP said no fly zones are an act of war - we need a policy of goodwill. Treat other countries as we want to be treated - Golden Rule. Mind our own business and stop nation building.
Newt wants to expand the Patriot Act - no way, it's a breach of privacy and unconstitutional. Let them get a warrant or court order to snoop.
He did say he wants to open up our oil fields. Good idea.
Perry brought up the Monroe Doctrine when asked about immigration. I did a quick google and it appears that the Doctrine was about colonization. Don't know what he was talking about. I don't think anybody else did either.
Cain did the worst, in that when he doesn't have an answer, he likes to say he'd listen to the experts. cop out
One more thing, most of them seem to think Pakistan should be doing our bidding. Why? Pakistan is a sovereign nation. Why do business with a country you don't trust? Let them run their country as they see fit, no more aid, no more drones, get out. The Taliban wants us to stop occupying, and we should.
I'm would not vote for ANY of these characters. If I was forced to make a choice...I'd have to go with Huntsman. He makes a little more sense than the rest of them. Fortunately, I won't be forced to make that choice.
I agree Huntsman made some good points. He wants term limits, a mission in Afghanistan. He said our foreign policy is driven by economic strength at home and our biggest security threat is joblessness and our debt.
The only one I can vote for is Ron Paul, but Huntsman seems the better of the rest of the pack. He's smart and understands how to work with China.
The Republican presidential candidates showed their party’s lack of a single national security vision a decade after the Sept. 11 attacks, differing over the pace of withdrawal from Afghanistan, aid to Pakistan and what to do with illegal immigrants already in the United States.
Here's the link.
The Republican presidential candidates showed their party’s lack of a single national security vision a decade after the Sept. 11 attacks, differing over the pace of withdrawal from Afghanistan, aid to Pakistan and what to do with illegal immigrants already in the United States.
Here's the link.
Here's a list of terror attacks from 1968 to 2004. Notice a pattern? All these people saying Paul's foreign policy will get us all killed...hmm. Let's look at...oh, Switzerland. They haven't been active in a war since 1815. How many times have they been attacked compared to other countries?
They are active in peace keeping, not war mongering. But those who agree with Paul or Paul himself are "crazy" and "insane"?
No. Insanity and craziness is doing the same crap over and over again expecting a different result. We are not getting a different result by going over and attacking other countries and/or occupying them.
I really wonder how people actually believe we have to attack everyone to "keep the peace".
“We are so broke and there’s no hesitation with this administration or with previous administrations to continue to go in more and more countries,” Paul said. “My position has been very clear, we spend way too much money overseas, it’s a good place to start bringing the troops home from around the world.”
Paul said Obama does not agree with stance of bringing U.S. troops home that are based internationally.
“He thinks we need more troops spread around the world. So he’s over in Australia, promising to send thousands of our troops to Australia. Why do we have to occupy Australia? I mean what’s going on? He said well maybe the Chinese will attack us. The Chinese are our banker, they’re not going to attack us— you know it’s not going to happen,” Paul said.
Paul pointed to the fact that the U.S. is in debt to China and said while we are sending troops to Afghanistan and China is investing in their mineral resources.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
