The American Navy Saving Iranian Fishermen from Somalian Pirates

[Fort Lauderdale]

The American Navy Saving Iranian Fisherman from Somalian Pirates

What would have Ron Paul's response to Rick Santorum have been when Rick Santorum said there would have been no U.S. Navy there to save them had Ron Paul been President because of his non-interventionist stance? Ron Paul didn't get to answer!!

[asurfaholic]

Bump, im curious too

[refuge]

Bumping as well.

[Ranger29860]

maybe there would have more resources spent on protecting there own people if Iran wasn't having to gear up for war. Also it was never a comment about us needing to be there save lives but a simple recognition of an opportunity that have arisen that provides an "in" for talks to start and something positive to start off talks with.

[XNavyNuke]

Well, I'd take Dr. Paul at his word when he says that he likes the Cleveland administration. President Cleveland appointed, arguably, the best Secretary of Navy in U.S. History. A former Confederate officer, Secretary Herbert was the very first serious champion of Alfred Thayer Mahan's blue water sea power strategy (the basis of all U.S. naval policy since.) He also ensued that Mahan's hand picked successor was appointed to the Naval War College. Under Secretary Herbert, the Navy successfully disrupted the blockade of Brazil and deployed to the Caribbean to force Britain into negotiations regarding the colonial efforts in the Americas.

I'm confident that we would still have a Navy deployed in international waters under a Paul administration. Santorum just displayed his ignorance of history and naval strategy in his unsupported, and thanks to ABC, unchallenged statement.

XNN

[slamhead]

Just because Ron wants to close bases and bring troops home does not mean our navy will sit in OUR ports. We can still have agreements with other countries to use their ports to resupply and give our sailors and marines shore leave. Ron Paul loves submarines as a strategic defense.

[Brick-in-the-Wall]

Just because Ron wants to close bases and bring troops home does not mean our navy will sit in OUR ports. We can still have agreements with other countries to use their ports to resupply and give our sailors and marines shore leave. Ron Paul loves submarines as a strategic defense.

Just curious, do we allow other countries to use our ports? Not to put a negative on this but it'd seem rather hypocritical to ask to use other's bases when we don't allow others to use ours.

[Eric21ND]

Maybe American trade ships could be rescuing sailors instead of war ships.

[newbitech]

Probably instead of a Navy over there, we'd have U.S. merchant marines actually trading resources with Iran, we'd maybe have our own fishing fleet,, etc etc...

[sailingaway]

Ron Paul wants letters of marque to go after the pirates, he said so, specifically. So someone would have been there, or the pirates might already be gone.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VrCqVYVxEoA&feature=player_embedded

http://libertymaven.com/2009/04/13/ron-paul-suggests-using-letters-of-marque-and-reprisal-for-pirates/5299/
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0409/21245.html

He has also suggested using nuclear submarines for international presence/mobility rather than occupying other people's countries...

[ShaneEnochs]

The Navy is arguably one of the most important branches of military for defending this nation. We can still be in INTERNATIONAL waters without interfering with other nations. Plus our subs and things can launch nuclear weapons anywhere in the world at a moment's notice.

[Fort Lauderdale]

A response I got on YouTube

Well under Ron Paul the Navy would have still been out there because that Navy ship was/is there in those parts to make sure that the cargo lines are free for all vessels of the world to bring their fishing and commerce ships through. They are there to prevent actions such as pirate attacks. So they are like the coast guard but in the ocean. It has nothing to do with being pro interventionist by being there. Just thought I'd clear that up...

[newbitech]

the other thing I would point out is that Santorum shifted the premise of the question back to the failed policy of it being America's job to police the world.

Ron could have reminded him that in Santorums world view, those weren't really fisherman, they were terrorist on thier way to new york to unleash a nuke.

[Fort Lauderdale]

Rick Santorum's exact words:

Well Ron, if we had your foreign policy there wouldn't have been a fleet there to pick up the Iranian fisherman.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQe4POfX2s4

[Delivered4000]

Rick Santorum's exact words:

Well Ron, if we had your foreign policy there wouldn't have been a fleet there to pick up the Iranian fisherman.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQe4POfX2s4

Wow all of a sudden we are there to save the Iranians from the pirates!!

[Delivered4000]

What a silly premise. If we were there to protect Iranian fisherman from pirates, there wouldn't be all these bad Iranian-American relations in the first place

[Snowball]

the Iranians can save their own fishermen.
And Santorum either lied or is misinformed by the media,
because the Iranian Government did not kill thousands of its
own people. Total fabrication.

[XNavyNuke]

Probably instead of a Navy over there, we'd have U.S. merchant marines actually trading resources with Iran, we'd maybe have our own fishing fleet,, etc etc...

The Merchant Marine is a ghost of its former self. What remains is predominantly shipping specific for U.S. government contracts. Both Republican and Democrat policies of taxation and regulation has totally destroyed the free market in shipping.

http://waysandmeans.house.gov/legacy/srm/107cong/6-13-02/6-13cowe.htm


The decline in U.S.-owned international shipping is fundamentally inconsistent with national security and economic objectives. The U.S. military, in times of emergency, relies on the ability to requisition U.S.-owned foreign-flagged tankers, bulk carriers, and other vessels to carry oil, gasoline, and other materials in defense of U.S. interests overseas. These vessels comprise the Effective United States Control (“EUSC”) fleet.[2] The sharp decline in the EUSC fleet since the 1975 and 1986 tax-law changes, and the resulting adverse strategic consequences, are expected to be confirmed soon in a study that has been commissioned by the U.S. Navy. This study is likely to conclude that the current EUSC fleet is not large enough to satisfy U.S. strategic needs.

XNN

[SonofThunder]

Well, I'd take Dr. Paul at his word when he says that he like the Cleveland administration. President Cleveland appointed, arguably, the best Secretary of Navy in U.S. History. A former Confederate officer, Secretary Herbert was the very first serious champion of Alfred Thayer Mahan's blue water sea power strategy (the basis of all U.S. naval policy since.) He also ensued that Mahan's hand picked successor was appointed to the Naval War College. Under Secretary Herbert, the Navy successfully disrupted the blockade of Brazil and deployed to the Caribbean to force Britain into negotiations regarding the colonial efforts in the Americas.

I'm confident that we would still have a Navy deployed in international waters under a Paul administration. Santorum just displayed his ignorance of history and naval strategy in his unsupported, and thanks to ABC, unchallenged statement.

XNN

This.

Of course, the neocon's answer is that without our military empire around the world, where would our ships refuel?

(not that nuclear powered aircraft carriers have to refuel.... ever. but still)

[XNavyNuke]

This.

Of course, the neocon's answer is that without our military empire around the world, where would our ships refuel?

(not that nuclear powered aircraft carriers have to refuel.... ever. but still)

The Great White Fleet were piss poor, thermally inefficient, coal fired vessels. They managed to make it around a world that still hadn't bought into an upstart, former colony called the United States. No modern technology to help them out. We already have fleet replenishment ships that run around world supporting our ships. No major changes here.

XNN

[fc2008]

Maybe American trade ships could be rescuing sailors instead of war ships.

question answered.

[slamhead]

Just curious, do we allow other countries to use our ports? Not to put a negative on this but it'd seem rather hypocritical to ask to use other's bases when we don't allow others to use ours.

Yes. Many ship from foriegn countries including Russia and China put inro our ports in the US.

[RonPaulCult]

Ron Paul has mentioned having submarines in international waters many times this election cycle. He wants to close bases in foreign nations but he obviously wants to have a presence in international waters.

[axiomata]

The Constitution gives congress the responsibility to provide and maintain a Navy. It should patrol international waters and take out pirates as well as be our projection of force.

[impaleddead]

Funny thing is that the IMF and American foreign policy are the reason Somalian pirates even exist. The pirates are just another form of blowback.

[JoshLowry]

It'd be nice if we had the resources to fight actual piracy (on the high seas) instead of fighting a war against angry people.

[EBounding]

Ron Paul has mentioned having submarines in international waters many times this election cycle. He wants to close bases in foreign nations but he obviously wants to have a presence in international waters.

He does say it often, but never during debates. I don't understand why...

[heavenlyboy34]

The American Navy Saving Iranian Fisherman from Somalian Pirates

What would have Ron Paul's response to Rick Santorum have been when Rick Santorum said there would have been no U.S. Navy there to save them had Ron Paul been President because of his non-interventionist stance? Ron Paul didn't get to answer!!
IDK about Ron, but I would have pointed out the merchant marines fill this role well.

[sailingaway]

Well, letters of marque was the way he was focused on. When this came up it was in a specific context.

[ghengis86]

Yes. Many ship from foriegn countries including Russia and China put inro our ports in the US.

Their warships? I doubt it. Merchant vessels from China and Russia, yes. But warships?

[XNavyNuke]

Their warships? I doubt it. Merchant vessels from China and Russia, yes. But warships?

Certainly, mostly merchant vessels. I do remember back in '89 when a Russian cruiser and destroyer ported at Norfolk. The first U.S. visit by Chinese warships was a pair of destroyer porting at San Diego back in '95. It's uncommon but not unheard of. Were the U.S. practising a little more neutralism we would probably get more visits.

XNN

[Fort Lauderdale]

Great responses!

[teacherone]

The Constitution gives congress the responsibility to provide and maintain a Navy. It should patrol international waters and take out pirates as well as be our projection of force.

This.

Standing army? Not constitutional.

Navy to patrol our maritime borders? Constitutional.