Ron Paul to Join First Presidential Debate

[LawBot5000]

Well the machines cant stop running just because no one wants to fight us. Unless I am mistaken, keeping everything running smoothly is cheaper in the long run than having to create an arms industry from scratch every time we get involved in a war.

Admittedly some of the smaller items (like M16s and ammo) would be easy to just sell straight to US civilians, but stuff like patriot missle batteries and artillery pieces are just too pricey and large to support a large US civilian market, regardless of legality.

I personally think the better long term strategy would be to create lower priced weapon systems that overlap heavily with civilian usage so that military companies can keep operating even during peacetime. But this would require a major rethinking of our long term military strategy. Actually it wouldnt be that big a deal when you consider that most upgrades beyond stealth technology have been in the area of electronic equipment. Even a jet fighter is relatively cheap to produce if you strip out all the avionics and fighting related computers. Your average cargo plane could provide a decent platform for civilian aviation and they are probably fairly reliable to boot. Wonder why no one does this.

 

[Ragnar Danneskjold]

As much as I'd wish it to be otherwise, we can not retreat from Iraq (and shirk the current attacks from Iran, which Iran has made unfortunately linked to Iraq) without a loss in worldwide opinion of our military might that is much, much more severe than we encountered after Vietnam.

(If you think that they are not terrifyed of the US military you are wrong)

N Vietnam was supported by the Russians wholeheartedly, and we were much more closely matched than we are now against the ragtag Islamists.

(rag tag maybe but with way more money and nasty bombs than the Russians ever had)

If we retreat, we'll have every crackpot group htinking they can take a chunk out of the US and face marginal consequences."

Titan is right. Leaving Iraq will prove to generations of people all around the world that the American military of WWII is dead and buried. Everyone is watching how we handle this. The sharks are swimming and the vultures are circling. And we are their prey. Pulling out will be the green light that the feast is on.

There will be a unified consensus around the world from all of our enemies and potential enemies: "America does not have the balls to stand for anything"

 

[telomerase]

Having Ron Paul in a debate with RINOs will be fascinating. It will be the first time in 50 years that a real issue or two is mentioned in a Presidential debate.

 

[Daps]

Guys question whats Ron Paul's stance on our borders, illegals, amensty?
Is there a website that I can read his stances? I'm not a Repub, pretty much an Indy guy now, used to vote Dem years ago.

But what few things I've heard about Ron Paul has really got me thinking I may have found someone I can vote for in 08

 

[GoRon]

edit: he is good to go on the borders

illegals

 

[Titan6]

Go straight to his congressional web site. All of his important stances are right there in his own words with zero spin.

And the open borders crap is a load of bull. Part of the reason he split with the libbys was that.

 

[GoRon]

wow Titan6 you posted faster than I could edit!

 

[Titan6]

Nah, I was already posting to refute an earlier post. I sure was surprised to see your pre-edit post right before mine....

 

[telomerase]

Leaving Vietnam will prove to generations of people all around the world that the American military of WWII is dead and buried.

Ummmmm.... the majority of the American-funded military forces in WWII were carrying Nagants, and most of them are buried now.

Everyone is watching how we handle this. The sharks are swimming and the vultures are circling. And we are their prey.

The sharks aren't "circling", they're feasting on the 715 billion dollars of "military" expenditures that come out of our hides. (And the official figure doesn't even count the Aid To Dependent Dictators that create our problems in the first place... you are aware where North Korea got its reactors, right?)

Whatever our views on the proper defense policy, I think everyone agrees that first priority is to quit funding the kleptocrats around the world with our tax money. In my view, the second priority would be to get the actual defense of our families up to the level that Switzerland enjoys. (We have lots of antique nuclear missiles, but almost no actual defense).

More corporate welfare is pretty low on my list, as is making more little socialist kleptocracies around the Middle East defended with the blood of our troops.

But I'm willing to compromise... get the Republicans to give the airline pilots back their guns (as in really, instead of the present phony program), a big tax credit for civil defense shelters, and I'll put up with them invading two more countries (as long as they are Nauru and Sealand).

 

[Daps]

ummm whats his website?

 

[telomerase]

Same as any Congressman's:

http://www.house.gov/paul/

 

[Fred Fuller]

http://www.house.gov/paul/legis_tst.htm

Best place to read his views, from the horse's mouth.

lpl/nc

 

[tek]

Titan is right. Leaving Iraq will prove to generations of people all around the world that the American military of WWII is dead and buried. Everyone is watching how we handle this. The sharks are swimming and the vultures are circling. And we are their prey. Pulling out will be the green light that the feast is on.

There will be a unified consensus around the world from all of our enemies and potential enemies: "America does not have the balls to stand for anything"

I'm sorry, but I'm afraid that boat sailed when we decided to invade a largely arab country with three different major ethnic groups who have hated each other to the death for thousands of years and tried to make them into a European style socialist "democracy" complete with Soviet style constitution.

The U.S. military should be used for unrestricted ass-kicking, not nation building, police action, P.R. work, or any other blue helmet policies.

 

[PirateJoe]

Well then, that's between Israel and its enemies, not us. It's time to take the ring out of America's nose - I'm tired of being led around and paying someone else's debts and fighting their fights.

Biker

:banghead:

Last time I checked, our enemies and Israel's enemies were the same people.

There's good reason we support Israel. Its the only sane country in the Middle East.

 

[LAK Supply]

I spent the last hour or so going through Dr. Paul's "Texas Straight Talk" section. The more I read the more I like him. . . . About 95% of what I've seen is dead-on.

 

[Biker]

We could debate that, Pirate joe, but your mind is made up and so is mine. Cast your vote as you will, and I will do the same.
Remember the USS Liberty.

Biker

 

[tek]

Last time I checked, our enemies and Israel's enemies were the same people.

There's good reason we support Israel. Its the only sane country in the Middle East.

I totally understand where you're coming from and I don't have any major problems with Israel, but if you're going to go the route of "what is tactically best for us in the middle east"... well then on that line of questioning, I have to ask you.. which causes more problems, supporting the enemy of the energy producers you rely on or being neutral and letting all parties fight it out/resolve their differences on their own?

Also, do you believe they would be our enemies if we bought their oil and were neutral towards them and Israel?

Just talking in terms of tactics here.

 

[Sylvan-Forge]

Caimlas said:

The single thing which I don't agree with Ron Paul on is that he's not a 'friend of Israel' and he fully supports the Democrats' "bleeding retreat".

Sources?

he is very much for open borders

Again, sources?


Caimlas, I urge you to read a bit more deeply, beyond the detractors and read the full speeches/commentary/legislation. You might be surprised to find you have been given a very false impression.

 

[Waitone]

Highly scripted news conferences are not debates. A debate uncovers how a candidate thinks. News conferences display how candidates memorize bumper stickers and sound drops.

Wake me when when simple college debate rules apply. Otherwise I'll watch a Three Stooges Marathon. Much more informative.

 

[Caimlas]

oo7, you are absolutely right; thank you for calling my claims to quesiton, because I honestly have no idea where I got those conceptions - now that I've looked up his voting record and looked at the essays he wrote which spurred those opinions on.

I can't cite anything, and I know there was a reason why I wrote what I did - but I'll be damned if I can find sources for them or even a trace of evidence right now. I'm thinking this recent essay of his may have been the motivation, though I'm fairly certain I didn't read it well the first time now. Or it may have been this article, also about the Middle East, suggesting to heed the advice of the Iraq Study Group which not only says we're conclusively losing (debateable - not on the ground, but maybe in the media) but that the #1 recommendation is to have a "phased withdrawl" (ie "bleeding retreat").

These are Ron Paul's words, not mine.

Just the same, it stands to reason - as illustrated by those articles and others - that his opinion is very strongly against war in the Middle East, as it is currently being conducted, on ideological reasons. That makes me very uneasy, for the reasons I stated above.

 

[Titan6]

What he just said... RP that is

So advocates a political solution to Iraq over a military solution? Fully agree.

Advocates not giving away billions of US tax dollars to two adversaries to keep fighting a war that has killed millions of people over more than 50 years with no end in sight? Fully agree.

dam every word this guy says is like the pure genius..... or common sense at least...

 

[Silver Bullet]

Jeez ... when was the last time we had a candidate of his qualifications ?

I made a contribution to his campaign. I'll make more when I can. It's important that we get behind him in the primaries.

What a contrast between him and the liberalMedia's picks for Republican nominee: McCain and Giuliani.

 

[LAK Supply]

Paul is NOT pro-illegal immigration. America's sovereignty is one of his strong points.

http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2006/tst103006.htm

http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2006/tst100206.htm

http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2006/tst091806.htm

http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2006/tst091106.htm

http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2006/tst082806.htm

http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2006/tst040306.htm

http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2005/tst121205.htm

These are just a few. I'm sure you can find more in his words at that same site.

 

[Sylvan-Forge]

Caimlas,

You have my respect, sir.

I believe that Congressman Paul has a fairly good
understanding of the various implications of withdrawl. In that a phased withdrawl has the benefit of bringing
the new-guard online while not giving up ground,
leaving vacated space for the enemy to fill and inflict
upon its inhabitants.

A bloody retreat, in my opinion, is a rapid flight from
the face of the enemy.

One form, a panicked-retreat, would get our troops killed. The citizens and the new-guard as well.

The other, a coordinated, hasty-retreat, would get the citizens and the new guard killed, while sparing our soldiers the greatest harm.


The only thing I can see that will get us out of a
never-ending war is to either commit nuclear
genocide/suicide,
bloody retreat, which would be political suicide,
or encourage the Iraq people to be responsible for their own internal security while we phase withdrawl, work (hard) to right our government from within, and foster diplomacy in the region.

Running around forcing people to adopt our form of
freedom at gunpoint
is not very convincing to anyone.

Deeds define a man or woman as they define a nation.

 

[xd9fan]

Like most of the republicans since 1994, the other guys will just agree with Ron Paul to try and take his thunder away.......Its the walking the walk, that the current GOP just cant do.

This is great for Mr Paul.

But in general I think the structured sound-bit Debates are nothing more than a pony show and for some a promise show( who can give you the most Govt programs in 60 seconds.)