How Will Ron Paul End the Wars and Will He Succeed Where Obama Failed?, page 1

How Will Ron Paul End the Wars and Will He Succeed Where Obama Failed?, page

privacy

Pages:
ATS Members have flagged this thread 4 times

Topic started on 4-1-2012 @ 11:44 AM by Benevolent Heretic

Attention: You may need to contact a mod to get access to post in this forum.

This is from Ron Paul's Campaign Site

That’s why, as Commander-in-Chief, Dr. Paul will lead the fight to:

* Make securing our borders the top national security priority.

* Avoid long and expensive land wars that bankrupt our country by using constitutional means to capture or kill terrorist leaders who helped attack the U.S. and continue to plot further attacks.

* Guarantee our intelligence community’s efforts are directed toward legitimate threats and not spying on innocent Americans through unconstitutional power grabs like the Patriot Act.

* End the nation-building that is draining troop morale, increasing our debt, and sacrificing lives with no end in sight.

* Follow the Constitution by asking Congress to declare war before one is waged.

* Only send our military into conflict with a clear mission and all the tools they need to complete the job – and then bring them home.

* Ensure our veterans receive the care, benefits, and honors they have earned when they return.

* Revitalize the military for the 21st century by eliminating waste in a trillion-dollar military budget.

* Prevent the TSA from forcing Americans to either be groped or ogled just to travel on an airplane and ultimately abolish the unconstitutional agency.

* Stop taking money from the middle class and the poor to give to rich dictators through foreign aid.

This says he will "lead the fight to" do these thing, all of which I agree with. So, good on him! I have heard Paul state that he will "bring the troops home". Does he have sole authority to do this?

The reason I ask is that Obama said he would do it, too, and he has to some extent. But Is Paul planning on actually ENDING the Afghanistan war? Is he going to bring THOSE troops home? All troops in Iraq? What is his plan?

I think, when Obama got into office, they sat him down and had a 'talk' with him, letting him know that he would follow the plan or else... I think Paul will get the same treatment, but I'd at least like to know what his actual plans are...

So,
Has Paul outlined a plan to bring ALL our troops around the world home?
Does he have the sole authority?
Why will he succeed where Obama failed?

Thanks for any input!

edit on 1/4/2012 by Benevolent Heretic because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 4-1-2012 @ 12:01 PM by Benevolent Heretic

I know not everyone can post in this forum and I apologize for that. I want to have a civil discussion, so I posted here. You can contact a mod to see about getting permission to post int he Bully Pulpit.

Thanks to member youdidntseeme for providing this link via PM:

Ron Paul Salutes Veterans, Says He Plans to Bring the Troops Home

Earlier in the day, Paul again questioned why the United States needed to maintain a military presence in Australia, Germany, Japan and South Korea — even as the death of the North Korean leader Kim Jong Il raised concerns about the region’s stability.

“How long do we have to stay in Korea?” he asked at a campaign event at the Iowa Speedway in Newton. “We were there since I was in high school.”

So, he has stated that he PLANS to bring all the troops home.

1. What is the Plan?
2. Does he have Sole Authority?
3. Why will he succeed where Obama has failed?

reply posted on 4-1-2012 @ 02:27 PM by Open_Minded Skeptic

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
So,
Has Paul outlined a plan to bring ALL our troops around the world home?
Does he have the sole authority?
Why will he succeed where Obama failed?

Thanks for any input!

Well I'm no lawyer, so I can only give my personal opinion regarding the authority of the president to withdraw troops from overseas. And my opinion is that, since there are currently no declared wars underway, yes, the president has that authority. Recent presidents have certainly been exercising their authority to place troops into such situations.

I have heard Paul state (sorry, no source, it was radio in 2008) that he intends to bring all troops home from all locations around the world. But I have heard no details, such as whether he is using the weasel "combat troops" nonsense or not, or regarding such military as embassy guards, etc.

I don't think he will succeed, for the reason below. I think that is exactly what happened with Obama, and will happen with the next president, whoever it may be. I think the puppet masters who actually run the show won't allow it, as it will cut into profit and power margins.

I think, when Obama got into office, they sat him down and had a 'talk' with him, letting him know that he would follow the plan or else... I think Paul will get the same treatment

But whadda I know...

reply posted on 5-1-2012 @ 07:45 PM by youdidntseeme

Permission to post granted. Thank you SO.

As stated above, Paul claims that his intention is to bring our soldiers, sailors, airmen, marines and guardsmen home from ALL overseas bases. That includes warzones and other bases such as Germany, Japan, Guam, so on and so forth.

I have not yet read a redeployment plan from him, but as far as having the authority, I believe the President would have such authority as the Commander-in-Chief of all armed forces.

This plan has alot of traction amongst the American people, but i believe it would mean alot of military families would soon be unemployed as the military would not be able to retain all its members for stateside jobs. Projected end strength for the fiscal year 2012 is already lower than it was in 2011 due to the fact that all fighting forces in Iraq have now been redeployed and returned home. The amount of available jobs is shrinking and th Army has already notified its members that re-enlistment will become difficult.

Just one small kink in Dr. Paul's plan. The jobless rate is still soaring, we don't need to add thousands of former military members to that total.

reply posted on 6-1-2012 @ 06:39 AM by Open_Minded Skeptic

Originally posted by youdidntseeme
This plan has alot of traction amongst the American people

It is definitely one of the things I support most from Paul...

The jobless rate is still soaring, we don't need to add thousands of former military members to that total.

That's a good point, and not something to be ignored. On the other hand, while it may result in slower deficit reduction, those military folks, many of them, have skills and training in quite useful fields... road and bridge building, for example. The money that is being spent on military adventurism (the worst thing to do with money from a pure economic POV) could be spent on rebuilding our country... the roads and bridges would be a good start.

While that would reduce the deficit cut, because the money is still being spent, at least it is being spent on something that will provide a return - industrial infrastructure, to use the popular phrase - rather than on something that is essentially throwing money away and increasing the number of people around the world who hate the US.

So agreed, the useful employment of ex-military that are "ex" due to war fund cuts is something that needs to be addressed, but the solution, or at least a solution seems fairly straight-forward.

reply posted on 6-1-2012 @ 08:35 AM by Benevolent Heretic

Originally posted by youdidntseeme
The jobless rate is still soaring, we don't need to add thousands of former military members to that total.

I hadn't even considered that consequence. I'm eager to see Paul's plan for this. If ANYTHING would make me vote for Paul, it would be a clear plan to stop the wars, while making sure the service people didn't come home to our economy in further decline, because of the US stepping out of war profiteering.

One concern I have about a Paul presidency is the unforeseen and unknown consequences of some of his more drastic promises...

Originally posted by Open_Minded Skeptic
The money that is being spent on military adventurism (the worst thing to do with money from a pure economic POV) could be spent on rebuilding our country... the roads and bridges would be a good start.

Great idea. I could support that plan! Let's hope there's something in the works in the way of a solid plan.

reply posted on 6-1-2012 @ 03:24 PM by Praetorius

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

OK, I'm finally here! Looks like some of this has already been covered, but OK...

This says he will "lead the fight to" do these thing, all of which I agree with. So, good on him! I have heard Paul state that he will "bring the troops home". Does he have sole authority to do this?

The reason I ask is that Obama said he would do it, too, and he has to some extent. But Is Paul planning on actually ENDING the Afghanistan war? Is he going to bring THOSE troops home? All troops in Iraq? What is his plan?

Absolutely - as Commander-in-chief, the president has absolutely authority over the actions of the military. Paul addresses this directly in his "My Plan for a Freedom President":

While a president who strictly adheres to the Constitution would need the consent of Congress for very large changes in the size of government, such as shutting down cabinet departments, he could use his constitutional authority as head of the executive branch and as commander in chief to take several significant steps toward liberty on his own. The area where the modern chief executive has greatest ability to act unilaterally is in foreign affairs. Unfortunately, Congress has abdicated its constitutional authority to declare wars, instead passing vague “authorization of force” bills that allow the president to send any number of troops to almost any part of the world. The legislature does not even effectively use its power of the purse to rein in the executive. Instead, Congress serves as little more than a rubber stamp for the president’s requests.

If the president has the power to order U.S. forces into combat on nothing more than his own say-so, then it stands to reason he can order troops home. Therefore, on the first day in office, a constitutionalist can begin the orderly withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq and Afghanistan. He can also begin withdrawing troops from other areas of the world. The United States has over 300, 0000 troops stationed in more than 146 countries. Most if not all of these deployments bear little or no relationship to preserving the safety of the American people. For example, over 20 years after the fall of the Berlin Wall, the U.S. still maintains troops in Germany.

As to his plan - well, already covered, but I love this so will post it anyway (this covers all cases in addition to Iraq):

YouTube Link

I think, when Obama got into office, they sat him down and had a 'talk' with him, letting him know that he would follow the plan or else... I think Paul will get the same treatment, but I'd at least like to know what his actual plans are...

So,
Has Paul outlined a plan to bring ALL our troops around the world home?
Does he have the sole authority?
Why will he succeed where Obama failed?

Regarding the sit-down and succeeding where Obama failed - while Paul doesn't wear his faith on his sleeve, he does have great faith and his life is a testimony to this concept:

8 And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. But rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.

I have no fear that Paul wouldn't follow through on what he's promised. I only personally fear the response - but maybe that would finally open a lot more eyes as a lot of people aren't quite about the possibility.

reply to post by youdidntseeme

This plan has alot of traction amongst the American people, but i believe it would mean alot of military families would soon be unemployed as the military would not be able to retain all its members for stateside jobs. Projected end strength for the fiscal year 2012 is already lower than it was in 2011 due to the fact that all fighting forces in Iraq have now been redeployed and returned home. The amount of available jobs is shrinking and th Army has already notified its members that re-enlistment will become difficult.

I think this is likely inevitable given the track of the military and employment levels regardless, but as pay for the troops is actually a pretty small part of DOD budget, it's not on Paul's chopping block - so much other money to save there from the overseas deployments and various other military activities. And, with what's been done to posse comitatus anyway in addition to the state of our borders & the situation on the mexican border specifically (with the cartels), I could easily envision the military being placed on border security, for a time at least.

And, getting their funds back into OUR economy would be very helpful.

Con't....

reply posted on 6-1-2012 @ 03:33 PM by Praetorius

reply to post by Praetorius

I hadn't even considered that consequence. I'm eager to see Paul's plan for this. If ANYTHING would make me vote for Paul, it would be a clear plan to stop the wars, while making sure the service people didn't come home to our economy in further decline, because of the US stepping out of war profiteering.

I'm not sure how much the military-industrial complex actually puts into our economy. It's definitely worth looking into, but I see the vultures at the top being the prime recipients regardless.

One concern I have about a Paul presidency is the unforeseen and unknown consequences of some of his more drastic promises...
"Originally posted by Open_Minded Skeptic
The money that is being spent on military adventurism (the worst thing to do with money from a pure economic POV) could be spent on rebuilding our country... the roads and bridges would be a good start."
Great idea. I could support that plan! Let's hope there's something in the works in the way of a solid plan.

Paul's actual plan for the money saved from our foreign policy is to pump it into the entitlement programs to make them viable for those dependent while we work on possible transition to other options, as well as funneling some into paying down debt:

A constitutionalist president’s budget should do the following:

1. Reduce overall federal spending
2. Prioritize cuts in oversize expenditures, especially the military
3. Prioritize cuts in corporate welfare
4. Use 50 percent of the savings from cuts in overseas spending to shore up entitlement programs for those who are dependent on them and the other 50 percent to pay down the debt
5. Provide for reduction in federal bureaucracy and lay out a plan to return responsibility for education to the states
6. Begin transitioning entitlement programs from a system where all Americans are forced to participate into one where taxpayers can opt out of the programs and make their own provisions for retirement and medical care

You can review the full article I've been posting from as linked in my signature thread of the same name, and if you haven't checked it out yet, you may also want to review his Plan to Restore America to see if he's addressed anything specifically there.

Otherwise I'll have to do some more digging to see if I can find specific plans. Regardless, our current path is untenable, by any honest measure.

Take care, friend.

reply posted on 6-1-2012 @ 04:34 PM by Benevolent Heretic

Hi!

Thanks for stopping by!

I really appreciate your input. Loved the video. I agree with him 100% on that. I honestly feel split in two, but fortunately, there's a lot of time between now and November.

A few questions for you, if you don't mind:

1. What are your thoughts on the likelihood of this budget being passed?

2. Who, in Congress, is going to back his agenda and write the legislation he needs to move on it?

3. I think there's a post of yours that states what he realistically would be able to accomplish and what he would not. If you remember it, could you link to it?

Originally posted by Praetorius
Regarding the sit-down and succeeding where Obama failed - while Paul doesn't wear his faith on his sleeve, he does have great faith and his life is a testimony to this concept:

Faith is not actually a selling point with me.

I don't care if he's religious or what religion he practices. I don't want to hear about him talking to God or making legislation based on his faith (which I already think the Sanctity of Life Act is).

Thanks again for all the responses.

edit on 1/6/2012 by Benevolent Heretic because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 6-1-2012 @ 09:09 PM by Praetorius

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

Ah, you're lucky I checked back on the thread to see your response. I normally just wait for direct-response notifications.

I really appreciate your input. Loved the video. I agree with him 100% on that. I honestly feel split in two, but fortunately, there's a lot of time between now and November.

A few questions for you, if you don't mind:

Sure thing, and I'll do my best here.

1. What are your thoughts on the likelihood of this budget being passed?

As far as the full budget itself, I'm ambivalent. With the sea change in public thought his election would indicate and likely election of more like-minded representatives and senators, off the bat I'm cautiously optimistic that they would realize the gravity of what we're facing and get behind it. I'm not an expert by any means so I could be far off, but I'd personally aim at about 55% for the time being.

Regardless, that's the beauty of this point - as Commander-in-chief, it doesn't really matter since he can still bring the forces back, effectively negating the need for all that military and overseas spending, which I would say gives Congress good reason to go ahead and allocate the funds to the entitlement programs and toward the debt accordingly. That's a minimum of multiple hundreds of billions of dollars saved just with the power of the presidency.

2. Who, in Congress, is going to back his agenda and write the legislation he needs to move on it?

I'll lead with Kucinich just because I know they respect each other, and lean towards likely a good share of the HR 1207 co-sponsors. Reiterating again, I am not an expert on any of this, I just see what I view as the necessary goals and am working with my limited understanding to envision these possibilities (and likely failing miserably!). To be frank, I'd say it would probably be wise of you to set up accounts at the Daily Paul and Ron Paul Forums to ask some of the members there who are much more versed in the actual workings of these things than I am.

3. I think there's a post of yours that states what he realistically would be able to accomplish and what he would not. If you remember it, could you link to it?

Let me go dig...ahh, here we go:

As far as getting government to go along with the plan, Paul's election would first off signal a change of thinking in Washington and likely cause some to get on board off the bat, but even if he gets stonewalled by Congress on his other plans, there is a LOT of good the president can do on his own:

1) order the troops home, end the wars, stop the involved money from being wasted, and prevent further loss of civilian life and lessen desire for retaliation against the US.
2) revoke all prior overreaching and unconstitutional executive directives.
3) order the DOJ to stop interfering with states' rights regarding their own laws on medi MJ, foods, and the rest.
4) pardon non-violent "offender" victims of the drug war.
5) shrink big government by refusing to fill non-essential position vacancies (attrition).
6) use the bully pulpit of the Executive Office to educate the american people and push for rational change via their representatives
7) restore some dignity to the office finally - no crappy gifts to foreign heads of state that don't even work in their nation, no bowing to foreign leaders, HONESTY AND FRANKNESS WITH THE AMERICAN PEOPLE for a change, no Bush-style embarassments...ugh, bushisms...
8) I suppose it's important to add one of the most obvious powers in vetoing unconstitutional, unhelpful, or stupid legislation as well as unbalanced budgets.

Faith is not actually a selling point with me. I don't care if he's religious or what religion he practices. I don't want to hear about him talking to God or making legislation based on his faith (which I already think the Sanctity of Life Act is).

Thanks again for all the responses.

You're most welcome, and you asked why he'd be more likely to do it than Obama - this is one of the prime honest reasons. I believe Paul would be willing to die for what he feels is the right path personally - discount this motivation for that if you want

- as compared to continuing what he feels is an evil and destructive course. He's been speaking truth to power to the minimization of his own potential in office for decades for the same reason.

Let me know if I can try to fumble through anything else, but I may honestly have to seek expert council for such.

Take care, friend.

reply posted on 8-1-2012 @ 11:24 AM by Blue_Jay33

Actually Obama did exactly what he said he would do during his campaign, scale back Iraq and scale up Afghanistan. His supporters somehow obscure this fact, his opponents either forget or don't care.
I had such great hope for Obama that he would be a "peace" president but he is no different than any other, that Nobel peace needs to be taken back. But remember he had virtually no record so it was a slick rhetoric that was being bought hook line and sinker by the masses, Ron Paul at least has a record and vigorously defends a non-intervention policy, even at the cost of voters within the GOP primary, if he won't pander to them to get the nomination that tells me everything about his character, unlike the rest and how they are beating the war drums of propaganda against Iran just like they did for Iraq.

The OP needs to watch this Vid, the hindsight of Iraq propaganda leading up to invasion is disgusting, and who stood alone in the GOP against it?

YouTube Link

You think a man who has been laughed at for decades for his stance will suddenly sell out or cave to pressure, no he will want to vindicate his ideology that advocating peace can really work, to prove to people he was right all along. Ron is old, he really has nothing to lose, and everything to gain by proving his ideological philosophical world view is correct, and as he says change the coarse of history.

edit on 8-1-2012 by Blue_Jay33 because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 8-1-2012 @ 11:37 AM by Benevolent Heretic

reply to post by Blue_Jay33

You don't have to sell me on Paul's position on war.

I'm there.

What I don't know is that he will be successful getting any of his agenda passed when his Congressional record is quite pitiful (and I'm being nice). Congress has been fighting against him for his 20 years there. I don't see them falling in line behind Paul just because he's president.

Thank you for your participation.

edit on 1/8/2012 by Benevolent Heretic because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 8-1-2012 @ 11:58 AM by Blue_Jay33

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

Bush & Obama marched the troops in, Ron Paul can march them back home, and he can do it with a little thing called an executive order.

Done deal.

Economic changes will be a harder to enforce, but if he goes for a balanced budget and gets fought, he will tell the people to democratically evict those that are stopping this from happening, now some of them might out selfish self preservation change there vote after all a President Paul would serve notice to every politician in America that the winds of real change would be blowing strong.

Pages: ^^TOP^^