A Quote by Rand Paul
I think we need to get to the bottom of it. And I think there should be an investigation [of hackers attacks] because in order to defend ourselves against other adversarial countries, we have to protect our information.
Related Quotes
I think it's a little premature to talk about response until we know exactly what happened, but we should know what happened. And we should know how to defend [against hackers attacks] ourselves without question.
We need to be as well prepared to defend ourselves against public health dangers as we should be to defend ourselves against any foreign danger.
We get information in the mail, the regular postal mail, encrypted or not, vet it like a regular news organization, format it - which is sometimes something that's quite hard to do, when you're talking about giant databases of information - release it to the public and then defend ourselves against the inevitable legal and political attacks.
While we should not hesitate to deploy encryption to protect ourselves from cybercriminals, this should not be done in a way that eviscerates society's ability to defend itself against other types of criminal threats. In other words, making our virtual world more secure should not come at the expense of making us more vulnerable in the real world.
Defending ourselves from internet-based attacks, internet-originated attacks, is much, much more important than our ability to launch attacks against similar targets in foreign countries.
So I think if we want to turn the table around, more than thinking about how can we starve the Islamic State in terms of money, we should think about how can we maximise the amount of resources that we have in order to secure ourselves. For us, instead of bombing so much, which is extremely expensive, perhaps, you know, we should use some of that money in order to protect ourselves.
Unlike previous wars, our enemy now is a stateless network of religious extremists. They do not obey the laws of war, they hide among peaceful populations and launch surprise attacks on civilians. They have no armed forces per se, no territory or citizens to defend and no fear of dying during their attacks. Information is our primary weapon against this enemy, and intelligence gathered from captured operatives is perhaps the most effective means of preventing future attacks.
I don't think America needs 28,000 men on Okinawa. I don't think we need an army in Germany. What's it for, to protect Germans against the Russians, to protect the French against the Germans? It's just there by inertia, that's my reading of it. I don't think we need an army in South Korea because North Korea is absolutely no threat to South Korea.
Bottom line is, you're not going to win the war against terrorism without the help of Muslims... as well as Hindus and a lot of other groups. That's a no-brainer. Many attacks have been thwarted because of information coming from people of different faiths.
Probably if our lives were more conformed to nature, we should not need to defend ourselves against her heats and colds, but findher our constant nurse and friend, as do plants and quadrupeds.
We need, from time to time, to use military force or all of the resources at our command in order to defend the nation and defend our friends. Sometimes, that requires us to take actions that generate controversy. I think there are probably some who actually believe, if we just go talk nice to these folks, everything is going to be OK. I don't think the world works that way.
How do we prevent attacks? How do we protect our people?I think we've got to have an intelligence surge, where we are looking for every scrap of information.
For the first time federal, state and local bureaus of investigation are coordinating their effort, to serve as eyes and ears and protect us against further attacks.
I think the world has changed dramatically since September 11th. It should force us to recognize that we are going to have to defend the free institutions of our society against those who are simply not willing to belong to a civil order.
Let's take a look at NAFTA. Trump said that NAFTA was a bad deal and he was going to get rid of it in the first 100 days. Now, that's also off the table. He's made a lot of promises that he can't keep. He has distorted information. I do not think he should not be president of the United States. And I think our allies and people in other countries are looking at America and saying, "This can't be. How did this happen?"
I do think that it's really important for leaders of countries to be very clear and careful in the statements they make because their words are weighed extremely carefully by other countries, and you have to create a continuity of seriousness and of credibility in order to be able to be taken seriously and get things done.
Related Authors
Alexander Hamilton Quotes
American
Politician
Benjamin Franklin Quotes
American
Politician
Bernie Sanders Quotes
American
Politician
David Brooks Quotes
American
Politician
Hillary Clinton Quotes
American
Politician
Jill Stein Quotes
American
Politician
John F. Kerry Quotes
American
Politician
John McCain Quotes
American
Politician
Marco Rubio Quotes
American
Politician
Mitt Romney Quotes
American
Politician
Narendra Modi Quotes
Indian
Politician
Newt Gingrich Quotes
American
Politician
Paul Ryan Quotes
American
Politician
Ron Paul Quotes
American
Politician
Rudy Giuliani Quotes
American
Politician
Ted Cruz Quotes
American
Politician