@Curtmungus your honor of being more famous than me is quite deserved. I salute you.
Ron Paul
-
ORIGINAL CONSERVATIVES RAN ON HUMBLE FOREIGN POLICIES. ORIGINAL CONSERVATIVES WERE VOTED INTO CONGRESS TO GET US OUT OF WAR. ORIGINAL CONSERVATIVES TALKED ABOUT REDUCING GOVERNMENT.
so tell me. how are we less conservative for voting Ron Paul? Besides that, I won’t vote for a man that runs off his veterancy (that is always an advantage, but not a necessity), I vote for him based on his actions and character…
GG
-
Domestically, Ron Paul is probably the best choice out there GG, but personally I want a guy who isn’t afraid to put me to work, and Ron Paul’s foreign policy is rather naive.
-
I’m not afraid to put you to work (You get a paycheck for it 8-)), but I at the same time I am not going to drop a dime for a foreign policy that does not directly benefit me in the long run, or you for that matter (and no I’m not going to immediately jump on the bandwagon that were protecting us here by fighting them their, I didn’t do that in March of '03; I actually disagreed with the Iraq war. I won’t do it now). I don’t really care if the Iraqi’s live or die, call me uncaring, un-compassionate, whatever you want, but if they are not willing to lay their lives down for their country which I would willingly do if my country was directly under attack then they don’t deserve our blood or treasure.
As far as the naive part, his foreign policy is based off of 1,000 years of numerous measurable actions compared to 7 years of fear connected to one horrible event, that has cost us in precious lives and a recessive economy. Personally that is what I call naive. Study Economics and World History. It is pretty simple to judge why what is happening is happening.
As I said before, he is not for sticking our head in the sand and forgetting about the world, or leaving our borders, ships, planes, airports, and soil undefended, he just goes about it in a different, IMHO more direct, way.
GG
-
In five years, Iraq will be just like Bosnia, everyone will have forgotten that we have a garrison there. However, when trouble sparks and we need to react, we will have a base to start from. I dont think anyone knows or remembers the precarious position we were in in 1989-90 when we mobilized for Desert Shield. If Sadam had, we would have been in a lot of trouble. Ever since then our military planners have looked for a way to avoid that situation. Now we have that security. That my friends is what the war in Iraq was all about. My oppinion of course, take it or leave it.
-
@Cmdr:
I don’t think the new nation of the European Union will be our ally much longer. They may not become our enemy, but I do not think we can trust them. (And yes, I do believe they will become one nation and lose their individual identities.)
I’m european, and I don’t think European Union will be one nation. European Union is only about money, not political union. They tried make a european constitution, made referendum in only about half of countries and France and Low Countries voted no (wisely, the text was horrible). And think in Belgium, they are near to split the country in 2, they are not going to join again in a bigger.
And many europeans think we can not trust in USA’s government…
-
Dzrt, I understand that completely. I am personally not for having troops all over the world, but lets say that it is a worthwhile cause, and merely focus on the Iraq position compared to our other major outposts: Germany, Japan, Korea, Saudi Arabia, and “Bosnia” (We don’t even occupy it anymore).
Forgive me if the following sounds overused or simplistic. To me solutions are that.
Both Germany and Japan are modern first world countries very stable economies and governments, with limited foreign resistance, or disputing neighbors, and in Japan’s case it is isolated from it’s global region.
Saudi Arabia is a puppet government, and a corrupt one at that, which has can only rule with an iron fist because of the immense foreign aid and arms supplied to it. It is a frequently criticized country in it’s respective region, although it is not attacked, and I doubt that is merely because the US is there. But at the same token it is costing us billions in taxes and arms for that foothold.
Bosnia is empty, ethnically diverse, but kept under strict control by what? Sanctions. The government there is kept in check by simple International math that anyone can understand.
Now, why shouldn’t we be in Iraq? Well the “foothold” automatically suggests invasion. You don’t think Iran feels threatened? Why do you think they are developing Nuclear Weapons? I realize they have had a Nuclear Program in effect for a while, but why the surge now? If I had a huge military force sitting on my border, I would attempt to gain the upper hand. So right off the bat, by staying in Iraq we are creating a lethal enemy. Second it is costing us, and if we are still considering Germany, Japan, Saudi Arabia, and Korea effective “launching places” and worth keeping, then Iraq outdoes them in cost (currently cost standing at $500 Billion). that’s $275 Million a day. and we are supposed to be in there 100 years, if McCain gets in. Which brings me to the fact that it is not a economically stable or socially stable environment. Kurds in the North, Sunni in the middle, Shia’s to the south, Divided Neighbors as to the ethics of the US in the region. Oil lines are thousands of miles long and extremely undefended considering they are easy targets to find and hit. And we neither benefit from that, nor do they pay for it’s upkeep if it is sabotaged. I do. That’s paying twice for gas. That’s not a good investment. The foothold is a great idea, if you plan to invade (like I’ve mentioned). But that is going to require troops to occupy Iran, and Most likely Syria. With the way things are going, I don’t see how we could avoid invading Pakistan. That’s 6 Countries to invade. 5 to fully occupy. That’s 3.72 Million Square Miles extra to cover. That’s a lot of men. We only have 2.9 Million active and Reserve Personnel in the Military. We would not only have to call up reserves, but I don’t see how you could avoid a draft, extended service, stress to personnel, etc.
All because we occupy Iraq. I forgot though it keeps us safe…
GG
-
@Cmdr:
President Bush was the first president in American history to FUND stem cell research.
He’s pro-stem cell research.
Wow, what an accomplishment. No President before him has had the chance, really. But you are completely wrong. CONGRESS funded stem cell research, Presidents can only endorse it.
He’s pro-junk stem cell research, but not pro-embryonic stem cell research.
@Cmdr:
250 million dollars given to Stem Cell Research with the blessing of President Bush.
President Clinton NEVER gave even a penny to Stem Cell Research. Before Mr. Clinton, there was no stem cell research to be done. Not saying Clinton’s choice was bad. But let’s not pretend that Bush was anti-stem cell research.
He was ANTI-Cloning from stem cells. He is PRO stem cell research.
People have been working with stem cells since the 60s or so. But it hasn’t been a hope since early 2000s (i.e., not much attention until very recently).
He’s anti-embryonic, which has the most potential.
I actually have no idea how Ron Paul feels on it.
-
-
-
@Guerrilla:
Dzrt, I understand that completely. I am personally not for having troops all over the world, but lets say that it is a worthwhile cause, and merely focus on the Iraq position compared to our other major outposts: Germany, Japan, Korea, Saudi Arabia, and “Bosnia” (We don’t even occupy it anymore).
We still have a task force in Kosovo, approximately 1400 men as aresult of the conflict in the former Yugoslavia. I was scheduled for a rotation to Kosovo in late 09, we’re not leaving there any time soon.
Don’t take my statements as support, I just see it as fact right or wrong. Why do we have bases and troops in Germany, Japan, etc? To project US strength and to remind the world that we are in the business of protecting our interests plain and simple. Having a permanent base(s) in Iraq is doing just that.
-
I understand why we have our bases all over the world, I question the reasoning of it. And also the economic and manpower feasibility of staying there. Because even if we “protect” our interests never in a thousand years will they give up. It’s not like Germany or Japan.
GG
-
Well, I’ve said before, the ecconomics will change in a couple years. Things will settle down and we will eventualy rotate a brigade (±1500 men) through a small base. We will continue to train and be trained by the future Iraqi Army and we will gain by maintaining a valueable ally in the middle east as well as keeping up on the current ideals (militarily) in that region. We know the tactics and methods of the N.Koreans, the Russians etc because of this policy. It keeps our military prepared as best as possible for what ever might be next.
-
Why do we have bases and troops in Germany, Japan, etc? To project US strength and to remind the world that we are in the business of protecting our interests plain and simple. Having a permanent base(s) in Iraq is doing just that.
I don’t think Germany or Japan want attack USA in the near future … Iraq is another issue, of course…
-
His point is not whether the US will attack those locations, but the presence assures US Dominance of a region in regard to local interest.
The economics might change in a couple years. But regardless of if it does or not, it has already changed our current economy and there is no saying when there will be permanent change that we cannot undue. We are seeing a recession looming, and a bad dollar, and the possibility that we are going to keep spending it, and go invade other countries? You speak only in regards to Iraq but I see no other course of action but to eventually have to occupy more in order to maintain regional stability. That will cost us more…
GG
-
Yea those troops are our ‘Big Stick’ to keep bully’s away ( China, former warsaw pact, Balkans)
The Balkans and France have caused 2 world wars and many smaller wars just by themselves. We should hope to have an army in Germany to protect Europe from itself.
-
@Imperious:
Yea those troops are our ‘Big Stick’ to keep bully’s away ( China, former warsaw pact, Balkans)
The Balkans and France have caused 2 world wars and many smaller wars just by themselves. We should hope to have an army in Germany to protect Europe from itself.
Your sarcasm, or lack of it, is confusing…
-
@Cmdr:
President Bush was the first president in American history to FUND stem cell research.
He’s pro-stem cell research.
Wow, what an accomplishment. No President before him has had the chance, really. But you are completely wrong. CONGRESS funded stem cell research, Presidents can only endorse it.
He’s pro-junk stem cell research, but not pro-embryonic stem cell research.
@Cmdr:
250 million dollars given to Stem Cell Research with the blessing of President Bush.
President Clinton NEVER gave even a penny to Stem Cell Research. Before Mr. Clinton, there was no stem cell research to be done. Not saying Clinton’s choice was bad. But let’s not pretend that Bush was anti-stem cell research.
He was ANTI-Cloning from stem cells. He is PRO stem cell research.
People have been working with stem cells since the 60s or so. But it hasn’t been a hope since early 2000s (i.e., not much attention until very recently).
He’s anti-embryonic, which has the most potential.
I actually have no idea how Ron Paul feels on it.
You are incorrect. Embryonic does NOT have the most potential. They have a method to artificially create stem-cells and it is the artificial cells that actually have the most potential.
You are also incorrect on the funding aspect. President Bush could have vetoed the spending and Congress would NOT have had the power to over ride it. So he DID become the first president to fund it. He even CALLED for the funding, as I showed in his speech. That speech was in the first month he was in office!
-
THis is Ron Paul thread not a Stem Cell thread.
A mention of stem cells was relevant to point out position statements. A debate on Stem Cells is NOT on topic.
Save it for the PD venue (I believe there was a link posted to one on another site when PD was shut down here)
Suggested Topics
