Do you think Ron Paul's views are correct?

[Aurielius]

I'm not going to get in.. whatever... this is..... but uhhh....

 

I never said "do you think he'll be president?" I just asked if you think his views are correct. He won't become president because he has no money, and in the USA, it's ALL about the money.

His Foreign Policy concepts are disastrously wrong and would lead to short and long term chaos. His Economic Policies are only partially correct but even if the cream of his good ideas were sent to Congress, none would ever become laws. Ron Paul is an ideologue in the purist sense of the concept, so therefor he does not have to (and doesn't) propose pragmatic, congressionally passable, realistic plans for governmental reform because he is never going to govern (and he knows this).

Edited March 13, 2012 by Aurielius

[marharth]

While I disagree with Aurielius that his foreign policy is bad and his economic is partly good, Aurielius is certainly correct that he will never be elected.

 

He does not appeal to most republican or democrat voters. If he tried to run in a third party he would end up splitting the vote. That and the media dislikes him quite a bit, so it would be rather difficult to sway public opinion in his favor.

 

Aurielius is also correct that his laws would never pass. If you like it or not, most people in congress will not support the things Ron Paul does.

 

 

 

Going into if he supports freedom or not really doesn't matter. Voting for Ron Paul is pretty much a wasted vote. Even if he did get elected he couldn't change much, if anything.

[Moveing]

Aurielius

Idealism and open possibilities is the province of the young, realism and pragmatism comes with the experiences of life.

Than your pragmatism and realism should tell you that there is no other choice. All the others are for more war, more empire, more debt, more tyranny.

 

His Foreign Policy concepts are disastrously wrong and would lead to short and long term chaos.

The USArmy is not the World Police force. All what US Forgein Policy causes was tyranny all over the globe. Wallstreet build up Nazi Germany with technology delivered by Ford and General Tires and the foreign trading office did nothing to stop that. As same as Bechtel did with Red China and than the american public paid trillions of dollars and give their lives to fights wars against the dictators Wallstreet build up. His Forgein Policy is the only realistic way of thinking in this hole debate. By the way, no country has any right to stick their nose in the inner affairs of another nation.

 

"he will never be elected, he will never be elected". Its not even about him its about the philosophy, the restauration of america.

[sukeban]

@marharth et al

 

Agreed. Dr. Paul won't be our President any time soon. His views are too antithetical to too many special interests in our government for that to ever happen.

 

I also agree that, as per the zero-sum nature of our two-party political system, yes, a vote for him as a potential third-party candidate would be a wasted vote. Though I did not vote for him, I still curse the skies whenever I hear the name "Ralph Nader."

 

@Arielius

 

I would inquire as to what you think--purely on their philosophical merits, not on practicality--of Dr. Paul's foreign policy. It is, of course, one thing to agree with him yet believe it unfeasible... than it is to disagree with him on both counts. Personally, I think that it would take time to implement. We should not rapidly withdraw from all of our positions around the globe, as that would be too chaotic and leave too much of a potential vacuum in too many regions. However, I don't find it preposterous in the least to imagine an American foreign policy where we only concern ourselves with our vital interests, and of those, only defend them based on realistic assessments of threat. Europe is not going to be overrun with Soviet Chinese Cuban Iranian tanks any time soon and, fact is, neither is Japan. Even Korea, despite the occasional sabre-ratting of the DPRK, is probably fine on its own. The North isn't going to flood across the DMZ tomorrow, and even if they did, they would probably be annihilated before ever getting to Seoul (though Seoul itself probably would take an immense beating...). There is just not much profit to be made through conventional war these days. All of these countries are under our nuclear umbrella if things ever did get serious, but somehow I don't think that China has visions of returning the Nanjing favor to the Japanese. You can't make money on that.

 

Of course, we should train elite special forces and let them do what they do best. And we should still maintain some airplanes, ships, and helicopters to enable them to get to where they need to go. But we are literally maintaining an informal empire right now--and we are the only ones left paying for it. Let the Chinese and the Europeans shoulder some of the burden of keeping the shipping lanes clear; there is no reason why we have to guarantee the safety of global capitalism using our soldiers alone. Or, as per my post above, let's just be real about being a colonial power. Lets seize Iraq's oil fields and forcibly take the oil from them. Then, at least, we would be gaining something tangible for our labors. What we have now is an empire without the benefit of Empire... including all the anti-imperial hate.

 

Lastly, I eagerly await that impending moment when all the Presidential candidates (Obama included) take a pledge before AIPAC to forever and unconditionally subordinate the national interest of the United States to the Likud Party of Israel.

Edited March 14, 2012 by sukeban

[Aurielius]

@sukeban

After such a polite inquiry how could I refuse? Ok, protecting our 'vital' interests..an interesting phrase thats means something different to everyone who reads it. So to answer..yes I agree that the Europeans need to take over the defense of Europe, the days of the great armored invasion through the Fulda Gap are over. We have picked sides in the Middle east decades ago for better or worse it's a done deal but our Foreign Policy should come from Washington not Tel Aviv. That being said, what message does it send to allies if we are not reliable when the chips are down? I disagree strongly that the North Koreans are not a real threat, totalitarian regimes are most dangerous just before implosion, the DMZ has the highest concentration of artillery zeroed in per meter than any other patch of ground on the planet. If you think that they (DPRK) won't fight or invade if ordered then you are mistaken. The concept of reducing the armed forces to an elite small reaction force ignores the facts on the ground, it is our ability to project our forces that makes us formidable and that require infrastructure which takes time to produce and maintain. It takes 4-5 yrs to build a carrier and 2-3 years to build a support vessel, when a crisis comes it will be too late to build a damn thing in time that is not already afloat, airworthy or prepositioned. It also takes 2-3 yrs to train aviators/pilots so that they will survive a combat encounter and come home with their lives and that expensive machine we loaned the use of. Edit: To the ground pounders, yes it takes time to train armored / infantry brigades as well, I just do not know the numbers off the top of my head.

 

Empires, even economically based ones are expensive to run and maintain which is why no empire lasts forever, the best we can hope for is to manage the decline as well as some did in the past (ie:Great Britain). The world enjoyed 200 yrs of naval peace on the high seas due to Pax Britania, at the time no one loved them much for providing that service, it is hardly a surprise that nothing in that regard has really changed. An armed force is like a a beat cop on patrol, when you need one it better be already on the scene or he/it's less than useless. Unless or until our allies take up their share or the burden we are going to be saddled with the cost of being the preeminent defender of western interests, may not be fair but what ever is?

Edited March 14, 2012 by Aurielius

[grannywils]

Sukeban, after Aurielius took the time to provide you with such a well thought out and excellent response as you requested; I am quite surprised that you have not given him the benefit of at least a thank you, if not a rebuttal of any sort. Where did you go????

[sukeban]

@Arielius

 

Apologies for being a laggard :ninja: Alas, my posting energies have been temporarily drained by the Stormcloak thread (something about World War One and being home before the leaves begin to fall...). Rest assured, I'll have a reply.

[sukeban]

@Aurielius

 

Your point regarding the "beat cop" is well-taken. I would agree with that analogy, though I would perhaps extend the metaphor and state that while I believe that we need a military capable of policing "our neighborhood," we do not need a military beat cop policing the "bad neighborhoods" of the world that we have no real interest in. Additionally, (and to introduce another metaphor), I would say that the United States' military is like the sheriff posse tasked with keeping order all over the Old West, forced to ignore and to cross state lines in order to catch the bandits (often much to the displeasure of those states whose borders are ignored). Rather than running around all over the badlands, we should instead encourage the other states to create adequate domestic sheriff posses so that ours might concentrate solely on policing our own region of the West.

 

This means encouraging Europe to devote higher %s of GDP toward their own defense.

 

This means allowing Japan to rearm (encouraging them to amend their Constitution).

 

This means encouraging China to take some dang responsibility for upholding the infrastructure of international capitalism, something that it at present takes entirely for granted.

 

This means encouraging the other BRIC countries to police their regional neighborhoods, even if it means granting them a bit more autonomy should they choose to do so.

 

More beat cops means that ours can take a bit of a rest.

 

Furthermore, with respect to Israel, I would argue that it is precisely our unconditional support of that state that enables them to act belligerently, and to actively subvert the process of reaching an accord with the Palestinians/Arab states. It is precisely because they know that we will clean up any and all of their messes that they do not have to fear the consequences of their own actions. Thus, they have no real imperative or interest in dealing evenhandedly with their neighbors. If we walked our guarantees back a bit, it would give them pause when contemplating actions likely to harm their relations with their neighbors. They would then begin to act in the real interests of their state, which is in making peace with the Palestinians and improving their relationships with their neighbors. This is just us being a good friend and telling them the truth rather than merely telling them what they want to hear. If Israel continues on its present trajectory of occupation (and increasing the number of settlements), they will end up with a larger population of Arabs in Greater Israel than ethnic Jews. They will then have to choose between maintaining themselves as a democracy or loosing the definitional nature of Israel as a Jewish state. Right now they are on the demographic path toward becoming either another Arab state or toward becoming the apartheid South Africa of the Middle East. Neither of these is an attractive option if you are a rational Israeli. This is why they need a two-state solution.

 

And as for DPRK, I more or less agree with your position--which I interpret to be that we maintain a presence there until the DPRK dissolves, at which time we can withdraw our forces from the now-united Peninsula. I was, in fact, there last January, right after/during when the DPRK was shelling that island and making noises about war. In Seoul. It was somewhat anxiety-inducing, but I remained resolute in my opinion that the North wouldn't ever do anything about its rhetoric. And I still don't. Whilst I don't dispute your assertion that the army of DPRK wouldn't hesitate to attack if they were ordered to, I differ with you in stating that I believe that that order would never come to begin with. There just isn't anything to gain with war with the South (and, more importantly, us). It would almost axiomatically mean the end of the DPRK and the deaths of nearly all of their top leadership. They would not gain territory, nor would they gain concessions. They would simply be liquidated as a regime and as a country. China could do nothing to stop this either as flooding the Yalu River with "volunteers" isn't going to work this time around. I am also unaware of China having a stated nuclear umbrella, or even if DPRK would be included in it. I wouldn't even be that surprised if China has become wary of the DPRK's erratic leadership and wouldn't tacitly welcome the occasion of its collapse as an attenuation of the possibility for future conflict. They might also be able to point to their non-intervention in Korea if they ever decided to press their claim for Taiwan.... It would also certainly improve their standing with a united Korea, whom the Chinese are perennially courting as sources of FDR.

 

So I would rather have troops based on Korea than I would in Germany or Japan or Bahrain. At least until the DPRK dissolves and Korea can take its rightful place as a powerful East Asian military and economic power (and allied with us, of course).

 

.................

 

Sure, there will always be problems in the world, but that does not mean that it is our responsibility to solve them all--especially when there is no obvious economic imperative to do so. I--literally--could not care less about Afghanistan at this point. Those people (yes, I'm aware of how bad that phrasing sounds...) are nearly bronze-age in their social, political, and economic development. There may well be rare-earth minerals in the mountains there (the only rationalization I can come up with why we are still there at this point), but that is simply not worth the cost--in men or in treasure. I lament the plight of Afghan women, but we simply cannot do anything to help them. We cannot advance the social evolution of their menfolk 3,500 years at the points of our rifles. It just will not happen. The best any of us can do is allow--and to expedite--their applications for political asylum should they ever request it. I would rather depend on China for rare-earth minerals (world's only other large reserve) than I would expending $150 billion/year + psychologically devastated troops in order to hold and quixotically "pacify" Afghanistan.

 

Rather, I would withdraw those troops and ask Mexico what they thought about some direct American assistance in fighting their cartels. That is a FAR more direct threat to American citizens and interests than Afghanistan or the Fulda Gap will ever be.

Edited March 19, 2012 by sukeban

[Dazaster]

If he did win, would you call him Dr President? What is it with people called Ron anyway? Ron Paul, Ron L. Hubbard....:psyduck:

[marharth]

If he did win, would you call him Dr President? What is it with people called Ron anyway? Ron Paul, Ron L. Hubbard....:psyduck:

I was going to say something similar but decided against it.

 

Seriously though why do people call him Dr. Paul? It seems a bit strange to me. I don't really care though.