Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Yamato

Ron Paul on war and foreign policy

57 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Yamato

Hope you all enjoy! ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Damrod

I agree with him on it...for the most part.

If you stop listening to the Pundits, he never says he wants to reduce "national Security"...he says he wants to reduce the cost of it.

The Military Industrial Complex profits to levels unimaginable to most us through these tax expenditures on pure fear...telling us we must spend astounding amounts of tax dollars to defend ourselves ...and (and here is the trick phrase) our "Interests" overseas and abroad...whose interest?...mine?...I have no interest what happens "over there"...most countries are quite capable of taking care of themselves anyway.

With modern warfare technology, the need for bases and "boots on the ground" all over the world has become meaningless and useless...we can have fighters and bombers anywhere in the world in a matter of hours...warships, submarines and carriers in a couple days...the old idea of "military bases everywhere" is outdated and extinct...not needed...and, it puts foot soldiers in harms way unnecessarily....and it cost a fortune to maintain them...we pay the soldiers who then go out and spend their paychecks into the local economy...supporting the economy of whatever country they are stationed in. Why not do that at home? No one says we have to lessen the number of soldiers either...

Ron isn't saying to reduce the military or it's employees...he is saying...spend all that money at home...and you will spend less in the long run...

The pundits and the MSM like twisting this into an issue when...if you really study the facts about technology and modern warfare...is not an issue...it is fearmongering on the weak and uneducated...war is different now...time to spend and behave accordingly...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Corp

Acutally military bases are still useful. Yes you can send a bunch of planes to a location in several hours...then what? Need a safe place for them to land. You need to have a secure position from which to operate from. You need to have a protected supply line. You need to have a secure fall back position if things go bad.

So even with modern military technology having military bases in key locations is still important if you think you might need to operate in the area in the future. The US just doesn't need so many of them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Corp

Ok having watched the video I only saw one Ron Paul quote. The rest is just general comments. Was expecting a Paul interview or something.

Edited by Corp

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yamato

Acutally military bases are still useful. Yes you can send a bunch of planes to a location in several hours...then what? Need a safe place for them to land. You need to have a secure position from which to operate from. You need to have a protected supply line. You need to have a secure fall back position if things go bad.

So even with modern military technology having military bases in key locations is still important if you think you might need to operate in the area in the future. The US just doesn't need so many of them.

Strangely, I'm one of the few republican voters who actually believes that Muslims in the Middle East, or whoever, will be just as quick to anger as we would be. And keeping such common sense in mind, we best watch who it is we're bombing because if we're going to continue the practice of bombing people who've never attacked us, that would be the best reason I can think of for them to want to attack us.

If Chinese aircraft were bombing our cities, if Chinese troops were patrolling our streets and "keeping us safe", what would the Americans be called who supported them? Cowards and traitors, eg. the good guys that the republocrats want to work with overseas. I have no interest in such a special interest group. Even if we weren't spending America's money. Even if we weren't going bankrupt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and then

If Ron Panacea is elected, world peace will descend, the oceans will begin to heal..no, wait, that was OBarry.

RP is un electable because his policies as a whole are not embraced by a sufficient majority...even plurality of Americans. He has a hard core of supporters who fancy themselves the arbiters of what is best and noble about America. Even though I mostly consider them to be whiny and arrogant I still wish them the best. Maybe NOW is the time to fight this battle to save the soul of America. But what if most Americans are just fine thank you while munching at the government trough? They've been taught for a few decades that they have no better options.

My problem with Paul is that his policy on Israel could easily cause the region to descend into war. He ignores the realities on the ground and "blue skies" such negative assessments as if "letting the region work things out on their own" is a viable option equivalent to accepting potential nuclear war. If such an eventuality occurred I'm guessing his fans would be displeased. The hundreds of thousand in the region would just be dead. Kind of a high cost for a failed presidency. Yeah, I know...Bush was the antichrist...sheesh..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yamato

If Ron Panacea is elected, world peace will descend, the oceans will begin to heal..no, wait, that was OBarry.

RP is un electable because his policies as a whole are not embraced by a sufficient majority...even plurality of Americans. He has a hard core of supporters who fancy themselves the arbiters of what is best and noble about America. Even though I mostly consider them to be whiny and arrogant I still wish them the best. Maybe NOW is the time to fight this battle to save the soul of America. But what if most Americans are just fine thank you while munching at the government trough? They've been taught for a few decades that they have no better options.

My problem with Paul is that his policy on Israel could easily cause the region to descend into war. He ignores the realities on the ground and "blue skies" such negative assessments as if "letting the region work things out on their own" is a viable option equivalent to accepting potential nuclear war. If such an eventuality occurred I'm guessing his fans would be displeased. The hundreds of thousand in the region would just be dead. Kind of a high cost for a failed presidency. Yeah, I know...Bush was the antichrist...sheesh..

OBarry has escalated Afghanistan, bombed Pakistan, attacked Libya, armed Israel and Saudi Arabia like nobody else before him, sanctioned Iran like nobody before him, eyeballed Yemen, and is now playing with his navy in the Persian Gulf. What's not for a neocon liberal to love? Barack Hussein Obama is definitely your guy, not mine. The region has already descended into war. So that's no reason to not support Ron Paul. Like any liberal, a neocon never met an entitlement he didn't love so long as it's spent on his special interests (ie. Israel's). Potential nuclear war is going to be the "reality" no matter how many neocon temper tantrums we throw in the world. Creating hypothetical monsters under your bed to justify even more welfare and warfare isn't going to change that. It's time to change our Pampers and get over it.

Ignoring the accounting and actually expecting government to make the world a better place should be the job of liberal democrats, not "conservative" republicans. Government can't even make our own country a better place once you're awake enough to count the beans. I can see that your shoe doesn't fit because we've tried it on already. This may come as a shock, but foreigners aren't imbued with magical qualities that make imposing gubmint solutions on them any better than imposing them on ourselves.

Going after our retirement money to make the rainbows come out 10,000 miles away is no "reality on the ground". It's welfare at its worst. Ron Paul's defense budget is four times as large as China's and neocons are already wetting themselves over it. Cowardly bureaucrats getting the courageous killed with someone else's blood and someone else's money for counterproductive policies that weaken our country. That's the Republocrat's "reality on the ground".

I'm not the slightest bit scared of your fear mongering nor would I lose a minute of sleep if hundreds of thousands died in some foreign conflict somewhere, where finally, I wasn't the one paying for the killing. That would exemplify the solution not the problem, and the sooner we stop our middle-aged children from playing army in their sandbox the better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DieChecker

Ok having watched the video I only saw one Ron Paul quote. The rest is just general comments. Was expecting a Paul interview or something.

Well with that recommenation, I guess I'll not watch it. I was hoping for some new meat, or "clarification" too. What he really means by saying to pull out of UN and NATO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Silver Thong

Acutally military bases are still useful. Yes you can send a bunch of planes to a location in several hours...then what? Need a safe place for them to land. You need to have a secure position from which to operate from. You need to have a protected supply line. You need to have a secure fall back position if things go bad.

So even with modern military technology having military bases in key locations is still important if you think you might need to operate in the area in the future. The US just doesn't need so many of them.

This is why good forieghn policy works. You don`t have to build bases but use allies bases around the world. One does not have to conqure a nation to do so.

Edited by The Silver Thong

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and then

I'm not the slightest bit scared of your fear mongering nor would I lose a minute of sleep if hundreds of thousands died in some foreign conflict somewhere, where finally, I wasn't the one paying for the killing. That would exemplify the solution not the problem, and the sooner we stop our middle-aged children from playing army in their sandbox the better.

The reason Obama has instituted the military policies of the previous admin is that once he had the responsibility and the complete information about the local situations in the region he took the advice of the military as to the best actions...just as I'm sure Bush did. I don't believe that you'd be unmoved by hundreds of thousands of deaths. Feel no guilt? Maybe not but if the US could stop such a conflict and chose not to then we all would share responsibility whether we acknowledged it or not. And the biggest point is that a nuclear weapon changes everything-everywhere. Ignoring that fact doesn't shield us from the consequences.

Edited by and then

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Silver Thong

Any one nation that holds the power of the atom holds the entire planet at it`s mercy. Pandoras box has been opened.

Edited by The Silver Thong

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yamato

The reason Obama has instituted the military policies of the previous admin is that once he had the responsibility and the complete information about the local situations in the region he took the advice of the military as to the best actions...just as I'm sure Bush did. I don't believe that you'd be unmoved by hundreds of thousands of deaths. Feel no guilt? Maybe not but if the US could stop such a conflict and chose not to then we all would share responsibility whether we acknowledged it or not. And the biggest point is that a nuclear weapon changes everything-everywhere. Ignoring that fact doesn't shield us from the consequences.

Well there you have it, that's why Obama is your guy and not mine. And of course I would feel no guilt. It's not my responsibility to play world policeman. Where in the Constitution does it authorize the federal government to police the world? Are we so liberal now that we can't handle our own laws constraining our federal government? There's a general welfare clause in our Constitution that refers to the American people, not the planet Earth. Big government liberals love to beat conservatives over their heads with this clause every time another great idea for a new government program comes up. They can ignore the authority that government does have because there's a statement of intent for why government exists at all in the first place. The federal government doesn't even have the authority to build our own nation. I'll give you infrastructure as an exception, since infrastructure keeps interstate commerce regular, an authority government actually has. As for nukes, where these Chicken Littles came from who think that the sky will collapse without Big Brother holding it up is the only place that needs nuked. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and then

Well there you have it, that's why Obama is your guy and not mine. And of course I would feel no guilt. It's not my responsibility to play world policeman. Where in the Constitution does it authorize the federal government to police the world? Are we so liberal now that we can't handle our own laws constraining our federal government? There's a general welfare clause in our Constitution that refers to the American people, not the planet Earth. Big government liberals love to beat conservatives over their heads with this clause every time another great idea for a new government program comes up. They can ignore the authority that government does have because there's a statement of intent for why government exists at all in the first place. The federal government doesn't even have the authority to build our own nation. I'll give you infrastructure as an exception, since infrastructure keeps interstate commerce regular, an authority government actually has. As for nukes, where these Chicken Littles came from who think that the sky will collapse without Big Brother holding it up is the only place that needs nuked. ;)

You're being inconsistent. You are aggrieved by the treatment of the Arab stepchildren yet you would watch sanguinely as Israeli and Iranian nukes vaporized them? Because it's not your responsibility?

Again with the Constitution as though it makes much of a difference in US policy today. We've moved so far from it's tenets as to be nearly unrecognizable as America was 50 years ago and BOTH parties have done this to us. You talk of what you would have be true and I just try to see the world as it is. YES we have become that liberal. Hell, a comfortable majority voted for "hope and change". And my guess is that even after 4 years of chaos and broken promises the sleazy b*****d still gets another chance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yamato

You're being inconsistent. You are aggrieved by the treatment of the Arab stepchildren yet you would watch sanguinely as Israeli and Iranian nukes vaporized them? Because it's not your responsibility?

Again with the Constitution as though it makes much of a difference in US policy today. We've moved so far from it's tenets as to be nearly unrecognizable as America was 50 years ago and BOTH parties have done this to us. You talk of what you would have be true and I just try to see the world as it is. YES we have become that liberal. Hell, a comfortable majority voted for "hope and change". And my guess is that even after 4 years of chaos and broken promises the sleazy b*****d still gets another chance.

Sanguinely? Not really. Understanding my responsibilities and applying matters of guilt appropriately? Of course!

"The Arab stepchildren?" No, I'm miffed about my money being applied to lousy effect in the world. I'd cut every nickel to every "Arab" yesterday if you give me the big checkbook in the sky. Especially when it's used to weaken our country just for the messy attempt at strengthening someone else's. The video in this thread is very much a part of my consistency in that regard.

I appreciate that you can acknowledge the malfeasance of both parties, and how far this government has strayed from the rule of law. But they're both great reasons for you to vote for Ron Paul who isn't beholden to either party.

I listened to Romney's and Paul's speeches made after the NH primary and I heard nothing but pleasantries and platitudes from Mitt Romney and it's rhetoric like that which comes from the same cloth as Obama's "hope and change". Like Obama, rhetorical fluff saying what we want to hear is all Romney's made of. He can give a wonderful speech that's impossible to disagree with, but as in 2008, what a lousy excuse for supporting him.

Government can't make you a better person, and then. And it can't make a Muslim in Afghanistan or any foreigner a better person. All positive social changes throughout history have come from the passions of people, not the impositions of government. Once we understand this, being able to mentally abandon our foreign policy will become possible. A world full of rainbows and good people isn't going to come from under Obama's podium, and by the way, your job isn't going to come from the White House either.

But as important as it is today to vote for Ron Paul, I love to remind our bipartisan friends that the Constitution is still in the game. When people start going to jail or dying for it, it's going to become obvious to everyone else too. Indeed, the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of tyrants and patriots. What better time than now?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Corp

Well with that recommenation, I guess I'll not watch it. I was hoping for some new meat, or "clarification" too. What he really means by saying to pull out of UN and NATO.

Based on his speech after Iowa he thinks that NATO and UN can order the US to go to war. This is true of NATO since it is a defensive alliance but in its history only the US has activated that section of the treaty. Don't see Denmark dragging the US into any big fights any time soon. No clue where he gets the idea that the UN can order countries into war. He just wants to return to the isolationism the US had in the early twentieth century.

This is why good forieghn policy works. You don`t have to build bases but use allies bases around the world. One does not have to conqure a nation to do so.

Problem is Paul would end all of American's alliances. Those bases might not open to them anymore.

But as important as it is today to vote for Ron Paul, I love to remind our bipartisan friends that the Constitution is still in the game. When people start going to jail or dying for it, it's going to become obvious to everyone else too. Indeed, the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of tyrants and patriots. What better time than now?

The Constitution is also a historical document and a product of its time. While much of it can still be used there are parts that no longer reflect the reality of today's world. After all Britain isn't holding to the letter of the Magna Carta.

And perhaps some non-violent methods can be tried before you start looking for blood. :rolleyes:

Edited by Corp

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ninjadude

And the biggest point is that a nuclear weapon changes everything-everywhere. Ignoring that fact doesn't shield us from the consequences.

Sure ISRAEL has them and everyone else wants one to counter it. Consequences.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ninjadude

We've moved so far from it's tenets as to be nearly unrecognizable as America was 50 years ago and BOTH parties have done this to us.

I hate to break it to you but times change.

And my guess is that even after 4 years of chaos and broken promises

What "chaos"? the depression 2008 that happened before Obama's election and that we're still coming out of? The unprecedented obstruction by the republican senate that filibusters every bill? The unprecedented obstruction of appointments? The unprecedented credit lowering because of tea party reps that don't understand how government works? That chaos?!!

There are are very few broken promises. I've posted many times the Obamameter on UM that shows a good majority of kept promises for three years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ninjadude

Indeed, the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of tyrants and patriots. What better time than now?

BS. In the US we have elections and no need of that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Silver Thong

BS. In the US we have elections and no need of that.

Can I ask what a two party governement adds to a democracy that time after time has the same result. Elections mean little when you have 2 to pick from and no third party with a say.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yamato

The Constitution is also a historical document and a product of its time. While much of it can still be used there are parts that no longer reflect the reality of today's world. After all Britain isn't holding to the letter of the Magna Carta.

The Constitution doesn't rule "today's world" so you've wandered out of the bounds where you have no legal basis. Just ask anyone who isn't an ignorant American who knows what the law is in their own country and they'll tell you. The Constitution is the rule of law and no more belittled to "a document" than any other law so always relying on this famous liberal soundbyte that it's just a gd'ed piece of paper isn't saying much. People who think they can pick and choose which parts of the law they can break based on its relevance to their own opinion are no better than criminals. Treating the law like a cafeteria never goes well if you want to be a nation of laws and not a nation of lawbreakers. If I ever complain about violating the Constitution in a way that isn't relevant, let me know. But where the rule of law is concerned it only has authority over our government. And that's why liberals can't stand the Constitution, because it tells the government what to do. They have to use "old document" mantra ad nauseum in the liberal media circles that have brainwashed you too. Liberals from both parties want the government to do whatever the hell it wants to do because that, they say, is how "today's world" works. So now we're the most jailed nation on earth and our decadent gubmint loving citizenry are sitting on their flab, Dee-Dee-Deeing our rights away.

Decadent Congress. Abusive Executive. Activist courts. Indoctrinated voters. Fiscal insolvency. The bipartisan status quo is just so wonderful, it's little wonder why some resist Ron Paul so much. How could anyone possibly think we need improvement? Do they make trophies for 20th place in "today's world" too? I'm interested in a better world tomorrow than we have today which includes a lot less squandering of power and a lot more following of freedom. I think the world is a better place when we have more respect for people than we do government.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and then

I hate to break it to you but times change.

What "chaos"? the depression 2008 that happened before Obama's election and that we're still coming out of? The unprecedented obstruction by the republican senate that filibusters every bill? The unprecedented obstruction of appointments? The unprecedented credit lowering because of tea party reps that don't understand how government works? That chaos?!!

There are are very few broken promises. I've posted many times the Obamameter on UM that shows a good majority of kept promises for three years.

Obama had clear sailing for 2 years. Complete control of both branches of congress and the executive branch. His actions caused the people to change that status and divide government's power again. Obstructing the opposition's appointments is SOP in a divided congress. The reason it became so bitter in this instance is that Obama feels the need to give decrees rather than work out compromises. The man is an arrogant fool and frankly, anyone who votes for him deserves what comes next. Oh and BTW, how have all those "promises kept" worked out for you? The rest of the country is in pretty sorry shape.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ninjadude

Can I ask what a two party governement adds to a democracy that time after time has the same result. Elections mean little when you have 2 to pick from and no third party with a say.

There are many political parties in the US. There NATURALLY only two strong parties. This evolves naturally over time. Should one falter another would take it's place. A third strong party usually does not remain strong. This is because of the winner take all form of elections in the US. We do not form coalition governments. These two parties tend to actually be farther apart that you are aware. Their political planks are quite divergent philosophically. I'm not sure what you mean by the same result. If you mean a struggle between parties after the election, that is a relatively recent change where one party ® spends it's entire time trying to get rid of the other instead of solving problems of the state. Having a third party really doesn't change that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ninjadude

Obama had clear sailing for 2 years. Complete control of both branches of congress and the executive branch

And passed a lot of legislation. Even with the unprecedented filibusters in the Senate.

Obstructing the opposition's appointments is SOP in a divided congress.

NOT to the degree that this Congress has done it. Not even in the same galaxy.

Obama feels the need to give decrees rather than work out compromises.

Really. What are these decrees that have no effect of law? If you mean executive orders, he has done no more than any other president. And they are aimed at government workers.

how have all those "promises kept" worked out for you? The rest of the country is in pretty sorry shape.

Very well actually. The Affordable Care Act and many others were passed. A lot of Bush's crapola was removed. If you mean the economy, you do realize the depression started in 2008 under BUSH and is taking a long time to get out of, right? What sorry shape are you referring to that is tied to a promise?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yamato

There are many political parties in the US. There NATURALLY only two strong parties. This evolves naturally over time. Should one falter another would take it's place. A third strong party usually does not remain strong. This is because of the winner take all form of elections in the US. We do not form coalition governments. These two parties tend to actually be farther apart that you are aware. Their political planks are quite divergent philosophically. I'm not sure what you mean by the same result. If you mean a struggle between parties after the election, that is a relatively recent change where one party ® spends it's entire time trying to get rid of the other instead of solving problems of the state. Having a third party really doesn't change that.

Dumping the debt on the young and mortgaging our future, short of all of these retarded wars that keep America in danger, is the most disgusting immoral act a government can do. You're not sure what someone means about the same result? We've been getting the same results for over 30 years. These bureaucrats don't have any philosophy guiding their actions. They're sold out shills to the corporatocracy.

The cherry kool aid tells us that the 3rd parties "steal" votes from one of the two, as if our minds and votes belong to the republicans and democrats. Horse spit. The parties are two heads of the same bowel full of gruel fighting over their narrow self interests with the peoples' money. No meaningful differences in philosophy at all, it's tweaking the establishment to benefit this group of people over here, or that group of people over there. Obviously you're a partisan democrat willfully unaware of your own party's palace full of sin and you think that keeping the insolvency intact and driving the country off a cliff is the way to go.

It's the red statists vs the blue statists. The warfare libs vs the welfare libs. And the welfare libs love their warfare too. Both are driving us to the exact same bankruptcy, the only difference is every new President must outdo his predecessor and stomp even harder on the accelerator. A dollar of debt is a dollar of debt. At the end of the rainbow there is no pot of gold there's a mountain of debt. The debt isn't going to care whether a republican or a democrat put it there. It's just going to get paid. By everybody.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
preacherman76

If Ron Panacea is elected, world peace will descend, the oceans will begin to heal..no, wait, that was OBarry.

RP is un electable because his policies as a whole are not embraced by a sufficient majority...even plurality of Americans. He has a hard core of supporters who fancy themselves the arbiters of what is best and noble about America. Even though I mostly consider them to be whiny and arrogant I still wish them the best. Maybe NOW is the time to fight this battle to save the soul of America. But what if most Americans are just fine thank you while munching at the government trough? They've been taught for a few decades that they have no better options.

We are the arbiters of what is best and noble about America. And we have the history and documents to prove it. Problem with thinking we are just fine eating at the governments trough, is that we are going bankrupt in the process, and we all will be dragged down to third world status if this continues much longer.

My problem with Paul is that his policy on Israel could easily cause the region to descend into war. He ignores the realities on the ground and "blue skies" such negative assessments as if "letting the region work things out on their own" is a viable option equivalent to accepting potential nuclear war. If such an eventuality occurred I'm guessing his fans would be displeased. The hundreds of thousand in the region would just be dead. Kind of a high cost for a failed presidency. Yeah, I know...Bush was the antichrist...sheesh..

Israel is more then capable of taking care of themselfs. There is no reason what so ever to think war would be more possible without US intervention. Heck Israel would be far more likly to want to reach a peace deal without having thier big brother looking over thier shoulder.

Bush??? Yout hink Bush was a friend to Israel?? He forced them not only to give up Gaza, but aided every Israely enemy with US tax payer dollars. Yea some friend he was.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.