mark: i envision an amerco with the national defense that is unencumbered by overseas nationbuilding. [applause] i envision a national defense that employs peace through strength. john: that would be a reason to stand by rand, but if you're looking for a reason to stand against him, here is a different talking point. >> rand paul is wrong, and dangerous. tell him to stop siding with obama, because even one iranian bomb would be a disaster. john: that was quite a welcome to the race. as you know, lindsey graham and others are hard on this as well. do the justice of the peace folks not like his ideas, or are they afraid of him in some way? mark: i think they are afraid his ideas could catch fire. on one hand they say this shows people are afraid of rand, and on the other hand dentists a lot of money to be dropped on the head still defining himself. john: loose talk about seven figures. i've not seen any confirmation of what the actual ad is. there is no doubt that there is an ideological split. it feels emboldened, and the want to crush anybody on the ideological grounds. they feel it i

a nationbuilding on what it means to be afghans are what it means to be iraqi, how they can organize that and how they are going to be participating in it. but at the same time, increasingly you are doing counterinsurgency operations as well. and sometimes, the requirements of one was intentioned with the requirement that the othercommon meaning in order to do counterinsurgency we could cooperate with people that were not necessarily desirable and saying why were you working with many warlords are big warlords, whatever name you give them. you need to get things done in that area from a security point of view. but the state and nationbuilding project would have required and we have a vision and strategy for how to decrease the capabilities that make them the political participants and not to be a source of instability on problems for the local population that would then help the insurgency and a sense because of their misbehavior in turn created back. so there was the afghan responsibility ron said quite correctly, that their behavior. but there was also this conflicting requirement

america with the national defense unparalleled, undefeatable, and unencumbered with overseas nationbuilding. [applause] i envision a national defense that promotes as reagan put it peace through strength. i believe in applying reagan's approach to foreign policy to the iran issue, successful negotiations and untrustworthy adversary only achieved through a position of strength. we brought iran to the table through sanctions i voted for. now we must stay strong. that is why i have cosponsored legislation that ensures any deal between the u.s. and iran must be approved by congress. [applause] not only is that good policy, it is the law. it concerns me the iranians have a different interpretation of the agreement. they are putting out statements that say the complete opposite of what we are saying. it concerns me we may attempt or the president may attempt to unilaterally or prematurely halt sanctions. i will oppose any deal that does not end iran's nuclear ambitions and have strong unification measures. -- verification measures. [applause] i will insist the final version be brought before cong

underscores why maybe america must completely rethink foreign policy and this whole thing of nationbuildingmerican soldiers have died in afghanistan in 2001. the united states has invested 5 billion, china is stepping up and they are going to spin him as $46 billion and they have plans that include energy, roads, mass transit. maybe it's time to realize that they are accessing minerals, materials, and a customer of the future. you know, china is not moving a big aircraft carrier into the middle east. no one is calling on them to save the world. i have always been an advocate of america being a part of this. >> it might not be the strategy, but there's an issue that america is dealing with, it's called national security. when was the last time that you saw a bomb going off because of terrorists in the middle of china. that is one of the main motivators because we are afraid of that and we want security to come out of it. they have been doing this in africa for years and they are making money and they are doing it. we are actually going to make some dollars off of it stay on clever agitator i

america with the national defense unparalleled, undefeatable, and unencumbered with overseas nationbuildingn a national defense that promotes as reagan put it peace through strength. i believe in applying reagan's approach to foreign policy to the iran issue, successful negotiations and untrustworthy adversary only achieved through a position of strength. we brought iran to the table through sanctions i voted for. now we must stay strong. that is why i have cosponsored legislation that ensures any deal between the u.s. and iran must be approved by congress. [applause] not only is that good policy, it is the law. it concerns me the iranians have a different interpretation of the agreement. they are putting out statements that say the complete opposite of what we are saying. it concerns me we may attempt or the president may attempt to unilaterally or prematurely halt sanctions. i will oppose any deal that does not end iran's nuclear ambitions and have strong unification measures. -- verification measures. [applause] i will insist the final version be brought before congress. the difference b

2000 campaigned on the idea that we are not going to go around the world and they won't be a nationbuildingorps from america and it is not america's top to go around the world and remove sovereign governments. all these people have managed to have success by portraying themselves as moderates, but for trained themselves as somebody who just looks at each situation and responds differently. not as somebody who is ideological, so i think it is difficult for somebody like rand paul or to a lesser extent, ron paul if they are perceived as an ideologue on foreign policy. hillary clinton is effectively avoiding this piper train herself as somebody who just looks at different issues and responds accordingly. so i think people fear ideology when it comes to foreign-policy because it is just so important. if you are an ideologue and uncompromising, then you are not necessarily, according to be able to respond in the most effective way. i think that is the feeling comes to rand paul. host: a few tweets as we've had the conversation this morning from those following along. at c-span wj, my take is ted