Paul vs. McCain -- The unspoken debate?

[Pharoah]

Is it possible that McCain knows he hasn't a chance, so he decided to try and take down RP with a "suicide attack"? I've heard it said that if you drag your opponent into a dirty fight, it damages both of you and leaves room for the others to make a play. I also wonder if the Israel lobby are big contributors to McCain... since the "Hitler" smear is their favorite weapon.

 

[solrac]

Another question on pre-emptive war

What if some evil super power like nazi germany was killing millions of people in a genocide. Say not just 6 million jews.... say they hit like 20 million? Or more? And no other country in Europe was powerful enough to stop them?

Would this justify pre-emptive war, just based on the moral necessity, the public outcry?

Or would we just sit here and watch, if no one attacked us?

 

[malibu]

 

[RevolutionSD]

Can anyone else see what a desperate man McCain is? He has to attack Paul and play the Hitler card. He also seemed unusually angry the other night.

 

[Syren123]

Can anyone else see what a desperate man McCain is? He has to attack Paul and play the Hitler card. He also seemed unusually angry the other night.

Oh I agree. McCain looks like he'll blow a gasket any minute.

Apart from RP's great head shake, I think the biggest smack-down was the remark about Vietnam....how McCain said we never lost a battle in Vietnam, and Ron responded that when a Vietnamese general was told the same thing by an American, the VN general's reply was "That's irrelevant."

WOOOOOOOO! Consider yourself pwned, John.

 

[MGreen]

At some point could it not be said that a pre-emptive action against someone like HITLER becoming a super overlord supreme dicator of the largest land mass on earth with the biggest brainwashed nightmare nazi army of pure evil ever conceived of would be a good idea? A reasonable exception to the rule to never pre-emptively attack anyone?

Replace Hitler with Stalin. Then you have the reality of the situation back then. Do you think we weren't aggressive enough against the USSR?

The answer's so simple it's ridiculous: Cavalier military actions in other people's nations (WWI) caused WWII. Not isolationism at all.

One could also argue that the results of WWI has led to the troubles we face today, no? There would have been no shah to replace in Iran, or an Iraq to overthrow, or an Israel to draw attacks and hatred, if it weren't for the English and French dismantling and remaking the Ottoman Empire.