Posted on 11/01/2007 11:36:05 AM PDT by SJackson
What makes you think he would defend our interests when his only concern is with surrendering, and how fast he can surrender?
And where has he ever said that?
He has said that the best way of defending America is not getting involved in things that are none of our business.
Now, during the Cold War, one could make the justification that we had to make certain commitments to block Soviet expansion.
But we are the remaining Superpower and do not need to have our presence everywhere.
We have a fleet that can move to anywhere in the world and protect U.S. interests.
We need to let the various regions handle their own problems and protect U.S. interests.
[ And he would give back to the Congress the power that they should have, of making war. ]
Congress has NEVER lost that power, but when they fail to protect America it is the presidents responsibility to do so. Something cut and run would never have the courage to do.
No, Congress hasn't lost that power, it is still in the Constitution, they have abrograted it.
The Congress represents the will of the American people and that is why war making responsiblity was put into their hands and not that of the President.
Now, my conservative friend, what is so awful about returning to the Constitution?
Yeah and Poland is also member of NATO.
They are!
Wasn't NATO created to fight against the Warsaw pact, of which they were members?
The NATO alliance is helping us in Afghanistan you dope so explain to me how it’s now “obsolete”.
Because the reason for its existance was to protect Europe from the Soviets and the Warsaw pact.
If Europe wants to send troops to help us in Afghanistan, they can do so, they do not have to use an obselete alliance to do so.
[ “We do not need to have our troops spread across the globe to fight Islamic terrorism.” ]
Yeah, let’s pull all our troops out, bring them back here so we can fight the terrorists on our own soil.
Well, how many terrorists are we fighting with the troops that are in Germany and Kosovo?
We have troops in 100 nations, most of them are not fighting terrorists.
[ “I do not think Islamic terrorism is a threat to South Korea.” ]
No, but North Korea IS and until there is a FORMAL PEACE TREATY ENDING THE WAR we should be there in some capacity.
After over 50 years!
We can be there in some capacity,(Air and Naval), but we don't need to have a crack division tied up and a sitting duck, should the NK decide to launch an invasion.
This is what you are going to get when you depend on NATO forces.
So he is saying it was our policies that caused these effects in other words they caused 9/11.
And don't we conservatives say same thing, that it was Clinton's policies that led to 9/11.
What he is saying is that you had better be prepared for reaction when you act or in the case of Clinton fail to act.
Now, why wasn't Clinton's failures ever brought up by the Conservatives in the debates?
Americans want to avoid having to deal with history as if it doesn't exist, well, the people we are dealing with never forget anything.
[ No one is advocating 'surrender' in Iraq, ]
Cut and run is.
Cut and run after 5 years!
It took us only four to defeat Japan and Germany combined!
[ yet hundreds of billions of dollars are still being allocated for the war in Iraq. ]
Hundreds of billions of dollars? The total cost of the entire war is about 400 billion, so hundreds of billions are not still being allocated.
I think your figure might be a tad low, but even so, 400 Billion is alot of money to be spent on a war against an enemy that cannot resist us with any viable military weapons other then IED's and sucide bombers.
I think we are going to be spending alot more in Iraq in the future and I have heard estimates in the Trillions.
I think you and cut and run would rather have the terrorists win than have us defeat them now. I would rather have them defeated now. My son came back from Iraq with shrapnel in his neck from an IED. I do not want my other son to have to go back just because a few cowards would rather appease the terrorists than defeat them.
No, I want to defeat the terrorists but we will not have defeated them if we bankrupt the nation and lose our own freedoms.
My wife's nephew is going back to Iraq for his second tour in the Marines.
Let us not fight terrorism the way the Democrats fought the Communists in Korea and Vietnam, let us have a goal that we, as a nation can be committed to.
If we are not going to set that goal, and demand an objective victory, we owe it to our troops to get them out of harms way until we have the moral conviction to commit the nation to winning and not just drifting.
I used to sort of like Ron Paul. He has a quaint pre-9/11 approach to politics and I believe he is honest in the positions he takes.
That said, I think a Paul presidency would be a major mistake. President Bush did run on some of the platforms that Paul is running on, to be certain. Then 9/11 happened, causing America to wake up and realize that we can’t simply ignore foreign threats against our country. The stakes are much too high.
If Ron Paul became president, I have little doubt that he would try to implement many of the cutbacks he talks about. Unfortunately, when a second 9/11 happens on his watch, we will end up with a lame duck president on our hands, as he will have lost all credibility and all ability to get things done. He won’t be able to revert to the wise policies enacted by the Bush Administration over the course of the prior 8 years.
Ron Paul is dangerously mistaken on his positions and a large majority of his followers are foaming at the mouth kooks. We need a more responsible candidate representing us as we approach 2008.
“They are!”
Yeah they are.
“Wasn’t NATO created to fight against the Warsaw pact, of which they were members?”
If you ever opened a history book, or got your head out of ron paul’s fifth point of contact, you’d see that NATO predated the Warsaw Pact by about 6 years.
“Because the reason for its existance was to protect Europe from the Soviets and the Warsaw pact.”
NATO’s charter doesn’t specify a threat IE Soviet Union or Warsaw Pact, it states:
“Deterrence and Defence: To deter and defend against any threat of aggression against any NATO member state”
To deter and defend against ANY threat which today includes the threat of terrorism.
Once again if you got your head out of ron paul’s fifth point of contact you may actually learn something about how things work outside of Never Neverland.
“If Europe wants to send troops to help us in Afghanistan, they can do so, they do not have to use an obselete alliance to do so.”
Still havn’t proven as to why the alliance is obsolete.
“Well, how many terrorists are we fighting with the troops that are in Germany and Kosovo?”
You’re the self perceived expert, you tell me cupcake.
“We have troops in 100 nations, most of them are not fighting terrorists.”
We do? They’re not? Shocking!
Besides Iraq, Afghanistan, Germany, and Japan, name the other 96 countries YOU claim we’re in.
“After over 50 years!”
Yeah 50 years and all there is is a cease fire.
“We can be there in some capacity,(Air and Naval), but we don’t need to have a crack division tied up and a sitting duck, should the NK decide to launch an invasion.”
The wing wipers and swabbies may tell great war stories but it’s the Army with it’s boots on the ground that win the wars....Not that a little armchair napoleon such as yourself would know.
“And don’t we conservatives say same thing, that it was Clinton’s policies that led to 9/11.”
You got a damn mouse in your pocket? You havn’t got the backbone nor the right to call yourself a conservative.
“Cut and run after 5 years!
It took us only four to defeat Japan and Germany combined!”
Apples and oranges.
Japan and Germany had standing armies that fought us out in the open, and their bases (military, and industrial) was in fixed locations.
The terrorists which we fight today hide in caves, they hide in the shadows, they hide among the civilian populace. They never engage in a stand up fight. Their support base is a hidden network spread across dozens of countries.
It’s a totally different kind of warfare than it was 63 years ago......Not that you would know the difference.
“No, I want to defeat the terrorists but we will not have defeated them if we bankrupt the nation and lose our own freedoms.”
What a bold faced lie. You your ilk and your village idiot heerow do not want to defeat the terrorists. Your heerow’s dangerously simplistic views will do NOTHING to defeat the terrorists, and we will as a result have to spend tens if not hundreds of trillions more than what Iraq will ever cost cleaning up our cities that get turned into a radioactive pile of rubble because your heerow withdrew the troops because he’s too much of a spineless p*ssy who want’s to hide behind empty threats and letters of marque.
“Let us not fight terrorism the way the Democrats fought the Communists in Korea and Vietnam,”
You say that, yet you support a candidate who’s policy is cut, run, appease (and if appeasment doesn’t work) issue hollow threats and silly OUTDATED letters of marque, and appease some more.
“Local residents have complained that NATO-led troops, under Italian command in western Afghanistan, have not helped Afghan forces to retake the districts.
This is what you are going to get when you depend on NATO forces.”
That something you pulled out of your behind or do you have a link to back it up?
I got it off of FR.
You got a damn mouse in your pocket? You havn’t got the backbone nor the right to call yourself a conservative.
Oh, I think I do.
[ “Cut and run after 5 years! It took us only four to defeat Japan and Germany combined!” ]
Apples and oranges. Japan and Germany had standing armies that fought us out in the open, and their bases (military, and industrial) was in fixed locations. The terrorists which we fight today hide in caves, they hide in the shadows, they hide among the civilian populace. They never engage in a stand up fight. Their support base is a hidden network spread across dozens of countries. It’s a totally different kind of warfare than it was 63 years ago......Not that you would know the difference.
And you have made my point for me-thank you.
So why are spending hundreds of billions fighting an enemy that cannot even field an army.
Where is the money going?
[ “No, I want to defeat the terrorists but we will not have defeated them if we bankrupt the nation and lose our own freedoms.” ]
What a bold faced lie. You your ilk and your village idiot heerow do not want to defeat the terrorists. Your heerow’s dangerously simplistic views will do NOTHING to defeat the terrorists, and we will as a result have to spend tens if not hundreds of trillions more than what Iraq will ever cost cleaning up our cities that get turned into a radioactive pile of rubble because your heerow withdrew the troops because he’s too much of a spineless p*ssy who want’s to hide behind empty threats and letters of marque.
Now, who is going to destroy our cities, these same guys who are hiding in those caves?
Those same cities can be destroyed in other ways, by bankrupting the nation by pouring money trying to fix another nations problems.
[ “Let us not fight terrorism the way the Democrats fought the Communists in Korea and Vietnam,” ]
You say that, yet you support a candidate who’s policy is cut, run, appease (and if appeasment doesn’t work) issue hollow threats and silly OUTDATED letters of marque, and appease some more.
I support a candidate who wants to put American interests first, secure the U.S. border, including foreign student visa's which most of the 9/11 attackers were on and were not being kept track of-a failure of our immigration policy.
And when we are attacked have the courage to declare war, not put out meaningless resolutions.
Yeah they are. “Wasn’t NATO created to fight against the Warsaw pact, of which they were members?” If you ever opened a history book, or got your head out of ron paul’s fifth point of contact, you’d see that NATO predated the Warsaw Pact by about 6 years. “Because the reason for its existance was to protect Europe from the Soviets and the Warsaw pact.” NATO’s charter doesn’t specify a threat IE Soviet Union or Warsaw Pact, it states: “Deterrence and Defence: To deter and defend against any threat of aggression against any NATO member state”
And it was created to handle the Soviet threat which is long over.
NATO has developed another mission.
Many observers still fail to understand why NATO remains in business long after the Soviet threat has disappeared. Their puzzlement stems from an analytical yardstick that ties NATO to the single purpose of providing for collective defence, argues Mr. Rhle. In the post-Cold War world, however, institutions have become multiple-purpose instruments, working together to create a more benign strategic environment. By supporting a European Security and Defence Identity, the evolution of a democratic Russia, sound transatlantic relations and common approaches to crisis management, NATO has become an instrument for shaping the security environment in the broadest sense. http://www.nato.int/docu/review/1998/9804-06.htm
To deter and defend against ANY threat which today includes the threat of terrorism.
And those threats can be met with normal diplomatic alliances, not a supra-national organization that is under the authority of the U.N. Security council.
Once again if you got your head out of ron paul’s fifth point of contact you may actually learn something about how things work outside of Never Neverland.
And if you would wake up and smell the coffee you would see that the United States is losing its sovereignty bit by bit.
[ “If Europe wants to send troops to help us in Afghanistan, they can do so, they do not have to use an obsolete alliance to do so.” ]
Still havn’t proven as to why the alliance is obsolete.
Because the Soviet threat is over.
[ “Well, how many terrorists are we fighting with the troops that are in Germany and Kosovo?” ]
You’re the self perceived expert, you tell me cupcake.
My what a tough guy you are.
[ “We have troops in 100 nations, most of them are not fighting terrorists.” ]
We do? They’re not? Shocking! Besides Iraq, Afghanistan, Germany, and Japan, name the other 96 countries YOU claim we’re in.
Here is a link to an article that has 135 nations that have U.S. troops in them.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/vance/vance8.html
[ “After over 50 years!” ]
Yeah 50 years and all there is is a cease fire.
And that will end if we pull our troops out?
[ “We can be there in some capacity,(Air and Naval), but we don’t need to have a crack division tied up and a sitting duck, should the NK decide to launch an invasion.” ]
The wing wipers and swabbies may tell great war stories but it’s the Army with it’s boots on the ground that win the wars....Not that a little armchair napoleon such as yourself would know.
And anyone who knows the situation in Korea knows if the NKA decide to launch an invasion, that one division is not going to stop them.
It is only there as a 'trip-wire' to show our commitment to the South Koreans, not as a legitimate means to stop the NKA.
And save the 'tough guy' rhetoric, you sound like an idiot.
“I got it off of FR.”
If that’s the case then post a link.
Until you do, you made it up.
I already sent you a link.
“Oh, I think I do.”
You do what?
“And you have made my point for me-thank you.”
I made YOUR point for you? What planet are you living on? You tried to compare the Iraq war to WW2. What part of “It’s a totally different kind of warfare” did you not understand?
“So why are spending hundreds of billions fighting an enemy that cannot even field an army.”
Because that enemy is hell bent on killing us.
“Where is the money going?”
Hmmm let’s see.....
Pay and incentives for the troops IE Combat/Hazardous Duty Pay, etc.
Food, Water, Fuel, Ammunition, Medical Supplies, Spare parts, Replacement items, New equipment, etc
Transportation costs for moving people and equipment from point A to point B, C, or D.
Payment for services rendered by contractors
Payment for if we accidentially break something owned by a local.
Last time I checked expendable items such as ammunition cost money to produce. The government doesn’t have the capacity to manufacture everything it uses and thus has to pay a contractor to manufacture the difference.
“Now, who is going to destroy our cities, these same guys who are hiding in those caves?”
Just because they’re hiding in caves does not mean they’re not trying to get their hands on nukes to use them here.
“I support a candidate who wants to put American interests first, secure the U.S. border, including foreign student visa’s which most of the 9/11 attackers were on and were not being kept track of-a failure of our immigration policy.”
Well obviously ron paul ISN’T your man then since retreat and appeasement IS NOT in our best intrest. We’ve been down that road before.
Heres your heerow’s record:
Voted YES on extending Immigrant Residency rules. (May 2001)
Voted YES on more immigrant visas for skilled workers. (Sep 1998)
No amnesty, but border fence isn’t so important. (Jun 2007)
No amnesty, but impractical to round up 12 million illegals. (Sep 2007)
Voted NO on military border patrols to battle drugs & terrorism. (Sep 2001)
So much for putting our intrests first since he refuses to put troops on the border, he approves handing out visas to foreign workers, say’s that the border fence isn’t important, and doesn’t want to kick out the illegals.
A war with an enemy that cannot even field an organized army, navy or air force should cost over 400 Billion to fight?
What are we using against them-silver bullets?
[ “So why are spending hundreds of billions fighting an enemy that cannot even field an army.” ]
Because that enemy is hell bent on killing us.
Well, if we don't let them in with student visa's that would be very difficult for them do from their caves.
[ “Where is the money going?” ]
Hmmm let’s see..... Pay and incentives for the troops IE Combat/Hazardous Duty Pay, etc. Food, Water, Fuel, Ammunition, Medical Supplies, Spare parts, Replacement items, New equipment, etc Transportation costs for moving people and equipment from point A to point B, C, or D. Payment for services rendered by contractors Payment for if we accidentially break something owned by a local. Last time I checked expendable items such as ammunition cost money to produce. The government doesn’t have the capacity to manufacture everything it uses and thus has to pay a contractor to manufacture the difference.
For 400 Billion and that is just so far!
[ “Now, who is going to destroy our cities, these same guys who are hiding in those caves?” ]
Just because they’re hiding in caves does not mean they’re not trying to get their hands on nukes to use them here.
Yes, and the best way to keep them from using nukes against us is to keep them out of the United States, something this government hasn't gotten around to doing.
[ “I support a candidate who wants to put American interests first, secure the U.S. border, including foreign student visa’s which most of the 9/11 attackers were on and were not being kept track of-a failure of our immigration policy.” ]
Well obviously ron paul ISN’T your man then since retreat and appeasement IS NOT in our best intrest. We’ve been down that road before.
Well, it isn't retreat and appeasement if it is in the best interests of the United States.
Heres your heerow’s record: Voted YES on extending Immigrant Residency rules. (May 2001) Voted YES on more immigrant visas for skilled workers. (Sep 1998) No amnesty, but border fence isn’t so important. (Jun 2007) No amnesty, but impractical to round up 12 million illegals. (Sep 2007) Voted NO on military border patrols to battle drugs & terrorism. (Sep 2001) So much for putting our intrests first since he refuses to put troops on the border, he approves handing out visas to foreign workers, say’s that the border fence isn’t important, and doesn’t want to kick out the illegals.
Border Security and Immigration Reform
The talk must stop. We must secure our borders now. A nation without secure borders is no nation at all. It makes no sense to fight terrorists abroad when our own front door is left unlocked. This is my six point plan:
Physically secure our borders and coastlines. We must do whatever it takes to control entry into our country before we undertake complicated immigration reform proposals. Enforce visa rules. Immigration officials must track visa holders and deport anyone who overstays their visa or otherwise violates U.S. law. This is especially important when we recall that a number of 9/11 terrorists had expired visas.
No amnesty. Estimates suggest that 10 to 20 million people are in our country illegally. That’s a lot of people to reward for breaking our laws.
No welfare for illegal aliens. Americans have welcomed immigrants who seek opportunity, work hard, and play by the rules. But taxpayers should not pay for illegal immigrants who use hospitals, clinics, schools, roads, and social services.
End birthright citizenship. As long as illegal immigrants know their children born here will be citizens, the incentive to enter the U.S. illegally will remain strong. Pass true immigration reform. The current system is incoherent and unfair. But current reform proposals would allow up to 60 million more immigrants into our country, according to the Heritage Foundation. This is insanity. Legal immigrants from all countries should face the same rules and waiting periods.
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/border-security-and-immigration-reform/
By the way, what GOP candidate are you supporting?
One more time for the short bus rider:
“Deterrence and Defence: To deter and defend against any threat of aggression against any NATO member state”
Nope, I don’t see “Soviets” or “Soviet Union” mentioned in the above mission statement.
“NATO has developed another mission.
Many observers still fail to understand why NATO remains in business long after the Soviet threat has disappeared. Their puzzlement stems from an analytical yardstick that ties NATO to the single purpose of providing for collective defence, argues Mr. Rhle. In the post-Cold War world, however, institutions have become multiple-purpose instruments, working together to create a more benign strategic environment. By supporting a European Security and Defence Identity, the evolution of a democratic Russia, sound transatlantic relations and common approaches to crisis management, NATO has become an instrument for shaping the security environment in the broadest sense. http://www.nato.int/docu/review/1998/9804-06.htm";
ROFLMAO!!!!!!
YOU are the sort of person they’re talking about since you insist to try and measure the existence of NATO against a flawed “analytical yardstick”.
“And those threats can be met with normal diplomatic alliances, not a supra-national organization that is under the authority of the U.N. Security council.”
NATO is a diplomatic alliance because it wasn’t created by a bunch of generals in some tent in the woods. And just because the member nations are signatories to the U.N. Charter does not mean that NATO takes it’s marching orders from the Security Council. Remember Kosovo? The U.N. didn’t do sh*t, and NATO stepped up to the plate and took the initiative since the U.N. couldn’t find it’s collective a$$ with both hands behind it’s back.
“And if you would wake up and smell the coffee you would see that the United States is losing its sovereignty bit by bit.”
Oh so now because we remain a member of NATO we’re losing our sovereignty?
“My what a tough guy you are.”
You made the comment, I asked for proof since you perceive yourself to be some sort of “know-it-all” and once again you painted yourself into a corner.
“Here is a link to an article that has 135 nations that have U.S. troops in them.”
What is this the “Trouble with Tribbles” episode of ‘Star Trek’? It’s amazing how overnight it goes from 100 countries to 135.
“http://www.lewrockwell.com/vance/vance8.html";
ROFLMAO!!!!
lew rockwell? That guy doesn’t know what planet he’s from nevermind knowing what’s beyond the tip of his nose.
And that writer doesn’t know crap about what he’s talking about either.....I guess that’s why he’s relegated to a community college.
The moron claims that we have over 72,000 troops in Germany, which if he actually knew what he was talking about he would know that number HE claimed is wrong.
And his claims that we’re in 135 countries is silly since he’s claiming the military attache and the Marine guards at our embassies as part of the figure.
Yep we’re “empire building” with those Marine guards and military attache’s stationed at our embassies
Quote from the link: “Regular troop strength ranges from a low of 1 in Malawi”
OMG We’re going to take them over with ONE soldier.
He also claims our territories as part of the equation too.
Now some insight on the moron who wrote the article:
“Laurence M. Vance, Ph.D., is a teacher, an author, a publisher, a freelance writer, and editor.....Dr. Vance’s writing interests include....the socialism and statism of conservative pundits and Republican politicians....He is a regular columnist for LewRockwell.com, and blogs for LewRockwell.com, Mises.org, and Antiwar.com.”
Yep, a member of the tinfoil hat brigade.....Now back to the regularly scheduled bashing err programming:
“And that will end if we pull our troops out?”
Well considering that we;ve been reducing our “footprint” there for the past few years as the relations between north and south have been thawing. We’ll probably see some sort of formal peace accord within the next 10 years. BUT until such an accord is signed, we should keep our word and remain there in some capacity.
“And anyone who knows the situation in Korea knows if the NKA decide to launch an invasion, that one division is not going to stop them.”
Oh? And YOU “know” the situation? ROFL.
Funny but having that one division there has kept the north on their side of the DMZ all these years hasn’t it?
This is where you are out of your depth because that one division will buy us enough time to move more troops in to repel any invasion from the north much like the mission of the three Armored Cavalry Regiments that were stationed along the border between East and West Germany would have bought enough time to move the heavier divisions forward as well as get REFORGER kicked into high gear.
“And save the ‘tough guy’ rhetoric, you sound like an idiot.”
What and take your job away from you?
I don’t like charity cases, but in your case I’ll make this one exception by giving you a clue....
It is YOU who is the idiot. You have no grasp of reality. No grasp of history. You don’t know a damn thing about what you are talking about. You base your arguments on unsubstantiated BS that you read on some nutcase’s website as opposed to any sort of “real life” experience.
Take your fingers out of your ears, open your eyes, and read a history book.
Second, the number of nations that have U.S. troops in them is clearly over 100 and a list was given to you.
Unless you can show that the list is incorrect, then shut up.
Thirdly, get over the stupid morenic attitude you have, the U.S. cannot afford to garrison the world.
And I have found that the biggest cowards are those guys who like to talk 'tough' over the internet.
What a brave guy you must be.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.