Coburn to McCain: Cutting defense is not 'isolationist'

[CheezItsRule]

http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/p...to_mccain_cutting_defense_is_not_isolationist

 

[libertybrewcity]

ally!

 

[Feeding the Abscess]

Coburn's solid on some issues, but I can't call someone who supports interventionist foreign policy and the PATRIOT Act an ally.

 

[TheTyke]

Coburn's solid on some issues, but I can't call someone who supports interventionist foreign policy and the PATRIOT Act an ally.

Remember, an "ally" is someone you can work with on an issue. Like, Alan Grayson was Ron's ally on Audit the Fed, even though he said Ron killed people by voting against Obamacare

 

[Brett85]

Coburn's solid on some issues, but I can't call someone who supports interventionist foreign policy and the PATRIOT Act an ally.

Why would you call him an "interventionalist" when he said that we need to have a "foreign policy that we can afford." If Coburn is an interventionalist then every Republican other than the Paul's are interventionalists.

 

[JohnGalt23g]

Let Europe defend Europe.

Let Japan defend Japan.

Let S. Korea defend S. Korea.

Let the US defend the US.

 

[CasualApathy]

I think you greatly undervalue the goodwill americas defence of europe generates here amongst europeans! I'm sure that goodwill more than compensates for any slight economical cost of doing so... Okay, just kidding! I doubt hardly any of my fellow europeans even know

EDIT: And if they do they probably resent it.

EDIT 2: As they do america in general.

 

[Feeding the Abscess]

Why would you call him an "interventionalist" when he said that we need to have a "foreign policy that we can afford." If Coburn is an interventionalist then every Republican other than the Paul's are interventionalists.

Coburn is for the war on terror, is for Iraq and Afghanistan, sanctions on Iran, and is for pre-emptive war. That's interventionist. He's also for several Free Trade agreements (while opposing some others).

And yes, pretty much every Republican outside of the Pauls have an interventionist foreign policy. Walter Jones and a couple of others support leaving Afghanistan and Iraq, but nobody advocates non-intervention on Ron's level.

 

[ronaldo23]

Coburn is for the war on terror, is for Iraq and Afghanistan, sanctions on Iran, and is for pre-emptive war. That's interventionist. He's also for several Free Trade agreements (while opposing some others).

And yes, pretty much every Republican outside of the Pauls have an interventionist foreign policy. Walter Jones and a couple of others support leaving Afghanistan and Iraq, but nobody advocates non-intervention on Ron's level.

Honestly, major savings can be made even if we don't touch afghanistan and iraq at first. I'm not sure Coburn has ever endorsed troop presence in europe, japan, korea etc, and I don't think that reductions there are off the table, even for some of the war hawks (besides the village idiot McCain). Of the $700 billion budget, only $159 is in Iraq/Afghanistan. Cato has a pretty good strategy to reduce the military 1.2 trillion over a decade, and I think some of the "interventionists" would endorse many of the provisions.

 

[wormyguy]

Coburn has come out against the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and has voted against every war funding bill since March of 2008. He's a solid ally on this issue.

 

[Tinnuhana]

Someone was trying to make a point that if Rand pushed cutting military spending, places in KY like Ft. Campbell would suffer. But that has little to do with closing overseas bases. As part of a strong national defense, Ft. Campbell would probably stay the same.

 

[Brett85]

Coburn is for the war on terror, is for Iraq and Afghanistan, sanctions on Iran, and is for pre-emptive war. That's interventionist. He's also for several Free Trade agreements (while opposing some others).

And yes, pretty much every Republican outside of the Pauls have an interventionist foreign policy. Walter Jones and a couple of others support leaving Afghanistan and Iraq, but nobody advocates non-intervention on Ron's level.

He doesn't support the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan as far as I know. As another poster noted, he's voted against every war funding bill since 2008. Also, supporting free trade agreements has nothing to do with "intervention." I thought libertarians supported free trade?

 

[HarryBrowneLives]

Obviously, we need to stay very focused on this matter. Guys like McStain will decry about cutting Ft. Cambell and throwing Marines into the street, and the Red Chi Coms will be at your doorstep next week, bla, bla, bla/scare tactics.

We need to focus in on ONE issue ... and that is this:

There is NO excuse or compelling reason to have the amount of military bases we have in Europe alone. The Europeans spend a tiny fraction of their budgets compared to us on defense. At the same time, they tout their great social programs, early retirements, and long vacations as a superior system to ours.

If we truly believe in self reliance, then we should also believe that a five year drawdown by the US and subsequent buildup for European nations in question will be better for us, better for them, and better for the future of freedom in the long term.

 

[TheDriver]

The text of the interview can be found here.


McCain said he agreed with cutting 100 billion dollars in the military, right after he mentioned Rand.


I still don't get the "protectionist" label.

 

[ronaldo23]

The text of the interview can be found here.


McCain said he agreed with cutting 100 billion dollars in the military, right after he mentioned Rand.


I still don't get the "protectionist" label.

I don't think McCain gets it either. He is continuing to play the role of the village idiot, thinking not supporting managed trade agreements means you are inherently against trading with another nation.

Also...where is DeMint on this issue? He has said in the past that he thinks the military needs to INCREASE in size, but he is noticeably silent on the issue of defense cuts today...

 

[HarryBrowneLives]

From Foriegn Policy...


"NATO Europe spends roughly $300 billion on defense each year compared to Russia's $40 billion; if our European allies can't handle Russia's not-very-impressive military, then they don't deserve U.S. help."

 

[Imperial]

Coburn has come out against the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and has voted against every war funding bill since March of 2008. He's a solid ally on this issue

.

That is some good stuff!

Also...where is DeMint on this issue?

Good question. I am pretty sure he would be more McCainy on this issue, but I would love to see otherwise.

 

[Feeding the Abscess]

He doesn't support the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan as far as I know. As another poster noted, he's voted against every war funding bill since 2008. Also, supporting free trade agreements has nothing to do with "intervention." I thought libertarians supported free trade?

Free Trade agreements are corporatist schemes that hinder free trade. free trade is just that - free trade. No thousands of pages documents, just open trade.

 

[smithtg]

Someone was trying to make a point that if Rand pushed cutting military spending, places in KY like Ft. Campbell would suffer. But that has little to do with closing overseas bases. As part of a strong national defense, Ft. Campbell would probably stay the same.

I agree to a point; but part of the problem with big government is that there are 435 districts that "want to stay the same". Sure cutting the overseas empire is going to help a ton, but there is still some pork in every district in the DOD. Same goes for every other government line item in the budget with an acronym that only the people in the district know. Status quo really means increasing spending in your district (at a base or government office) 10% a year

 

[obijuan]

Someone was trying to make a point that if Rand pushed cutting military spending, places in KY like Ft. Campbell would suffer. But that has little to do with closing overseas bases. As part of a strong national defense, Ft. Campbell would probably stay the same.

During one of the debates Rand was asked specifically if he would support cuts to Ft. Campbell and Ft. Knox. His answer was no, but because they were both top-20 military bases. I do not know where he got this information.