Rudys Search For A Realistic Peace!

He is a pro abortionist, and so what else he is does not matter to me.

 

You mean this one:

www.foreignaffairs.org/20070901faessay86501/rudolph-giuliani/toward-a-realistic-peace.html?mode=print

 

Rudy is GOP mainstream on foreign policy

When of Rudy's strong points is that he is GOP mainstream on foreign policy. Looking at the history of the GOP, one sees quickly that Hoosier Wendell Wilkie took the GOP out of the isolationist camp in support of the USA during World War II when many in the GOP did not want to follow the lead of the adulterous playboy aristocrat FDR into war. Since then the GOP has set the pace on foreign affairs and it has been the Democrats who have earned the label of weak on defense of the USA. Zell Miller noted very well that the Democrats wanted an America armed only with spitballs....

As for Rudy's chances, I think that he will fall to Fred Thompson, who also follows the Reagan foreign policy of defending the USA against all enemies, foreign, domestic, and Islamic.

 

Hope and pray you are right.

 

I have never met any American who is not in favor of that foreign policy - even though I am aware of those who falsely believe that only the Republican Party is in favor of such. But fortunately right-thinking Americans have learned to ignore such people.

Now, Rudy Giuliani is among those who adhere to the now discredited neo-"conservative" foreign policy which created the mess we now have to deal with in Iraq. His stance may be a winner among the warvangelicals in the GOP but it is a sure loser in the November 2008 general election.

Welcome back, cmg.

 

Well, thanks, Ken--and I am glad that you are still posting. And thanks, Saturneptune, as well, and I should have said as you did that it is my hope and prayer that Fred Thompson will be elected in 2008.

And I disagree with the idea that it is the Neocons who put us in Iraq. I have come to believe that Neocon is just a word for those who support the Bush foreign policy, as many of us have thought that Bush allowed Congress to spend too much money. As Reagan said, he himself never spent a dime as the power of the purse resides with Congress who did all of the spending. Realistically, it is doubtful that a Bush veto would have stopped the spending spree in Washington DC so I am not sure that Bush is anything other than politcally weak when all is said and done.

As for the Bush foreign policy, I think it is in line with the GOP foreign policy in general. I can't see that Fred Thompson is going to cut and run in Iraq--in fact, I think he will fight till victory, as would Rudy, who saw first-hand what Islam intends for this nation.

I think that the Democrats are weak on defense and that if they are elected next year that they will pull out of Iraq and downsize the military as they did under Clinton--just as they say that they will do.

As for Fred Thompson, I think that his official website is:

http://www.imwithfred.com/Index.aspx

 

1) I do not understand why so many Republicans put down our men and women in the military. Our military won in Iraq years ago - they deposed Saddam Hussein and handed the Iraqis a representative form of government on a silver platter purchased with American blood and treasure. That were the goals that the Bush administration put forth when President Bush ordered the invasion of Iraq and they were fulfilled years ago.

2) If that is what you think will happen, then you had best gear up for it as I see the Democrats increasing their majorities in both houses of Congress in the November 2008 elections and that our next president will be Hillary Rodham Clinton.

I have desire to support Fred Thompson. I think he is nothing more than another George W. Bush with a deeper voice. I am especially troubled by his affiliation with the American Enterprise Institute(AEI).

 

The victory in Iraq is not complete because the peace is not assured and everyone concedes that there will be a bloodbath as a consequence of American withdrawal, as the Democrats are planning now as a part of their political victory next year.

The GOP does not "put down" the military. We adore and admire the military and support them 100%. We just don't blame them for the slow progress in Iraq as do the Democrats and the isolationists. The GOP is keenly aware of the difficulties of fighting a war on the site of ancient Babylon.

Rudy is going to fight until victory--MacArthur said in Korea that there was no substitute for victory when the Democrats wanted to cut Korea in half and time has proven MacArthur correct and Truman wrong about Korea. And Fred Thompson has indicated on Fox News that he supports the war effort in Iraq.

By the way, Rudy has said in his paper to the Council on Foreign Relations that he would revive Reagan's idea of a missile defense (what the Democrats call Star Wars in an effort to dismiss it). Rudy has called for increased spending for the military and has critized Clinton's peace dividend, which resulted in a hollow army such as FDR had before WW II.

So I would say that Reagan, Bush, Rudy G., and Fred Thompson are all mainstread Republicans.

To the isolationists such as you, Ken, I say that if you have no more desire to follow the GOP foreign policy, then you are on the wrong ticket and you should vote with the Democrats who will give you more isolation than you want I believe.

Excuse me a little; I spent the day reading the beginnings of the military history book We Were Soldiers Once, and Young about Viet Nam and how my generation fought for the USA.

 

1) That is not what the banner said when Bush spoke on the aircraft carrier in May 2003. Remember what it said? "Mission Accomplished". I reject the idea that so many Republicans are trumpeting that our military has failed to achieve this nation's goals in Iraq. The problem is with the many Republicans who keep moving the goal posts that they want our brave men and women to kick the football through.

2) You need to include President Eisenhower and the Republicans who supported him in 1952 in your list of blame.

3) I am not an isolationist. I am a non-interventionist. It is the present Bush administration which has been practicing isolationism. These United States have never been more diplomatically isolated in its history than during this Bush administration.

4) That is not how mainstream Republicans thought of Reagan in September 1979. The Democrats were hoping that Reagan would win the GOP nomination as they thought he would be their best chance to hang onto the White House in 1980(in much the same way that some Republicans are thinking of Hillary Clinton today).

It is good to to crossing swords with you again in political debate, cmg.

 

Bush's banner of Mission Accomplished was an error. The mission is not accomplished because the fighting goes on. Victory is when your side wins and there is no more fighting against you. It is what we achieved against Germany, Japan, and Italy in WW II, although Italy switched sides before the end of WW II. Bush has not asked the military to do even more and more. On the contrary, it is the Democrats who have suggested both before and since their political victory last November that the military had only so much more time before the Democrats ended the war no matter what. It reminds one of LBJ's interference in Viet Nam with his rules of engagement.

No, Ike does not belong on the list who accepted defeat in Korea. Truman had the political victory of firing MacArthur and calling for a truce in the police action in Korea. President Eisenhower merely presided over the political decision. There was no victory in Korea and now we have a nut-case government armed with nuclear power thanks to the Chinese, who were shielded from attack by Truman during the Korean War.

Calling the Bush administration isolated because the Pope and the French and other Europeans don't like us is the Democrat Party line. The truth of the matter is that the Europeans are socialistic and are always more friendly with Democrats than with Republicans. Isolation refers to retreating into fortress America and refusing to help other nations in their hour of need when their lifeblood is being spilled by the forces of naxism and communism and islamism.

The late Pope was very much against the USA and against the war in Iraq and many of the Catholics of Europe and America have lined up with the Pope (as all good Catholics must do) against America.

I infer, Ken, that you only want to fight the Taliban and seek Obama Bin Laden. But to those who wanted to take the fight to the enemy, where was a better place to join the battle than Iraq? We have divided Syria and Iran geographically and kept the forces of darkness from further destruction of worldwide economic needs. If Iran goes nuclear, we are nearby to help defeat Iran.

The problem with Europe is that they have no military power and are helpless captives against Islam just as they were essentially helpless against Germany during WW II.

 

How about if we had totally wiped out al Qaeda and its Taliban allies before engaging in this conflict in Iraq. Instead, the Taliban is making a semblance of a comeback in Afghanistan and al Qaeda has regrouped in western Pakistan and is now stronger than it has been since the conflict in Aghanistan began.

And our military is now stretched so thin that there is no way that our federal government can realistically order an invasion of Iran. Of course, just because it would be an insane action to do so doesn't mean that the Bush administration won't do it.

 

It seems to me, Ken, that you constantly repeat the straight Democrat Party line on the war since the attack of America on Nine Eleven. As I said before, I find the Democrats to be overblown on this subject considering how many were killed in one day during some of the darkest days of WW II. But then I have been reading today about our heroic military in Viet Nam against the best North Viet Nam regular army as trained and equipted by worldwide communism as written in the military history book We Were Young Once, and Soldiers. There is no substitute for victory!--that has been the GOP foreign policy statement since MacArthur and the Korean War!

If you want a substitute for victory, vote for the current crop of Democrats or vote for the Constitution Party or the Libertarian Party.

As for the original subject of this thread, one can conclude that Rudy is a representative of the Reagan Republican Party based upon his foreign policy paper as linked above.

 

1) President Eisenhower stopped the Korean War short of victory. President Nixon stopped the Vietnam War short of victory. President Reagan cut and ran from Lebanon. If you want to claim that they did these things because of the Democrats then you are saying that these three presidents were spineless and I reject such a characterization.

2) That is what I plan on doing.

3) President Reagan cut and ran from Lebanon. Giuliani is a 180 degree opposite of President Reagan on domestic policy.

 

President Eisenhower did not stop the Korean War. It was over before he was elected. It was Truman who stopped the possibility of victory with the firing of MacArthur. It was LBJ who instituted the rules of engagement in Viet Nam. By the time that he left office the Democrats had taken over the Congress so completely that there was no political will left to secure victory in Viet Nam and a bloodbath followed the communist takeover there.

Our retreat from Iraq will start a bloodbath there. No one even bothers to deny that.

Rudy's foreign policy is mainline GOP. He calls for Reagan's stragetic defense iniative and for a strong military and the undoing of the Clinton cuts to the military. He has made it clear that he calls for a victory in Iraq.

 

There was heavy fighting after Eisenhower was sworn into office. The Korean War did not end until July 27, 1953.

 

The possibility of victory was ruled out when Truman refused to allow the bombing of the Chinese military's assembling of men and supplies in Manchuria. To blame that on Ike is incredible. By the time that Ike came to power the Democrats had controlled everything for twenty solid years. But I suppose that Ike was somehow supposed to reverse the popularity of Truman and the Democrats and charge at the windmills of a done deed.

The same Democrat Party will blame Bush for the bloodbath in Iraq that will occur after the Democrat Party pullout assuming, as the polls say, that the American people will give full power to the Democrats next year.

The disgruntled people who attack Rudy's foreign policy statement, which is a mild GOP statement, will side with the Democrats about Iraq based upon the content of your above posts, Ken.

Rudy calls for a stronger military, a clean-up of the anti-American elements in the state department, SDI or an anti-ballastic missile system, a larger and better military. Rudy says, "There is no realistic alternative to the sovereign state system."

I don't see how Rudy could be standing anymore in the Reagan foreign policy ideas. Nor have I seen the Democrats and the third party members refute the validity of the Reagan foreign policy ideas.

 

Giuliani is 180 ° the opposite of Ronald Reagan's domestic policy, particularly on social issues.