Republican Debate

[mikeofcontex]

IMO, if you listen to Ron Paul he speaks as we all do on many topics. My absolute "bucket list" gun would be a hand made titanium wildcat that will blow holes in a 1" steel plate but doesn't kick much more than a 22lr. But we buy a 9mm or a 223 because it's what we can afford.

If asked how it should be, he actually answers the question. With regard to foreign policy, he states the opinion of the founders. Trade with all and have entanglements with none. When he states these things, his next statement about how we can't get there overnight is mostly ignored. He is both an idealist and a realist. Ultimately, he believes that we shouldn't have our troups deployed internationally. But, he would begin a process of reducing our more than 1100 foreign bases by 10% and continue to evaluate.

He's a much "smarter" guy than his opposition would have us believe.

 

[majormadmax]

That's a crime. We ought to allow our service men/women to view Presidential debates.

No one is keeping our men and women in uniform stationed overseas from watching the debates. AFN will most likely show them later due to the time difference. There's no conspiracy to prevent them from seeing them.

Thank you for your service.

Agreed!

 

[Rum Runner]

What about Ron Paul's view on foreign policy? It sounds good, but I'm afraid it wouldn't mesh well with reality.

you noticed that too huh?

I think it meshes great. I don't believe we should stick our nose in the business of other countries. I don't believe we should have our troops scattered all over the globe especially when our own border is not secure.

On this anniversary of 9/11 I think it is important to ask ourselves...would it have happened if we hadn't stuck our nose in other peoples business? Where would Osama Bin Laden have been on 9/11 if the US hadd'nt trained and armed him because we didn't want the Soviets to expand into Afghanistan? We put so much time, money, and life loss into Afganistan in order to get Bin Laden and in the end he hadn't been in Afghanistan in years and it was a covert operation that took him out. Why couldn't we have left him in Afghanistan and run the same covert operation when the time was right without all the resources including American lives that have been wasted. How much hate is there in Afghanistan for us not only as occupiers, but also for leaving them defenseless against the Taliban when we withdraw?

Our interventionist foreign policy is a disaster. I don't think it meshes with reality.

 

[Rum Runner]

his next statement about how we can't get there overnight is mostly ignored. He is both an idealist and a realist. Ultimately, he believes that we shouldn't have our troups deployed internationally. But, he would begin a process of reducing our more than 1100 foreign bases by 10% and continue to evaluate.

The mainstream media and all the Ron Paul haters have to pretend this part doesn't exist. If they didn't it would be harder for them to paint him as a lunatic.

 

[just jk]

no offense intended, but thats a rather narrow way of looking at foreign policy and our involvement in the world

would 9/11 have happened if we hadn't stuck our nose in other people's business? thats a tough question because you have to pinpoint for me when we started meddling that would have angered the muslims.....we've been doing this for a VERY long time

i get your point, i really do - but what we're doing in Afghanistan is so much more than just about Bin Laden

its a mess, that much i'll concede

 

[Rum Runner]

I am not offended...I think its a point that needs to be talked about. Its a difficult and complex issue. I am not saying 9/11 would not have happened at a different time for a different reason. But we need to consider if our foreign policy dating back decades is not partially to blame. I am sure some will try to make me into a tinfoil hat wearer and that I am saying we are totally responsible for 9/11 and our government was involved. I assure you that is not the case. But, I think we need to look at how well our interventionist foreign policy is working.

I think those that simply paint Ron Paul as an wacko Isolationist are avoiding a discussion that should be had. Though probably not in this thread.

 

[just jk]

no its a good point - the problem is (as i see it) - that you can probably link each foreign involvement to a previous engagement.......both World Wars triggered a lot of what we're in now - a falling domino i guess

definitely a deep discussion that could take up tons of bandwidth that would result in very little agreement

 

[orbitup]

We can't undo the past, we have to deal with where we are now. I agree that we need to cut back on our meddling but we have to do it sometimes.

I don't think we have done enough to prevent some countries from developing nukes. And we need to do more to ensure more radicals don't get their hands on them. If we don't, we will be on the receiving end of one someday.

Maybe I need to look into his views on this, but what I hear makes me a little nervous.

 

[majormadmax]

Sure, ignore the problems of the world and they'll never affect us!

Isolationism/non-interventionism thinking died following WWII after it failed this country so many times in the past. Why does Paul think it’ll fix things now?

After 9/11, the Bush Administration rightfully took the fight out of this country and back to where it belongs, on foreign lands; and a policy such as Paul is proposing would only bring it right back to our shores again!

It is exactly this disconnect with reality that ensures Paul will never get elected. His economic theories are stong and appeal to many, but in reality his other political views would have disastrous results and are what keep him from ever being elected!

 

[London]

Sure, ignore the problems of the world and they'll never affect us!

RP never advocated ignoring anything. He merely doesn't believe in trampling all over other countries because just maybe sometime in the indeterminate future they might do something we dislike.

After 9/11, the Bush Administration rightfully took the fight out of this country and back to where it belongs, on foreign lands;

Too bad his timing and geography were off.

and a policy such as Paul is proposing would only bring it right back to our shores again!

Whose army is likely to invade us? If you are speaking of terrorists, well they're already here.

 

[TheDan]

pinpoint for me when we started meddling that would have angered the muslims.....we've been doing this for a VERY long time

Yeah, we've been fighting Muslim extremists since 1801. Of course that situation was a little different. We had clear enemies that were destroying US property and killing/capturing US citizens. We first tried to reason with them and then went to war (with an act of congress I'd like to add). Our current situations in regards to Bin Laden and Saddam are direct results of our meddling, however. We propped them up to be irritants to our enemies. Then they became irritants to us, and in the process pissed off a bunch of other people as well. Both are dead, now. Hopefully we have learned that the enemy of our enemy is not always our friend and we can move on. I doubt it, though...

Put your hands on Mr. Paul again... I'll knock a gov out!

 

[majormadmax]

RP never advocated ignoring anything. He merely doesn't believe in trampling all over other countries because just maybe sometime in the indeterminate future they might do something we dislike.

Wow, I guess he's so smart that he didn't realize that we don't have a large military presence in every country in the world, just in those that are our allies and where both nations have a strategic interest in us being there.

Too bad his timing and geography were off.

What? The Taliban of Afghanistan were harboring al Qaida. And don't feed us that crap about the highjackers being Saudis, their nationality isn't the issue.

Whose army is likely to invade us? If you are speaking of terrorists, well they're already here.

Really, when was the last time there was a major terrorist attack on this country? Yeah, it was a decade ago. And the time before that? I'm waiting...

And that only proves that our military presence overseas is working, but since his majesty Ron Paul is against it, so are his mindless sheep...

Nice try, but all three of those "points" are easily nullified.

 

[majormadmax]

Put your hands on Mr. Paul again... I'll knock a gov out!

Perry would kick your ass!

Plus, he's probably holding the old guy up, he's almost an octogenarian y'know!

 

[TheDan]

Oh, the debate... I wasn't really impressed with anyone this time around. It's available on youtube for folks like me with no TV

 

[Rum Runner]

Yeah, we've been fighting Muslim extremists since 1801. Of course that situation was a little different. We had clear enemies that were destroying US property and killing/capturing US citizens. We first tried to reason with them and then went to war (with an act of congress I'd like to add). Our current situations in regards to Bin Laden and Saddam are direct results of our meddling, however. We propped them up to be irritants to our enemies. Then they became irritants to us, and in the process pissed off a bunch of other people as well. Both are dead, now. Hopefully we have learned that the enemy of our enemy is not always our friend and we can move on. I doubt it, though..

Well, hell, why not go all the way back to the Crusades? Come on, if you ask any of the jihadists why they hate us they are not going to say "Because of the Barbary Wars!". I would think a realistic approach would be to look at the first modern episode and work back through the "whys" of it. I am not a history guy, but I would think a good place to start would be 1979 with the taking of hostages at our Embassy in Iran.

Wow, I guess he's so smart that he didn't realize that we don't have a large military presence in every country in the world, just in those that are our allies and where both nations have a strategic interest in us being there.

I wasn't aware that Afghanistan and Iraq were our strategic allies.

Really, when was the last time there was a major terrorist attack on this country?

I'd say 2009 in New York City, but the idiot screwed up his car bomb and it only smoked. Do we count the other screw ups like the shoe bomber and the underwear bomber? Or do they not count simply because they were not successful?

Yeah, it was a decade ago. And the time before that? I'm waiting...

How about the 1st attack on the Word Trade Center in 1993 that killed 6 and wounded about a thousand people?

And that only proves that our military presence overseas is working

No, it simply proves that we have been lucky. When will that luck run out?

, but since his majesty Ron Paul is against it, so are his mindless sheep...

If you can't make an argument without insults, then don't.

 

[weiss27md]

The Doctor is still in the lead, interesting... Also, under Perry, Texas has the most uninsured people in the US.

 

[Fisherman777]

Well, hell, why not go all the way back to the Crusades? Come on, if you ask any of the jihadists why they hate us they are not going to say "Because of the Barbary Wars!". I would think a realistic approach would be to look at the first modern episode and work back through the "whys" of it. I am not a history guy, but I would think a good place to start would be 1979 with the taking of hostages at our Embassy in Iran.

What about the Crusades? People always blame Christians when that couldn't be further from the truth. The Crusades started as a defense against an enemy who was Jee Hadin' on the Christians and others. Guess who they were. Yup! The so called religion of peace. The ragheads hate us because "they hate everybody"! You can't negotiate with them. They don't listen. They're crazy! I think it must be the heat or something. Gettin' kinda hot in here right now too. LOL

 

[London]

Wow, I guess he's so smart that he didn't realize that we don't have a large military presence in every country in the world, just in those that are our allies and where both nations have a strategic interest in us being there.

And.....? I'm not seeing the point.

What? The Taliban of Afghanistan were harboring al Qaida.

I was referring to Iraq.

Really, when was the last time there was a major terrorist attack on this country?

You still didn't answer the question. My point was that no formal army is going to wage a war on the U.S. Anyone who wants to attack us will (or at least will try; as has been covered), with subterfuge and unconventional tactics. It won't be a military action.

And that only proves that our military presence overseas is working, but since his majesty Ron Paul is against it, so are his mindless sheep...

If by, "Working" you mean, "Pissing off the citizens of the occupied countries, getting our troops needlessly killed so we can 'Spread democracy,' and wasting billions of American tax dollars on a never-ending war," then yeah, I guess you're right. If you think it is deterring the Jihadis then you are far from correct. People who think dying in the line of duty gets them 72 virgins and enjoy executing people with RPGs are kind of hard to intimidate.

If you honestly think Ron Paul's supporters are mindless sheep then you are in denial of the facts.

 

[TheDan]

Well, hell, why not go all the way back to the Crusades? Come on, if you ask any of the jihadists why they hate us they are not going to say "Because of the Barbary Wars!". I would think a realistic approach would be to look at the first modern episode and work back through the "whys" of it. I am not a history guy, but I would think a good place to start would be 1979 with the taking of hostages at our Embassy in Iran.

I was just pointing out the first confrontation (that I'm aware of) we had with Muslim extremists as a nation. If you want to go waaaaay back, western civilization has been under attack from Persians and Arabs before they were even Muslim. I mean, you have seen 300, right? True story

The 79 embassy attack is another instance where we were supporting a "friend" and it backfired on us.

 

[majormadmax]

Well, hell, why not go all the way back to the Crusades? Come on, if you ask any of the jihadists why they hate us they are not going to say "Because of the Barbary Wars!". I would think a realistic approach would be to look at the first modern episode and work back through the "whys" of it. I am not a history guy, but I would think a good place to start would be 1979 with the taking of hostages at our Embassy in Iran.

Sorry, at what time was US foreign policy based on what other countries thought of us or if they "liked" us? It's about protecting our strategic interests. Maybe if you're not a "history guy," you should be; as a brief study of it will show you that your "realistic approach" is far from actually being one!

I wasn't aware that Afghanistan and Iraq were our strategic allies.

They weren't, but they are now. That's what force projection will do for a country. Again, a little history would clear this up for you...

I'd say 2009 in New York City, but the idiot screwed up his car bomb and it only smoked. Do we count the other screw ups like the shoe bomber and the underwear bomber? Or do they not count simply because they were not successful?

Based on that criteria, any criminal act can be considered "terrorism." We were talking about a major attack, where several hundreds are killed and thousands are injured. If you lower the bar far enough, anything can become a terrorist act.

How about the 1st attack on the Word Trade Center in 1993 that killed 6 and wounded about a thousand people?

Again, if you were paying attention I said since 9/11. Are you not a math guy either?!?

No, it simply proves that we have been lucky. When will that luck run out?

There's no way that "luck" has prevented a repeat of 9/11, it was the result of deliberate action by the US government. Anyone who thinks this country has been spared from additional attacks due to "luck" is really showing their ignorance.

If you can't make an argument without insults, then don't.

Don't make idiotic comments such as the above and you won't be subject to ridicule...