Ron Paul vs Romney on Gun Rights

[Glocktogo]

You paint an intriguing picture. Military logistics and strategies are way beyond me. My opinions are based on what I assume to be correct facts put forth by reliable sources. Perhaps my sources are just pawns of the system and overseas bases exist only because of bureaucratic inertia and malfeasance and most of us are living in the Matrix. How to tell what is reality? I'd love to see Ron Paul debate these points in depth. My gut tells me that we are not spending these enormous amounts of resources without legitimate national defense reasons for doing so.

I wish I could agree, but technology has advanced to the point where reacting to a crisis situation is a matter of hours rather than days or weeks. I would postulate that our sustained conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan have given too many ideas to rogues. We so thoroughly dominate on an attack and invasion scenario that it would be foolhardy for anyone to test our dominance there. Where we loose ground is sustained occupation. We're not nearly as good at that. We still kick buceaup ass mind you, but our enemies are looking to exploit moral victories against us. Anything that damages US credibility on the world stage is a victory for them, even if they get the crap kicked out of them.

I'm not sure that full scale invasions and occupations are the way to go in the future. Protracted entanglements are enormously expensive, expose us to additional risks and aren't necessarily the fastest way to achieve objectives. Rapid "Shock & Awe" strikes, followed by diplomatic resolutions may be far more expeditious and economical. As much as I disagree with our involvement in the Libyan "liberation", that should be a textbook example of how to do it.

As for nations, we still hold the top hand at the table. Continuing our expeditionary tactics will only erode that position. American hegemony is a direct threat to many countries. Pulling back to a position of readiness and re-engaging diplomatically is a sound tactic. We've proven all we need to prove militarily. With a less costly military operational tempo, we could redirect resources into intel and tech. If our increased intel presence detected a growing threat, we could quite handily respond with beefed up presence and the diplomatic corps could relay the message that things need to cool off.

I don't know for a certainty that this would work, but what we're doing now is putting us in the poor house. We need to look at all areas for cost savings. I happen to think this is one area we could save money and improve foreign relations at the same time.

 

[henschman]

I for one would feel much safer if our military was being used purely for national defense and not for nation-building. I think it pisses more people off than otherwise when we invade countries and try to install governments... and I think that it is a fool's errand to try to be converting the whole middle east to european-style social democracies with parliamentary government. It doesn't help that the people we back are almost always massively corrupt, like Karzai's admin in Afghanistan... and like the Shah was back when we tried the whole "regime change" thing in Iran (if you've ever wondered why they are so hostile toward us, you might read something about the history of US-Iran relations).

Foreign intervention almost always seems to get us into more trouble on down the road, and we frequently end up going to war against the governments of countries we formerly supported... I already mentioned Iran, but after that we supported Saddam when he was fighting Iran, since we were still pissed at them for overthrowing our handpicked Shah... we even gave him some of the chemical weapon know-how that we later used as justification for invading him. And in Afghanistan we supported the Taliban because we thought it would be great to give the Russians a black eye, but didn't think about the possibility that a radical Muslim state might be WORSE. And people are already claiming that the regime change in Libya is a wonderful thing, but I say it is too soon to tell whether the next bunch to be in power will be any better than the last guy. The 20th Century is full of other examples, like the dictators we supported in South America who committed all kinds of atrocities and wound up getting overthrown. I think we would be a lot safer and a lot more prosperous right now if we had just stayed the hell out of all of those places and only worried about people who were actually planning on attacking us militarily (which would be a very short to nonexistent list in the modern age, because 1. it would be suicidal, and 2. because people would have a whole lot less to be pissed at us about if we minded our own business).

North Korea is an absolute joke, and anyone who thinks otherwise should read some books about them. They can't even keep their own people fed. Even the political class goes hungry in that country. They have a nearly complete lack of industry. Sure they have one of the largest militaries in the world going purely by number of men, but most of their soldiers are starving as it is... just think of trying to keep them fed, much less armed, in the field while trying to invade a vastly technologically-superior country. All their military pomp and circumstance is pure posturing... typical of Communists. But even if your supposed "doomsday scenario" came true and they somehow took over the South, what would the consequences be to the United States? What leads you to believe that things would be any worse than what happened when South Vietnam fell to communism in 1975? Communist Vietnam is now one of our biggest trading partners in the region... pretty well proving that the whole "domino theory" that got us into that war (and Korea for that matter) was a complete crock.

 

[Dale00]

You have both brought up some interesting points. It's great to have a discussion instead of the usual hit and run attacks.

Long occupations and support for unpopular dictators does lead to problems. Bush tried a third approach - an experiment with establishing democracy. It was a sort of middle-east Marshall plan for Iraq and it seems to be failing or have already failed. There was too much tribalism.

If we withdraw forces and foreign military aid from our allies around the world, how do we keep China or someone else from establishing their own bases and gaining effective military control of a region?

Rapid strike forces are an up and coming thing but the longer the line of supply, the greater the vulnerability. Not a problem against the Taliban but a very big worry against tomorrow's Chinese military with advanced missiles and technology. If withdrawal of U.S. forces back to our borders is the wise strategic thing to do and would save us enormous amounts of money, there should be advocates for this position. I have not found any national figure (except Dr. Paul) or other expert making this argument who has credentials. Can you point me in the right direction? Is there any document in which Dr. Paul lays out his argument in detail?

North Korea is a joke in many ways, including their economy. But from what I read they have very capable artillery forces able to severely damage Seoul. Should the S Koreans pay more for U.S. military support? - probably. South Korea is a major economic power and I think its defeat by North Korea would greatly weaken the ability of the region to stand against China. Japan seems to be in a long term decline due to an aging population. If I was Australian, I would be very worried. The Chinese think long term, have lots of young males to draw upon for the military, and they play for keeps. Our best hope may be that their internal problems bring about a change in leadership.

 

[mhphoto]

Ron Paul is not an isolationist, despite what that blowhard Hannity tells everyone. He's a non-interventionist. There's a big difference, and people would do well to know the difference.

 

[Hobbes]

The topic of what policy to pursue towards Cuba was just now discussed in tonights debate.
Every candidate except RP said he would at the least maintain the current strategy and Newt even said he would pursue a covert strategy to overthrow the Cuban government similar to the covert efforts of the 60's.
Florida has a large Cuban exile population so it's very easy for a politician to pander for their votes by vowing to overthrow the Cuban government.

Ron Paul is the only candidate to point out that we have pursued that policy for 50 years and it didn't work and won't work.
Ron Paul is the only candidate on that stage that didn't pander for the Cuban exile vote in Florida by promising something.
Ron Paul is not much of a politician I suppose.

 

[Glocktogo]

You have both brought up some interesting points. It's great to have a discussion instead of the usual hit and run attacks.

Long occupations and support for unpopular dictators does lead to problems. Bush tried a third approach - an experiment with establishing democracy. It was a sort of middle-east Marshall plan for Iraq and it seems to be failing or have already failed. There was too much tribalism.

Bingo, and anyone with real knowledge of the region could have told him that (and may have). Democracy is fine and dandy, for a populace that is eager for peace, societal advancement and equal opportunity. None of which describe Iraq as it stands today. Saddam actually had the country in pretty good shape overall, as only a dictator could in that society. The cost was more than most could bear though and the resentment was boiling over. Feudal wars will plague that country for decades to come (if not centuries).

If we withdraw forces and foreign military aid from our allies around the world, how do we keep China or someone else from establishing their own bases and gaining effective military control of a region?

I'm not so sure we should worry about that. China is a lot smarter than people give it credit for, communism notwithstanding. China has never really displayed any desire to build other nations or defend them for free. They have a couple thousand years of protectionism built into their DNA. The one area we always need to be alert to is their troop transport capability. The show a desire to have advanced fighter aircraft, missile systems and naval assets, but their troop transport capabilities are far from global and a mere thimble full compared to the US. Additionally, China has a true global economy. Any expansionism designs they might harbor would be severely damaging to their trade surplus. A trade embargo would cripple them far worse than any country like Iran. That's their cash cow and they're unlikely to do anything that would cut off the supply. Finally, so what if China flexed their muscle in the Asian theatre? That would have those countries appreciating the good ole USofA even more. Selling them our wares would be a lot more economical than continuing to prop up their defense with our DoD budget.

Rapid strike forces are an up and coming thing but the longer the line of supply, the greater the vulnerability. Not a problem against the Taliban but a very big worry against tomorrow's Chinese military with advanced missiles and technology. If withdrawal of U.S. forces back to our borders is the wise strategic thing to do and would save us enormous amounts of money, there should be advocates for this position. I have not found any national figure (except Dr. Paul) or other expert making this argument who has credentials. Can you point me in the right direction? Is there any document in which Dr. Paul lays out his argument in detail?

The best way to counter Chinese missiles in the unlikely even of an attack by them, is to use standoff weapons ourselves. How many more Tomahawk missile platforms could we field every year for the cost of 30,000 troops in South Korea?

North Korea is a joke in many ways, including their economy. But from what I read they have very capable artillery forces able to severely damage Seoul. Should the S Koreans pay more for U.S. military support? - probably. South Korea is a major economic power and I think its defeat by North Korea would greatly weaken the ability of the region to stand against China. Japan seems to be in a long term decline due to an aging population. If I was Australian, I would be very worried. The Chinese think long term, have lots of young males to draw upon for the military, and they play for keeps. Our best hope may be that their internal problems bring about a change in leadership.

North Korea will only survive if China continues to prop them up (which is costly for China and good for us), or they realize that the only way to survive is to do what Vietnam did and bury the hatchets, at least to the point you can make a dime abroad.

Conventional diplomatic policies have failed us in several ways, particularly with regimes that eschew democracy and especially if they appear to not even understand democracy. It's tough to effectively communicate with someone when you're interested in spreading your brand of politics and they're interested in food, security and get the hell off my lawn.

 

[Glocktogo]

The topic of what policy to pursue towards Cuba was just now discussed in tonights debate.
Every candidate except RP said he would at the least maintain the current strategy and Newt even said he would pursue a covert strategy to overthrow the Cuban government similar to the covert efforts of the 60's.
Florida has a large Cuban exile population so it's very easy for a politician to pander for their votes by vowing to overthrow the Cuban government.

Ron Paul is the only candidate to point out that we have pursued that policy for 50 years and it didn't work and won't work.
Ron Paul is the only candidate on that stage that didn't pander for the Cuban exile vote in Florida by promising something.
Ron Paul is not much of a politician I suppose.

People still look at Cuba like it's 1950 and Russian missiles are headed there, which is a damned joke. We're the most militarily dominant country in the world now and we're supposed to be all democratic and stuff. If so, why can't we be the bigger person and drop this silly Hatfield & McCoy routine?

 

[henschman]

Dr. Paul made a good point in last night's debate on the topic of Cuba, when he pointed out that the true isolationists are the ones who think we need to embargo and restrict trade with countries when our government disagrees with theirs.

Respecting your citizens' right to contract, and allowing them to trade freely with other people around the world, is probably the most effective way of preventing war. When people are profiting from their dealings with each other, they don't tend to be so aggressive.

As for China, I say let them go bankrupt trying to police an empire, if they are stupid enough to try it (which I don't think they are).

As for the supposed threat that China poses to us, this could be addressed by nuclear deterrence. See, the wonderful thing about nuclear ICBMs is that we can sit back and mind our own business from our own shores, and even if China someday builds up their military capacity to the point where they actually were capable of invading us (which is highly unlikely, and would take decades and would probably bankrupt them if they tried), we could end all of it with the push of a button if they actually do anything. We could reduce their mighty industrial base to rubble in about an hour and a half, and could significantly thin out their military size advantage. Sure they might get some nukes off at us too, but the point is that they would be utterly destroyed. They are not irrational enough to attack us, knowing full well what the consequences would be.

The fact is that no country on this earth is capable of successfully invading the United States. No one will ever be foolish enough to try. The one and only threat to our freedom comes from our own bloated government, which loves to keep us distracted and fearful with all these foreign hobgoblins, while they slowly strip away our liberties and destroy our economy. Make no mistake... when the U.S. falls, it will be from within, as all great empires have fallen. Our only chance to keep from repeating the historical pattern is to quit acting like an empire, and start acting like a Constitutional Republic.

 

[flybeech]

How is Ron Paul's desire to have Congress declare wars isolationist? Why is Ron Paul's insistence that we should use our diplomats for something other than a hat rack and open trade and diplomacy with other sovereign nations, before we bomb them into submission?

WWII was the last declared war we've fought and all the wars since have been called a "police action", or a "kinetic military action".

Imagine Armed Chinese Troops in Texas. What would we do?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XKfuS6gfxPY

 

[RidgeHunter]

Ever hear of the Military Industrial complex?


Eisenhower foresaw all of this.

Republican party platform has changed 180 degrees on (this part of) foreign policy since Ike's day.



Cross of Iron Speech is one of the greatest speeches ever given by a U.S. president. "This is not a way of life at all, in any true sense. Under the cloud of threatening war, it is humanity hanging from a cross of iron."






Why We Fight Documentary