PDA

View Full Version : Foreign policy -no transition plan




Dsylexic
01-16-2012, 12:04 AM
Dr Paul's domestic ideas are brilliant. Plus he has absolutely practical transition plans to handle SS and other unconstitutional stuff.
My worry is,while his foreign policy is moral,outstanding and logical, does it not need to have a transition plan?

I can understand withdrawing from Germany ,Korea,Saudi peninsula and ending Iraq,afghanistan wars immediately.say within 3 weeks.
But,why not have a transition plan for the rest of it? Why not leave the warships in the persian gulf just there,monitoring,without threatening to be in their face?why not mention,some of the airbases in some of the friendlier middle east nations like Oman will continue for strategic reasons.
If he had a great transition plan ,the isolationism smears will go away. Why not mention that 'strategic interest' will be taken care of in the transition plan?

am i wrong i saying that paul's foreign policy is drastic since there seems to be no transition plan?

sailingaway
01-16-2012, 12:08 AM
His three year budget drops funding to 2006 levels but cuts the war funding. That IS a transition.

http://c3244172.r72.cf0.rackcdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/Discretionary-Spending1.png

http://www.ronpaul2012.com/the-issues/ron-paul-plan-to-restore-america/

Dsylexic
01-16-2012, 12:09 AM
His three year budget drops funding to 2006 levels but cuts the war funding. That IS a transition.

hmm ,yes.does it mean warships will still patrol the international shipping routes? didnt they do that in 2006? if so,why not mention it.currently all we are hearing is close ALL bases.come home ASAP.it does have an impractical tone to the rhetoric

crh88
01-16-2012, 12:11 AM
I think that he probably has a plan in mind about how to withdraw everyone in a safe and orderly fashion. I don't think he would ever want to leave random bases operational for "strategic reasons". That being said, he does support the use of things like nuclear submarines so it's not like he doesn't want a military presence at all. I think it would be a very good thing if he would come out with a foreign policy plan to explain exactly what he would do to defend the country, to help reassure the people who think that we need all of these bases to be safe or to have a strategic advantage.

gerryb
01-16-2012, 12:12 AM
I don't believe that's what we are hearing from the campaign at all. They could do much better in releasing a FP plan that outlines how the Restore America spending plan would affect it...

sailingaway
01-16-2012, 12:12 AM
hmm ,yes.does it mean warships will still patrol the international shipping routes? didnt they do that in 2006? if so,why not mention it.currently all we are hearing is close ALL bases.come home ASAP.it does have an impractical tone to the rhetoric

He speaks of nuclear submarines instead of bases for distant needs, so I am absolutely certain he doesn't plan to abandon international waters.

EBounding
01-16-2012, 12:13 AM
From what I understand, our Navy will remain in tact patrolling international waters and trade routes per the Constitution. We would still have weapon systems that can reach anywhere on earth within an hour. We would still have Earth's most sophisticated airforce and allies we could work with if there was a real actual threat to our national security.

I think people really think that Paul wants to pull all our forces in and build a wall around the country to hoard gold. You can still project force without unconstitutionally occupying other countries.

But yeah, it would be nice if Paul would get specific in what he would do instead of what he won't do.

AhuwaleKaNaneHuna
01-16-2012, 12:14 AM
I just read somewhere that it is in Pauls plan, that part of having a strong national defense is to have Navy ships patrolling international waters. They will be out there under a Paul presidency.

I agree he really needs to get some more details of what the transition will look like uploaded to his web-site where people can review it and see how much it makes sense.

idiom
01-16-2012, 12:16 AM
Myself I would keep Guam and Diego Garcia.

The Navy could keep the Oceans plenty happy with half the number of fleets. But yes a transition plan of some description would be good.

1000-points-of-fright
01-16-2012, 12:23 AM
I don't remember which interview it was, but I think I recall hearing him say recently that our carrier groups could still patrol the Persian gulf... just back off a few more miles into international waters.

JJ2
01-16-2012, 12:25 AM
I agree. This is very important.

EBounding
01-16-2012, 12:27 AM
He says these things in random interviews, but he never ever mentions them in debates. He probably thinks it's common sense but a lot of people don't think that way.

PLEEEEEEAAAASE mention these things in the next debate.

sailingaway
01-16-2012, 12:28 AM
He says these things in random interviews, but he never ever mentions them in debates. He probably thinks it's common sense but a lot of people don't think that way.

PLEEEEEEAAAASE mention these things in the next debate.

I agree

Dsylexic
01-16-2012, 12:36 AM
I don't remember which interview it was, but I think I recall hearing him say recently that our carrier groups could still patrol the Persian gulf... just back off a few more miles into international waters.

i think it was Rand and not ron. it was on the frank luntz show,iirc