An objective take on Ron Paul

[paintpooper]

You say we should "focus on countries that harbour and actively encourage war against the Western world, such as Iran"...

Can you describe the threat of Iran to the US?

It's a threat to our US Interests in Israel, which last I checked, would be cassus belli enough if they were to attempt to annihilate Israel and damage our stuff in the process.

That said, it's easier to step into and fight off actual threats if we're not actively wasting our time playing Occupy Iraq St.

They don't need protection they have nukes, Iran does not(even though they should be able to). We should not be allies with Israel they are a terrorist nation. Israel kills Iranian scientists, and have also bombed Iranian sites. Read up on Mossad activity in Iran. This is a middle east problem, the US needs to get all troops out of all places except the US. We will see Occupy Iran St and Syrian St soon if shit does not change. You and I will benefit zero from those wars, just like Iraq, the wars are detrimental to normal people like us, only a few are enfranchised by killing.

That quote about wiping Israel off the map is an incorrect translation.

[kılıç_mehmet]

Well, the US needs Israel in the mid-east in order to keep the arab world seperated as they need them to be.
Iran for the moment is trying to rule over the arabs, by showing it's support for palestine.
Our current gov. tried the same, but I know that the arab would not see us ever again at the head of a new Ottoman Empire, neither would the many people of this country agree with it.

[5thHorseman]

They do not need Israel to keep the Arabs seperated, they do enough in-fighting themselves.

[theVOID]

So you simultaneously agree with Ron Paul's position of complete non-interventionism while also being against reducing military presence in allied nations where there is no clear and present threat to the liberties of your countrymen due to "logistics"?

Nah, you miss the point...probably deliberately.

There is no point to maintaining troops in Germany or Japan except to provide the very necessary logistical support for our adventures elsewhere.
We have 35,000 troops in S. Korea who are backed by extensive air units in Japan ( including Okinawa.) You cannot simply say, we are at peace with Japan so bring them home because then those guys in Korea would be feeling awfully lonely if L'il Kim decided to cross the border. The North Korean regime is batshit crazy and we do not have a Peace Treaty in Korea - merely an armistice.

Fair call on Japan and Korea then, North Korea are likely a greater threat than Iran so if occupying Iranian border nations is justifiable then troops in South Korea and Japan are most certainly justifiable.

So while Paul's idea is tempting it ignores one of the basic rules of modern warfare which is essentially that for every guy carrying a rifle there are 5 guys driving trucks. The fact that we have outsourced a lot of that to "contractors" changes nothing. Unless we are going to withdraw from Korea.....dangerous....we need the support facilities in Japan.

I agree with that.

Germany, of course, is a different story. It would take a monumental Russian offensive to cross all of the territory they have lost since the end of the Cold War and they have shown no ability whatsoever in that direction. Therein lies the problem with Paul. He is an ideologue who does not understand that one-size does not fit all. He is right in some places and wrong in others.

Again we agree, we've got our wires crossed here somewhere.

As for the "liberties" of my countrymen..... we have a decidedly spineless willingness to throw those away ourselves because of a bunch of towel-heads with exploding underwear.

Sure, but nowhere did either myself or McGrath advocate limiting domestic liberties of one kind to protect other liberties from enemies of the state - The contention was that those nations or groups that do pose a real threat to people's liberties should be dealt with promptly, not just in retaliation as Paul would advocate - none of this condones the abolition of other liberties to achieve such ends.

America's policies are overkill, McGrath acknowledged that, he was merely saying that the Ron Paul approach also isn't the right answer.

Recall that the army overran Iraq in 3 weeks and then stood around for the next seven years with their thumbs up their asses getting blown up to the tune of 40,000 casualties because they had no real mission left.

And that is the problem with the idea of nation building. If Iraq was a real threat (something that I'm not so convinced of) then the appropriate action would be to eliminate the threat and leave.

The threat today does not come from other nations with conventional armies. It is far more nebulous. We have 11 carrier battle groups and no one else in the world has more than 1....and most of them are our allies. The Chinese have an old Russian p-o-s that they bought and re-furbished and to listen to our admirals you would think it was the British talking about the fucking Bismarck in 1940. We have terribly expensive aircraft that have never flown a combat mission because there is no use for them in a hovel in Afghanistan. Stealth aircraft are only useful when the enemy has radar coverage. There is precious little of that in the hills of Afghanistan. Our tank forces can go anywhere they want.... but the fuel trucks following along behind are highly vulnerable to any douchebag with an rpg. The list goes on.

I also agree with this. I wouldn't advocate conventional warfare unless it was necessary (which would be the case should North Korea or Iran begin hostilities), but for the 'terrorist' thret strategic strikes and assassinations is probably a much more effective (in terms of both costs and results) approach against the current threats to western society.

We have a muscle-bound military designed to do one thing which now faces a different threat. To be sure there are special ops groups who can and do effectively discharge missions against actual terrorists but far too much of what we waste money on is to keep defense contractor profits up and jobs in congressional districts with no real conception of how these efforts actually aid in the defense of the nation against the ACTUAL threat. The Russians are not going to descend on the East Coast in landing craft. The Chinese are not going to swim to California.

Exactly. Do bare in mind that the more effective proactive tactical operations however are not an example of Ron Paul's "non-interventionism", which is what the OP was arguing against. You seem to think that he was arguing an either/or, either complete non-interventionism or business as usual - that's not the case.

[Creed of Heresy]

Ron Paul's international policy leaves a lot to be desired. But I love his stance on the drug war. XD

[theVOID]

Ron Paul's international policy leaves a lot to be desired. But I love his stance on the drug war. XD

Yeah he's pretty good on a few things, some of his intentions are a little mischievous though, he's clearly got that fundie christian side that he masks in that 'states rights' argument.

[paintpooper]

Ron Paul's international policy leaves a lot to be desired. But I love his stance on the drug war. XD

Yeah he's pretty good on a few things, some of his intentions are a little mischievous though, he's clearly got that fundie christian side that he masks in that 'states rights' argument.

I don't think it is the fundie christian side. States rights are what we need. Too many people think that states rights = slavery and forced creationism learning. That's hogwash.

Like Alaska, we can't drill in many places cause of federal laws. We also must export our oil because of federal laws, we can not keep the oil in Alaska to benefit Alaskans. We need our states rights back so we can do what we want with our resources, and not what the federal government wants us to do with them. And no it wouldn't just end up as mad drilling with no environmental foresight. I work for the Alaska environmental protection agency, we would then take over what the EPA does, as most states have all the federal agency counterparts.
Lots of drugs laws are federal laws, (according to Alaska state law, possession of pot and growing of pot is legal) but federal laws trump our state laws. Same with the drinking age, it was mandated by the federal government as 21 or else they would take your federal highway money.
It is always better to create laws at the local level as those who will be effected by the laws will be part of the local law creation process.

[Autumnlicious]

States rights are what we need. Too many people think that states rights = slavery and forced creationism learning. That's hogwash.

Like Alaska, we can't drill in many places cause of federal laws. We also must export our oil because of federal laws, we can not keep the oil in Alaska to benefit Alaskans. We need our states rights back so we can do what we want with our resources, and not what the federal government wants us to do with them. And no it wouldn't just end up as mad drilling with no environmental foresight. I work for the Alaska environmental protection agency, we would then take over what the EPA does, as most states have all the federal agency counterparts.

Whoah there. What you're proposing is essentially anti-Union (as in The Union, not the labor groups) by allowing the States to arbitrarily set up conflicting laws.

Last I checked, the Articles of Confederation didn't produce a governing body viable to stand on it's own two feet. And yet you're proposing we model our country more like it.

However, one advantage of the AoC was that states could set up different laws. Very states-right-ish.

Do you really want to smoke pot and keep your fucking oil that much that you're willing to let the South get away with enacting lunatic laws?

We've already seen the ridiculous attempts at legislation in the South already, and you'd effectively give them a legal backing. Good grief Charlie Brown!

[paintpooper]

States rights are what we need. Too many people think that states rights = slavery and forced creationism learning. That's hogwash.

Like Alaska, we can't drill in many places cause of federal laws. We also must export our oil because of federal laws, we can not keep the oil in Alaska to benefit Alaskans. We need our states rights back so we can do what we want with our resources, and not what the federal government wants us to do with them. And no it wouldn't just end up as mad drilling with no environmental foresight. I work for the Alaska environmental protection agency, we would then take over what the EPA does, as most states have all the federal agency counterparts.

Whoah there. What you're proposing is essentially anti-Union by allowing the States to arbitrarily set up conflicting laws.

Last I checked, the Articles of Confederation didn't produce a governing body viable to stand on it's own two feet. And yet you're proposing we model our country more like it.

Do you really want to smoke pot and keep your fucking oil that much that you're willing to let the South get away with enacting lunatic laws?

We've already seen the ridiculous attempts at legislation in the South already, and you'd effectively give them a legal backing. Good grief Charlie Brown!

We will still have/need a federal government, but it does not need to be so redundant and over powering, in the constitution it states what the purpose of the federal government is. Common defense and security, standardization of currency and interstate commerce regulation, seems to be the simple version of it. Not sure why states can then not regulate the rest on their own.

What southern legislation are you referring too? It's up to the people of the states to choose their laws. But IMO we need less laws not more, these politicians feel the need to always create a new law or some new regulation, its crazy. Local politicians are corrupt as well, we need to do a clean sweep of this 2 party system because the 2 party system controls local governments as well.

No one can tell me that things have been getting better over the last 30 years. Dem or Republican, they can't fix shit, cause it is not in their interest to actually fix anything! They are all controlled by monied interests, and in turn the politicians make "laws" to enfranchise these people, then those interestest give money back to keep the politicans in power.

The PEOPLE of the US need more POWER to control their country. We should not delegate our duties as citizens to "representatives" that say they have our best interests at heart. They are mostly lying sociopaths.

IMO we the people have allowed this government to run rampant and take our freedoms away and our ability to live a comfortable life. Dems and R's all the same. Obama has continued most of GWB policies. Even enacted his own like NDAA.

[The Grand Nudger]

Correct, we need less laws. Some southern states might like less laws regarding the civil liberties act, or maybe less laws with regards to what can and cannot be taught at schools (who wants some fantasy in their highschool biology curriculum)? I think you mean to say that we need less of the laws you personally disagree with, but that's not really how our government works, and that isn't the driving factor behind federal law and how it applies to each state. States already have substantial leeway and grey area where federal law is concerned. What is illegal in one jurisdiction is not always illegal (or as illegal) as it may be in another, and that's ignoring enforcement entirely (some laws just sit on the books). It's an enforcement nightmare, and has really sticky implications for our relative levels of freedom already. Imagine criminals committing a crime in one state, and then fleeing to another where the law is less strict or stern, or where extradition laws are more obstructive. This is one of the many issues that federal law attempts to shore up. Imagine a group of people living in a select group of states that are discriminated against at an institutional level (think the deep south up until the 60's). Federal law again removes this stumbling block.

"Alaska's oil" is a strategic resource, and you may be forgetting just how much money flowed into Alaska via the public coffers to develop that in the first place.