@Silverchild79,
Silverchild79;39660 wrote:the funny thing is he criticizes Bush's use of executive power but doing what you claim he would do would be way a more controversial use of executive power, and Paul would do it to "limit anti American sentiment"? So Ron Paul, the Candidate who most loudly claims "America First", would change his foreign policy so that other countries would think well of us? This is where I say something about having your cake and eating it too....
I'll say it again, since the restructuring following 911 the FBI and CIA have broken up many terror plots and in conjunction with the War on Terror have kept this country safe. We could be allot worse off then having Iran mad at us. In fact Iran is a brutal dictatorship who's striving to attain nuclear weapons so they can commit genocide against another people, if America is doing the right thing Iran should hate us
The president's job is to oversee the executive branch. Bush is criticized for EXPANDING executive power unConstitutionally, there is a difference.
Paul's foreign policy would not necessarily make nations "like" US, but it would limit their resentment. By staying out of their politics and letting them control their own destiny you drastically cut back the number of people mad at you to the point of wanting to kill your people, this is logical fact. If you don't have as many people trying to kill you, you don't need a large intelligence apartatus. Further, it's not as if Paul would eliminate the CIA's power in one day. Just like any reform, it has to be done over time, and gradually. Again, your ignorance of the man's policies is staggering for somebody so adamently against him.
The CIA and FBI have foiled plots, and where do we get that information? The FBI and CIA, and they have no reason to lie (except for the justification of their multi-billion dollar budgets). I'm sure they have broken up terror plots, but there is a difference between a guy with a make-shift bomb and no plan and 19 hijackers on 4 planes, you and I both know this. Fact is, if I wanted to commit a terrorist act (if one were so inclined), the FBI and CIA could do not a damn thing to stop me. Look at McVeigh, same model, different man, boom. You can't be completely safe, but you can be completely oppressed in the pursuit of that safety. I choose dangerous liberty.
IRAN IS NOT A DICTATORSHIP. You still haven't read their constitution have you? They have an elected president, and elected parliament, and a religious council who oversees the government (which aside from foreign affairs, is largely inactive). They are pursuing nuclear power, and you have no evidence they are pursuing anything else. If they were trying to get nukes, so what? They won't hand over BILLIONS of dollars of research to a terrorist group, and they sure as hell won't attack Israel, a nation capable of retatliating with massive destructive force. If they wanted nukes, they'd want them to keep us OUT. In the history of nuclear weapons, one nation is responsible for 100% of their war deaths. Who might that be? Please do some form of academic research on these topics instead of simply stating that which the administration tells us, because most of your points simply aren't true (I won't presume to call you a liar, because you could simply not know).
