Ebola Versus The Ronulans Part I
[ths notes: this is unabridged/unedited (other than making the links live) for your comsumption and discussion, as sweet child, in an online fight-to-the-death with peer-group Ronulans, sent this along just as major dad and I were heading out for the morning. We haven’t had a chance to it its proper due. Oh, we DO love this wonderous kid of ours, who actually takes time to research and “think”.]As much as I want to harp on multiple points outside of Foreign Policy, I’ll stick directly to what he’s actually said repeatedly strictly concerning foreign policy. I will analyze the initial individual policy and its subsequent impacts on (A) foreign relations/diplomacy, (B) trade, (C) logistics of military operations, (D) military operations and the continued ability towage force projected kinetic conventional and unconventional warfare in foreign and domestic defense of the United States, its territories, allies and assets.I will also investigate the historical fallaciousness Doctor Paul uses to legitimize his foreign policy decisions (ETC).
Ron Paul’s Foreign Policy thesis points:
I) Remove ALL troops from overseas. See also concerning historical accuracy of the overseas bases being the sole catalyst for Muslim terror operations.
REF: Here
III) (cont.) “If anybody dared touch us we could wipe any country off of theface of the earth within hours. And here we are, so intimidated and so insecure and we’re acting like such bullies that we have to attack third-world nations that have no military and have no weapon.”
IV) Illegality of conflicts outside of declared war hither to Constitutionality and his record on voting concerning “Unconstitutional” conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq.
REF: Here|| Attn: Sept 14, 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force, AKA PUBLIC LAW 107–40 which passed Congress as a whole Sept 18th, 2001.
I) Doctor Paul has repeatedly said his first order of business in office, through executive powers will be to recall all troops from overseas. Closing all bases and additional quotes:
(I-a) “All those troops would spend their money here at home. And besides those troops overseas aggravate our enemies, motivate our enemies. I think it’s adanger to our national defense and we can save a lot of money cutting out the military expenditures that contribute nothing to our defense.”
Here
(I-b) “..We have 12,000 diplomats, I’m suggesting that maybe we ought to use some of them. But just think of how we prevented a nuclear war with the Soviets when the Soviet missiles were put in Cuba. We didn’t say we’re going to attack you, Kennedy and Khrushchev talked and they made a deal: “You take your weapons out of Cuba, we’ll take them out of Turkey”. That’s the kind of talk that I want. I think the greatest danger now is for us to overreact, and this is what I’m fearful of. Iran doesn’t have a bomb, there’s no proof, there’s no new information, regardless of this recent report. And for us to overreact and talk about bombing Iran, that’s much more dangerous. We got the Libyans to get rid of their nuclear power and their nuclear weapons, and look at what happened to them. So we got to understand that…”
Here
These two statements show both a complete misunderstanding of history, economics, as well as strategic and tactical asset with their combined logistics.
Foreign relations/Diplomacy: The US currently has military accords and agreements with an amazing assortment of countries to the point that we do not have the space to list them so I’ll use specific examples and broaden as our discourse continues.
Imagine, if you will, that the US abruptly within 90 days of an executive order(the necessary time before Congress can act, provided it is issued properly) severs all military alliances, accords and agreements with its allies and trade/military partners as Ron Paul has repeatedly announced he will do. 12,000 diplomats do no good if the US breaks its word to hundreds of countries, never mind all at once. The impact here should be blatantly obvious, but I’ll illuminate further on it shortly.
Trade: With the dissipation of Status of Forces agreements with key regional allies, for this example we will use South Korea, Japan, Australia and European Union member states. Our trade with South Korea alone is projected at $10.1b for FY2010 additional GDP for the US, so let us assume thisis the mean amount for these four adding to a grand total of $40.4b additional GDP for the US. Far below the reality though enough to make a point for this argument. We can assume that there will be immediate non-military repercussions from our allies for failing to uphold our end of the bargain. There is no way to guestimate, but it would be irrational not to think that our once-allies would react quickly where trade is concerned and cut ties as well as free trade agreements as there would be little other way to react. However, even were they to maintain some semblance of the trade status quo, we haven’t accounted for the repercussions of removing our ability to protect trade militarily.
Logistics of Military Operations: This portion needs to be said in order to understand the direct impact on US military capability to project and conduct kinetic operations (blow shit up, bang bang, I realize a lot of people don’t get this term as it has recently popped up to more politely explain we’re killing people directly with conventional weapons).
The US military is limited by its logistic resupply capability, meaning that we are essentially dependent on hundreds of camps, stations, air fields, ports and War Reserve Stocks(WRS) around the world in order to project deadly force. By this I mean that in order to conduct effective missions against both insurgent activity and conventional forces (IE China, Russia). We do not have any platform, short of thermonuclear tipped Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles (ICBMs) that can strike targets reliably,much less in mass, without refueling and rearmament necessity not to mention forward operating maintenance. With a 90day limit before Congress can intervene concerning “President” Paul’s issued executive order the military will lose the majority of its assets in any local theater of operations. This is at the cost of trillions $US as the military will be forced to abandon gear on short notice and transport hundreds of thousands of troops through civilian means as military transport assets will bealmost assuredly locked up in transporting equipment rather than key personnel.
Military Operations: Assume now that the military is now inside of the Continental United States (CONUS). Our only military assets abroad are now strictly submarines, which we’ll cover later. We’ve established that short of ICBMs we’ve no way of responding militarily to any threat to ourselves outside of CONUS and its surrounding waters. More importantly we have no way to defend our allies in strategically important theaters of war.
Within five years, rest assured that South Korea will be annihilated by North Korea backed by China/Russia. We will likely also lose Taiwan and Japan to China within five years of the last US boot leaving foreign soil in the region.Chinese predation through the region, already increasing (I-c: below) as our military capabilities diminish under the current administration in the region, will continue to increase throughout the South Pacific. Given the event of conflict with China we can assume the loss of ALL trade from the West due to the ease of Chinese or even Russian interdiction on trade routes. We won’t be able to stop them concerning this as we’ll have absolutely no method of projecting firepower with our logistical supply line being non-existent past the Aleutian Straits in the North Pacific (NORPAC), the Hawaiian Islands in the Central Pacific with the South Pacific belonging almost uncontested to whoever wished to claim it. Guam as well as our other South Asian island chain territories will be cut off with absolutely no effort on the part of enemy conventional forces.
As for Europe keep in mind the Georgian–Ossetian conflict of 2008. Also recall that the EU’s military forces are almost solely dependent on the US for mass transport and “rapid” response to conflicts as well as the fact that Europe is almost completely dependent upon Russia for natural fuels. Now, the Georgian conflict came to a rapid conclusion because the Russians were flexing their muscle but we responded by rounding up military assets. Without US presence in the region do you seriously think for a second that Russia, especially given its current socio-economic issues, would hesitate for a moment to make a power grab against a neutered Western Europe?
Finally our lack of military assets concerning non-conventional forces: Ignore the early concept of direct conventional power grabs by Russia, China or anyother would-be world power in this rapid power paradigm shift thanks to Ron Pauls’ policy of military isolationism. Piracy, as evidenced with the increased last few years of piracy along the Somali coast, is already on the rise. Currently it is requiring a coalition force to even limit its already considerable effect. With our military essentially landlocked for all pertinent purposes we will no longer be able to stop nonconventional predation on US trade fleets, something that hasn’t happened since a decade after this great nation’s inception to the world stage. That means that “indigenous insurgent” Somalitype forces could feed on our tradeships along with essentially state sponsored profiteering of larger states. This alone, ignoring a direct military move against the US, would cripple the economy beyond repair in short order.
Further REF for Section I:
1-c) http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/jan/10/navy-readies-for-chinese-power-grab-on-shipping/?utm_source=RSS_Feed&utm_medium=RSS
1-d) http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2007/11/europes-strategic-dependence-on-russian-energy
Fallacies and Word Play: Doctor Paul has made a number of unfortunate remarks to back his isolating the US and hamstringing the effectivenessof the Armed Services.
“All those troops would spend their money here at home. And besides those troops overseas aggravate our enemies, motivate our enemies. I think it’s adanger to our national defense and we can save a lot of money cutting out themilitary expenditures that contribute nothing to our defense.”
While no one would argue that if we could magically transport all our gear, goods and personnel back to CONUS in all brand new or revitalized bases to house said assets it would save money …the undertaking of such an effort IRL would be so costly even in a surplus economy that it would nearly be economically unfeasible. His assertion that the troops would be home spending money isn’t incorrect as much as it purposely ignores that the vast majority ofthose troops would be discharged due to the lack of housing these Brigades, Wings,etc. The amount of money required to revitalize and expand current bases, purchase old bases and revitalize them as well as build new bases to house the amountof troops, supplies, ordinance and tactical assets makes maintaining the current military numbers completely infeasible. That is even ignoring the costof bringing them home instead of the far lesser annual cost of maintaining existing offshore assets. This means that Paul is suggesting adding hundreds of thousands of veterans to an already dismal jobs market, raising unemployed numbers and likely costing more as troops cash in on their Post-9/11 and Montgomery GI bills in order to keep themselves and their families fed for at least a short while. There could not be worse doublespeak or economic naiveté than this statement displays. It’s all pretty until you actually start realizing the legitimate numbers involved. If you’d like I can easily do some gross estimates backed by current statistics.
As for a danger to our national defense, I think just the initial A-D of Section I readily displays what the true danger to national defense is: This policy.
Next: “..We have 12,000 diplomats, I’m suggesting that maybe we ought to use some of them. But just think of how we prevented a nuclear war with the Soviets when the Soviet missiles were put in Cuba. We didn’t say we’re going to attack you, Kennedy and Khrushchev talked and they made a deal: “You take your weapons out of Cuba, we’ll take them out of Turkey”. That’s the kind of talk that I want. I think the greatest danger now is for us to overreact, and this is what I’m fearful of. Iran doesn’t have a bomb, there’s no proof, there’s no new information, regardless of this recent report. And for us to overreact and talkabout bombing Iran, that’s much more dangerous. We got the Libyans to get rid of their nuclear power and their nuclear weapons, and look at what happened tothem. So we got to understand that…”
While I realize the first sentence of this statement can be attributed to hyperbole I find it morally repugnant coming from the “Moral Choice.” As for the Cuban Missile Crisis portion of the statement, I can’t get over how idiotic it is. We prevented nuclear war not through removing all military presence. President Kennedy activated the Air Force in such a way that an eighth or more of our strategic nuclear bombers were in the air at all times. He blockaded Cuba to keep further Russian assets from reaching Cuba and aiding in the rapid completion of the launch sites. Please explain where all of this is a slackening in strength? So, after this increase in responsive posture and DISPLAY of military might, Khrushchev calls Kennedy and backs down. It wasn’t Kennedy removing military armament. Actually, it should be noted that the government actually OFFERED to remove existing armaments in Turkey. That didn’t aid in the negotiations, in fact nothing but an aggressive posture did.
For a man that rides on both his military service and his supposed dedicated “veteran” following I, nor 99% of my active duty brethren I’ve spoken to on the subject, have never met, this is a large flaw.
People, Planet Ebola, Politics | tree hugging sister | 
January 13, 2012 10:00 am
Subscribe
This has been linked for future reference. I expect any forthcoming missives will likewise be linked.
It’s things like this that gives me hope for the future.
Paul has forgotten, if he ever knew, that diplomacy is war by other means.
The Yojimbo, being the soul of brevity: HE WILL GET US ALL KILLED!
12,000 “diplomats”! There’s a budget solution in there somewhere if I can only get my arms arund it. Actually there are probably no more than a couple hundred diplomats with their Magic Decoder Rings in hand. The rest are either bureaucrats in Foggy Bottom or processing lost passport applications for tourists right after their Yak rides in Central Whackastan.
Looks like that pasted in poorly for my Mudda unit. Anyhow, even given our dismal current state of affairs, there isn’t a damn thing more dangerous to these United States than Doctor Paul’s foreign policy. I’ve still got three more sections to go, I’ll see if I can’t finish them over the next two days. And we’ll see what my boy Brad has to say on that matter as he challenged me to a debate on Ron Paul’s foreign policies after I said, “Same can be said for the Ronulans…If you ardently support a candidate but can’t defend his positions in the least? Don’t be surprised when you get sheared.” after his smarmy comment that Republicans and Democrats were both unthinking sheeple.
Well said, Ebola.
But the problem with Ronulans is that they are idealistic, and Doctor Paul sells idealism like a goods salesman of old sold snake oil.
Or, more bluntly, Doctor Paul sells “Hope and Change” and “Yes, we can!”, only in different packaging. The flavor remains the same: bleah!
In short, Paul and Obama offer emotive arguments, not logical. I went through this with envirotards on global warming/climate change, and with lefties on Iraq and Obama. Emotive people (which Brad sounds like) do not respond well to facts; arguing with them is where I learned to spot denialism and projection within a couple of sentences.
Unfortunately, emotive people also vote. Or withhold their vote in protest. Which is how Obama got elected in the first place, why a lot of people are still refusing to consider the “Anyone but Obama” vote.
I weep for America.
“In short, Paul and Obama offer emotive arguments, not logical.”
That’s one of the best summings-up I’ve heard, and gets at the heart of why I’m so suspicious of Paul and many of his followers.
I’m really concerned that we’ll either wind up with an Obama vs. Paul choice, or an Obama, a Paul (as an Independent) and some other guy, and we’ll wind up with four more years of Obama….
“s Ron Paul has repeatedly announced he will do. 12,000 diplomats do no good if the US breaks its word to hundreds of countries, never mind all at once. ”
who cares? The people in those countries proabbly hate their governments as much as we do. If they are only friends with us because we provide free miltary/ police/ $$ then they aren’t friends.
“There is no way to guestimate, but it would be irrational not to think that our once-allies would react quickly where trade is concerned and cut ties as well as free trade agreements as there would be little other way to react”
not if they want to continue making money they wouldn’t. South Korea trades with plenty of countries that don’t have troops in the DMZ.
“Within five years, rest assured that South Korea will be annihilated by North Korea backed by China/Russia”
rest assured saddam has WMD they are north south west and east somewhat. This is crazy. North Korea is a dumb failed stalinist state, russia and china aren’t going to back them on anything.
“We will likely also lose Taiwan and Japan to China within five years of the last US boot leaving foreign soil in the region.”
taiwan and china are trading partners. There are flights going back and forth every day. They aren’t going to war. Japan and China are capitlist countries they are interested in making money. China doesn’t do war.
“Without US presence in the region do you seriously think for a second that Russia, especially given its current socio-economic issues, would hesitate for a moment to make a power grab against a neutered Western Europe?”
no. nor do I care if the people of south ossetia who are russian want to go back to russia. Georgia is no beacon of democracy either.
“This means that Paul is suggesting adding hundreds of thousands of veterans to an already dismal jobs market”
better than DYING in afghanistan!
We’re a republic not an empire. the world isn’t going to fall apart if we mind our own business. quite the contrary.
Here’s your sign.
Leaster: Fingers in ear singing “Tra la la” ain’t gonna get ya anywhere bud. Good luck with the magical Unicorn Defense Grid.
Lester even. Wasn’t attempting that cut down, though I’ll admit it gave me a chuckle.
All this “world as chessboard” think tank stuff is passe. You shouldn’t waste your time with it.
All this “world as chessboard” think tank stuff is passe. You shouldn’t waste your time with it.
In point of fact, chess is a game of strategy and tactics. Back in medieval times, it was often used to instruct nobles and royalty on the conduct of battles and wars.
Compared to the real world, it is extremely simple. Many games have been developed on that basic theme, but greatly expanded to reflect other complexities, including (but not limited to) logistics, multi-national alliances, industry, demographics, natural resources, and so on.
So, the metaphor is an excellent one, and not even close to “passe”. Which demonstrates that you have your head in the sand, Lester. International relationships have always been complex, and the ability to recognize, analyze, and, most importantly, anticipate the moves of opponents is key in advancing national interests.
The United States tried isolationism between World War I and World War II. That policy of isolationism failed, and failed miserably. We didn’t have military installations anywhere BUT in our territories. War came to us, in part because of our international trade and strategic resources.
Ron Paul proposes the same approach, although his isolationism is cloaked in the same “white guilt” lefties would have us swallow. That’s a different excuse from the simple “Lemme alone!” message of the pre-WWII era, so I’ll give him a few points for that.
If you want to live in a simple world where you don’t have to worry about the bad guys crossing the border to poke you with a stick, you’ll have to move to a different planet. Because that’s the way things are here, and no amount of hiding in the closet will change that.
The entire study of foreign policy is a scam to rip off tax payers for the military industrail complex. So is economy policy. The former is just people suggesting new wars and the latter is mainly suggesting new taxes or new government managed trade deals. The country doesn’t need a foreign policy or an economic policy. We can trade with other countries of our own volition or not trade with them. You like israel? buy products made from there. Don’t like them? don’t buy their stuff.
the muslims want us out of their part of ther world and so do the asians. So does everybody. The people, not the governemnts.
we didn’t just practice isolationism from ww1 to ww2 we practiced it for most of our history and we should have stuck with it.
May I point out that the Nazis and Japanese wanted us “out of their part of the world”, too, lester? (If I remember, the Japanese brought their “out of their part of the world” fight to us, didn’t they? Or is that part of your revisionist schtick, too?)
The South Koreans wanted the North Koreans “out of their part of the world” and asked for help. I guess we should have told them to piss of, even WHEN the Russians the the Chinese “who-don’t-do-war” DID war, eh?
Thank goodness there’s people around (like our son, his father and JeffS, for starters) who are willing to wear a uniform just in case fools like you prevail and need their unicorns ranches protected.
“China doesn’t do war”. Where did that come from? Ask anyone who fought in North Korea in 1950 in November and December and they would tell you that China does war in a big way. Taiwan has all those weapons because they know China does war, India has all those weapons because they know China does war, China has been building up it’s military at an exponential rate because guess what? China does war. Ask the Vietnamese if China does war. As far as the Muslims wanting us out of their part of the world, that is true but they also want to go back to the stone age and would like a world wide caliphate. The Asians don’t seem to mind us one bit except of course the Muslim faction, they sure like selling us stuff. Isolationism won’t work in a modern world either, it’s easy to be isolated when it takes months to sail anywhere else, not like that today now is it and I don’t think the Monroe Doctrine was very isolationist.
we only had ww2 because of ww1 and the treaty of versailles. sort of like the mormons “when you tell a lie it leads to another”. no ww1, no ww2 no holocaust. The 20th century was a bloody mess its amazing any of us survived.
more to the point: our situation today is nothing like ww2 or the cold war. Iran has nothing resembling Hitlers massive military apparatus and muslims have nothing resembling communism’s power and easy exportability. There are no significant threats to us currently from anyone besides pissed off non state actors such as al queda.
and again, the idea that the world is going to fall apart without uS presence across the world is the opposite of the truth, it’s falling apart NOW in no small part BECAUSE of this presence.
the unicorn ranch is where think tankers who think the US can keep the status quo of getting in everyones face with no blowback live, not me.
we didn’t just practice isolationism from ww1 to ww2 we practiced it for most of our history and we should have stuck with it.
Oh? Ever listen to the Marine Corps hymn? It starts with “From the shores of Tripoli…..”, which refers to the Marines first battle on foreign soil. In 1805. Because paying off pirates doesn’t work. Which Ebola pointed out at the very first. That was part of the First Barbary War, by the way. The Second Barbary War took place in 1815….and that was a declared war by Congress.
Then there was the War of 1812, where the British invaded America. No military industrial complex there, Lester. Care to comment on that?
Say, did you know that we seized Florida from Spain? Yup, we did. Is that “isolationism” at work?
I concede that the Mexican-American War had overtones of imperialism on our part, seeing we annexed the southwest corner of North America. But then, Mexico was pretty damned imperialistic themselves, wanting Texas back and all, after the Texicans fought so hard for their liberty.
And there was considerable naval activity around the globe, to protect American traders against pirates, especially in the period 1812 to 1860. More “isolationism”, Lester?
The Spanish-American War…..hmmmmmm, didn’t we gain more territory there, as well? Why, yes: the Philippines. And a naval base in Cuba, plus other territories in the Pacific. After years of sparring with Spain. Not much “isolationism” there, methinks.
Say, did you ever hear of a bloke called Matthew Perry? Commodore Matthew Perry? He opened up diplomatic relationships and trade with Japan for the west. As the commander of a military expedition. In 1853.
Hmmmmm……all that “isolationism” involving US military forces, and we aren’t even up to the American Civil War. Imagine that.
Yeah, Lester, truly, we’ve been “isolationists” for “most of our history”. Except for trade, military and diplomatic alliances, and all those other NON-isolation activities,.
I can see where Ron Paul comes from, which is why I don’t like his foreign policy. It’s utterly impractical, and nothing more than ideological candy thrown to the public as bait for their votes.
What we were not, prior to WWII, was a superpower. Those arose from the ashes of WWII. We became a superpower because it was clear that a strong military capability was needed to deter further aggression. Primarily the now defunct Soviet Union, but other nations had delusions of grandeur. And still do.
Alas, America lacks the will to remain a superpower. The rise of the likes of Ron Paul and his followers proves that.
And I can live with not being a superpower; it’ll be harder, but doable. But to unilaterally withdraw ALL American forces inside our borders, to reject all standing diplomatic agreements, and remove protection from our trade interests, is a feeble attempt to hide in the closet. That is beyond foolish — it’s suicide.
If you and others want to commit suicide, please do so in the confines of your own home. Don’t try to drag the rest of us with you.
we only had ww2 because of ww1 and the treaty of versailles. sort of like the mormons “when you tell a lie it leads to another”. no ww1, no ww2 no holocaust. The 20th century was a bloody mess its amazing any of us survived.
Lester, if you’re going to quote history, LEARN history. WWII did not start because of the Versailles Treaty. Hitler used that as an excuse to invade Europe, true, but just how did the Versailles Treaty involve the Japanese?
Answer: it didn’t. Japan attacked us for its own reasons (see above discussions). We declared war on Japan……and ONLY on Japan. Germany and Italy declared war on us, because Germany, Italy, and Japan (among others) were allied as the Axis Powers. They signed up for reasons of national interest. Period.
more to the point: our situation today is nothing like ww2 or the cold war. Iran has nothing resembling Hitlers massive military apparatus and muslims have nothing resembling communism’s power and easy exportability. There are no significant threats to us currently from anyone besides pissed off non state actors such as al queda.
No, Iran just sponsors state terrorism, wants to shut down international oil shipments, and is developing long range nuclear weapons under a religious dictatorship that encourages the stoning of young women for being raped.
Yeah, nothing to worry about there, huh?
and again, the idea that the world is going to fall apart without uS presence across the world is the opposite of the truth, it’s falling apart NOW in no small part BECAUSE of this presence.
I agree that the world is falling apart….but not because our presence. That’s the “white guilt” Ron Paul (and lefties) want us to lap up. Sorry, ain’t gonna buy it. It’s falling apart because of a creeping loss of will, and economic problems brought on us by the same crowd that invented “white guilt” (not Ron Paul — he just borrowed the idea, after filing off the serial numbers).
the unicorn ranch is where think tankers who think the US can keep the status quo of getting in everyones face with no blowback live, not me.
And this is where the will to stand up for yourself comes to light: We don’t have to get in the face of someone to make a point, and I argue that we generally don’t. There’s a difference between drawing a line in the sand, and being belligerent. If you want to see belligerence, watch videos of Chavez, Castro, President Dinner Jacket, and every other third world dictator wanting a slice of the world.
So, Lester, as I said, if you want to commit suicide, do so in your home. Say, in the bathtub or shower. It makes clean up easier. Don’t drag anyone else down with you.
Jeffs- you’re right we didn’t practice isolationism before ww1. I tend to think of the US in terms of pre ww2 and pre income tax and then post. 1913-ww2 was the time we generally speaking crossed the rubicon. You are definitely right though my mistake.
None of them were justified though except the revolutionary war and the souths succesion from the north.
Also,I don’t get pissy about this like alot of poeple but isolationism on militarism and isolation on trade are two different things. There are very few who endorse both, Pat Buchanan is the only one I can think of. Ron Paul is a total free trader.
“Alas, America lacks the will to remain a superpower
”
it’s an antiquated notion. it’s just tax dollars. it’s not “power”. Hillary Clinton going to Pakistan and blabbing away isn’t power, it’s just annoying and counterproductive. I would not of my own volition pay to send her there and do that. It’s only because they take my money via taxes and I go to jail if I don’t. If people were allowed to not pay taxes we wouldn’t be a superpower because no one actually cares. if the UN were to be disband tomorow it wouldn’t affect my life in the least.
“But to unilaterally withdraw ALL American forces inside our borders, to reject all standing diplomatic agreements, and remove protection from our trade interests, is a feeble attempt to hide in the closet.”
allowing the current status quo to go on is what’s cowardly. the areas in and around DC are the very richest in the country. the whole thing is a scam. the governmetn does very little of value internationally.
The european theatre started because of the onerous demands put on germany post ww1. japanese attacked us because FDR cut off their oil and froze their assetts and everything.
“No, Iran just sponsors state terrorism, wants to shut down international oil shipments, and is developing long range nuclear weapons under a religious dictatorship that encourages the stoning of young women for being raped”
I’ve seen ahmednejad numerous times on Larry kings show and other places. he doesn’t seem very crazy. Why did they let those three hikers go? Why didn’t they stone them to death?
and plenty of countries sponser “state terrorism”. OUR enemies are the non state terrorist group called Al queda. hezbollah and hamas are no threat to us. arabs have never accepted israel and they never will. not our problem. nothing about Israel in the constitution.
White guilt? You’re the one who want to be the world police! I don’t feel any guilt I just want to pay lower taxes and not have people from my community called up to man checkpoints in some middle eastern hellhole.
You won’t peoples money, I don’t. that’s all this is.
“We don’t have to get in the face of someone to make a point, and I argue that we generally don’t.”
http://www.peaceactioncleveland.org/files/imagemanagermodule/@random4655e8fc14dca/iran_surrounded.jpg
what do you call that?
Americans have been through so much. there are 48 million of them living below the poverty line. just leave them alone. They’ve done their part.
How about this lester: explain how our trade would be protected, how we would defend from a conventional war, and how adding hundreds of thousands of troops to the unemployment line helps anything. We’ll be more than happy to use history to crush you. Though, you show a rabid dedication to ignoring history under the guise of “constitutionality” through some whacked out Hamiltonian rose glasses.
Yes, let’s bitch and whine that the poor get poorer and the rich get richer. No, better yet, let’s take everyone’s money, put it in a big pot and distribute it evenly! rofl
The assumption that there won’t be losers in a competitive system is the crybaby hippy bullshit political correctness that has occurred over the last few decades, not rational though.
Gotta say too,
…47% of Americans didn’t pay federal income taxes in 2010. Explain please, how they did their part, much less aided the federal government in doing their, much maligned by you, part.
there are lots of taxes of taxes besides income tax. gas tax, sales tax, and inflation is a tax.
I’m not for redistributing wealth at all. Im for making our economy stronger and helping people that way.
The less money washington (including the Pentagon) has the more money America has for growth.
Well then you should be cheering on their lesser input. Good job at explaining the integral link between removing all military assets overseas protecting trade and how adding hundreds of thousands of troops to the unemployment line is helping the economy. Then again, saying nothing at all makes worth of your argument so much more poignant. Not at all.
they are being paid by tax dollars now. that money isn’t coming out of thin air, its just more we owe to the chinese. and all the military equipment is being worn out and isn’t producing anything saleable. You are making a keynesian argument for federal spending and it’s as wrong as it is for domestic schemes.
Our foreign policy is a huge hole sucking money out of this country. Those humvees use alot of oil. At it’s height the US military in Iraq was the 33rd largest user of oil in the world and oil got pretty expensive for a while if you’ll recall. Why? So people who major in Political science can have jobs in DC?
None of them were justified though except the revolutionary war and the souths succesion from the north.
This is your opinion. Period. An unjustified opinion, I might add.
……but isolationism on militarism and isolation on trade are two different things. There are very few who endorse both, Pat Buchanan is the only one I can think of. Ron Paul is a total free trader.
Lester, the two are directly related. Our reliable trading partners tend to be military allies. With emphasis on “reliable” and “tend”. Further, where the geopolitical situation is historically unstable (e.g., Korea, Middle East), our military presence is a stabilizing influence. As in, protecting our national interests. Which includes trade.
it’s an antiquated notion. it’s just tax dollars. it’s not “power”. Hillary Clinton going to Pakistan and blabbing away isn’t power, it’s just annoying and counterproductive.
No, it’s not just tax dollars. It’s tax dollars spent on military capability, combined with the will to use it. Billary is an incompetent Secretary of State; combined with Obama’s, er, “issues”, and there’s no will. Other presidents had no problem with will — Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Reagan, Bush 41, Bubba Clinton, Bush 43. The annoyance and counter-productivity is a direct result of an anti-American American administration.
It’s only because they take my money via taxes and I go to jail if I don’t. If people were allowed to not pay taxes we wouldn’t be a superpower because no one actually cares. if the UN were to be disband tomorow it wouldn’t affect my life in the least.
You have a point there, but you miss the main thrust of the conversation: we pay taxes as part of “provide the common defense” (guess where that quote comes from). The debate is on “What is the common defense?” Ron Paul wants our borders to be that defense. People who have been on the sharp end of the stick know how badly that ends up. As in “Pearl Harbor”.
The european theatre started because of the onerous demands put on germany post ww1. japanese attacked us because FDR cut off their oil and froze their assetts and everything.
The European part of WWII started because the Weimar Republic was incompetent, and lost credibility. Hitler moved in with his vision of a 1000 year Reich. As for Japan and FDR….do a search on your favorite engine for “The Rape Of Nanking”. FDR was justified in his actions.
Like I said — if you’re going to quote history, LEARN history.
I’ve seen ahmednejad numerous times on Larry kings show and other places. he doesn’t seem very crazy. Why did they let those three hikers go? Why didn’t they stone them to death?
That, Lester, is a classic example of cherry picking information. I might note that Larry King is hardly the only source of information and news; if all you watch is him, no wonder you’re clueless.
and plenty of countries sponser “state terrorism”. OUR enemies are the non state terrorist group called Al queda. hezbollah and hamas are no threat to us. arabs have never accepted israel and they never will. not our problem. nothing about Israel in the constitution.
[virtual head shaking]
Lester, you are grasping at straws, spouting non sequiturs, and demonstrating a definite lack of understanding how this tired old planet runs.
By the way — the Iranians are Persian, not Arab. Afghanistan has multiple ethnic groups, all Muslim, not Arabs. Take note, there will be a quiz.
White guilt? You’re the one who want to be the world police! I don’t feel any guilt I just want to pay lower taxes and not have people from my community called up to man checkpoints in some middle eastern hellhole.
Actually, no, I don’t want to be the world police. I just don’t want cripple our military to satisfy a bunch of starry eyed idealists. We started down that road in 2008. No more.
You won’t peoples money, I don’t. that’s all this is.
I want the uncontrolled spending stopped. I want the entitlements fixed. I want the taxes lowered. The military will take cuts as part of that. But what the Ronulans want will not work.
what do you call that?
I call that map a classic display cluelessness combined with ignorance, agitated by fecklessness. What that map shows is a long standing (i.e., pre-2001 terrorist attacks) regional rivalry between competing national and religious interests.
Quiz time! What ethnic groups are represented in that map?
Americans have been through so much. there are 48 million of them living below the poverty line. just leave them alone. They’ve done their part.
Ebola covered this nicely. I’ll just close by noting that this has been a lovely conversation. It takes me back to the days of smacking trolls and lefties during the Iraq War and the 2008 elections.
Most of them were as emotionally involved with their “arguments” as you are, Lester. There was no getting them to step back and examine the facts calmly. They knew the answers, and weren’t going to be deterred.
But the whole matter boils down to this: The followers of Ron Paul are as enthralled with him as the Obamabots were with Obama in 2008. This is not a good thing. We do not need a feckless fool replacing a feckless fool.
And I, for one, am tired of being considered unimaginative cattle, and refuse to march into the abyss with you and your peers, Lester. As I said, if you want to commit suicide, leave me out of it.
“With emphasis on “reliable” and “tend”. Further, where the geopolitical situation is historically unstable (e.g., Korea, Middle East), our military presence is a stabilizing influence. As in, protecting our national interests. Which includes trade.”
from keynesianism to mercantilism. I thought this was a right wing board.
Brazil, Russia, and India don’t have troops in all the countries they trade with. Neither does anybody else.
“Billary is an incompetent Secretary of State”
i disagree actually, she’s highly competent but in the pursuit of what? I did like the move she pulled in Myanmar. We don’t need them hanging out with North Korea and she threw a few carrots their way to help avoid that. minimal props to Hillary.
“FDR was justified in his actions. ”
that’s your opinion.
“I might note that Larry King is hardly the only source of information and news”
It was news in that it was an interview with the president of iran on political topics. I listened to what he said and deduced for myself that he was a normal sane individual. I don’t need some pundit to tell me it’s all an act and he’s actually on a suicidal mission. Iran knows they’d be vaporized if they even thuoght about bombing us or the israelis. Their leaders are interested in maintaing power, like all leaders.
“head shaking]
Lester, you are grasping at straws, spouting non sequiturs, and demonstrating a definite lack of understanding how this tired old planet runs
”
where is defending israel in the Constitution? that’s what this is about isn’t it? Do you honestly believe iran is going to launch a nuclear bomb at the continental united States??
“Actually, no, I don’t want to be the world police”
that’s exactly what you’re describing here
“We became a superpower because it was clear that a strong military capability was needed to deter further aggression. Primarily the now defunct Soviet Union, but other nations had delusions of grandeur. And still do.” and elsewhere.
“I call that map a classic display cluelessness combined with ignorance, agitated by fecklessness.”
I should have pointed out, the little stars are US bases. We have Iran totally surrounded. and we have sanctions on them. and we bellyache abuot their non exitent nuclear weapons program everyday in the press. We couldn’t possibly be more in their face.
“It takes me back to the days of smacking trolls and lefties during the Iraq War and the 2008 elections. ”
Yeah the iraq war was a huge success. That’s why rumsfeld and bush and cheney are such national heroes. Give me a break. khaddafi and Mubarak actually told their people “Do you want this place to be like Iraq” luckily that wasn’t rnough to slow the momentum of the arab spring. It probably made people think twice thuogh.
At any rate, I think you know this stuff isn’t as popular as it was 5 or ten years ago. If neoconservative foreign policy was a stock it would be very very cheap right now. and I’m gonna keep shorting it. no more drones, no more supporting dictators, no more MOSSAD, no more ISI. If china wants to be the worlds police they can feel free. let jihadists fly planes into their buldings.
Just drop it Jeff, you can’t fix stupid.