Ted Cruz undecided on Rand's hemp amendment

[eduardo89]

Do you understand the history of Al-Qaeda? They would have never would have came to exists if Russia had not of gone into Afghanistan. Simple logic really, go into other peoples country's and start bombing them and in return they will pick up arms and fight back. Our foreign policy is creating more and more monsters that hate us throughout the world. If we minded our own business like say the Swiss we would never be on the verge of 17 trillion dollars in debt. And like others have said, no one here is advocating isolationism, non-intervention is the key and this is what Ron Paul preached. Do you really need to go back and watch the videos you post on YT to understand that?

It is not a simple as that. Ron Paul is naïve if he truly believes that if we simply mind our business there will never be any attacks on the US. The world isn't that simple, and I suggest you read and watch some Michael Scheuer. A non-interventionist foreign policy certainly will reduce hatred against American and make America safer, but as the lone remaining superpower there will always be threats. Enemies such as China will use whatever means possible to undermine US power and using proxies is a tool that will always be used.

I certainly agree with Ron Paul in that we should not be bombing, invading, and occupying countries unless they attack us. But today's threats aren't always state actors and in many cases bombing and invading are necessary to safeguard national security. Ron Paul agrees which is why he voted in favor of invading Afghanistan. Occupation and national building are completely unnecessary, I agree with that too and so does Ted Cruz.

Something that the "ideologically pure" on this forum seem to not understand is that national security also involves economic security and neutralizing potential threats. Taking out Syria's chemical weapons should the Assad regime fall or be unable to safeguard them from al-Qaeda is smart. In the long run it would be cheaper, both in blood and treasure, to neutralize the potential threat before it becomes an actual threat, or God forbid, an attack.

 

[QuickZ06]

Eduardo you sound like Peter King.

 

[eduardo89]

Eduardo you sound like Peter King.

How so?

I don't advocate getting involved in the foreign affairs of other countries. I don't advocate nation building. I don't advocate expanding the War on Terror. I don't advocate arming Syrian rebels. I don't advocate occupying other countries.

I do, however, think that the US should use the full might of its military to take out threats to national security.

 

[TaftFan]

I really dislike discussing FP on this forum because many cannot think critically and just repeat irrelevant talking points.

 

[JK/SEA]

intolerance and closed-minded views manifest themselves on these forums quite a bit, ussually reulting in ad hominem attacks.

pot..meet kettle.

 

[JK/SEA]

It is not a simple as that. Ron Paul is naïve if he truly believes that if we simply mind our business there will never be any attacks on the US. The world isn't that simple, and I suggest you read and watch some Michael Scheuer. A non-interventionist foreign policy certainly will reduce hatred against American and make America safer, but as the lone remaining superpower there will always be threats. Enemies such as China will use whatever means possible to undermine US power and using proxies is a tool that will always be used.

I certainly agree with Ron Paul in that we should not be bombing, invading, and occupying countries unless they attack us. But today's threats aren't always state actors and in many cases bombing and invading are necessary to safeguard national security. Ron Paul agrees which is why he voted in favor of invading Afghanistan. Occupation and national building are completely unnecessary, I agree with that too and so does Ted Cruz.

Something that the "ideologically pure" on this forum seem to not understand is that national security also involves economic security and neutralizing potential threats. Taking out Syria's chemical weapons should the Assad regime fall or be unable to safeguard them from al-Qaeda is smart. In the long run it would be cheaper, both in blood and treasure, to neutralize the potential threat before it becomes an actual threat, or God forbid, an attack.

So you advocate the status quo...i'm glad you're happy with the destruction of our economy over paranoid delusions.

 

[JK/SEA]

I really dislike discussing FP on this forum because many cannot think critically and just repeat irrelevant talking points.

care to elaborate, or are you just repeating irrelevant talking points?

 

[TaftFan]

care to elaborate, or are you just repeating irrelevant talking points?

Sure...constant strawmen, drawing faulty historical parallels, talking in the abstract about liberty, dealing in absolutes....

 

[Warlord]

the FP forum is one of the best of the lot.

 

[compromise]

Do you understand the history of Al-Qaeda? They would have never would have came to exists if Russia had not of gone into Afghanistan. Simple logic really, go into other peoples country's and start bombing them and in return they will pick up arms and fight back. Our foreign policy is creating more and more monsters that hate us throughout the world. If we minded our own business like say the Swiss we would never be on the verge of 17 trillion dollars in debt. And like others have said, no one here is advocating isolationism, non-intervention is the key and this is what Ron Paul preached. Do you really need to go back and watch the videos you post on YT to understand that?

Libya threatened to destroy Switzerland:

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1926053,00.html
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...ut-to-roll-swiss/story-e6frg6so-1225762509467
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...dafis-call-for-jihad-against-Switzerland.html
http://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/politics/Swiss_hostages_to_leave_Libya.html?cid=72240

You will always have enemies, no matter how non-interventionist you are.

 

[QuickZ06]

Libya threatened to destroy Switzerland:

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1926053,00.html
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...ut-to-roll-swiss/story-e6frg6so-1225762509467
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...dafis-call-for-jihad-against-Switzerland.html
http://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/politics/Swiss_hostages_to_leave_Libya.html?cid=72240

You will always have enemies, no matter how non-interventionist you are.

Relations between Libya and Switzerland soured in July 2008, when Gaddafi's son Hannibal and his wife were arrested by police in Geneva for allegedly beating their two servants at a local hotel. Gaddafi was so enraged by his son's two-day detention that he immediately retaliated by shutting down local subsidiaries of Swiss companies Nestlé and ABB in Libya, arresting two Swiss businessmen for supposed visa irregularities, canceling most commercial flights between the two countries and withdrawing about $5 billion from his Swiss bank accounts.
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1926053,00.html

Did you bother to read what you posted.......

 

[QuickZ06]

How so?

I don't advocate getting involved in the foreign affairs of other countries. I don't advocate nation building. I don't advocate expanding the War on Terror. I don't advocate arming Syrian rebels. I don't advocate occupying other countries.

I do, however, think that the US should use the full might of its military to take out threats to national security.

Unreal, just thought I would never see these types of post on RPF. We have ZERO money to do anything, we are in more debt than the world has ever known. There is no more America World Police and there never should have been because it has put us in the situation we are in today. They would never want to use those chemical weapons against us if we were not doing drone strikes left and right, over throwing leaders, and starting wars, killing hundred of thousands or even millions of civilians throughout the middle east.

 

[puppetmaster]

It is not a simple as that. Ron Paul is naïve if he truly believes that if we simply mind our business there will never be any attacks on the US. The world isn't that simple, and I suggest you read and watch some Michael Scheuer. A non-interventionist foreign policy certainly will reduce hatred against American and make America safer, but as the lone remaining superpower there will always be threats. Enemies such as China will use whatever means possible to undermine US power and using proxies is a tool that will always be used.

I certainly agree with Ron Paul in that we should not be bombing, invading, and occupying countries unless they attack us. But today's threats aren't always state actors and in many cases bombing and invading are necessary to safeguard national security. Ron Paul agrees which is why he voted in favor of invading Afghanistan. Occupation and national building are completely unnecessary, I agree with that too and so does Ted Cruz.

Something that the "ideologically pure" on this forum seem to not understand is that national security also involves economic security and neutralizing potential threats. Taking out Syria's chemical weapons should the Assad regime fall or be unable to safeguard them from al-Qaeda is smart. In the long run it would be cheaper, both in blood and treasure, to neutralize the potential threat before it becomes an actual threat, or God forbid, an attack.

What we have done and are doing in Afghanistan is nothing like what Ron Paul advocated....period

 

[compromise]

Did you bother to read what you posted.......

So arresting foreigners who are breaking the laws of your nation is an act of war?

 

[Sola_Fide]

Eduardo you sound like Peter King.

Thats what I was thinking.

 

[eduardo89]

What we have done and are doing in Afghanistan is nothing like what Ron Paul advocated....period

I didn't say that.

 

[surf]

back to this hemp issue - let me just say that this Cruz bitch is seriously lacking cajones.

 

[HigherVision]

Which still isn't good enough.

It might be the best we can realistically get unfortunately. But if he's against hemp that's just ridiculous.

 

[Miguel]

So where does Sen. Ted Cruz now stand on hemp? or is he still "fact" finding?

 

[Aratus]

is pore ted cruz ever going to admit
to having "smoked" the substance that is rather
similar to and more powerful than wild hemp?