[Video] Ted Cruz foreign policy speech

[Brian4Liberty]

Here it is, the long awaited foreign policy speech from Ted Cruz, presented at the Heritage Foundation on Sept. 11, 2013.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z5XNorfVgjM


Edit: if you have the time, please watch the speech to get your own take on it.

[Brian4Liberty]

Notes and commentary on the speech:

- Marxism/Leninism is a failure. (Good start.)

- Have vote in UN to censure Syria for use of chemical weapons. (Sure, that's fine, but only after a thorough UN investigation of who used chemical weapons in Syria).

- Cut off foreign aid to Iraq if they let Iran use their airspace to deliver weapons to Syria. (Sure, that's ok. Once again, as punishment only if it's verified. Why not just cut off the aid because we can't afford it! Where is building other nations in the Constitution again?)

- Punish Russia if they vote against Syria sanctions in the UN by installing ABMs near them in Europe. (Uh, no. Bad idea. Escalate tensions because some don't like a UN vote? Bullshit.)

- Punish China if they vote against Syria sanctions in the UN by selling new weapons to Taiwan. (Uh, no. Bad idea. Escalate tensions because some don't like a UN vote? And we are going to escalate tensions with China after spending 20 years giving them our best technology and manufacturing? Yeah, brilliant plan there.)

- Increase military aid to Israel because they are allies and aren't Muslims. (Uh, no again. We can't afford more foreign aid, and they don't need it.)

- More talk about confronting Russia and China. (Stupid.)

- Replace all US military equipment because it's too old, increase military spending. (Yeah, that should be easy. Cruz is not a fiscal conservative.)

- Build ABM system like Israel has. (Worth further study, but deployment is tricky, and how much will it cost? Last time I checked, Al-Qaeda was not firing ICBMs at the US. Of course this becomes more necessary if you plan on igniting a new Cold War with Russia and China.)

- Israel is a great experimental test area for new weapons. (Does Israel like that idea?)

- Ronald Reagan strongly confronted the USSR by telling Gorbachev to "tear down the wall". (Interesting interpretation. Intended to justify an adversarial stance today with Russia and China. The problem is that quote from Reagan was about reducing tensions and adversarial relationships. Logical fail.)

[fr33]

What a horrible piece of shit and a puppet for the MIC.

[TaftFan]

In many cases, military equipment does need to be replaced and I would support that. If we adopt a defensive posture we could shift money from war to technology, while still saving overall.

Although I know many on this forum don't even support having an army, but I wouldn't include them in a serious policy discussion.

[fr33]

He'll win over the Birchers with his "fight the Russians" rhetoric. They've longed for another cold war for quite a while now.

[enhanced_deficit]

Might find time later to watch whole vid.
By any chance did he support US led invasions of Iran/Syria and call CUFI founder Christian Zionist warmonger John Hagee a great guy as he did in his previous FP speech?



In many cases, military equipment does need to be replaced and I would support that. ...

What about all the innocent people who could be killed in trying to "move" the bombs close to expiration dates?
What about blowbacks risks from foreign intervetions using MEquip made in US?

Highly doubt someone losing family members in a foreign country would go, "Oh the bomb that just vaporized my family was near expiration date and and had to be dropped somewhere.. so I understand".

On a different note, do you know what caused fall of WTC1-2-7 buildings on 9/11?

Edit: I hope I did not misread what you meant by "mil equip replacement". If I did , will redirect these Qs to R. T. Cruz.

[Brian4Liberty]

How could I forget to mention:

@23:35-26:00 - Iran is unacceptable danger if they try to develop nuclear weapons. US should use "overwhelming military force" if they do. (Does the Congrees have to approve of this new war?)

[Brian4Liberty]

Might find time later to watch whole vid.
By any chance did he support US led invasions of Iran/Syria and call CUFI founder Christian Zionist warmonger John Hagee a great guy as he did in his previous FP speech?

Nothing about Hagee.

[Brian4Liberty]

Cruz does mention that his foreign policy advisor is Victoria Coats.

Found this article by her about Russia, Soviet Union, Israel, Netanyahu and Putin:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/putin-goes-israel_648167.html

Edit: she seems to post a lot on RedState:

http://www.redstate.com/users/academicelephant/

Her review of a Robert Kagan book:

http://www.redstate.com/2012/02/28/its-a-wonderful-country-robert-kagans-the-world-america-made/

Over a year old, but her position still seems to match up with Cruz's on Syria:

http://www.redstate.com/2012/06/05/a-risk-of-contagion-the-growing-threat-from-syrias-wmd/

[ObiRandKenobi]

that speech was lame for the reasons mentioned already

[Saint Vitus]

This guy is awful. I knew he sucked when he talked about preemptively attacking Iran during his campaign. But now he talks like he either wants to start another Cold War, or possibly even World War III.

[Brett85]

The moderator at the YAL event deserves criticism for asking Cruz a bunch of softball questions and not going asking tougher questions about his specific foreign policy views.

[Brian4Liberty]

The moderator at the YAL event deserves criticism for asking Cruz a bunch of softball questions and not going asking tougher questions about his specific foreign policy views.

Yeah, the specifics are where it goes awry. This is his first extensive speech on the subject.

Everyone who is interested should watch the entire speech and make up their own minds. Other's impressions may be different than mine. My notes were focusing more on areas of disagreement, and was by no means a comprehensive summary of the entire speech.

[Christian Liberty]

- Have vote in UN to censure Syria for use of chemical weapons. (Sure, that's fine, but only after a thorough UN investigation of who used chemical weapons in Syria).


No, no it is not.

- Cut off foreign aid to Iraq if they let Iran use their airspace to deliver weapons to Syria. (Sure, that's ok. Once again, as punishment only if it's verified. Why not just cut off the aid because we can't afford it! Where is building other nations in the Constitution again?)


Again, why? Why is it any of our business, even if it is "Verified"?

- Punish Russia if they vote against Syria sanctions in the UN by installing ABMs near them in Europe. (Uh, no. Bad idea. Escalate tensions because some don't like a UN vote? Bullshit.)


thumbs up to you, thumbs down to Cruz.

- Punish China if they vote against Syria sanctions in the UN by selling new weapons to Taiwan. (Uh, no. Bad idea. Escalate tensions because some don't like a UN vote? And we are going to escalate tensions with China after spending 20 years giving them our best technology and manufacturing? Yeah, brilliant plan there.)


See above.

- Increase military aid to Israel because they are allies and aren't Muslims. (Uh, no again. We can't afford more foreign aid, and they don't need it.)


He's an Israel-first whore. I've pointed this out before.
- More talk about confronting Russia and China. (Stupid.)


- Replace all US military equipment because it's too old, increase military spending. (Yeah, that should be easy. Cruz is not a fiscal conservative.)


I'm in in favor of this one, I'm not in favor of the military at all anymore, but I could live with this one. This is the kind of thing I'd probably let Rand Paul slide on, so I'll let Cruz slide on it as well. Although, I'm assuming, based on what you actually said, that he's talking about increasing DOMESTIC military spending, not foreign spending.


- Build ABM system like Israel has. (Worth further study, but deployment is tricky, and how much will it cost? Last time I checked, Al-Qaeda was not firing ICBMs at the US. Of course this becomes more necessary if you plan on igniting a new Cold War with Russia and China.)


I'd like to have something that could defend against ICBM attacks, actually. I don't know if it will work, and I don't really think someone would nuke us out of the blue, but considering how aggressive the US is, yeah...

I mean, ultimately, I can't really justify any government spending on anything, but as long as they are going to exist, yeah, this is probably something they should be doing, within reason.



- Israel is a great experimental test area for new weapons. (Does Israel like that idea?)


I agree with you here.

- Ronald Reagan strongly confronted the USSR by telling Gorbachev to "tear down the wall". (Interesting interpretation. Intended to justify an adversarial stance today with Russia and China. The problem is that quote from Reagan was about reducing tensions and adversarial relationships. Logical fail.)

The USSR is a classic case of "intervention makes more problems." Intervention in WWII made the USSR the problem it was. Intervening in WWI made WWII the problem it was. Giving weapons to nations in Europe is what made WWI the problem it was. In each case I'd say the sooner the process can be stopped, the better. And that means not intervening, even if its really tempting to do so.

[Brett85]

Intervention in WWII made the USSR the problem it was.

"Intervention" in World War II? We didn't get involved in WWII until Japan attacked us.