Here are the links to the good parts: http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showpost.php?p=6036496&postcount=761
Answer the question, where are you going to get the money to pay to 'free' the world? Things are going to be interesting this year. I would be surprised if the dollar doesn't collapse at some stage. Everything will change when this happens, especially if it happens during election year.
You're making the argument simplistic by asserting an implied "all or nothing" approach. No nation can afford to free the world, but are you saying the only other option is freeing nobody? Nonsense. I want a President who will not be a "bring all the troops home" and "screw you Allies, defend yourselves" chief executive. Another point, with the advent of WMD's and foreign governments that are able to strike the US from thousands of miles away, to argue for bringing the troops home (disengagement) and leaving all nations to themselves is completely misguided. We no longer live in a world where our enemies must live next door to affect us. We also cannot turn a blind eye to the sufferings of others.
The dollar won't completely collapse, but I have been asking the same questions as you. As we invade other countries to fight this war on terror we are also loosing control over our entitlement system which is kicking our ass. We don't have the money to "free" the world, obviously, but I think the best we can do is set a good example of freedom.
At the expense of putting ourselves in the poor house? History has shown that the kind of aid we dole out doesn't make a difference, it only makes people more dependent. What will happen to them if we can't afford to carry on subsidizing the Saddams and Musharaffs?
Guerilla, just imagine for one moment that ron paul was president in the early 1950's countries like iran were in the crossroads of either becoming democratic countries or dictatorships. Imagine if we had stayed out of their affairs and allow them to determine their own political future. I imagine a more peaceful earth that is for sure
Nextbizguy do u support an administration that lies to its own people and gets them into a war based on those lies? What fairy tale hypocrisy. makes me sickkkk
If you ever done any reading in your life BIZ you will know that most of our dealings in these 3rd world countries havent been to free anyone and in fact we have enslaved them even more by supporting dicators with opressive secret police who turture and terrorize its people and most of the times we have done it for the gain of profit for our oil and defense contractors. I have given and continue to give examples but the neocons and their cronies here wont respond to them anymore. Ask yourself why???????? Even look at toopacs answer saying that this is a non issue. A non issue that we destroyed democracy in third world countries. Dont you find that disturbing? God back and start reading your history and learn it before making ignorant comments based on no facts at all. RP became disenchanted by our brand of helpingout a long time ago because he sees the writing on the wall and he knows what we have done to these people. I used to think as u do now, when i was (14 years old that is).
Ping and others, I feel your pain. I really wanted to like RP and support him. He's not a viable candidate and he won't win the nomination or the election. If he goes independent he'll be a spoiler but never President. I like his views on individual liberty and much of his domestic agenda, but he's really looney on foreign policy.
That is exactly why he wont, so many who do like him take this stance and go to someone else for the lesser of 2 evils. Same reason a third party wont trully emerge, so many vote for dem or repub even though they do not want to.
True he is so looney he speaks the truth. We have been conditioned by lies from our candidates for so long anything remotely resembling honest will seem crazy to some. Doesnt really matter because others are starting to wake up. You have not stated one fact as to what makes his foreign policy so looney yet its rational for us to destroy democracies in other countruies. This is the kind of twisted posting you want us to believe but i had a feeling you were trying to play like you were objective but we all know u werent right buddy, you cant fool any of us here, now go back to the huddle with ur buddy gtech , its halftime now lol.
Well buddy, tell me the truth. from your heart, do you really think abandoning Iraq is a good idea? At this stage? IT WILL BE DEVASTATED! There will be a Civil War and the country will be torned apart, with loss of hundreds of thousands of lives. This is what I feel about that issue my friend.
Ping, as much as you malign me as being ignorant, conditioned, twisted, and non-objective, I've given RP a fair chance in my mind. I have no agenda other than the best candidate for this country I love. You say I haven't given you one fact that demonstrates his foreign policy is looney, yet I have argued that disengaging the world is fool-hardy and irresponsible to the American people. We are not best served by ignoring our Allies and those enslaved in tyranny. I do believe truth and morality is objective and there are rights and wrongs. I would support sacrifice for the greater good of others that are not able to help themselves (think genocide and the like). I've also argued that evil is real, people give themselves to evil, and people can be enslaved by evil leaders. The nature of the world has changed. Destruction can come from thousands of miles away or can be imported with a few willing to die for their god. Yeah, ok, I agree with RP that propping up dictators and meddling in national politics without clear warrant and legitimate objectives is wrong. But his knee-jerk reaction to cut and run from world politics is wrong-headed. He's just hiding his lack of foreign policy skills behind economic hardship ("we can't afford it!"). See ya at the polls ...
When did RP ever say to 'run' from world politics, or anything even close to that? Bringing our troops home and stopping to send billions overseas is hardly 'running' from world politics.
Grim its no use, people like that have an agenda set long before this issue was brought up and like he said before his intention was to never vote for ron paul anyways.
Of course it wasn't, but non-partisans might read these threads and form their opinion from there. That is why this thread, and GTech's smear campaign persist. It's reverse propaganda. Consider your responses with that in mind please.
This discussion provoked me to find more RP quotes on foreign policy. The problem I'm finding is that RP is defining his policy more on what it is not, instead of setting forth a comprehensive foreign policy. That being said, I found some quotes where RP says not only would he immediately disengage in Iraq (good luck Iraqis with Al Q and have a nice three way religious war, oh, and a big thanks to you Iraqis who risked your lives supporting us based on the promise we won't abandon you to the butchers), he would also bring home "ALL" troops abroad. When questioned further, he confirmed bringing home all foreign based troops. When he was then asked about what they would do here, his reply was basically they would be laid off. He said we don't need a large standing Army, we aren't at risk of any invasion. Ok, so let me get this straight. He advocates a massive downsizing of the US military?! So how long will it take before we completely lose any war-fighting capability under such a plan? You can't rebuild a military in a few weeks once it is gutted. Logically following this out, no troops means no need for planes, tanks, weapons, etc. At some point, the US becomes incapable of winning a war against a large foreign power. With RP's disengagement policy, the US loses the ability to forward project power (unless you think a few aircraft carriers are all we need?). Essentially, America becomes irrelevant in world politics. The more I read the more I find it hard to believe anyone supports his foreign policy objectives. Are any of you thinking this through to the logical conclusion?
Most of the Iraqis who are vulnerable have already been subjected to religious genocide, or become permanent refugees in other countries. Besides, this was the same argument for staying in Vietnam. Then it was the Domino theory, all of Asia would fall to the communist hordes. Now it's all of the ME will fall to the Islamo-Fascist hordes. He wants a massive downsizing of the imperial army. You can't lose war fighting capability when you have nuclear submarines. IIRC, there are 475,000 troops not in Iraq. Do you know how many American consumers, businessmen, lawyers, doctors and future leaders are in that bunch? But they are serving the interests of Japan, Germany, the UK, Korea. When do we come home? When we're totally broke? Or do we come home before then? How long are we supposed to stay in Korea? It's been over 50 years. Same with Japan, Germany etc. How long do you think it is feasible for the domestic taxpayers to afford this? With regards to the effectiveness of a ground army, it's been 5 years in Iraq, a country without a navy or airforce. Latter 20th century warfare has changed, and standing armies are a thing of the past. Either the war is over or it is not. WWII took 6 years. Source please. No nuclear power is irrelevant in world politics. Japan is relevant. Canada is relevant. The UK is relevant. Germany is relevant. France is relevant. Have you read the threads on how we are bankrupt, and how we can come home now, or our troops can stop getting paychecks and supplies later? What part of "WE'RE BROKE" do people not understand?