2012 poll NON Obama voters only please!

[BigRob]

I'm not overly fond of any of them [I do respect Ron Paul immensely, having voted for him last time]. If the GOP doesn't wish to beat Obama, by all means, nominated Rudy '9/11, 9/11, 9/11 9/11, 9/11' Giuliani. While a lot can happen between now and then, I think Romney is the most likely candidate. I would prefer Paul, however.

-NC

Ron Paul is to weak on defense and foreign policy in my view.

 

[NortheastCynic]

It appears as though the term 'non-interventionist' has become equivalent with 'weak' within the Republican Party, as this is typically the word I hear used in reference to Paul. This is very unfortunate; those of us who would prefer a change in our foreign policy would be quick to follow a candidate who presents an alternative to our current path.

-NC

 

[BigRob]

It appears as though the term 'non-interventionist' has become equivalent with 'weak' within the Republican Party, as this is typically the word I hear used in reference to Paul. This is very unfortunate; those of us who would prefer a change in our foreign policy would be quick to follow a candidate who presents an alternative to our current path.

-NC

As the world hegemon, "non-interventionist" is "weak" whether you like it or not.

If defense ends at the American borders, then American defense is a complete failure.

 

[NortheastCynic]

As the world hegemon, "non-interventionist" is "weak" whether you like it or not.

How strong would you say we look in Iraq and Afghanistan? So strong that our own boarders are porous as anarchy in Mexico spreads. Hegemony need not equal neo-imperialism. Defense is not defense if it involves aggression.

If defense ends at the American borders, then American defense is a complete failure.

Heh, if only we defended American borders.

-NC

 

[BigRob]

How strong would you say we look in Iraq and Afghanistan? So strong that our own boarders are porous as anarchy in Mexico spreads. Hegemony need not equal neo-imperialism. Defense is not defense if it involves aggression.

Depends on who you ask. In Iraq, we do not look that bad. We stuck around and are winning. In Afghanistan, there are numerous problems, many of which involve other countries that we need to be involved in. In a world of "non-intervention" this would not be possible.

If you study the terrorist ideology, staying in Iraq was 100% the correct move. If you want to make it a credibility issue with our allies, staying was 100% the correct move again. These are all major issues.

Further, if we put the military on the Mexican border, you can be assured immigration would abruptly end. Although, in a "non-interventionist" world we would have to just sit there and accept the situation in Mexico with no options.

In a non-interventionist world we would be unable to interdict ships carrying nuclear material from North Korea to other rouge states. In a non-interventionist world we would stop being non-interventionist when one of those weapons obliterated an American city.

And yes, in many cases defense involves being proactive. You can call it aggression as you choose, but being proactive to ensure security is defense.

Heh, if only we defended American borders.

-NC

And we should secure our borders, but that should not simply be the main focus of our defense posture. If it is, then we will no longer be the dominant world power, and we will face massive proliferation, and increased risk of a catastrophic terror attack.

 

[NortheastCynic]

Depends on who you ask. In Iraq, we do not look that bad. We stuck around and are winning. In Afghanistan, there are numerous problems, many of which involve other countries that we need to be involved in. In a world of "non-intervention" this would not be possible.

This begs the question, if we 'do not look that bad' in Iraq, what would qualify as 'bad'? Afghanistan was not an instance of intervention, it was a defensive war. Al Qaeda was effectively a state-sanctioned entity in Afghanistan. Once it was determined that they were responsible for the Sept. 11th Attacks, we were well within our rights to defend ourselves.

If you study the terrorist ideology, staying in Iraq was 100% the correct move. If you want to make it a credibility issue with our allies, staying was 100% the correct move again. These are all major issues.

'Staying' was not necessarily a mistake...Going in initially, however, was a massive mistake.

Further, if we put the military on the Mexican border, you can be assured immigration would abruptly end. Although, in a "non-interventionist" world we would have to just sit there and accept the situation in Mexico with no options.

Our options are to enforce immigration laws. I don't propose intervention; Mexico is a sovereign nation that has not taken aggressive action against us.

In a non-interventionist world we would be unable to interdict ships carrying nuclear material from North Korea to other rouge states. In a non-interventionist world we would stop being non-interventionist when one of those weapons obliterated an American city.

If we had been non-interventionist for a reasonable period of time prior to this date, there would be little reason for a 'rogue states' to want to nuke us.

And yes, in many cases defense involves being proactive. You can call it aggression as you choose, but being proactive to ensure security is defense.

I recognize the difference between being pro-active and aggressive. We can justly fight a pro-active war, we can not justly fight an aggressive war. Your examples of the seizure of nuclear material, out of context are examples of pro-action. If put in the context of our interventionist foreign policy, it's less clear. Now, that said, if we are engaging in an interventionist foreign policy [which we are], we have to take action such as what you described.

And we should secure our borders, but that should not simply be the main focus of our defense posture. If it is, then we will no longer be the dominant world power, and we will face massive proliferation, and increased risk of a catastrophic terror attack.

I'm personally unconcerned with 'dominance'. Security is tantamount [from a foreign policy perspective]. A country does not need to be the 'dominant world power' in order to be secure. That is the difference between non-interventionism and a borderline neo-imperialist foreign policy. We don't settle for 'safe', we need to be 'dominant'.

-NC

 

[XCALIDEM]

I take it you like Sarah

I like her too but I think there are better choices out there for president.

If the choice was her or Obama, she wins hands down but If the choice was her or lets say Romney or Jindal Id pick one of them.

I think Sarah Palin would make a great Senator or Congress Woman though and be more effective in that role.

I think that some of those choices, including Palin won't be much in the running in 2012. Remember how they talked about Rudy Giullianni and he didn't do crap. The same goes for Gingrich, he's old news. I think somebody like Pawlenty can be a good runner. I'm not sure; maybe a senator... We'll see. Let's hope that the GOP can get some seats back next year. that is the first step. We can't afford anymore of this unregulated massive spending. this is ridiculous...

 

[Pandora]

I think that some of those choices, including Palin won't be much in the running in 2012. Remember how they talked about Rudy Giullianni and he didn't do crap. The same goes for Gingrich, he's old news. I think somebody like Pawlenty can be a good runner. I'm not sure; maybe a senator... We'll see. Let's hope that the GOP can get some seats back next year. that is the first step. We can't afford anymore of this unregulated massive spending. this is ridiculous...

I hope its not a senator, I would rather see a gov. they have more experience than a senator and a senator has too many ties to congress IMHO

I think your right though that by 4 years from now it will be someone new we dont know much about yet.

I think Rudi just made a big mistake by not participating in the debates and waiting in florida for the primary. though im glad, I dont like him much

 

[BigRob]

This begs the question, if we 'do not look that bad' in Iraq, what would qualify as 'bad'? Afghanistan was not an instance of intervention, it was a defensive war. Al Qaeda was effectively a state-sanctioned entity in Afghanistan. Once it was determined that they were responsible for the Sept. 11th Attacks, we were well within our rights to defend ourselves.

Bad would have been leaving in defeat. Many moderate Arab states were quite glad to have Saddam out of the picture.

If you go back and look at the intel on Iraq, pretty clear argument comes out that we were well within our rights to intervene in that one too. Intervention simply becomes subjective, so I find the notion of "non-intervention" to be bogus.

'Staying' was not necessarily a mistake...Going in initially, however, was a massive mistake.

In hindsight, but you can't run policy based on hindsight.

Our options are to enforce immigration laws. I don't propose intervention; Mexico is a sovereign nation that has not taken aggressive action against us.

I would predict we are going to have to intervene down in Mexico in one way or another sad to say.

If we had been non-interventionist for a reasonable period of time prior to this date, there would be little reason for a 'rogue states' to want to nuke us.

We also would not be the world hegemon and would enjoy none of the benefits that come along with that.

I recognize the difference between being pro-active and aggressive. We can justly fight a pro-active war, we can not justly fight an aggressive war. Your examples of the seizure of nuclear material, out of context are examples of pro-action. If put in the context of our interventionist foreign policy, it's less clear. Now, that said, if we are engaging in an interventionist foreign policy [which we are], we have to take action such as what you described.

Pro-active and aggressive will then just be turned into a subjective argument. I can go with that. Call it whatever you like, as long as we can do what we need to do.

I see no problem with an interventionist policy. Maintaining US hegemon comes with multiple benefits that we need to protect.

I'm personally unconcerned with 'dominance'. Security is tantamount [from a foreign policy perspective]. A country does not need to be the 'dominant world power' in order to be secure. That is the difference between non-interventionism and a borderline neo-imperialist foreign policy. We don't settle for 'safe', we need to be 'dominant'.

What is "safe" in your opinion? And how do you ensure this without being involved around the world protecting your interests?

 

[top gun]

I agree!

The speaking in tongues, witchcraft fighting Miss Wasilla would be an absolutely GREAT, GREAT choice!!!

And if Joe The Plumber is too busy doing foreign policy or something her daughters baby daddy Levi is free now that he's runned off!

Come on... If I were you I'd be most worried if the Republicants will even have a Party left after the Obama 8 year run of positive improvement to even attempt a campaign with half a chance even then.

 

[Pandora]

If I were you I'd be most worried if the Republicants will even have a Party left after the Obama 8 year run.

Oh Top Gun I am with you,

I am worried there won’t be a republican party too!

Hell, I am worried we won’t recognize our own country by the time this is over…