FREDHEADS: Compare Fred Thompson to Ron Paul here

[Bilgefisher]

Sorry for the double post.

[Bilgefisher]

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.

[GunnyFreedom]

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.

[BrianB34]

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.

[BrianB34]

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.

[GunnyFreedom]

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.

[BrianB34]

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.

[GunnyFreedom]

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.

[GunnyFreedom]

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.

[Bilgefisher]

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.