Is Ron Paul Bad for Defense and Foreign Policy?

[Focused Gunfire]

All the talking heads on the television and radio seem to think so. Even on the forums you will hear people say I like RP, but not his foreign policy. Maybe if things got better, but too risky now. I have been thinking recently, and maybe I am just foolish, but I don’t think he would be that bad in that department.

The way I see it is O has been the worst president in this category in a long time. I’m sure some mouthpiece will show up shortly and brag about the pirates, and OBL. The thing is, that was not O’s doing. In fact I would say when he over involved himself in the operations is when the problems started. Like when he tried to make political hay out off OBL’s death. Anyway the president may change, but the people who protect us stay the same for the most part. I don’t think RP will waste all his time and capital to shit on our troops/defense department. I see big budget cuts, but nothing that will leave us anymore vulnerable than we already are.

Well it’s too risky because Iran may get a nuke! I say let Israel handle it. We didn’t give them all that money/weapons for nothing did we? All be it a very small portion of our budget, but still. They are closer, and probably the first target too. They probably have bombing plans drawn up.

[1 Patriot-of-many]

We shouldn't be the policemen and nation builders of the world. That said I am a little afraid of the Mullahs getting the bomb, they will use it or give it to their cohorts.

As far as needing to be everywhere around the world to protect ourselves? Nonsense. We could make in impenetrable ring around our country with our troops and ships and planes and technology, even bring illegal immigration to a virtual end. We need end entrance of people from countries that hate us to start with. You cannot go to Saudi Arabia for instance unless they request you for some technical reason.

RP doesn't scare me, he voted to go into Afghanistan BTW.

[mriddick]

I'm not sure you can say bad, but he doesn't miss a chance to sound weak. Really I don't mind his policy so much but the way he sells it I find seriously lacking and worrisome for a national election.

[O.S.O.K.]

This is all academic because his statements on Iran will sink him.

On a bright note, my wife came home today from school (she's an 8th grade science teacher) and told me that her kids were all badmouthing obummer - saying that he's bad for the country

This is funny because there's a good number of illegals around here and also quite a few lower income folks. So, they must be watching all of the repub goings-on and drinking it all in. GOOD!!!

[old Grump]

If you think the constitution and the founding fathers were wrong about getting entangled in foreign affairs then yes he is bad. If you believe in sane government then he is good...your choice.

[1 Patriot-of-many]

If you think the constitution and the founding fathers were wrong about getting entangled in foreign affairs then yes he is bad. If you believe in sane government then he is good...your choice.

That is the point that drives me insane. The founders warned us about foreign adventures/entanglements, yet most Conservatives on here are all for doing it while claiming they love the Constitution..Almost like Libs claiming they love the Constitution but hate guns for example.

[N/A]

One thing to keep in mind is that in the days of the founding fathers, foreign entanglements were a good 30 days across the Atlantic. Today, they are only 30 minutes by ICBM. We live in a vastly smaller world today. We can be attacked more quickly today then we could 200+ years ago.

[El Laton Caliente]

The foundeers changed their mind in 1784 when the Islamists attacked our shipping. We invented the USA's Navy and Marines and invaded Tripoli...

[old Grump]

One thing to keep in mind is that in the days of the founding fathers, foreign entanglements were a good 30 days across the Atlantic. Today, they are only 30 minutes by ICBM. We live in a vastly smaller world today. We can be attacked more quickly today then we could 200+ years ago.

Makes it more important today than it was then since we are all connected by WWW.

[1 Patriot-of-many]

One thing to keep in mind is that in the days of the founding fathers, foreign entanglements were a good 30 days across the Atlantic. Today, they are only 30 minutes by ICBM. We live in a vastly smaller world today. We can be attacked more quickly today then we could 200+ years ago.

Good point, but don't we have the technology to ring our country defensively from any threat? How exactly does nation building give us security? That's almost the same argument for restricting our 2nd amendment rights..... They couldn't have envisioned machineguns from their muskets...... When it comes down to it, we could annihilate any country in the same timeframe, so how are we better off deploying troops to die by IED's ect while others reap the rewards they died for?

[1 Patriot-of-many]

The foundeers changed their mind in 1784 when the Islamists attacked our shipping. We invented the USA's Navy and Marines and invaded Tripoli...

Did we take over Libya? There's a difference in defensive actions than nation building.

[mriddick]

The military is going to be cut back regardless, we can't keep on spending almost 1/3 of tax receipts on the military. I just think the way he's going about is not the best for his general election chances.

[El Laton Caliente]

Did we take over Libya? There's a difference in defensive actions than nation building.

There is a difference in nation building and isolationism. Isolationism does not work, it just shows weakness...

[El Laton Caliente]

The military is going to be cut back regardless, we can't keep on spending almost 1/3 of tax receipts on the military. I just think the way he's going about is not the best for his general election chances.

No doubt. The military, and much of it is Congress' pork, wastes billions...

[N/A]

Good point, but don't we have the technology to ring our country defensively from any threat? How exactly does nation building give us security? That's almost the same argument for restricting our 2nd amendment rights..... They couldn't have envisioned machineguns from their muskets...... When it comes down to it, we could annihilate any country in the same timeframe, so how are we better off deploying troops to die by IED's ect while others reap the rewards they died for?

In my mind, they were worried about becoming entangled in a foreign adventure that was at the end of a very long supply line. They had seen how that supply cost the British. They were not so keen to repeat that mistake. Closer to home, they had no trouble fighting numerous Indian wars. And as pointed out, they had no trouble going to Tripoli. As for "nation building", they had never heard of such a thing. Again, they would not have been foolish enough to try it at the end of that very long supply line. Do I think it is a good idea today. I say crush them and rebulid them in our image.

[old Grump]

There is a difference in nation building and isolationism. Isolationism does not work, it just shows weakness...

Non-intervention does not mean isolationism.

[rshaneck2002]

Every time this nation has minded its own beeswax someone comes along and truly messes with us,ever hear of Pearl Harbor? we try to play referee in the middle east and we get 9/11. I will always think that the US needs a very strong military presence around the world,a serious display of power,especially in this modern world.this country tends to forget that the number one responsibilty of our fed gov is national defense,or international defense which we already have in this day of high tech. we have been drawn in wars in the past and i am afraid we will be in the future,unless humans can find ways of getting along better as world population increases. I see no faith in that aspect,they have not in their entire history for any lasting length of time.
They may not love you,but they sure as hell will respect you.there is not one country in this world we have not helped at onetime or another and we always seem to get kicked in the teeth for sure. Building a moat around us does appeal to me heavily but dos not work in the long run,besides we already have the moat around us. I like Mr Pauls ideas on the economy,not so much on national defense. could i live with it?sure? could live with Obama care too but I sure as hell do not like it or what it may create down the road.

[5.56NATO]

You have Ron Paul, who has never voted for antigun legislation, tax increases, or wars, and you have all the rinos who have voted for antigun legislation, tax increases, or wars and will again. Voting rino is the same as voting dem as the rinos are as regressive as any dem.

Who are you going to vote for?

[abpt1]

RP seems like a nut job .....Guess I am stuck picking the lesser of two evils .....Again



Rick Santorum

[tank_monkey]

You have Ron Paul, who has never voted for antigun legislation, tax increases, or wars, and you have all the rinos who have voted for antigun legislation, tax increases, or wars and will again. Voting rino is the same as voting dem as the rinos are as regressive as any dem.

Who are you going to vote for?

Kinda a sweeping generalization, don't you think? Gun rights is a number 1 in my book, but I'm flexible on others, depending on the situation. Also I'm a realist. If someone 'flip flops' and says 'Hell no I won't support Gun Control" and happens to have a GUN FRIENDLY Congress, ultimately nothing will happen that can make things worse. sure I want someone who will reverse a bunch of stuff, but the minimum I require is someone who will not make things worse. So regardless of who it is, I have to do what millions of other voters have had to do for centuries. Pick the one which fits the best but don't SIT IT OUT because no one fits 100%.