Ron Paul and the Navy?

[Gravik]

Does anyone know what Paul would do with the navy as commander in chief? Because some blabbering idiot in my newspaper the other day stated that Paul would bring home and dock every ship....

[phill4paul]

Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul said today that he does not believe American troops should be stationed anywhere around the world.

Paul, a representative from Texas, was asked on CBS’s “Face the Nation” by host Bob Schieffer, “Do you think there’s any place in the world US forces should be stationed?”

Paul responded “No.” He explained, “Other than the fact I think a submarine is a very worthwhile weapon, I believe we can defend ourselves with submarines and all our troops back at home.”

http://www.bostonglobe.com/news/politics/2011/11/20/ron-paul-says-keep-troops-home/GElNy1dY0gz7kNbG6KvUMO/story.html

[SCOTUSman]

So in turn, that means yes. Ships would come back home. And we would have a couple submarines out in the water.

[Gravik]

Here's the exact quote:

" design, our Navy controls every major over-water shipping lane on the planet, which remains as the most efficient and economical method to deliver goods to consumers. Completely pulling up stakes, docking every boat, bringing home every soldier and abandoning every foreign theater in which the U.S. is engaged would lead to a degree of geopolitical and economic instability, dare I say chaos, that would be disastrous to the interrelated economic interests of the United States."

[Travlyr]

So in turn, that means yes. Ships would come back home. And we would have a couple submarines out in the water.
Yes. One submarine would patrol the Atlantic Ocean and Gulf of Mexico, and the other would guard the Pacific Ocean from Alaska to San Diego.

[mport1]

Does anyone know what Paul would do with the navy as commander in chief? Because some blabbering idiot in my newspaper the other day stated that Paul would bring home and dock every ship....

It would be great if we would, but I'm not sure if that is the case.

[sailingaway]

He wants to use nuclear submarines rather than foreign bases for our military presence, so that is simply wrong.

[SCOTUSman]

The problem is...huge war ships eventually need to dock. They being out in the middle of the indian ocean for example would make it really hard for so many reasons, from supplies to fueling to the sanity of the sailors would need to port somewhere. And waiting to get back to the US, isn't really feasible.

[Travlyr]

Ron Paul on NATIONAL DEFENSE (http://www.ronpaul2012.com/the-issues/national-defense/)


As President, Ron Paul’s national defense policy will ensure that the greatest nation in human history is strong, secure, and respected.

[SCOTUSman]

Ron Paul on NATIONAL DEFENSE (http://www.ronpaul2012.com/the-issues/national-defense/)

All good, but that literally says nothing. That can mean a million different things depending on who you ask.

[sailingaway]

The problem is...huge war ships eventually need to dock. They being out in the middle of the indian ocean for example would make it really hard for so many reasons, from supplies to fueling to the sanity of the sailors would need to port somewhere. And waiting to get back to the US, isn't really feasible.

We have allies in most regions. I think Ron says 'close all' and knows the compromise would be 'close most'. He says in the 90s they shifted to putting bases overseas rather than here (money spigot out of the country). He wants to shift that process back.

[BamaAla]

You can't just bring the entire Navy home; I think Ron Paul would understand that.

[Travlyr]

All good, but that literally says nothing. That can mean a million different things depending on who you ask.
The Constitution provided for defense. Ask Ron Paul ... or at least read what he writes and listen to what he says.


Constitution for the United States of America

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Article I

Section. 8. The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

Article II

Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation: — "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

Section. 2. The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

[flightlesskiwi]

Here's the exact quote:

" design, our Navy controls every major over-water shipping lane on the planet, which remains as the most efficient and economical method to deliver goods to consumers. Completely pulling up stakes, docking every boat, bringing home every soldier and abandoning every foreign theater in which the U.S. is engaged would lead to a degree of geopolitical and economic instability, dare I say chaos, that would be disastrous to the interrelated economic interests of the United States."

what the **** does this guy think is going to happen when the whole house of cards fails and the dollar crashes?

who is gonna be watching his precious waterways then? and with what fuel. purchased with what money?

people are... *sigh*

[Bilgefisher]

The problem is...huge war ships eventually need to dock. They being out in the middle of the indian ocean for example would make it really hard for so many reasons, from supplies to fueling to the sanity of the sailors would need to port somewhere. And waiting to get back to the US, isn't really feasible.

I served on the USS Louisiana SSBN 743. We can go out for 6 months if need be without surfacing although no boat has done so recently. My time on the boat we went a 110 days under the water during one deterrent patrol. On six 3 month deployments, I never once saw a foreign port. We certainly did not have to port in other countries. Is it useful to be able to dock around the world? Yes, it is extremely useful to dock any of our ships in foreign ports. Boats break, need supplies, and sailors need a break now and then. That said, docking for a few weeks in a foreign port is hardly like setting up a permanent base. In fact, from what I have been told, most port towns enjoy the extra revenue.

[rpwi]

Actually like the idea of a more literal meaning of bringing the navy home. The Indian navy doesn't have ships patrolling the Gulf of Mexico...nor does the New Zealand Navy have ships patrolling the Bering Strait . Navies should IMO roughly stick to their own local waters and if there is an issue with pirates or what not...that is best handled by going through diplomatic channels and requesting that the closest counties in the area deal with the situation.

Kind of disagree with Ron's support for subs...these are overpriced antiques from WW2. Simply put they lack the mobility, speed and are too expensive. Anything practical a sub can do...the airforce can do better. A local North American Air Force could defend our borders much better than a sub-fleet. For foreign issues (like say piracy)...that should addressed by local counties in the area...just like say we don't want the European military exercising their control in the Gulf of Mexico.

The big problem with submarines is that they are so darn expensive...each sub cost billions...it's very costly to train submariners, and you have this issue of nuclear waste (which just adds to the cost not to mention serious environmental problems).

Personally, I suspect the sub program is still only around because politicians have such a romantic view of subs from WW2. But what a sub is good for, (launching nukes or sinking ships), can much more easily be done by the air force as modern missiles have really made subs redundant.

[phill4paul]

The problem is...huge war ships eventually need to dock. They being out in the middle of the indian ocean for example would make it really hard for so many reasons, from supplies to fueling to the sanity of the sailors would need to port somewhere. And waiting to get back to the US, isn't really feasible.

As a Naval vet I can tell you that you do not know that of which you speak. The process is called an UNREPS (Underway Replenishment). I spent 110 days in the I.O. without once coming to shore.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Underway_replenishment

http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRN_O9Hw21Xi8K5VubYejJ2CGAjQlZiD VApF433hu5QSusQU_ig

[klamath]

All this does is once again show why RP lost. Even his supporters have no clue of what RP's defense posture would look like.They all think they might have a clue but way to much uncertainty. It made it very easy for the opposition to say what ever they wanted about RP defense plan and have it stick, because his plan is so vague.

[HaryTemp]

Does anyone know what Paul would do with the navy as commander in chief? Because some blabbering idiot in my newspaper the other day stated that Paul would bring home and dock every ship....


I guess this means that guy in the newspaper WASN'T a blabbering idiot? (Be careful what you call people because some times it boomerangs on you.)

[Gravik]

All this does is once again show why RP lost. Even his supporters have no clue of what RP's defense posture would look like.They all think they might have a clue but way to much uncertainty. It made it very easy for the opposition to say what ever they wanted about RP defense plan and have it stick, because his plan is so vague.
Same can be said with every candidate.

[socal]

I always interpreted Dr Paul saying that he wanted to "bring the troops home" and close all "foreign bases" as not applying to the Navy since I never thought of sailors as troops, and international waters are not a foreign base. It would be good to get confirmation though.

Here's another angle of attack I found while researching the subject,

3 Surprising Aspects of Ron Paul’s Foreign Policy Views
http://politiac.com/3_Surprising_Aspects_of_Ron_Paul%E2%80%99s_Foreign _Policy_Views/



The Bottom Line

Dr. Paul’s foreign policy ideas would save America a lot of money; true, and they would also leave America vulnerable to nuclear attack and destabilize global politics. Countries that have unstable governments and nuclear weapons would have nothing impeding the sale of nuclear bombs to anyone that wanted to buy them. No longer having a global defense network and protection from intercontinental ballistic missiles could result in the complete annihilation of the United States.

[socal]

I guess this means that guy in the newspaper WASN'T a blabbering idiot? (Be careful what you call people because some times it boomerangs on you.)
Judge for yourself, here's the thread that motivated this one,

How to respond to this letter to the editor
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?368278-How-to-respond-to-this-letter-to-the-editor&p=4299717

[sailingaway]

I always interpreted Dr Paul saying that he wanted to "bring the troops home" and close all "foreign bases" as not applying to the Navy since I never thought of sailors as troops, and international waters are not a foreign base, It would be good to get confirmation though.

Here's another angle of attack I found while researching the subject,

3 Surprising Aspects of Ron Paul’s Foreign Policy Views
http://politiac.com/3_Surprising_Aspects_of_Ron_Paul%E2%80%99s_Foreign _Policy_Views/

and we are the ones who have to pay for the entire GLOBE's security why, exactly?

[klamath]

Same can be said with every candidate.
Nope because every other candidate, democrat and republican, bases their defense plans on the established 70 year old US defense posture. RP was the only one saying it should be scrapped but left it very unclear on what the new posture would look like.

[phill4paul]

All this does is once again show why RP lost.

RP lost?

[alucard13mmfmj]

good thing about submarines is that our enemies don't know where they are. it'll keep them on edge... knowing that there is are submarines, each with enough missles to blow up entire continents.

we can pull our submarines out of an enemy area and the enemy would still wonder and guess where the submarine is without realizing it left the area.

it is like the klingons... cloaking their ships to keep the enemy guessing and off balanced.

it seems the media still tries to spin Ron Paul's foreign policies or misrepresent it. at any rate, i'd assume Ron would get advice from his cabinent (assuming they are competent) on what bases to withdraw and what troops to withdraw and what to do in various situations.

[bluesc]

Nope because every other candidate, democrat and republican, bases their defense plans on the established 70 year old US defense posture. RP was the only one saying it should be scrapped but left it very unclear on what the new posture would look like.

True, unfortunately.

He should have come out with the "Paul Doctrine".

[EBounding]

Does anyone know what Paul would do with the navy as commander in chief? Because some blabbering idiot in my newspaper the other day stated that Paul would bring home and dock every ship....

He never said such a thing, just that the troops would come home as fast as the ship's could go.

But he also hasn't exactly explained what a Constitutional, Ron Paul National Defense would look like. Maybe he thinks it's common sense, but it's something that he really needed to address. It's too late now for it to help him, but it would be great if he could explain it.

[dustinp]

I always interpreted Dr Paul saying that he wanted to "bring the troops home" and close all "foreign bases" as not applying to the Navy since I never thought of sailors as troops, and international waters are not a foreign base. It would be good to get confirmation though.

Here's another angle of attack I found while researching the subject,

3 Surprising Aspects of Ron Paul’s Foreign Policy Views
http://politiac.com/3_Surprising_Aspects_of_Ron_Paul’s_Foreign_Policy_ Views/ (http://politiac.com/3_Surprising_Aspects_of_Ron_Paul%E2%80%99s_Foreign _Policy_Views/)

Im glad that us sailors aren't seen as troops. Hopefully the DOD will pull their heads out of their asses and not deploy sailors to the desert anymore. And they should close those...well they cant be naval bases in foreign countries....cause that would imply that we have sailors on land somewhere.