Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 61 to 90 of 109

Thread: FREDHEADS: Compare Fred Thompson to Ron Paul here

  1. #61

    Default

    I'll tell you one thing, his wife Jeri Thompson is a trophy! wooooo wee



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #62
    BrianB34
    Guest

    Default A Fred Support Looking for a Home

    I am a Fred refugee looking for a home. I do agree with the good Dr. on domestic policy in every case. And, I agree that we should not be nation building and never should have been in the business of doing so. I agree that we should bring our troops home from overseas.

    I don't agree that we should just bail on Iraq. I don't know how we disengage without being seen as being weak by the Islamo-facists and inviting them to test their mettle here. What is Dr. Paul's plan? I haven't found much information on it except that we should bring the troops home.

    What about intelligence? If we pull our entire global military presence back home(not an idea i'm opposed to), how are we going to know what the people that mean to do us harm are doing? And, it has to be intelligence that can be trusted.

    The latest NIE is an example of an intelligence report that was riddled with agenda and not intelligence.

    This is my only true problem with Dr. Paul's candidacy. I believe that we would be better served in kicking the UN out of NYC and turning that building into the best hospital on the planet for our Vets.

    I believe that we should get back on the gold standard. I believe that the Federal Reserve is a vialoation of the Constitution, Article I, Section 8, Clause 5 to be exact says, "The Congress shall have Power To. To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;." The federal reserve is not a part of the government. It's a freakin' bank....of course I'm preaching to the choir here.

    My major concern is how do we project strength in withdrawl. What are Dr. Paul's plans to speak softly and carry a big stick. Diplomacy cannot be the only option in all situations. And the only way to negotiate from a position of strength in all dealings is to know your opponents weaknesses, and that requires intelligence.

    Enlighten me...please.

  4. #63
    une plume de Libertée GunnyFreedom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Youngsville, NC
    Posts
    21,229
    Blog Entries
    5

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BrianB34 View Post
    I am a Fred refugee looking for a home. I do agree with the good Dr. on domestic policy in every case. And, I agree that we should not be nation building and never should have been in the business of doing so. I agree that we should bring our troops home from overseas.

    I don't agree that we should just bail on Iraq. I don't know how we disengage without being seen as being weak by the Islamo-facists and inviting them to test their mettle here. What is Dr. Paul's plan? I haven't found much information on it except that we should bring the troops home.

    What about intelligence? If we pull our entire global military presence back home(not an idea i'm opposed to), how are we going to know what the people that mean to do us harm are doing? And, it has to be intelligence that can be trusted.

    The latest NIE is an example of an intelligence report that was riddled with agenda and not intelligence.

    This is my only true problem with Dr. Paul's candidacy. I believe that we would be better served in kicking the UN out of NYC and turning that building into the best hospital on the planet for our Vets.

    I believe that we should get back on the gold standard. I believe that the Federal Reserve is a vialoation of the Constitution, Article I, Section 8, Clause 5 to be exact says, "The Congress shall have Power To. To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;." The federal reserve is not a part of the government. It's a freakin' bank....of course I'm preaching to the choir here.

    My major concern is how do we project strength in withdrawl. What are Dr. Paul's plans to speak softly and carry a big stick. Diplomacy cannot be the only option in all situations. And the only way to negotiate from a position of strength in all dealings is to know your opponents weaknesses, and that requires intelligence.

    Enlighten me...please.
    Well, first and foremost, to fight terrorists, you need a scalpel and not a broadsword. The scalpel solution was suggested shortly after 9/11 (by Dr Paul) in the issuance of Letters of Marque and Reprisal. The suggestion was not, of course, taken.

    Therefore, today we have a situation before us where we are inside of Iraq and we should not have been in the first place. But, we are there.

    The situation parallels Vietnam in more ways than one, and like in Vietnam, the most certain way to "lose" is to stay far too long. In Vietnam, we militarily won every battle we ever fought -- and decisively so. We literally crushed the VC and NVA in every engagement. But in doing so, we created the kind of resentment in which every time we killed 10 VC, we enraged 100 more non-actors to become VC in their stead. This same effect is only now starting to become a major factor in Iraq.

    If we say, for the sake of argument, that Iraq was a just war, then the purpose now is to leave with the most victory possible. At this point in time, the longer we stay, the more enemies we create. I say, the next President should declare that victory occured when Saddam Hussein was tried and executed, and that we apologize but the last President overstayed his welcome and should have withdrawn then, but we will withdraw NOW, and claim the defeat, trial, and execution of Saddam as the primary goal of the action, and therefore leave in victory. It is a little bit of spin, but it is effective spin.

    As for encouraging our enemies to test their mettle here in the US, well, I hate to tell you but they are already over here just waiting to be activated.

    As a former US Marine, I sincerely believe that Dr. Paul's position will lead to the strongest national defense possible. You see, he does not want to reduce the size of the military, just bring them home, to defend us here. With the bulk of our armed forces attached to NORAD and domestic defence, our readiness will increase exponentially, as well will our equipment be properly repaired and made battle worthy again. Our forward bases should be Hawaii, Guam, and Puerto Rico, not Korea, Japan, and Germany.

    There will be a coming Islamic insurgency within the US. It is not aquestion of IF, but of WHEN. They are already over here, and we created the situation by giving them battle experience in Iraq, and then leaving our southern border wide open for them to cross. The question is, will we be ready for them when they start attacking us here at home?

    If we continue deploying our National Guard troops on their 5th and 6th combat tours, then I am sad to say that no, we will not be ready when they start. But if we bring our entire set of armed forces back to the US, we will be MORE than ready. We will be re-opening domestic bases that have closed (in order to expand foreign bases or build new ones) and we will have a huge force in exquisite readiness right here at home.

    Not to mention, if we bring the troops home from Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Egypt, etc etc, we will be removing the major cause of motivation that makes them want to attack us in the first place. Oh, the ones who are already here will still assuredly attack, but as any soldier can tell you, 10 soldiers with motivation are worth 1000 without.

    So, to recap -

    1) declare that the capture, trial, and execution of Saddam Hussein was really the primary goal in Iraq, declare victory, apologize for overstaying our welcome, and come home. This is the closest thing to victory that can possibly wrought from Iraq.

    2) Bring all the troops home from around the world, and place them in a domestic defense posture, in readiness forthe imported insurgency that is sure to come (their fighters are already here, there is no avoiding it at this point)

    3) Remove our presence from Muslim "Holy Lands" thus removing the primary motivation for those fighters, making them easier to defeat when they do attack.

    (and additionally)

    4) Issue letters of Marque and Reprisal for Osama Bin Laden and his lieutenants. Call it a billion dollar bounty, with an additional $500 Million set aside for bribes, and give the potential claimants a Spec Ops platoon (with intell) to work together with. The quick capture, trial, and execution of Bin Laden (if he is still alive) will surely mitigate any claims of 'weakness.'
    Monday, December 22, 2014. The newly elected Congressmen and Legislators prepare to get to work as something happens and trillions of overseas dollars begin to repatriate as fast as they can be brought in. Monetary volume within the United States doubles in 40 days. What is Congress to do? Who did you elect to Congress in November?

  5. #64

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BrianB34 View Post
    I don't agree that we should just bail on Iraq. I don't know how we disengage without being seen as being weak by the Islamo-facists and inviting them to test their mettle here. What is Dr. Paul's plan? I haven't found much information on it except that we should bring the troops home.
    Right now appearing weak should probably be the least of our worries. I do not believe they will think we are weak for "pulling out." We are simple smart enough to realize we do not want to bankrupt ourselves. If appearing weak is that big of an issue, we can always declare victory then come home. Perhaps we could have a little victory ceremony on an aircraft carrier or something. There's no point in fighting a war we've already won.

    Speaking of winning, here's some food for thought. They say we have to stay the course in Iraq until we win. But does anyone know what the winning conditions are? What would have to happen before Bush can say, "Hey, we just won!" If we capture Bin Laden, will he say we've won? What about the leader of Iraq, if we capture him, will we have won? What has to happen before we can say we've won the war in Iraq?

    But I am getting side tracked. Ron Paul's plan is to find the root causes of terrorism. Starting a war is like treating the symptoms instead of the cause of the problem. He wants to use diplomacy to find out why others want to do harm to us. And use diplomacy to fix the problems.

    Ron Paul wants to open trade with other countries. Note: we have never been to war with a country with a McDonald's. He wants to make friends with other countries. They won't attack us if they don't hate us.

    The middle east is like putty. If you're trying to get a good grasp on it by squeezing too tight, it's going to ooze through your fingers and you're left with a mess. However, if you hold it gently, it's... well, it's like putty in your hands.

  6. #65

    Default

    First I'd like to say welcome

    Quote Originally Posted by BrianB34 View Post
    I don't agree that we should just bail on Iraq. I don't know how we disengage without being seen as being weak by the Islamo-facists and inviting them to test their mettle here. What is Dr. Paul's plan? I haven't found much information on it except that we should bring the troops home.
    You have got to understand that the reason they attack is because the United States occupies their land. If you understand that then you'll realise why they won't attack the US after the troops are removed from places like Saudi Arabia. This position is supported by the former head of the Bin-Laden unit at the CIA. Look at this video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Ohz0omUjIE

    Ron's plan for getting out of Iraq is to responsibly remove each brigade, one at a time, over a period of months.


    Quote Originally Posted by BrianB34 View Post
    What about intelligence? If we pull our entire global military presence back home(not an idea i'm opposed to), how are we going to know what the people that mean to do us harm are doing? And, it has to be intelligence that can be trusted.
    The majority of intelligence is gathered covertly, rather than via a military presence. Obviously covert presence in other countries cannot be discussed openly in the campaign. What we do know is that Ron is opposed using a covert presence to overthrow governments and interfere. If he did use it, it would be purely for information gathering.


    Quote Originally Posted by BrianB34 View Post
    The latest NIE is an example of an intelligence report that was riddled with agenda and not intelligence.
    Ron has said he wants to clean out the CIA, FBI, NSA of their politicized cobwebs. He has even hinted at abolishing these organizations and transferring their power to military intelligence.

    Quote Originally Posted by BrianB34 View Post
    This is my only true problem with Dr. Paul's candidacy. I believe that we would be better served in kicking the UN out of NYC and turning that building into the best hospital on the planet for our Vets.
    Ron Paul is very critical of the United Nations. In fact he doesn't even want the United States to be a member because the United Nations has agendas other than those of world peace. However, you have to understand that private property is something protected under the constitution. If the government had the power to interfere with private property it would eventually become tyrannical.

    Quote Originally Posted by BrianB34 View Post
    I believe that we should get back on the gold standard. I believe that the Federal Reserve is a vialoation of the Constitution, Article I, Section 8, Clause 5 to be exact says, "The Congress shall have Power To. To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;." The federal reserve is not a part of the government. It's a freakin' bank....of course I'm preaching to the choir here.
    You sure are. The Federal Reserve is probably number 1 on our most hated list. Even for those of us who are not from the United States.

    Quote Originally Posted by BrianB34 View Post
    My major concern is how do we project strength in withdrawal. What are Dr. Paul's plans to speak softly and carry a big stick. Diplomacy cannot be the only option in all situations. And the only way to negotiate from a position of strength in all dealings is to know your opponents weaknesses, and that requires intelligence.
    Ron Paul is no weakling. If the United States is attacked in any way, he will respond without hesitation, as long a war is declared and the process is handled is a constitutional manner. In fact, by bringing the troops home you can improve the defense of the United States itself and also protect the borders.

    In terms of strength in withdrawal, I think the Islamic world know the power of the United States military. They know they could be taken out at any time the United States chooses.

    Quote Originally Posted by BrianB34 View Post
    Enlighten me...please.
    Hope that helped

  7. #66
    une plume de Libertée GunnyFreedom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Youngsville, NC
    Posts
    21,229
    Blog Entries
    5

    Default

    And now a bit of history.

    Did you know that America's first war was against Islamic Terrorists? Yes, the Barbary Pirates war was engaged by President Thomas Jefferson through the use of letters of Marque and Reprisal, faught primarily by the US Marine Corps ("...to the shores of Tripoli..." Look on a map where Tripoli is...) and is considered to be pretty much the only true decisive victory against Islmaic terror in world history.

    And Dr. Paul's foreign policy is nearly a precise match for Thomas Jefferson.

    Thomas Jefferson so far has been the only man ever to defeat radical Islamic terror. At the onset of the Barbary Pirates War, he read a Koran from cover to cover to learn how to defeat them, and then he engaged in a kind of "Hit and Run" war that crushed them, and left their remnants nothing to shoot at, until they surrendered.

    By engaging in the same kind of war, we can defeat radical Islamic terror again in our modern age. Only Dr Paul wants to use the same methods as did Thomas Jefferson when he defeated radical Islamic terror.

    From day one of this conflict, I have constantly wondered why we did not pull from Thomas Jefferson's experiencein the Barbary Pirates War. Surely, that is precisely how to achieve victory in the Global War on Terror. Learn from the only guy in world history ever to defeat them. Makes sense, no?
    Monday, December 22, 2014. The newly elected Congressmen and Legislators prepare to get to work as something happens and trillions of overseas dollars begin to repatriate as fast as they can be brought in. Monetary volume within the United States doubles in 40 days. What is Congress to do? Who did you elect to Congress in November?

  8. #67
    une plume de Libertée GunnyFreedom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Youngsville, NC
    Posts
    21,229
    Blog Entries
    5

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Just Some Guy View Post
    There's no point in fighting a war we've already won.
    ding! ding! ding!

    if you keep fighting a war you have already won, you turn it into a defeat. Imagine if we had continued to attack Germany after defeating Hitler! Yeah, we'd still be at war with Germany today if we had done that methinks.
    Monday, December 22, 2014. The newly elected Congressmen and Legislators prepare to get to work as something happens and trillions of overseas dollars begin to repatriate as fast as they can be brought in. Monetary volume within the United States doubles in 40 days. What is Congress to do? Who did you elect to Congress in November?

  9. #68
    BrianB34
    Guest

    Default Thanks for your thoughtful responses

    I disagree with Curlz and Dr. Paul on the point that they will not attack us here if we remove our presence from their lands. Please don't read this as being combative. It's in my nature. I'm one for spirited debate. But, even Dr. Paul has stated on numerous occasions that 11 of the 19 9/11 attackers were Saudis. A lot of the insurgents in Iraq are Saudis. How do you reconcile that with the fact that our military no longer has any presence in Saudi Arabia?

    I am certainly in agreement with you GunnyFreedom on them already being here, and it's not a question of "If" but a question of "When". Why my personal weapons cache is well maintained.

    I agree that we should have pulled out as soon as Saddam was captured. But, there were a lot things we should have done, but didn't.

    And, the spin may work on declaring victory. It worked for Saddam in the first gulf conflict.

    I'll go back and read Dr. Paul's stances on energy. Short term and long term solutions.

  10. #69

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GunnyFreedom View Post
    Well, first and foremost, to fight terrorists, you need a scalpel and not a broadsword. The scalpel solution was suggested shortly after 9/11 (by Dr Paul) in the issuance of Letters of Marque and Reprisal. The suggestion was not, of course, taken.

    Therefore, today we have a situation before us where we are inside of Iraq and we should not have been in the first place. But, we are there.

    The situation parallels Vietnam in more ways than one, and like in Vietnam, the most certain way to "lose" is to stay far too long. In Vietnam, we militarily won every battle we ever fought -- and decisively so. We literally crushed the VC and NVA in every engagement. But in doing so, we created the kind of resentment in which every time we killed 10 VC, we enraged 100 more non-actors to become VC in their stead. This same effect is only now starting to become a major factor in Iraq.

    If we say, for the sake of argument, that Iraq was a just war, then the purpose now is to leave with the most victory possible. At this point in time, the longer we stay, the more enemies we create. I say, the next President should declare that victory occured when Saddam Hussein was tried and executed, and that we apologize but the last President overstayed his welcome and should have withdrawn then, but we will withdraw NOW, and claim the defeat, trial, and execution of Saddam as the primary goal of the action, and therefore leave in victory. It is a little bit of spin, but it is effective spin.

    As for encouraging our enemies to test their mettle here in the US, well, I hate to tell you but they are already over here just waiting to be activated.

    As a former US Marine, I sincerely believe that Dr. Paul's position will lead to the strongest national defense possible. You see, he does not want to reduce the size of the military, just bring them home, to defend us here. With the bulk of our armed forces attached to NORAD and domestic defence, our readiness will increase exponentially, as well will our equipment be properly repaired and made battle worthy again. Our forward bases should be Hawaii, Guam, and Puerto Rico, not Korea, Japan, and Germany.

    There will be a coming Islamic insurgency within the US. It is not aquestion of IF, but of WHEN. They are already over here, and we created the situation by giving them battle experience in Iraq, and then leaving our southern border wide open for them to cross. The question is, will we be ready for them when they start attacking us here at home?

    If we continue deploying our National Guard troops on their 5th and 6th combat tours, then I am sad to say that no, we will not be ready when they start. But if we bring our entire set of armed forces back to the US, we will be MORE than ready. We will be re-opening domestic bases that have closed (in order to expand foreign bases or build new ones) and we will have a huge force in exquisite readiness right here at home.

    Not to mention, if we bring the troops home from Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Egypt, etc etc, we will be removing the major cause of motivation that makes them want to attack us in the first place. Oh, the ones who are already here will still assuredly attack, but as any soldier can tell you, 10 soldiers with motivation are worth 1000 without.

    So, to recap -

    1) declare that the capture, trial, and execution of Saddam Hussein was really the primary goal in Iraq, declare victory, apologize for overstaying our welcome, and come home. This is the closest thing to victory that can possibly wrought from Iraq.

    2) Bring all the troops home from around the world, and place them in a domestic defense posture, in readiness forthe imported insurgency that is sure to come (their fighters are already here, there is no avoiding it at this point)

    3) Remove our presence from Muslim "Holy Lands" thus removing the primary motivation for those fighters, making them easier to defeat when they do attack.

    (and additionally)

    4) Issue letters of Marque and Reprisal for Osama Bin Laden and his lieutenants. Call it a billion dollar bounty, with an additional $500 Million set aside for bribes, and give the potential claimants a Spec Ops platoon (with intell) to work together with. The quick capture, trial, and execution of Bin Laden (if he is still alive) will surely mitigate any claims of 'weakness.'
    I tip my hat to you gunny, that's one persuasive arugment you've made there!

  11. #70

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BrianB34 View Post
    I disagree with Curlz and Dr. Paul on the point that they will not attack us here if we remove our presence from their lands. Please don't read this as being combative. It's in my nature. I'm one for spirited debate.
    We love debate here . I'm just saying that Michael Scheuer, the former head of the Bin-Laden unit in the CIA, has said that the reason they attack is because Americans occupy their land. I think he is a pretty reasonable source.

    Quote Originally Posted by BrianB34 View Post
    But, even Dr. Paul has stated on numerous occasions that 11 of the 19 9/11 attackers were Saudis. A lot of the insurgents in Iraq are Saudis. How do you reconcile that with the fact that our military no longer has any presence in Saudi Arabia?
    It's not the occupation of specific countries that is the problem, it is occupying ANY muslim lands. A muslim in Saudi Arabia is still angry when Americans are occupying Iraq, because Iraq is a holy place for Muslims.


    Quote Originally Posted by BrianB34 View Post
    I'll go back and read Dr. Paul's stances on energy. Short term and long term solutions.
    The free-market cures a lot of what ails the US.

  12. #71

    Default

    Sorry for the double post.
    Last edited by Bilgefisher; 01-23-2008 at 02:04 PM.
    Stay focused on positive fund raising ideas.
    Remind folks to register and actually vote in the primaries. Their support is great, their vote is what counts.

  13. #72

    Default

    BrainB34. First and foremost thank you for your intelligent discussions. I believe the 11 Saudi's of the 19 hijackers can be explained simply. While we don't have a presence in their home country, we do have a presence in what they consider the holy land. The Arabian Peninsula.

    I'll be perfectly honest with you. I don't agree with Ron Paul stance on immediate withdrawal either. I think it can create an unseen power vacuum. That said, no man is perfect. Ron Paul has stated it would take months to fully get our troops back. Months works for me. The reason why I do support the withdrawal in this time frame is because of the financial burden placed on the US. If we keep up our current policy, we'll go broke. Plain and simple. The fall of most great nations is due to financial concerns not war.

    I picked Ron Paul over other candidates on the war issue because I do believe we keep hitting a hornets nest with a stick. Were getting stung here. I was right with you until I heard a very strong statement. What would we do if they did that over here? If China or even Iran built a base in the Middle of the US with over 50,000 soldiers that not only lived on base but patrolled our streets. I tell ya, I would be fighting mad in the most literal sense of the saying.

    For a break down.
    -Bring the troops home from Iraq and 130 other countries with 700 bases. 50 years in Korea and Japan is a bit much.
    -That significantly reduces Military costs while also bringing home over 500,000 soldiers (not including Iraq). Those soldiers will spend their money here providing an immediate economic stimulus to the country. This is US dollars spent here that our soldiers currently spend in other countries.
    -The reduction in federal government programs that can be handled on the state level will also lower our spending.
    -The reduction in spending allows for the reduction in taxes with the eventual removal of the IRS. All we need to do is reduce spending to pre-2000 levels.

    Again Sir, I applaud you on researching the candidates before making your choice. Its not exactly easy going to another candidates board and striking a conversation that they may not agree with 100%. Have a good day.
    Stay focused on positive fund raising ideas.
    Remind folks to register and actually vote in the primaries. Their support is great, their vote is what counts.

  14. #73
    une plume de Libertée GunnyFreedom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Youngsville, NC
    Posts
    21,229
    Blog Entries
    5

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BrianB34 View Post
    I disagree with Curlz and Dr. Paul on the point that they will not attack us here if we remove our presence from their lands. Please don't read this as being combative. It's in my nature. I'm one for spirited debate. But, even Dr. Paul has stated on numerous occasions that 11 of the 19 9/11 attackers were Saudis. A lot of the insurgents in Iraq are Saudis. How do you reconcile that with the fact that our military no longer has any presence in Saudi Arabia?

    I am certainly in agreement with you GunnyFreedom on them already being here, and it's not a question of "If" but a question of "When". Why my personal weapons cache is well maintained.

    I agree that we should have pulled out as soon as Saddam was captured. But, there were a lot things we should have done, but didn't.

    And, the spin may work on declaring victory. It worked for Saddam in the first gulf conflict.

    I'll go back and read Dr. Paul's stances on energy. Short term and long term solutions.
    There is very, very little that I disagree with Dr. Paul on. I do not believe that he thinks if we pull all of our troops home, that there will be no further attacks, period. He has been talking about blowback from 1953 hitting us even today, and has stated time and again that the Middle East has a very long memory.

    However, let's stipulate for the discussion that he does believe that if we bring all the troops home, the attacks will stop. What, then, is the end effect of the policy? The attacks may come, but then our troops are in the best possible place and condition of readiness to defend us.

    I, for one, believe that the next round of terrorist attacks in the US will come from battle-hardened radical Islamic militants bent on bringing the Iraq insurgence to mainland USA. The best possible posture for our Armed Forces to combatthat threat, will be if they are allhere at our domestic bases, well rested, well trained, and with equipment at 100%.

    So regardless of whether he would bring the troops home to defend us here, or he just wants to bring the troops home because he believes that the enemy will stop attacking us, the net effect of either motive will be to have our troops home, rested, and ready for the attacks here in the US which are sure to come.

    If, like all the other Presidential candidates want, we remain overseas with 90% of our military, they will be too far away, very tired, and with broken equipment when the attacks start. We will have to bring them back here in "Panic Mode" which will be universally seen as a defeat for us.

    Strategically, I believe our best course of action today, would be to bring all the troops home from around the world, lock down the borders, and train them to defeat an imported insurgency here on mainstreet America. Then when the inevitable attack comes, it will be swiftly and decisively defeated. Yes, that will mean the suspention of Posse Comitatus (which Bush has already suspended, by the way) but rather than permanently remove Posse Comitatus in case of "national emergency" as Bush has done, I believe President Paul would only temporarily suspend it, constitutionally, in order to defeat foreign combatants here in the US. And *not* to use the Military as a police-force against US Citizens, which is the crux of the current Bush plan.

    I, too, am well stocked with ammo, and have maintained 98% efficiency against man-sized targets at 500 yards on iron sights through practice, practice, practice. I am even more motivated to do so, as I believe within 3 years we will be in a shooting war with Islamic terror within our own borders no matter who gets elected. The difference being with Dr Paul (no matter what his actual motivation is) will have the troops right where we need them, when we need them: here at home.

    When the shooting starts inside the USA, I want Ft Bragg full, not empty. I want our Army and Marines HERE, not in Germany and Korea.

    My only concern here, is we will need some kind of IFF to help the Military discern civilian combatants (on their side) from foreign combatants (against them).

    Now, I also have concern in another direction. Specifically in regards to McCain, Giuliani, and Clinton. I believe that if any of those three get elected, we will become a fascist police state under martial law, inside of 3 years, as bad as it was under the height of fascist Germany. The draconian laws that have been put in place already under the Bush Administration are just waiting to be used, and those are the guys who would use the heck out of them. I also believe that with anti-war sentiment at 75% now, the only republican who can defeat a Democrat in the General, is Dr. Paul.
    Monday, December 22, 2014. The newly elected Congressmen and Legislators prepare to get to work as something happens and trillions of overseas dollars begin to repatriate as fast as they can be brought in. Monetary volume within the United States doubles in 40 days. What is Congress to do? Who did you elect to Congress in November?

  15. #74
    BrianB34
    Guest

    Default

    Thanks again for the responses.

    I can live with a phased withdrawl of troops levels from all foreign bases. Removing our presence from the the DMZ is about 40 years overdue in my opinion. And, I'm thinking that our presence in the European Theater is unnecessary.

    It is my hope that diplomacy will work. It is my fear that it will not, because I believe the fundamental differences in our views of governance will never be reconciled.

    Curlz - "The free-market cures a lot of what ails the US."

    As long as it's truly a free market. Amen and Amen.

  16. #75
    BrianB34
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GunnyFreedom View Post
    There is very, very little that I disagree with Dr. Paul on. I do not believe that he thinks if we pull all of our troops home, that there will be no further attacks, period. He has been talking about blowback from 1953 hitting us even today, and has stated time and again that the Middle East has a very long memory.

    However, let's stipulate for the discussion that he does believe that if we bring all the troops home, the attacks will stop. What, then, is the end effect of the policy? The attacks may come, but then our troops are in the best possible place and condition of readiness to defend us.

    I, for one, believe that the next round of terrorist attacks in the US will come from battle-hardened radical Islamic militants bent on bringing the Iraq insurgence to mainland USA. The best possible posture for our Armed Forces to combatthat threat, will be if they are allhere at our domestic bases, well rested, well trained, and with equipment at 100%.

    So regardless of whether he would bring the troops home to defend us here, or he just wants to bring the troops home because he believes that the enemy will stop attacking us, the net effect of either motive will be to have our troops home, rested, and ready for the attacks here in the US which are sure to come.

    If, like all the other Presidential candidates want, we remain overseas with 90% of our military, they will be too far away, very tired, and with broken equipment when the attacks start. We will have to bring them back here in "Panic Mode" which will be universally seen as a defeat for us.

    Strategically, I believe our best course of action today, would be to bring all the troops home from around the world, lock down the borders, and train them to defeat an imported insurgency here on mainstreet America. Then when the inevitable attack comes, it will be swiftly and decisively defeated. Yes, that will mean the suspention of Posse Comitatus (which Bush has already suspended, by the way) but rather than permanently remove Posse Comitatus in case of "national emergency" as Bush has done, I believe President Paul would only temporarily suspend it, constitutionally, in order to defeat foreign combatants here in the US. And *not* to use the Military as a police-force against US Citizens, which is the crux of the current Bush plan.

    I, too, am well stocked with ammo, and have maintained 98% efficiency against man-sized targets at 500 yards on iron sights through practice, practice, practice. I am even more motivated to do so, as I believe within 3 years we will be in a shooting war with Islamic terror within our own borders no matter who gets elected. The difference being with Dr Paul (no matter what his actual motivation is) will have the troops right where we need them, when we need them: here at home.

    When the shooting starts inside the USA, I want Ft Bragg full, not empty. I want our Army and Marines HERE, not in Germany and Korea.

    My only concern here, is we will need some kind of IFF to help the Military discern civilian combatants (on their side) from foreign combatants (against them).

    Now, I also have concern in another direction. Specifically in regards to McCain, Giuliani, and Clinton. I believe that if any of those three get elected, we will become a fascist police state under martial law, inside of 3 years, as bad as it was under the height of fascist Germany. The draconian laws that have been put in place already under the Bush Administration are just waiting to be used, and those are the guys who would use the heck out of them. I also believe that with anti-war sentiment at 75% now, the only republican who can defeat a Democrat in the General, is Dr. Paul.
    One of the most well reasoned arguments for bringing the troops home that I've ever heard. Thank you very much.

  17. #76
    une plume de Libertée GunnyFreedom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Youngsville, NC
    Posts
    21,229
    Blog Entries
    5

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by colin1 View Post
    I tip my hat to you gunny, that's one persuasive arugment you've made there!
    Aww shucks. It's no native brilliance, I can assure you. In the Marines, I was S-2 (that's intelligence to the uninitiated) and I used to brief Generals on this stuff, and kick scenarios around with my fellow Jarheads over coffee and mission briefings. My area of primary responsibility was North Korea, and I can assure you, that NK is the last place on the planet we would ever want to go to war. We'd rather go head to head with China or Russia than North Korea, and there are very good (many still classified) reasons behind that. Including the NK's propensity for tunneling. They could 'disappear' an entire Corps or Army in one spot, and 'reappear' them 200 miles away in 2-3 hours. They can launch a 747 and be at full speed in mid-air before they ever emerged from underground. NK has more underground space than above ground space, and they worship their leader as a god. Yeah, no good. NK bad.
    Monday, December 22, 2014. The newly elected Congressmen and Legislators prepare to get to work as something happens and trillions of overseas dollars begin to repatriate as fast as they can be brought in. Monetary volume within the United States doubles in 40 days. What is Congress to do? Who did you elect to Congress in November?

  18. #77
    BrianB34
    Guest

    Default Sorry for posting the entire quote

    I apologize for quoting your entire post Gunny. But that was a very well reasoned argument.

    As for your last point about the 3 liberals, McCain, Guiliani and Clinton, I couldn't agree with you more. I think you can include Obama in that mix as well.

    I fear what may happen if it comes to that.

    The tree of liberty must be watered with the blood of patriots and tyrants.

  19. #78
    une plume de Libertée GunnyFreedom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Youngsville, NC
    Posts
    21,229
    Blog Entries
    5

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BrianB34 View Post
    One of the most well reasoned arguments for bringing the troops home that I've ever heard. Thank you very much.
    Well, thanks. I honestly and sincerely appreciate your willingness the even discuss these matters objectively. Time and again I have run into McCain supporters who buy the propaganda and think anybody who supports Ron Paul is a hippy peace-nik who has wet dreams of being defeated by a foreign enemy. Clearly that is not the case.

    We have among us Ron Paul supporters who are veterans and active members of the military, who support him from a posture of military strength, not weakness. It has become a favorite practice amongst the darlings of McCain and Giuliani to characterize any foreign policy other than their own as "surrender" when most of us veterans supporting Paul see his divergent foreign policy as one of 'the best way to fight back' or, one of strength.

    Now, I'm no brighter than your average bear, but I can speak credibly to military tactics and strategies, simply because that's what I did in the Marines, and I have the experience on the taxpayers dime from when I was on active duty and studying these issues intently. I was S-2 (Intelligence) and I worked closely with S-3 (Operations) in the formulations of strategies, battle plans, and contingency plans. That's the only reason I can speak to these issues and not sound like a total fool.
    Monday, December 22, 2014. The newly elected Congressmen and Legislators prepare to get to work as something happens and trillions of overseas dollars begin to repatriate as fast as they can be brought in. Monetary volume within the United States doubles in 40 days. What is Congress to do? Who did you elect to Congress in November?

  20. #79
    une plume de Libertée GunnyFreedom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Youngsville, NC
    Posts
    21,229
    Blog Entries
    5

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BrianB34 View Post
    I apologize for quoting your entire post Gunny. But that was a very well reasoned argument.

    As for your last point about the 3 liberals, McCain, Guiliani and Clinton, I couldn't agree with you more. I think you can include Obama in that mix as well.

    I fear what may happen if it comes to that.

    The tree of liberty must be watered with the blood of patriots and tyrants.
    Oh no worries at all. We do that all the time here on RPF. And thanks again.

    I don't know what to make of Obama. He frightens me. The people who support him walk around daze-like and praise his desire to make "change" but can never actually specify what he wants to change, or how. I have yet to meet an Obama supporter that can actually speak to Obama's platform. They all talk about how "uplifting" he is etc etc. Something's rotten in Denmark if you ask me.

    And Obama's unwillingness to 'take off the table' a preemptive nuclear strike on Iran is positively horrifying! I didn't include Obama in the fascist-police-state makers above, not because he is any less dangerous, but because I think his danger probably comes from a different direction. I just can't identify that direction as yet.
    Monday, December 22, 2014. The newly elected Congressmen and Legislators prepare to get to work as something happens and trillions of overseas dollars begin to repatriate as fast as they can be brought in. Monetary volume within the United States doubles in 40 days. What is Congress to do? Who did you elect to Congress in November?

  21. #80

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GunnyFreedom View Post
    We have among us Ron Paul supporters who are veterans and active members of the military, who support him from a posture of military strength, not weakness. It has become a favorite practice amongst the darlings of McCain and Giuliani to characterize any foreign policy other than their own as "surrender" when most of us veterans supporting Paul see his divergent foreign policy as one of 'the best way to fight back' or, one of strength.
    Its funny you mention that Gunny. My perspective comes from serving under the ocean on Trident Missile Sub.

    I gotta ask, anyone else enjoying the heck out of this thread? Bloody brilliant discussions.
    Stay focused on positive fund raising ideas.
    Remind folks to register and actually vote in the primaries. Their support is great, their vote is what counts.

  22. #81
    une plume de Libertée GunnyFreedom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Youngsville, NC
    Posts
    21,229
    Blog Entries
    5

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bilgefisher View Post
    Its funny you mention that Gunny. My perspective comes from serving under the ocean on Trident Missile Sub.
    A fact that Hannity and the media will never admit to. They make more money of of fighting the war THIS way, so they denigrate Paul's plan because they will make less money, and to do so, they try to convince people that no military folk actually like Ron Paul's foreign policies.

    My father was a GMM1, and worked very closely with the Polaris missile project in Goose Creek, SC.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bilgefisher View Post
    I gotta ask, anyone else enjoying the heck out of this thread? Bloody brilliant discussions.
    Definately! I believe the influx of Thompson supporters will help us to define our positions more clearly, and the debate/discussion surrounding that will make all of us stronger as a result.
    Monday, December 22, 2014. The newly elected Congressmen and Legislators prepare to get to work as something happens and trillions of overseas dollars begin to repatriate as fast as they can be brought in. Monetary volume within the United States doubles in 40 days. What is Congress to do? Who did you elect to Congress in November?

  23. #82

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BrianB34 View Post
    One of the most well reasoned arguments for bringing the troops home that I've ever heard. Thank you very much.
    I completely agree. GunnyFreedom, you ought to write it up for the OpEd pages!

    I'd like to interject another very good benefit of bringing all our troops back home, if I may. It isn't mentioned often, but having all of our military personnel within US borders, filling military bases within the US, is going to be a MAJOR boost to the economies of the communities that host those bases.

    There is a reason that most communities fought to keep their local military base when the closings were being decided. Military members and families spend a LOT of money in those communities. And there are LOTS of civilian jobs on large military bases.

    We are in the early stages of some hard economic times right now. Bringing home the troops would be one form of "economic stimulus" that would REALLY WORK.
    Courage ~ Strength ~ Integrity
    RON PAUL 2012
    ----------------------
    Visit Planet ToLive
    ----------------------
    It's Thirteen O'Clock
    ----------------------
    "I am surprised at the suddenness, as well as the greatness of this revolution. Is not the change we have seen astonishing? What man, two years ago, would have thought it possible?"
    - John Adams, July 3, 1776

  24. #83

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BrianB34 View Post
    I don't agree that we should just bail on Iraq. I don't know how we disengage without being seen as being weak by the Islamo-facists and inviting them to test their mettle here. What is Dr. Paul's plan? I haven't found much information on it except that we should bring the troops home.
    They'll find a new nation to hate within 4 years of the USA pulling out. Once we pull out they'll be too busy fighting eachother anyways.

    Also keep in mind we don't have the economic strength to support these wars either, that's the real sign of weakness, that the US can exhaust itself engaging war on two borderline 3rd world nations.

    Quote Originally Posted by BrianB34 View Post
    What about intelligence? If we pull our entire global military presence back home(not an idea i'm opposed to), how are we going to know what the people that mean to do us harm are doing? And, it has to be intelligence that can be trusted.
    It'd be better to focus on domestic intelligence. If you look at Europe the real challenge is to slow down muslim immigration to the USA and assimilate the current muslim population, that's the real threat. Riots as seen in France are only 40 years away, and by then the problem will be too big to deal with.

    Quote Originally Posted by BrianB34 View Post
    My major concern is how do we project strength in withdrawl. What are Dr. Paul's plans to speak softly and carry a big stick. Diplomacy cannot be the only option in all situations. And the only way to negotiate from a position of strength in all dealings is to know your opponents weaknesses, and that requires intelligence.
    The weakness of the USA is its dependence on oil, we've been crawling through the dirt for the most inane nations to keep their oil coming for the past 35 years.

    Oil is the only thing the Middle East has to offer, and the only thing worth negotiating about. We don't need militairy strength for this, but alternative energy sources so we can boycot their export product if needed. True strength comes from independence, not the ability to pummel someone else.

  25. #84

  26. #85
    BrianB34
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Carl Corey View Post
    They'll find a new nation to hate within 4 years of the USA pulling out. Once we pull out they'll be too busy fighting eachother anyways.
    A point that I'm willing to concede is that their tribal animosity will override their hatred for us when we remove ourselves from the sandbox. The problem I have is that states like Iran have stated their objective is the destruction of the US. To me that doesn't sound like someone that is going to stop gunning for us after we roll out.

    Quote Originally Posted by Carl Corey View Post
    Also keep in mind we don't have the economic strength to support these wars either, that's the real sign of weakness, that the US can exhaust itself engaging war on two borderline 3rd world nations.
    On this point we do agree.


    Quote Originally Posted by Carl Corey View Post
    It'd be better to focus on domestic intelligence. If you look at Europe the real challenge is to slow down muslim immigration to the USA and assimilate the current muslim population, that's the real threat. Riots as seen in France are only 40 years away, and by then the problem will be too big to deal with.
    Unless and until the 2nd amendment is truly overridden, I do not believe that we will see riots such as were seen in France. Too many patriots like GunnyFreedom around to allow that to happen. The right to peaceful assemble ends at the first rock through a windshield.


    Quote Originally Posted by Carl Corey View Post
    The weakness of the USA is its dependence on oil, we've been crawling through the dirt for the most inane nations to keep their oil coming for the past 35 years.

    Oil is the only thing the Middle East has to offer, and the only thing worth negotiating about. We don't need militairy strength for this, but alternative energy sources so we can boycot their export product if needed. True strength comes from independence, not the ability to pummel someone else.
    While I do agree with you that true strength is derived from independence, alternative energy sources are not going to appear in the short term. The infrastructure required for delivery of any kind of alternative energy besides Nuclear Power just does not exist, and Nuclear Power plants do not get built in couple of months. True viable alternative energy is 7-10 years away. What is the short term plan to limit our dependence on foreign oil markets? Btw...The number 1 importer of Oil into the US is Canada. Number 2 is Mexico. I'm don't want to talk about the NAU at this time, because I live in Oklahoma, and the threat of the NAFTA Superhighway is a very real thing. But, the point I'm trying to make is that we do not import most of our oil from the OPEC nations. The problem is, is that the OPEC nations control the majority of the production for the rest of the world, and that sets the futures.

  27. #86
    BrianB34
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GunnyFreedom View Post
    Well, thanks. I honestly and sincerely appreciate your willingness the even discuss these matters objectively. Time and again I have run into McCain supporters who buy the propaganda and think anybody who supports Ron Paul is a hippy peace-nik who has wet dreams of being defeated by a foreign enemy. Clearly that is not the case.
    I will admit that I at one time fell into that category(not as a McCain supporter ACK!!! The man absolutely terrifies me from a Constitutional viewpoint, but on the hippy peace-nik view). And, I'll admit that it was a failure on my part not to do better due diligence concerning the matter. That's why I'm here.

    As far as the discussion, we can disagree and disagree vehemently on anything, and we may even think the other guys a loon for not seeing our point of view, but that doesn't mean we can discuss it rationally, and treat each other with respect and dignity. How, I have always viewed debate anyway.

    Thank you for your service.

    Uhhh rah

    Semper Fi

    I wasn't in the Corps but I was raised by one that served in the Corps

  28. #87

    Default This is BrianB34

    This was the name that I picked as a user name, but I couldn't wait for the moderators to vet me before I started posting so I came up with the other as a quick work around.

    Thank you all for sharing your views and answering my questions. I will continue my research on Dr. Paul. I look forward to continuing our discussions.

  29. #88

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TreeOfLiberty View Post
    This was the name that I picked as a user name, but I couldn't wait for the moderators to vet me before I started posting so I came up with the other as a quick work around.

    Thank you all for sharing your views and answering my questions. I will continue my research on Dr. Paul. I look forward to continuing our discussions.
    Welcome! So glad you decided to join us. We need all the intelligent, well-informed voters we can find.
    Courage ~ Strength ~ Integrity
    RON PAUL 2012
    ----------------------
    Visit Planet ToLive
    ----------------------
    It's Thirteen O'Clock
    ----------------------
    "I am surprised at the suddenness, as well as the greatness of this revolution. Is not the change we have seen astonishing? What man, two years ago, would have thought it possible?"
    - John Adams, July 3, 1776

  30. #89

    Default

    I believe the major thing we must do is curb oil consumption. The tax breaks Dr. Paul advocates for small businesses would allow many more businesses to spring up in rural areas. This would help limit alot of the driving we as Americans do. I know hundreds of people that drive 100+ miles every day just to go to work in a major city.

    Feel free to brainstorm other ways Dr. Paul's economic ideals would help lower foreign oil dependency.

  31. #90

    Default

    My major concern is how do we project strength in withdrawl. What are Dr. Paul's plans to speak softly and carry a big stick. Diplomacy cannot be the only option in all situations. And the only way to negotiate from a position of strength in all dealings is to know your opponents weaknesses, and that requires intelligence.
    Well, Brian, to answer that question I would have to say that how can we project strength in scattering our forces all over the world? Diplomacy with idle threats of military intervention which we cannot support will never work very well either. Play the numbers game, because I'm sure places like Iran are. If Iran were to attack our forces today, do you feel we have the economic ability to fund a large war in Iran, Iraq, and Afghanistan and maintain our strong numbers in UN and NATO operations around the world? And if we DID have the economic ability, where do we get the troop levels and supply levels necessary for such an endeavor?

    The only way to negotiate from a position of strength is to have the ability to back up our threats that if our liberties are oppressed from an outside nation, we will be there to stomp them down. We can't support the foreign policy we have today and still be able to make said threats from a standpoint that any nation would believe. We are more vulnerable at home today than we ever were in 2001. It's time to acknowledge this and stop intervening militaristically in every single matter in which we can, but rather use a diplomatic approach whenever possible.

    Strength comes in setting a good example for the rest of the world. I think strength also comes from admitting our mistakes. I feel we could pull off this withdrawl from a very strong stance and garner many more allies than enemies from such a new foreign policy.

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast




« Previous Thread | Next Thread »


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •