his pacifist isolationist strategy is brainless and dangerous in today's world...
Please do not mischaracterize Ron Paul’s foreign policy as isolationist. I have pointed out to you the difference between isolationist and nonintervention. You choose to ignore that difference and go on to say there is no difference after I have provided definitions, knowing that you would take exception.
Why do you insist on attempting to try and change what is?
Still, how come a non Paul supporter was able to understand and answer my question when you and Buddy were not able to make sense at all?
That question has been asked and answered here: Message 23828476
You said: this is the first I've ever heard of this phrase, and it's from your post, not from any of the others who have claimed they "know" Paul's position...
I said: "Au contraire GZ, I refer you to post Message 23537310 where I introduced you to the Congressman’s concept of using Letters of Marque and Reprisal…- had you taken the time to read you would have seen this:
The best tool the framers of the Constitution provided under these circumstances was the power of Congress to grant letters of marque and reprisals, in order to narrow the retaliation to only the guilty parties. The complexity of the issue, the vagueness of the enemy, and the political pressure to respond immediately limits our choices. The proposed resolution is the only option we're offered and doing nothing is unthinkable.
Had you any curiosity or desire to learn the meaning of the term, you would have researched it instead of disregarding it or dismissing it out of hand if you indeed did read it."
Further, regarding the "non-Ron Paul supporter," he gave you an explanation relative to “Letters of Marque” one facet of what you might want to term anti-terrorist policy.
I would give very good odds you still have not researched the subject in order to rectify your ignorance and be able to converse intelligently about it. Just as you choose to not recognize the Congressman’s policy as nonintervention vs. isolationist. Are we a touch narrow minded?
In the same post where I provided the Congressman’s multi-point plan relative to terrorism, I provided an explanation why I had previously not gone into detail.
You said: clearly you have no interest in educating me...
and I replied: ”I have tried by directing you to the Congressman’s statements as I would assume you would prefer to read his words rather than mine given he is much more eloquent and qualified to address your question.”
And last but not least I believe I have answered all your questions, however, you have chosen not to answer mine. Why is it that you have not responded to them. TIA |
