Re: Which Presidential Candidates do you like?
[ QUOTE ]
Howard, he will not be elected dictator of America, but he would be Commander in Chief of the armed forces. That means he can pull out as many troops as he pleases and request as little money as he likes for his military operations. When Ron Paul discusses whether he would endorse another Republican, the sticking point isn't abolishing the IRS or moving towards the gold standard, it's changing to a non-interventionist foreign policy.
As Reagan said, "From Stettin on the Baltic to Varna on the Black Sea, the regimes planted by totalitarianism have had more than thirty years to establish their legitimacy. But none -- not one regime -- has yet been able to risk free elections. Regimes planted by bayonets do not take root... If history teaches anything, it teaches self-delusion in the face of unpleasant facts is folly... Our military strength is a prerequisite to peace, but let it be clear we maintain this strength in the hope it will never be used, for the ultimate determinant in the struggle that's now going on in the world will not be bombs and rockets but a test of wills and ideas, a trial of spiritual resolve, the values we hold, the beliefs we cherish, the ideals to which we are dedicated."
[/ QUOTE ]
I think that 'As Reagan read from a script written by someone else' might be more accurate. I also am not quite sure that when somebody says 'non-interventionist' (which I don't mind all that much as it will at least make the Europeans pick up some of the slack) they don't really mean 'isolationist' which is something I could never support.
|