Republican Candidates

[bryjcom]

The reason I like Ron Paul is not because he gets money for his district... I like Ron Paul because he is the ONLY person that is saying something different. He is actually diagnosing the REAL problems of this country and has been for 20+ hears. He has never wavered from what he has said in all that time.

We can can keep electing the same old usual suspects or we can elect some "crazy" guy that thinks we shouldn't involve our young men, women and treasures into other countries. We can elect some guy that has been preaching sound money for 20 years. We can elect some guy that thinks we need to mind our own business.

Or,
We can elect the same bunch usual suspects and we can have the same problems and the same debate if 4 years.

[DOC]

Or,
We can elect the same bunch usual suspects and we can have the same problems and the same debate if 4 years.

If America can make it that long. I don't think we have another 4 years of hope it changes left.

[Irving]

Because we're talking about money that should be provided by the state, local government or privately...not the federal government.

I'd agree with that. From your last post, about how Ron puts in a bunch of pork, then votes against it, it seems like you could argue that he IS against the spending, but if it's going to be pushed through, then he is going to make sure that his state gets some of it.

[Aloha_Shooter]

I do not understand why you guys think Ron Paul's domestic/defense policy is crazy. What I believe to be crazy is that we have troops and bases in almost 200 countries around the world. How many foreign bases are on US soil? And Lord knows if there was, all of us on this board would be pissed and ready to fight the foreign army occupying our country, friend or foe.

Ron Paul's simplistic theories regarding defense policy haven't been realistic or applicable since the mid-nineteenth century -- if they ever were. Can we pull troops back from around the world? No doubt. Will it save money -- maybe in the short term. However, being demonstrably unwilling (ala Jimmy Carter) or incapable of using our military forces to take action quickly has inevitably led to more provocations leading to more extensive use of military force than when it's clear they are ready, willing and able to be used near-instantly -- which ends up creating even more destruction and costing even more in the long run.

Saddam called our "bluff" in the original Desert Storm because past experience had showed him (incorrectly) that the US would back off or cave. Osama bin Laden believed the US to be a paper tiger, an opinion possibly reinforced by 8 years of the Clinton administration and US news media calling President George H.W. Bush a "wimp" and further mocking his son, the then new-President.

Don't get me wrong, I rather like Ron Paul, but his defense theories come from a fantasy world. I'd rather keep him in Congress -- make him the House Majority Leader so he can set the agendas and debate topics leading to formulation of the national authorizations for spending.

[bryjcom]

Ron Paul's simplistic theories regarding defense policy haven't been realistic or applicable since the mid-nineteenth century -- if they ever were. Can we pull troops back from around the world? No doubt. Will it save money -- maybe in the short term. However, being demonstrably unwilling (ala Jimmy Carter) or incapable of using our military forces to take action quickly has inevitably led to more provocations leading to more extensive use of military force than when it's clear they are ready, willing and able to be used near-instantly -- which ends up creating even more destruction and costing even more in the long run.

Saddam called our "bluff" in the original Desert Storm because past experience had showed him (incorrectly) that the US would back off or cave. Osama bin Laden believed the US to be a paper tiger, an opinion possibly reinforced by 8 years of the Clinton administration and US news media calling President George H.W. Bush a "wimp" and further mocking his son, the then new-President.

Don't get me wrong, I rather like Ron Paul, but his defense theories come from a fantasy world. I'd rather keep him in Congress -- make him the House Majority Leader so he can set the agendas and debate topics leading to formulation of the national authorizations for spending.

We simply can't afford it anymore. Imagine cutting "defense" spending by half. It would save around 400-450 billion $$$$ We would be able to still have the most powerful military in the world but it would just be mostly in within our borders.

Was our "national security" at stake in Korea?

Was our "national security" at stake in Vietnam?

Was our "national security" at stake in Kosovo?

Was our "national security" at stake in Iraq 1 and 2?

I don't think he talking about pulling every single american troop from every single base, but do we really need 200 foreign military bases? The answer is NO!!

[Bailey Guns]

Sadly, I do not think that there is much that will stop China from being the number 1 economy in the world in the next few years. They have been making good business decisions lately while our government has been spending like an 18 year old with a no limit credit card. That being said we still have more aircraft carriers.....for now.

I do not understand why you guys think Ron Paul's domestic/defense policy is crazy. What I believe to be crazy is that we have troops and bases in almost 200 countries around the world. How many foreign bases are on US soil? And Lord knows if there was, all of us on this board would be pissed and ready to fight the foreign army occupying our country, friend or foe.
Bringing our troops home within our borders will strengthen our defense not weaken it. We have the biggest, baddest, most well trained, and technologically advanced army ever in the history of the world. That will not change by bringing troops home to defend our borders. A lot of you guys have served over seas. Did your training all of a sudden disappear once you got home? I don't think so. We will continue to be a militaristic power in the world because this is a great defense, but we must fix our fiscal problems now or there won't be any more money to support a number 1 military.
Shouldn't our "National Guard" be here defending our borders and helping with disasters rather than policing the world? Let the rest of the world have the freedom to govern their land the way they want and stay out of it until there is an eminent threat to our country. We have been bullying the world for 60-70 years now and honestly I think the rest of the world would not be too sad to see our country crumble from the inside out. Like what has happened throughout history time and time again to other empires. Only there has never been quite so big as ours. What was that old saying again? "The bigger they are, the harder they fall."

I didn't see this post until it was quoted by Aloha Shooter. Unfortunately, there is a tremendous amount of FAIL in it.

First of all, there are only about 196 countries in the world (depending on what countries are recognized by other countries...but 196 is close). Therefore, we can't possibly have "troops and bases in almost 200 countries".

The 2010 Base Structure Report published by DoD states we have 662 facilities in 38 foreign countries. I suppose if you counted US Marine embassy guards we'd have a lot more personnel in a lot more countries. But bases? No.

There are also foreign troops all over the US attending various training schools and serving as instructors in military schools. Canadian troops are routinely based right here in Colorado.

It wouldn't bother me one bit to have foreign military bases on US soil from certain friendly countries. It would mean they're taking on more responsibility for their own defense and could conceivably lessen the burden shouldered by the US in defense of self and allies.

Having bases in foreign countries does not mean we "occupy" those countries. When a country is occupied by US troops it pretty much means those troops are in control of the territory being occupied. In other words, the country is under control of a hostile or outside force.

I can tell you we "occupy" basically only two countries at present...Iraq and Afghanistan. And even those two represent a pretty loose definition of the term since they both have independent and functioning sovereign governments. Just because US forces are engaged in hostilities doesn't mean we occupy those countries.

You also might want to look up the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878. It forbids US military forces (with the exception of the Coast Guard, I believe) from performing law enforcement functions within the borders of the US (pretty simplistic explanation). So, you'd be on pretty shaky ground having the US Army on the border to enforce immigration law...civil law. That's why any time troops are deployed to the border they serve in very limited capacity...usually only in support and/or observation roles.

Frankly, I think it's a good idea and I don't want to see US troops enforcing civil law anywhere in the country unless in an extreme emergency. If that happens, martial law is probably the next step...at least temporarily.

The Posse Comitatus Act was revised in 2006 after hurricane Katrina but the revised law reverted to the original in 2008.

And I'd really like to hear what you mean when you say, "We have been bullying the world for 60-70 years now...". Frankly, I don't think you have a clue what that means. You realize that goes back to 1941 when the Japanese attacked us at Pearl Harbor? You must have learned some serious revisionist history in school to make a statement like that.

As to the Ron Paul thing, that part of you question has been answered here by several people, several times.

[Bailey Guns]

We simply can't afford it anymore. Imagine cutting "defense" spending by half. It would save around 400-450 billion $$$$ We would be able to still have the most powerful military in the world but it would just be mostly in within our borders.

I don't have enough time right now to respond to that other than to say you really do live in a fantasy world.

Was our "national security" at stake in Korea? YES

Was our "national security" at stake in Vietnam? YES

Was our "national security" at stake in Kosovo? PROBABLY NOT

Was our "national security" at stake in Iraq 1 and 2? YES

I don't think he talking about pulling every single american troop from every single base, but do we really need 200 foreign military bases? The answer is NO!!

Already explained why that 200 number was simply pulled outta somebody's as.....hat.

[Zundfolge]

My problem with Dr Paul's position on defense/foreign relations is that it seems to be based on the progressive/leftist/liberal lie that all Anti-Americanism is the direct result of American Hegemony ... and thus is at least somewhat deserved.

BULLSH*T!

The American people contribute more to global charities than the entire budget of the UN. When you add the actions of the US Government you end up with the reality that the United States and its people feed, clothe and defend most of the peoples of the world and do 100 times more good than harm.

There are only two reasons for anti-Americanism, 1) pure, green eyed jealousy because we are a wealthy society directly because we are free (or at least we used to be. Once we lose our freedom completely we'll be poor and maybe then they won't hate us ... but I'm not holding my breath) and 2) in the case of Islamists a direct order from God to kill or convert everyone in the world and we stand in their way.

Anyway, if he can be fooled by the left into buying this particular line of BS, what else is he going to get wrong?


Furthermore, we could eliminate all foreign aid and shut down our military 100% (while at the same time wave a magic wand to prevent us from being invaded tomorrow) and it still wouldn't make a dent in our debt/deficit.


Honestly, I would LOVE to see Ron Paul as a Secretary of the Treasury under President Cain.

[bryjcom]

The U.S has bases in 148 countries with 662 bases in 38 foreign countries.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...el-130-nation/

VIETNAM WAR
Good thing we won that Vietnam War! Right??? I mean if we hadn't won that communism would have spread all over the world and we would be speaking russian and saying "good day" comrade. OH crap wait a minute. WE DIDN'T WIN THAT WAR AND WERE NOT ALL COMMUNIST!!! BUT WE DID LOSE 58,000 MEN FOR A POINTLESS WAR

KOREAN WAR
The Korean War was a civil war that we involved ourselves in for the same reasons of the Vietnam War. We did nothing but kill a bunch of our men, spend a bunch of our money and entice a madman to arm himself with nukes to prevent the most powerful military in the world that has been sitting on his southern border for 50+ years, from attacking him.

Iraq II
Everyone knows that IraqII was based on lies and you know it too. It had nothing to do with national security end of story!


When will Americans grow tired of fighting other peoples war's? When will we decide that we have spilled enough blood? When will we realize that we have spent ourselves to oblivion. When will we realize that these wars do not make us safer, that they only make us fight more wars.

When will we stop being arrogant and thinking that we can screw with anyone we want at any time for any reason?

When will this madness stop?




Just so you know I have no ill feelings for you. We just happen to disagree.

[bryjcom]

My problem with Dr Paul's position on defense/foreign relations is that it seems to be based on the progressive/leftist/liberal lie that all Anti-Americanism is the direct result of American Hegemony ... and thus is at least somewhat deserved.

BULLSH*T!

The American people contribute more to global charities than the entire budget of the UN. When you add the actions of the US Government you end up with the reality that the United States and its people feed, clothe and defend most of the peoples of the world and do 100 times more good than harm.

There are only two reasons for anti-Americanism, 1) pure, green eyed jealousy because we are a wealthy society directly because we are free (or at least we used to be. Once we lose our freedom completely we'll be poor and maybe then they won't hate us ... but I'm not holding my breath) and 2) in the case of Islamists a direct order from God to kill or convert everyone in the world and we stand in their way.

Anyway, if he can be fooled by the left into buying this particular line of BS, what else is he going to get wrong?


Furthermore, we could eliminate all foreign aid and shut down our military 100% (while at the same time wave a magic wand to prevent us from being invaded tomorrow) and it still wouldn't make a dent in our debt/deficit.


Honestly, I would LOVE to see Ron Paul as a Secretary of the Treasury under President Cain.

I don't think the U.S can go around the world and be installing dictators, removing dictators, bribing dictators and invading countries with out pissing off some people.

What would you do if China declared a no-fly zone in Colorado? What would you do?