Dr. Paul's foreign Policy is Dangerous

Originally posted by hooberson3

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by TDawgRex

During my three decades of service, I questioned everything under the sun. I always tried to question intelligibly though, not emotionally. That is the way I was taught by very wise NCOs and Officers.

Sometimes I didn’t agree with the mission, but went anyway, just to try to keep my Joes alive. I could have been relieved of my duties and the responsibility would have been given to someone possibly less competent, but the mission would have gone on anyway.

Im not quite sure what the difference is here.
You question, yet you still followed orders?
Whats the difference?

How is that different than following orders blindly?
Only that you knew what you were doing?
Be it legal or otherwise?
Isn't that worse?

I think what he is trying to say as that it's better to have people in the military who are mindful of right/wrong, excessive force, the uniform code of military justice, and to know when NOT to follow an unlawful order. Sometimes it may be hard to see the big picture through all the layers of the onion and compartmentalization but I would rather have someone like TdawgRex in the ranks than someone who is ignorant to all of the stuff I mentioned above. There in lies the dilemma, do you tough it out and do the best you can with what you have or get out and possibly let an ignorant and dangerous person take your position? You would be surprised how many intelligent and compassionate people are in the military.

Im sure there were compassionate people running the slave trade.
But is that work that you would want to be part of?
Its a voluntary military. Meaning, your not forced to join, and if you suspect that
what you are joining will have you do acts of atrocities that you would never do back home,
why join? It would be smarter to stay home and fight the corrupt system, then to go overseas
to topple other people's corrupt systems, right?

I would say, why doesn't the US follow the swiss model.
Arm and train the people, and let them defend their homes.
Nobody on this planet would be ready to attack a country of well armed civilians.

Forgot to add something. There will always be what I call the "glass parking lot crowd" who think the answer to everything is yeeehaawww turn everything into a glass parking lot but those folks are the minority in the military from my experience. There are far, far more "glass parking lot" people in the civilian world because they don't understand war and listen to people like Bill'O who are callous and ready to fight as long as they don't have to do anything.

The issue with the US is, that those "glass parking lot" lot are the ones paying for the military they have.

Originally posted by Sablicious

Dr. Paul, as per his own record, is incorruptible.

Paul has no record.

If he were ever to get into office, he too would be forced to succumb to the whims of TPTB. As did Obama.

eh? obama was one of the "boys" before he even ran for the seat.

he was a bilderburger as well.

Dr Paul's foreign policy is extremely dangerous to the US war machine which needs perpetual war to justify it's existence... We will be at war with someone, anyone, on a regular basis to ensure hundreds of $Billions keeps getting pumped into the "Defense" Budget (ya, right... its more like the "Offense" Budget)

Originally posted by tbeck87
I agree to the thread title. Isolating america from the rest of the world is indeed just plain dangerous.

Oh this is the isolation argument. Contrary to popular mainstream media belief, Ron Paul actually wants to engage in trade, not war, with other countries. The pro-isolationist people are actually the pro-war/sanction people who want to isolate America via "black hat bulling syndrome" using a preemptive war to isolate countries that would have previously traded with us. So most of the pro-war people have things backwards. War isolates America from the rest of the world. I couldn't' imagine a scenario where war gets other nations to embrace us, aside from the UK and Israel...who are also pro-war. I guess war is non-isolationist.... my bad mainstream media if I can't comprehend logic. BTW....America is spelled with a capital "A."

Originally posted by arufon
Dr Paul's foreign policy is extremely dangerous to the US war machine which needs perpetual war to justify it's existence... We will be at war with someone, anyone, on a regular basis to ensure hundreds of $Billions keeps getting pumped into the "Defense" Budget (ya, right... its more like the "Offense" Budget)

It's kinda sad that we engage in talk vs an entire fusion center. I'm not even getting paid for this but it's still kinda fun. It's like programmers trying to debug a horrifically coded program. Resistance is futile!

Originally posted by FoosM

The issue with the US is, that those "glass parking lot" lot are the ones paying for the military they have.

I know, which is why I advocate adopting a semi-Amish style of life. Grow your own food, generate your own power, and become independent of the "grid." If you pay taxes and are appalled by the horrible things our troops do then you are just as guilty. Taxpayers fund post traumatic stress syndrome if they like it or not. Your, our, tax dollars at work. They aren't my children.... why should I care?

We have to protect ourselves from the commies, or die in a nuclear Holocaust. The old generation is a bane on us. Take your fear to the grave fear-mongers. Fear, fear, fear, fear....the baby boomers live in fear, with a few exceptions. Creative solutions can solve most problems.....creativity is something the pro-war people do not possess.

Originally posted by FoosM

I would say, why doesn't the US follow the swiss model.
Arm and train the people, and let them defend their homes.
Nobody on this planet would be ready to attack a country of well armed civilians.

What are we afraid of then? I love the Swiss. They have avoided war for over 500 years and maybe that is a tribute to their success. I know the Swiss are well armed but consider this. US the most armed nation

1. If any other GOP candidate had the demographic trending that Ron Paul is showing with New Voters, Young Voters and Independents the GOP and MSM would be salivating but they are both employing an all out media blitz to convince us that Mitt Romney is unstoppable as the nominee because he won Iowa by 8 votes (which may be contested) and because he won New Hampshire (which is practically his home state) by a large margin as expected. Reverse the Iowa win and award it to Santorum and then lets see what happens in states not so pro-Romney and you have quite a different story. The deographics are extremely upside for Paul, nobody is a clear front runner yet and Romney, Santorum and Paul are basically tied.

2. The MSM has come full circle with their coverage. Their playbook so far;

a. Ignore Ron Paul’s rise in the polls, and when that fails
b. Label Ron Paul a kook, and when that fails
c. Label Ron Paul a racist, and when that fails
d. Label Ron Paul’s foreign policy as “dangerous, and when that fails
e. Advise Huntsman to stay out of Iowa race so as not to split Romneys support, and when that fails
f. Bombard the airwaves with pro Romney “news” pieces, and when that fails
g. Advise Perry to stay in the race so his supporters will not gravitate to Ron Paul, and when that fails
h. Bombard the airwaves with comments that Ron Paul can’t win and is only looking for a platform
speech at the RNC convention, and when that fails
i. Bombard the airwaves with pro Romney “news” pieces, AGAIN, and when that fails
j. Ignore Ron Paul’s rise in the polls and especially among the voters that the GOP covets the most
New Voters, Youth and Independents.

3. Ron Paul can realize a meteoric rise if he makes 2 statements;

a. Too many people think the USA and specifically Republicans are war mongers and crusaders and based on the Pentagon leading the Bush AND Obama administrations around by the nose - I tend to agree. Ron Paul needs to expand his position on foreign policy platform to explain that he supports a strong defense but that does not mean nation building or regime change. Since when does being Republican mean supporting nation building and regime change. We need to know Ron Paul beileives in a strong national defense – that he’s not too slow to pull the trigger, but also that he’s not too QUICK to pull the trigger.
b. As everyone knows there exists a great divide between the rich in this country and everyone else, whether you count yourself in the 99%, 58%, 43%, etc. The federal government of the USA is facilitating that divide, has created a wall that prevents the ascension of the poor / middle class into the wealthy class. Mr. Paul please be our voice in the spirit of Ronald Reagan in sending the message to Washington – “Please tear down that wall” that is the federal bureaucracy, that prevents growth, that prohibits free trade, that prohibits entrepreneurialism and that dampens the human spirit of self accomplishment thru individual achievement.

reply to post by FoosM


My comment is definately on a micro level, while the POTUS, whoever they may be is on a macro level. But to answer your question.

The difference was...

If I felt the order was illegal, I would refuse it and push it up through the Chain of Command. I never lost, and made quite a few enemies. But also made quite a few friends as well.

Missions I didn't agree with were usually logistically & personnel impaired in nature. Meaning we were going on a mission with to many or to little people and vehicles. Sometimes a soft touch is required, sometimes a hammer. Finding the right touch is always difficult, and I was wrong quite a few times, but I was right quite a few times as well. When I was right, it was always hairy.

As a senior NCO, I took part in the planning and it was my responsibility to make my views known. But the Commander makes the final decision.

Dr. Pauls staff right now and if elected POTUS, will face the same types of decisions on a macro level. But the final call will be on him. For better or worse.

I am so sick of the isolationist comments about Dr.Paul. Welcome to the real world people. It is not possible to be an isolationist in today's day in age. Some folks are so broke record with the term isolationist. Of course he is going to talk, trade, deal, respond to all issue's that the president must deal with, and of course, he will legally and constitutionally deal with these issue's, and involve congress as they arise. Everyone's so afraid he will board up the white house windows and unplug the phone and not communicate with our allies and friends across the globe. This is preposterous. It's pretty obvious the agenda of people call Dr.Paul and isolationist. It's just common sense. Our government doesn't function that way. We have eyes and ears everywhere. To suggest that he will become a hermit is just blatant fear mongering.

reply to post by beezzer


Our allies are not as weak militarily as our government wants you to think. Israel has aggressively crossed their borders to wage war against their neighbors many times without the help of the U.S.. Their counter intelligence agency mossad, has proven itself many times to be capable of locating and assassinating those individuals who are plotting against them. They have their spies positioned all over the world including the United States.

South Korea's military has been built-up with American high tech weaponry since the end of hostilities of the Korean War. Their weaponry is far more advanced than North Korea's. Our troops positioned on their border also raises unnecessary tensions between both countries. How would the United States feel having China stationing troops along our border?

We have enough allies who have nukes and they're better equipped with American military technology than their enemies. By withdrawing our troops from foreign lands, we still have the capability along with our allies to monitor or subvert the beginning of any aggression. With the use of spy drones.and other technology that isn't made public, I'm sure our allies can defend their borders if needed.

We have this mentality that our allies are vulnerable, yet rag time military terrorists like the Taliban are still waging war with the strongest military in the world for over 10 years now. Vietnam also defended itself against the U.S.. We never resolved Iraq's internal problems so what makes us think that stationing troops overseas is in our best interest. We are doing the exact same thing that our government was warning about the Soviet Union spreading communism and occupying foreign lands.

Our economy is in dire straights, and the enormous amount of money that is being used to station troops and finance war over seas is bankrupting the U.S. just like it did with the Soviet Union. Our military is here to protect and defend our borders. Countries like Irag, Afghanistan, Iran and even North Korea are not a threat to the security of the United States. Any regional conflicts should be handled by those countries who are directly affected. It's not our neighborhood and not our responsibility to travel around the world to solve border disputes. Why should our young men and women give their lives defending another countries disputes?

In the Gulf War, we defended Kuwait while their young me were out dancing in nightclubs. Our troops arein stationed overseas for nothing but to keep the flow of oil coming into the U.S.. We've had the technology to move away from this war causing energy, but energy rich corporations are preventing the implementation of new energy technologies.

Everyone in a position of power worldwide is dangerous

Originally posted by hadriana
I just donated what I could.
I'd like to see that commercial aired - a lot of people I've talked to do not know that about him.
It also puts a big contrast to him the way that ad shows other top donors - it really makes him stand out.

For the life of me, I don't understand why more 'occupiers' don't support him.

Good for your donation, really.

While watching it, I thought of the insanity of TV altogether. I Gave up watching TV and syndicated news in July of 2006. I can find all the news I want online or through radio sources. So in a way I snickered internally at the call for TV airtime donations, in view of my having abandoned TV years ago. But it's unrealistic to expect the rest of the world to do what I'v done, it simply will never happen. Too many need entertainment or white noise to accompany their daily routine.

As to Ron Paul being the rational choice... Of course he is, and if you don't vote for him, then you can only expect the same in government corruption and the good old boy routine to continue. It has to be replaced with a government the citizenry can actually believe in and relate to.

My vote is for him, I just hope enough people break away from mindless party voting and attempt to actually change America.

Originally posted by Sablicious

Dr. Paul, as per his own record, is incorruptible.

Paul has no record.

If he were ever to get into office, he too would be forced to succumb to the whims of TPTB. As did Obama.

His record is what some Americans refer to as the Constitution of the United States of America. Dr. Paul has been immune to "TPTB" for decades. If one actually pays attention to what he has been saying before the 2008 elections then one would know that his main goal is spreading the word of civil rights, liberties, and freedom. He has surpassed that goal to date and awakened a new generation of politicians that believe in transparency. That means those young folks will be fashion themselves in the same manor that Dr. Paul has done. They will be the same person at home, talking to constituents, or conducing business. Just because he might not win the presidency doesn't mean a thing in terms of future candidates. This is just the beginning of an idea that will unseat the structure of corruption in politics. If you don't agree with that then I suggest a look in the mirror.

Originally posted by Hendrix92TheUniverse
Contrary to what the MSM will tell you, Dr. Paul is not anti-war, he is in fact for all wars in which are declared constitutionally by the congress.

What about the other situations though that Beezer brought up? I am 100% for a Declaration of War but how would you think Mr. Paul would respond to a sudden aggression against Taiwan? War is of course serious business and should be declared (I believe in the Goldwater principle; in which Paul echoes -- if you are going to go to war, go to war and get it done), but how do you think such actions would be handled by a Ron Paul administration (more notably -- would Congress have the fortitude to do something about it?)

I hope that alleviates the fears of some who say that Dr. Paul is strong on national defense.

I think the fear is he is not strong in the international community and a lot of hotspots will be swung in one way or another if and when we bring a strict-constitutionalists to the White House that can muster the will of the People.

Originally posted by 6Eyengineer
I am so sick of the isolationist comments about Dr.Paul. Welcome to the real world people. It is not possible to be an isolationist in today's day in age. Some folks are so broke record with the term isolationist. Of course he is going to talk, trade, deal, respond to all issue's that the president must deal with, and of course, he will legally and constitutionally deal with these issue's, and involve congress as they arise. Everyone's so afraid he will board up the white house windows and unplug the phone and not communicate with our allies and friends across the globe. This is preposterous. It's pretty obvious the agenda of people call Dr.Paul and isolationist. It's just common sense. Our government doesn't function that way. We have eyes and ears everywhere. To suggest that he will become a hermit is just blatant fear mongering.

These are the same people that are hiding in their cold war nuclear bunkers watching a marathon of 24. The same type of people who walk down the street looking down at the pavement to avoid eye contact with a passing member of their neighborhood. I call it hypocrisy but they call it being weak. You be the judge.

Originally posted by syrinx high priest
ron thinks iran has every right to have nukes

I'd say that is dangerous

Why do you consider that dangerous? Israel has 300 (or more) nukes. If Iran would get a nuke, it could NOT reach the USA, anyway. If Iran got a nuke and used it FIRST, Israel would wipe Iran off the map! It would be suicidal for Iran to pre-emptively use a nuke. However, if Iran had a nuke, and Israel and/or other nations knew it, THAT fact would perhaps PREVENT another nation from attacking Iran, since said other nation would know that they themselves would sustain some kind of damage due to Iran striking back.

Here's a very good, imo, video of Doug Wead defending Paul's position on foreign policy:

THE CONSTITUTION IS NOT DANGEROUS


For those concerned about our allies, I understand. However, WE ARE BROKE! If I remember the numbers correctly, our national debt has increased by $4T over the past 10 years due to war. This cannot continue. If our economy totally crashes, there will be NO money to help other countries, let alone help ourselves if we were attacked! We have to get our financial house in order for our OWN national security!!

In addition, 'they' are now discussing perhaps cutting Social Security, etc. Paul's economic recovery plan allows for Social Security to continue, Medicare, children's current health plans, etc. If we do NOT stop these wars, Social Security, etc. will HAVE to be cut...and again, eventually there will be NO money for these programs, either. Then what? Mass rioting here at home, etc.??

Also, the CIA termed and TEACHES about blowback, which is the real reason for these world-wide war issues.
Michael Scheuer, ex-CIA bin Laden unit chief agrees with Ron Paul's foreign policy. Robert Steele, ex-CIA agrees with Paul's foreign policy. Scheuer has even endorsed Paul for President. Many other foreign policy experts agree with Paul's foreign policy, like Harvey Sapolsky, MIT and Chris Preble, Cato Institute. And let's not forget that Paul receives more donations from active military than any other candidate, including Obama. The active military are over there actually fighting these wars. One would think that they would know more than somebody here sitting in a cushy office. One way I support the troops is by supporting the man they want as Commander-in-Chief, that is, Ron Paul!

It gives me concern too.

I wish Ron Paul would come out and say that Israel is an Apartheid state, a terrorist state and the greatest threat to world peace.

Then he should say that when elected he would cut off all aid to Israel and get rid of the law that allows Americans to get a tax deduction for funding Israeli terror and illegal settlements.

I am sure he knows how fundamentally evil Israel is because all well informed people do.

The US should demand that Israel give back all of the military equipment they have extorted from the US as well.

Israel greatest threat to world peace.

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by rogerstigers

 

Thanks.

I'll admit that his foreign policy stance (or at least the impression) has given me concern.

Originally posted by rogerstigers

I stand strongly for what I believe in, but I stay out of other people's business. My friends and family are my priorities. I take care of them as best I can and will rise to their defense. When I am faced with a confrontation, I listen and talk my way out of it. Key word there.. listen.

In a perfect world, your approach would be great. However, have you ever actually had to stare true evil in the face? There are real people out there in the world, both foreign and domestic, who only want to do harm to others. They dont give a damn if you want to listen and talk about it.

Originally posted by rogerstigers


This principle works just as well on the international level. Roosevelt espoused this with the "speak softly and carry a big stick". Now, some may say that he was a bit of a hypocrite, given his administration's involvement in the Panamanian Revolt; however, the message is sound.

I find it funny how people always try and cite FDR as being some great president and leader. He actually was a failure. He was in office for so long, left the country with a depression, a world war, and a bunch of bad policies. If he would have acted on Hitler and the Japanese and answered the begging of the rest of the free world to help, maybe we wouldnt have lost so many innocent lives.

Maybe he meant "speak softly and group all your naval fleet together undefended, and withold intelligence reports that say your about to be attacked by the Japanese"

Originally posted by WhiteDevil013

I find it funny how people always try and cite FDR as being some great president and leader. He actually was a failure. He was in office for so long, left the country with a depression, a world war, and a bunch of bad policies. If he would have acted on Hitler and the Japanese and answered the begging of the rest of the free world to help, maybe we wouldnt have lost so many innocent lives.

Maybe he meant "speak softly and group all your naval fleet together undefended, and withold intelligence reports that say your about to be attacked by the Japanese"

edit on 16-1-2012 by WhiteDevil013 because: (no reason given)

Dude, you are seriously confused. He was quoting Theodore Roosevelt, not FDR. Please study some history so we can have intelligent discourse.