This is the silliest thing I've heard from a ron paul supporter. You are espousing that ron paul believes that all future wars will be nuclear? That we won't ever again need ground troops? If this is what he really believes, then paul is truly out of touch with reality. Someone forgot to get that ron paul memo to China and India.
When you have an Army in name only and your only means of waging war is to drop a nuke, you've got zero options. Are you just going to nuke everyone? Ok, but last time I checked it was an all-volunteer Army. They, like myself, enlisted by choice. Standing armies are past? Check out this link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_size_of_armed_forces What are your options when your gut the Army and any one of those nations decides to play hardball? Well, since you left yourself with nukes, are you just going to go nuke them? No, you won't. You're screwed and the US will be of no help to any nation needing assistance from tyrants. Here is the quote I used to make my inferences about laying off:
And what was your oath? To defend the United States Constitution. You'll have a hard time finding nation building or foreign peace keeping in there. The Founders didn't believe in that. Hardball how? Invasion? Do you really believe we will be invaded militarily? You do realize that a lot of Americans are armed, right? That we have an elite air force, navy and nuclear capability? Who would invade us, knowing that their country would be a smoking pit in under 2 hours? Good quote. I agree completely. Right now, we're running short of men to serve abroad. Defending the country, or nation building/peace keeping make a large difference in the number of people who would enlist. I don't know what you think sentiment is, but most people are not lining up to go to Iraq because they think that America is in any clear and present danger. We do need an elite, smaller military. They need to be mobile, armed with deadly weapons and trained better than any other military in the world.
I take it you are not a Ron Paul supporter then? Did I write that? No one can predict the future. But where are our ground troops deployed now? 130 countries, 700 bases. Do we really need to be in 130 countries? Do we really need 14 permanent bases in Iraq, with an embassy the size of the Vatican? Do you remember the movie, "Red Dawn"? The premise was that Russia invades and occupies America. You know why this never happened? M.A.D. India could raise 20 million troops. It wouldn't make a difference when 5 nukes would reduce the country to rubble. Ground troops are only effective against non-nuclear powers. Do you really see any non-nuclear powers that pose a threat to the Continental US?
Ya think Answering questions with questions is a nice tactic Source please So ron paul does, after all, espouse a nuclear response to any crisis? It appears this is what you're saying. The last time I checked, there were more countries without nuclear weapons than there were with.
I knew you were trolling, I just wanted to get it on record. Who do you support btw? But doesn't excuse you for creating a strawman argument. http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2004/040323-enduring-bases.htm http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/0415-07.htm It is not what I am saying. You misunderstood my statement. Ground Troops only matter in the defense of nations w/o Nukes. That is NOT us.
I'm surprised some of our DP sheeple cannot see what is happening over there. Imagine an Iraqi Embassy of that size in the USA. Would it be welcomed?
Anyone who doesn't see it as a provincial government office for the empire is kidding themselves. There are more resources in that embassy than the Iraqi people will enjoy for a long time to come. And the resentment will continue to build. It's stuff like this that puts the citizens of America at risk, because it will be resented and used as a rallying point for the people who recruit against America.
If we are Allies, why not? What is an embassy going to do? It's more about the military being there and the continued conflicts. In a way, it's a show of commitment to the Iraqi people that the US is not going to just abandon them.
Give me a freaking break. Do you actually believe the iraqi people are that dumb?????????? Did we support the iraqi people when saddam was killing them, when he gassed kurds? We forced this option onto them. We built up their leader then took him out when it best suited us, not when it best suited the iraqi people. We went to war on a factless lie and now 4000 soldiers and 150,000 iraqis died from that lie. Are you the one who is going to go there and tell them" opps sorry about the lie, but we did take out saddam, the guy that we helped to fund and support ) and now we will fund and support new leaders until the time we feel neccessary that we dont need them anymore, then we will bomb your country again under the guise of wmds that dont exist).How many other dictators are there in this world and in how many countries have we supported dictators in. Are you saying we go into all of these countries. Whats next pakistan???????? The iraqi people arent as retarded as your posts make them out to be.
Correction. More than a million Iraqis have lost their lives due to US actions. (washingtonpost.com)http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A7967-2004Oct28.html
Whatever be it 150 000 or 2 millions these are crimes against humanity, Milosevic paid his dues, I hope the dues for this war will be paid soon.
You must specify which part of Iraq, also which group, the Shiites, Sunnis or Kurds etc. The current govt is an "ally" but not a very willing one at that
The funny thing is, Top 5 countries with largest army are nuke capable. China, US, Russia, India, North Korea. In that case, I don't think gutting down standing army size is a wise idea.. My thoughts only.
http://etext.virginia.edu/jefferson/quotations/jeff1480.htm The sad thing is that most Americans have no idea about the system of government they are allegedly living under.
Briant, I have respect for the men who produced our Constitution, but we don't live in the 1700's and times change, people change, and the Constitution changes (Amendments). The dynamics and technology of war have changed. Quoting Jefferson on standing armies in the 1700's is interesting but ultimately irrelevant. For our Nation to survive, it must adapt to the challenges and threats both foreign and domestic. Ron Paul is a Constitutional romantic who is wrapping himself in a strict literalism much like some Christians romanticize Puritan New England (the good ole days...). That being said, can you point me to where the Constitution forbids standing armies?
When was the last Amendment made? This is typical of the "Yeah, the Constitution is our foundation, uhm, except when we don't want to follow it". This is a nation of laws, not men. If the law is no longer applicable or if it is dated, it should be changed. You can't just disregard it. Then we become a nation of men. It's completely relevant. There was a reason, a philosophy behind Jefferson's position. It wasn't that we don't need one, it was that having one was a stepping stone to a coercive state. The Founders weren't perfect men by any means, but their knowledge of history, economics, and philosophy would put many people today to shame. I find the people who argue hardest for the irrelevance of the past, and the uniqueness of our current and future challenges, are the ones who do not have a foundation or understanding of history. This is totally untrue and shows a lack of knowledge of Ron Paul's positions. He has no issue amending the Constitution. But he also believes that what is law, much be followed. So if you want to change the law, change it, don't disregard it. The Constitution works on a different principle. If it is not authorized, then it is a duty of the individual states. So the real question is, where does it demand it?
Fact no 1 were wmd's found in iraq? NOOOO fact no 2 was there any alqaida in iraq ? NOOOOOOO Anyone that is a true american would be protesting this lie of a war from the beginning. maybe you like to be fooled by your government and dont think its a big deal , but thats just you. 70% of the american people are against this war and have wisened up while your still suuporting it . We need to get back to the constitution because RP knows how much our government is using us for the wars of the elite. If you dont see this then you are truely blind sir.
More lies from ping. Fact - there were wmd in Iraq. There have been wmd discovered. Fact - Democrats said there were WMD throughout the 90s. They were correct. To assert "this administration" lied is to be dishonest (which is normal for a ron paul supporter). Fact - if you don't like it here, take your sorry ass and move to Iran! We need to put *some* through Dr. Steveo's dewussification program. It's really fun watching dishonest ron paul supporters lie about their candidate's racism, then go on about "business as usual" lying about their country and giving aid and comfort to saddam and other terrorists. Awww, ron paul supporters are so sthensthitive towards terrorists! Isn't that touching?