Who is Ron Paul?

[TIMB0B]

You may not agree with him on everything, but seriously, is there any other candidate (Rs or Ds) out there that you see eye to eye with more than this man?

o_be9XZ_4_c

For an even more in depth interview, this one with Stossel is a must watch...

A6a9549ZeqQ

[mgsooner]

WHO RON PAUL

[Partial Qualifier]

POO RON HAUL

[WE ARE dirtburglars]

I like him. Not sure Id vote for him, but I like him.

[mgsooner]

Back then they didn't want him, now he hot, they all on him

[delhalew]

It's shame he's such a rarity.

[MR2-Sooner86]

I still have yet to hear what stance he has taken on certain issues that turns people away from him. All I hear is "I like him, he wouldn't win so I wouldn't vote for him, but I like him."

[StoopTroup]

He's got nice legs but he talks weird.

http://rickyday.net/blog/rupaulfree.jpg

[KantoSooner]

I like him with the exception of his foreign policy which is, frankly, loony tunes.
Strict isolationism worked when the biggest weapons out there were black powder cannon and it took several weeks to travel a couple of hundred miles. Anyone other than Ron Paul think that Hitler or the Soviet Union would have gone away if we'd just ignored them? Or that letting them run their course wouldn't have adversely impacted American's ability to enjoy the good life?

[delhalew]

I like him with the exception of his foreign policy which is, frankly, loony tunes.
Strict isolationism worked when the biggest weapons out there were black powder cannon and it took several weeks to travel a couple of hundred miles. Anyone other than Ron Paul think that Hitler or the Soviet Union would have gone away if we'd just ignored them? Or that letting them run their course wouldn't have adversely impacted American's ability to enjoy the good life?

I love how ya'll jump so far in extending Paul's foreign policy to isolationism. Asking yourself to come up with more compelling reason to sacrifice American lives than we have had SINCE WWII is not asking too much.

[KantoSooner]

I don't think it's a stretch at all to equate Paul's foreign policy with isolationism. The man as much as says so every time he gets the chance. And then posits his what? five years in the military? as grounds for his conclusions.
Don't get me wrong: I like the guy. And really, really, thinking hard before committing troops overseas is a good thing. (and no, we didn't in Vietnam - a better choice would have been to tell the French to go **** themselves and support Ho Chi Minh. And I won't even open the bag of worms of Iraq and Afghanistan) But to say, as Paul does, that simiply leaving the rest of the world alone and all will be hunky dory is nuts.

[The Profit]

I like him with the exception of his foreign policy which is, frankly, loony tunes.
Strict isolationism worked when the biggest weapons out there were black powder cannon and it took several weeks to travel a couple of hundred miles. Anyone other than Ron Paul think that Hitler or the Soviet Union would have gone away if we'd just ignored them? Or that letting them run their course wouldn't have adversely impacted American's ability to enjoy the good life?




It is one of the things I like most about him. We don't need a military the size of what we have today. We should take Canada's approach to national defense. I don't see anyone jacking with them.

[delhalew]

Ron Paul knows you need a strong military to lay the smack down WHEN NECESSARY.

[Bourbon St Sooner]

We need a POTUS with 2 first names.

Currently, we have a POTUS with 2 last names.

[The Profit]

We need a POTUS with 2 first names.

Currently, we have a POTUS with 2 last names.




Bush had two last names

[bornnbredou]

he sounds legit

[Bourbon St Sooner]

Bush had two last names

Both of them did. I say it's time for one with 2 first names. Clearly 2 last name presidents love to spend and start wars.

[bigfatjerk]

I don't think it's a stretch at all to equate Paul's foreign policy with isolationism. The man as much as says so every time he gets the chance. And then posits his what? five years in the military? as grounds for his conclusions.


I don't think you'll ever see isolationism in any country ever again because of the thing called the internet. But the only thing our military needs to really look at overseas is going after pirates that are disrupting free trade. That's something we completely ignore now. He's not saying we shouldn't trade or communicate with other countries. He's just saying it's a bad thing to kill people in other countries. That's the difference between isolationism and non-interventionism. Isolationism would mean not even trading with other countries.

[87sooner]

I don't think you'll ever see isolationism in any country ever again because of the thing called the internet. But the only thing our military needs to really look at overseas is going after pirates that are disrupting free trade. That's something we completely ignore now. He's not saying we shouldn't trade or communicate with other countries. He's just saying it's a bad thing to kill people in other countries. That's the difference between isolationism and non-interventionism. Isolationism would mean not even trading with other countries.

it's all about rate of return...
killing people in afghanistan would be alright if we actually accomplished something good...in a reasonable amount of time...
the problem is....it would take a hundred years and we just can't afford that...

take libya for example...if we could spend 6 months there...take out the current govt...and put it on the path to democracy...it would be worth it....

it sounds like ron paul's policy would be ignorationism......just ignore every problem around the world and hope it doesn't effect us...

[bigfatjerk]

Actually he pretty much agreed with the first part of what you said. He's even said as much. He did actually vote for Afghanistan when we first went there. We have no goals in Afghanistan just like we had no real goals in Iraq.

[delhalew]

it's all about rate of return...
killing people in afghanistan would be alright if we actually accomplished something good...in a reasonable amount of time...
the problem is....it would take a hundred years and we just can't afford that...

take libya for example...if we could spend 6 months there...take out the current govt...and put it on the path to democracy...it would be worth it....

it sounds like ron paul's policy would be ignorationism......just ignore every problem around the world and hope it doesn't effect us...

Wrong!

[87sooner]

Actually he pretty much agreed with the first part of what you said. He's even said as much. He did actually vote for Afghanistan when we first went there. We have no goals in Afghanistan just like we had no real goals in Iraq.

i think we had goals in iraq and we do have goals in afghanistan....security....democracy...
they're just unreachable in a reasonable timeframe....

[JohnnyMack]

I like him with the exception of his foreign policy which is, frankly, loony tunes.
Strict isolationism worked when the biggest weapons out there were black powder cannon and it took several weeks to travel a couple of hundred miles. Anyone other than Ron Paul think that Hitler or the Soviet Union would have gone away if we'd just ignored them? Or that letting them run their course wouldn't have adversely impacted American's ability to enjoy the good life?

We didn't have a base in Europe prior to WWII, so it's not like we were ignoring them. When the threat arose it was handled. Now on the contrary it was an existing base in Saudi Arabia that triggered most of Al Qaeda's angst towards the USA.

The real problem with scaling back our military is that it has become such an entrenched part of our economy that reducing the size of it will ultimately lead to devastating job losses.

[delhalew]

We didn't have a base in Europe prior to WWII, so it's not like we were ignoring them. When the threat arose it was handled. Now on the contrary it was an existing base in Saudi Arabia that triggered most of Al Qaeda's angst towards the USA.

The real problem with scaling back our military is that it has become such an entrenched part of our economy that reducing the size of it will ultimately lead to devastating job losses.

We can pay our military to stand ready at our domestic bases.

[StoopTroup]

I think Obama is gonna crush anyone who runs....

Everybody uses his Last name when mentioning him and all the 2 term Presidents had this happen....

Reagan, Clinton, Bush, Nixon

George, Jimmeh, Gerry

[JohnnyMack]

We can pay our military to stand ready at our domestic bases.

There's what, 1.5 million people in the active military? If you reduced the size of the military by 20% where would those 300,000 people go for work? Jobless claims are up again! I mean I'm the last person you'd call hawk-ish in terms of our foreign policy and I'm in agreement with Rep. Paul as to our need to reduce our international presence, but I think we need to figure out where the jobs are going to come from if we effectively fire these people.

[KantoSooner]

It is one of the things I like most about him. We don't need a military the size of what we have today. We should take Canada's approach to national defense. I don't see anyone jacking with them.

No, no one jacks with Canada. And no one would even if Canada did away with their armed forces and police, too. Why? Because, push comes to shove, you start ****ing with Canada and their neighbor to the south gets involved. Like many countries around the world, Canada exists under our military shield. Is that the way it should be? Probably not. Do the Euroweenies, for example, pay even a fraction of their own defense costs? No, they do not. (and we could argue all day about whether it's in our interest, even so, to keep their cookies out of the fire - pick up a copy of Foreign Affairs, the issue has been in every issue since 1945). All that said, Canada's happy existence with a teensy army has a lot more to do with US policy than with an inherently safe and friendly world.

Quote BFJ
"I don't think you'll ever see isolationism in any country ever again because of the thing called the internet. But the only thing our military needs to really look at overseas is going after pirates that are disrupting free trade. That's something we completely ignore now. He's not saying we shouldn't trade or communicate with other countries. He's just saying it's a bad thing to kill people in other countries. That's the difference between isolationism and non-interventionism. Isolationism would mean not even trading with other countries." Unquote BFJ

We could argue over the meaning of 'isolationism' but it would be pointless. Let's take your definition and allow trade, but eliminate military involvements. (except maybe to run down 'pirates'). What do you do with nation states who fall under the control of bad people? Or who are just *******s from the get go? Again, do you simply ignore a Stalin, or Hitler, and hope they go away? There's a time and place for use of the mailed fist in an otherwise humble foreign policy.

I am concerned that Paul is too quick to reject the beneficial role played by our military and intelligence apparatus in keeping the world as relatively calm as it's been since 1945. I'd like to hear more from him about how he intends to keep the peace. And, if his response is to let the peace keep itself, then I have a problem with voting for him to be president.

[KantoSooner]

We didn't have a base in Europe prior to WWII, so it's not like we were ignoring them. When the threat arose it was handled. Now on the contrary it was an existing base in Saudi Arabia that triggered most of Al Qaeda's angst towards the USA.

The real problem with scaling back our military is that it has become such an entrenched part of our economy that reducing the size of it will ultimately lead to devastating job losses.

And, had Hitler had an ounce of sense, we'd still be dealing with Nazi Germany. Our glorious war effort was seriously messed up. We had no standing army of any significance prior to January of 1942 and paid dearly in blood by shoveling semi-trained conscripts into combat until 1944. But that's beside the point.

And suggesting that Al Qaeda would have been pleased to leave the US alone if only we hadn't had a military presence in Saudi (at the invitation of the Saudi government) is to misread, very fundamentally, an excuse for a root cause.

Seymour Melman wrote a brilliant book entitled, The Permanent Warr Economy that outlines the dilemma. It can be boiled down to a simple statement: Armies and weapons and the means to produce them are utter and complete wastes of time, money and human resources. Right up to the time you need them. At that moment, they become virtually priceless and you can't substitute anything else for them.

Our military will be downsized. Any thinking person knows this. The question is simply: to what degree? Again, I am concerned that Paul's conception of 'right siize' goes further than I would be comfortable going.

I think it serves a healthy purpose in the world for ****heads to have no doubt that a US President can, and very well might, obliterate his whole little game if he pushes the wrong buttons.

I'm not relativistic about this kind of thing.

[NormanPride]

Even with half the military we have now, we are so much more technically advanced than everyone else that most nations will never have a chance of competing with us.

[OU Adonis]

Even with half the military we have now, we are so much more technically advanced than everyone else that most nations will never have a chance of competing with us.

That worked well for the Germans

[TIMB0B]

I like him with the exception of his foreign policy which is, frankly, loony tunes.
Strict isolationism worked when the biggest weapons out there were black powder cannon and it took several weeks to travel a couple of hundred miles. Anyone other than Ron Paul think that Hitler or the Soviet Union would have gone away if we'd just ignored them? Or that letting them run their course wouldn't have adversely impacted American's ability to enjoy the good life?

Interesting you bring up the Soviet Union when it was what we're doing now (spreading militarism into foreign lands) that ultimately led to their collapse in the 80s. They couldn't afford it any longer, and world history backs this up as all major empires have faltered because they spread too far and wide. Also, the USSR had 40,000 nukes, yet we never went to war with them. What did we do? Diplomacy.

Isolationism and non-interventionism are not the same thing. Isolationism is a policy that ends all alliances, trade, etc. with any foreign country.

Non-interventionism is a diplomatic/self-defense policy that advocates no alliances with nations, but trade and commerce with all. The only time we go to war is when it is a direct threat to our national security.

"Commerce with all nations. Entangling alliances with none." - Thomas Jefferson

[MR2-Sooner86]

it sounds like ron paul's policy would be ignorationism......just ignore every problem around the world and hope it doesn't effect us...

Riddle me this if our foreign policy is "so great" and we shouldn't change it.

What did we get out of Vietnam? Of all the lives, money, time, and resources spent what did we get out of it?
Why are we mercenaries, without the pay, in South Korea?
Why did we fund Saddam Hussein?
Why did we fund the Taliban?
Why did we sell weapons to Iran?
Why did we overthrow the government in Iran?
Why do we support a state, Israel, that has used terrorist tactics and that has attacked us? I'm talking about the USS Liberty incident.

As Ron Paul says our foreign policy has "blow back" which means we do something for a short term gain but with long term consequences.

Remember the first Gulf War that had all of the "support" from the world? Yeah, we supplied 75% of the troops and supplies for that mission. The same goes for what happened in Somalia in '93 that got our troops' bodies dragged through the streets.

Anyway, what you're saying is all of that, the short term gains, are worth it even if there are major long term troubles? I see.

[TIMB0B]

There's what, 1.5 million people in the active military? If you reduced the size of the military by 20% where would those 300,000 people go for work? Jobless claims are up again! I mean I'm the last person you'd call hawk-ish in terms of our foreign policy and I'm in agreement with Rep. Paul as to our need to reduce our international presence, but I think we need to figure out where the jobs are going to come from if we effectively fire these people.
Well, the closing of operations in foreign countries should save us a substantial amount of money considering we won't be spending $50M to fire one freakin' missile on war efforts anymore, therefore we can retain every soldier coming home.

Also, what you could do is limit the number of military applicants, and/or don't accept new recruits until soldiers retire or end their service to find another job. What this does in effect will create an annual cap to the amount of new enlisted men accepted, therefore creating more competition resulting in the best of the best soldiers our country has to offer.

[TIMB0B]

And suggesting that Al Qaeda would have been pleased to leave the US alone if only we hadn't had a military presence in Saudi (at the invitation of the Saudi government) is to misread, very fundamentally, an excuse for a root cause.


It goes back much further than that, but you could say that was the straw that broke the camel's back.

[MR2-Sooner86]

And, had Hitler had an ounce of sense, we'd still be dealing with Nazi Germany. Our glorious war effort was seriously messed up. We had no standing army of any significance prior to January of 1942 and paid dearly in blood by shoveling semi-trained conscripts into combat until 1944. But that's beside the point.

You're so wrong on this it's not even funny. You're talking about Russia because we had some of the best training, especially airmen, compared to the Germans. Russia is the one who threw unarmed men into battle to catch bullets for the guys with the guns.

As for Hitler, he was a egomaniac who refused to listen to his generals. Had he listened on things such as the V2, retreating from Russia, ME 262, sending the Panzer division to Normandy, halting the military bombing during the Battle of Britain, etc. the war would've been very different.

[JohnnyMack]

And suggesting that Al Qaeda would have been pleased to leave the US alone if only we hadn't had a military presence in Saudi (at the invitation of the Saudi government) is to misread, very fundamentally, an excuse for a root cause.

You say tomato, I say interventionist, nation building often has unintended consequences. Or as Rep. Paul says, blowback.

[StoopTroup]

Every time I look at his resume I see this....


Member of the U.S. House of Representatives
from Texas's 14th district

House of Representatives don't get elected as POTUS and we've had plenty of :texan: 's in the White House.

2 strikes.

3rd strike?

In the 1988 presidential election, Paul defeated Native American activist Russell Means to win the Libertarian Party nomination for President

With thst on his resume too....I don't see the RNC giving him the reigns.

[87sooner]

Riddle me this if our foreign policy is "so great" and we shouldn't change it.

if you quoted my entire post...or more importantly....read my entire post.....you might notice i never said anything about our foreign policy being "so great we shouldn't change it"...
so stuff your riddle...







Anyway, what you're saying is all of that, the short term gains, are worth it even if there are major long term troubles? I see.

you don't see squat...
are you high? can you not read?

[MR2-Sooner86]

if you quoted my entire post...or more importantly....read my entire post.....you might notice i never said anything about our foreign policy being "so great we shouldn't change it"...
so stuff your riddle...

you don't see squat...
are you high? can you not read?

Translation: Damn, those are hard questions I think I'll dodge them.

You talked about "ignoring problems" and Ron Paul's policy as "ignorationism" which sounded like we've been stopping mini-Hitlers all around the world the past 60 years.

So I'll ask again, who have we stopped in Vietnam, Korea, Somalia, Kosovo, Panama, Gulf Wars, etc. that has been a direct threat to us?

[87sooner]

Translation: Damn, those are hard questions I think I'll dodge them.

You talked about "ignoring problems" and Ron Paul's policy as "ignorationism" which sounded like we've been stopping mini-Hitlers all around the world the past 60 years.

So I'll ask again, who have we stopped in Vietnam, Korea, Somalia, Kosovo, Panama, Gulf Wars, etc. that has been a direct threat to us?

translation: i'm still retarded

[pphilfran]

translation: i'm still retarded

Of course you are...you are a friggin farmer...evil too...

You support Monsanto...

Suck in fed subsidies to not plant...

Expect fed insurance payments when your crops die due to lack or rain...

You probably even cheat on your taxes with all the deduction you are allowed...

Did I miss anything?

[pphilfran]

Oh, yes, one more...

You are a Christian...

[KantoSooner]

You're so wrong on this it's not even funny. You're talking about Russia because we had some of the best training, especially airmen, compared to the Germans. Russia is the one who threw unarmed men into battle to catch bullets for the guys with the guns.

As for Hitler, he was a egomaniac who refused to listen to his generals. Had he listened on things such as the V2, retreating from Russia, ME 262, sending the Panzer division to Normandy, halting the military bombing during the Battle of Britain, etc. the war would've been very different.

No, I suggest reading any history of the 90th infantry, for instance. Or looking at a history of US Army in the Philippines, or examining active combatant numbers between the wars. Facts are difficult things: our army was gutted after WWI and entered WWII a shadow of itself (same thing that happened after the civil war, by the way). Our soldiers were essentially given on the job training in WWII and virtually without exception suffered horrendous casualties upon the first combat. That the Russians did the same thing, worse, is no effective rebuttal of my argument.

And thank you for seconding my statement regarding Hitler.

[KantoSooner]

Interesting you bring up the Soviet Union when it was what we're doing now (spreading militarism into foreign lands) that ultimately led to their collapse in the 80s. They couldn't afford it any longer, and world history backs this up as all major empires have faltered because they spread too far and wide. Also, the USSR had 40,000 nukes, yet we never went to war with them. What did we do? Diplomacy.

Isolationism and non-interventionism are not the same thing. Isolationism is a policy that ends all alliances, trade, etc. with any foreign country.

Non-interventionism is a diplomatic/self-defense policy that advocates no alliances with nations, but trade and commerce with all. The only time we go to war is when it is a direct threat to our national security.

"Commerce with all nations. Entangling alliances with none." - Thomas Jefferson

The policy that defeated the Soviet Union was known as 'containment' and was laid out by George Kennan in a Foreign Affairs article written under the alias 'Mr. X'. It was an integrated strategy involving diplomacy, foreign aid, cultural outreach and, yes, military action.
Actions as diverse as the USIS' hugely successful jazz musician tours of the 1950's, the Vietnam war and our economic policies toward Japan were all facets of this strategy.
Paul is correct that we need a new strategy. As Francis Fukuyama's evocatively entitled 'The End of History' baldly states, we won the fight with the Soviet Union and with communism. The Soviet Union is gone and no one seriously considers communism as a viable alternative to market economies.
As I have stated several times now, I think he draws the line too far in the isolation direction. We have interests in the broader world and I find nothing at all wrong with defending those interests with the means we possess. Including the military.

[Chuck Bao]

Even with half the military we have now, we are so much more technically advanced than everyone else that most nations will never have a chance of competing with us.

Although that is true now, it may not be the case in 10-20 years, which I suppose is still the time frame for development of new technology and getting it out on the battle field.

China has the national resources to build up their military technology. Obviously, they are not beneath buying, stealing or spying to get it.

I remember 10 years ago that major Thai manufacturers were saying that China didn't pose much of a competitive threat because they couldn't compete in terms of quality. They are not saying that anymore. And, it was a dumb and, frankly, xenophobic assumption to begin with.

I hope Americans don't make that same mistake. Oops, we already did by just handing over manufacturing technology and loads of cash.

I also remember up to about 5 years ago that the "big brains" in America were warning that China could tear itself apart. I give them credit because there is plenty of historic precedence for this. Also, I agree that runaway economic growth and the negative side effects are creating a huge social imbalance with the wealth concentrating on the major coastal cities and industrial zones. Throw in an authoritative government, corruption at the municipal, provincial and national level and still really poorly-managed state enterprises with their mountains of debt and you have plenty of reasons for the Chinese people to feel sufficiently dissatisfied. And, yeah some yearning for accountability and representation.

But, the Chinese are as nationalistic and xenophobic as Americans, Japanese, etc. And, they have a very serious chip on their shoulder.

The Chinese strategy is to win the economic war first and I think they are winning. China has massive foreign reserves, again thanks to the US and Japanese investment over the last 20 years on some very unfavorable JV arrangements with the assumption that they would play nicely. They haven't.

As one of the largest commodity consumers in the world, the Chinese have the ability to move many global commodity markets with a stop-and-go order system that effectively manipulates prices. That has everyone else in the global markets just trying to guess what they are up to this month. THIS POINT IS VERY IMPORTANT AND A VERY GOOD INDICATION OF WHO WE ARE DEALING WITH.

The Chinese are often referred to as the "Jews of Asia". That is a very racist and horribly inappropriate description. Still, I think you get the point of how savvy they are, even after being under the last 60 years of a communist regime.

I was explaining to someone through a PM last week that Americans are just so insular in thinking and our politicians reflect this. Old economic theories, including monetary and fiscal, should be thrown out the window because we in a global economy today, like it or not. Nobody in the US wants to admit how much China's economic policies affect our own economy. We are simply not ready for that yet, but it is an undeniable fact today.

Yeah, they can catch up to our military technology in 10-20 years. In my opinion, we just can't afford to lose the economic war first.

Ron Paul may be our best bet. He is maverick enough to try to buck the establishment and we really can't continue as we are now.

Sadly, I now officially change my intended 2012 vote for Ron Paul from President Obama.

[pphilfran]

Speaking of China...

While at Goodyear I was given the job to help train this mainland China employee....

I took him under my wing for a month...

He had a doctorate from Michigan U...the Chinese sent him over here for the education...he had no real close family in China so Goodyear sponsored him and he elected to stay...

This dude was brilliant...what normally took a week to teach someone he picked up in a half day...

The stories he told were amazing...how they abhorred waste...

I took him to an all you can eat buffet...we were working on a pile of crawfish and he kept looking at the pinchers...

He asked why I didn't crack them open and eat the meat...

I told him it wasn't worth the trouble...not enough meat to fool with...

He proceeded to crack open the pincher and used a toothpick to pick out the meat...and then blasted me for being so wasteful...

I probably learned more from him than he learned from me...

It was a great month

[TIMB0B]

We have interests in the broader world and I find nothing at all wrong with defending those interests with the means we possess. Including the military.

Ron Paul has stated that he will go to war if there's a declaration from congress. So, it is up to congress to determine if a country is a direct threat to our national security.

What Ron Paul does not want is to go to war without an exit strategy. He stated emphatically that when we go in, we go in to win, and do it as quickly as possible.

Regardless of whether you agree with our occupation in over 130 countries, we really need to bring our military home and regroup for the sake of our economy. Give non-intervention 4 years (one presidential term) and see if we're actually not better off as well as the countries we're occupying. If we continue to drag this out, our dollar will eventually crash and completely eradicate the middle class. I don't know why people continue to ignore this.

[Tulsa_Fireman]

He proceeded to crack open the pincher and used a toothpick to pick out the meat...and then blasted me for being so wasteful...

I would've popped him in the mouth and told him to keep his damn Jackie Chan fingers off my plate. And if he wanted to eat crawdad claws and bitch about us being wasteful, go home.

Then I would've beat him up some more with an american flag. Peed on his leg with the stream of FREEDOM.

[KantoSooner]

Ron Paul has stated that he will go to war if there's a declaration from congress. So, it is up to congress to determine if a country is a direct threat to our national security.

What Ron Paul does not want is to go to war without an exit strategy. He stated emphatically that when we go in, we go in to win, and do it as quickly as possible.

Regardless of whether you agree with our occupation in over 130 countries, we really need to bring our military home and regroup for the sake of our economy. Give non-intervention 4 years (one presidential term) and see if we're actually not better off as well as the countries we're occupying. If we continue to drag this out, our dollar will eventually crash and completely eradicate the middle class. I don't know why people continue to ignore this.

130 countries 'occupied'? Are we counting the Marine Guards at our embassies now? I would think US troop presence of any significance would be present in about 20 countries max. A 50 man training group, for example, simply doesn't count.
I would agree that Congress should authorize declarations of war. But there's a whole of other stuff that can and does go on far short of war that is military in nature and utterly necessary in my opinion. Stuff like a SEAL team killing Bin Laden.
I'm all for careful consideration before use of the military, but the military and defense alliances, have their place. (We wouldn't have become a nation without an alliance with France, so it's a bit ungracious of us to reject the concept that bought us our freedom.)

[TIMB0B]

But there's a whole of other stuff that can and does go on far short of war that is military in nature and utterly necessary in my opinion. Stuff like a SEAL team killing Bin Laden.
If you don't want to watch the whole video, at least watch from the 2:30 mark.
WRfelv-IhTU

[StoopTroup]

Speaking of China...

While at Goodyear I was given the job to help train this mainland China employee....

I took him under my wing for a month...

He had a doctorate from Michigan U...the Chinese sent him over here for the education...he had no real close family in China so Goodyear sponsored him and he elected to stay...

This dude was brilliant...what normally took a week to teach someone he picked up in a half day...

The stories he told were amazing...how they abhorred waste...

I took him to an all you can eat buffet...we were working on a pile of crawfish and he kept looking at the pinchers...

He asked why I didn't crack them open and eat the meat...

I told him it wasn't worth the trouble...not enough meat to fool with...

He proceeded to crack open the pincher and used a toothpick to pick out the meat...and then blasted me for being so wasteful...

I probably learned more from him than he learned from me...

It was a great month

You should have showed him how we grind up the whole pig into hotdogs because they are a lot easier to eat than crawfish and save a bunch of time so you can even microwave them or eat them raw and get back to work instead of waste time going out for seafood and that if all the employees eat them you won't have to worry about paying into a retirement account as they will die off long before you have to pay out.

[TIMB0B]

130 countries 'occupied'? Are we counting the Marine Guards at our embassies now? I would think US troop presence of any significance would be present in about 20 countries max. A 50 man training group, for example, simply doesn't count.


How would we feel if Russia or China or any historical "enemy" had troops, military training groups, etc. in Mexico, Canada, or Cuba? We wouldn't like it because they'd pose a threat (strategically like a chess match). For example, the Cuban Missile crisis.

[KantoSooner]

We talk, officially and un-, with our friends and enemies. We got the Russians to pull offensive weapons out of Cuba, they got us to scratch basing ABM sites in Ukraine, for example.
We send ships to visit Hong Kong, the Chinese send theirs to visit Honolulu. It's all a great dance. And it should NOT be shut down. It's how we all stay 'familiar' with each other.

[TIMB0B]

We talk, officially and un-, with our friends and enemies. We got the Russians to pull offensive weapons out of Cuba, they got us to scratch basing ABM sites in Ukraine, for example.
We send ships to visit Hong Kong, the Chinese send theirs to visit Honolulu. It's all a great dance. And it should NOT be shut down. It's how we all stay 'familiar' with each other.
Diplomacy. The Constitutional way. We don't make a knee-jerk reaction and go to preemptive war over WNDs that turned out to never be there (i.e. Iraq).

[MR2-Sooner86]

No, I suggest reading any history of the 90th infantry, for instance. Or looking at a history of US Army in the Philippines, or examining active combatant numbers between the wars. Facts are difficult things: our army was gutted after WWI and entered WWII a shadow of itself (same thing that happened after the civil war, by the way). Our soldiers were essentially given on the job training in WWII and virtually without exception suffered horrendous casualties upon the first combat. That the Russians did the same thing, worse, is no effective rebuttal of my argument.

And thank you for seconding my statement regarding Hitler.

Yes we got our *** handed to us in the beginning, at times, but you made it sound like we had a bunch of guys who didn't know which end of the gun to point at the enemy. That would've been Russia. You mentioned 1944, I'd say we really got rolling in 1943 in Europe. Also, the biggest victory for us in the Pacific came just six months into the war which pretty much made it to where Japan could never fully recover.

If anything, I'd say equipment had more to do with it. We had allot of good stuff going into the but we had allot bad stuff as well. For instance our torpedos and torpedo planes sucked, and I mean sucked.

As for Hitler, yes, he was smart but never knew when to swallow his pride. If only people really knew just how close he came to defeating Britain. He got pretty damn close with Russia too. If he could've talked Japan into attacking from the other side Russia would've fallen.

[MR2-Sooner86]

i'm still retarded

Obviously if you can't answer simple questions I've been asking.

I mean don't you think it's odd that this past decade we've gone to war with two countries we supported just 20 years earlier?

I'm still waiting on an answer on just what we gained from Vietnam. Really, what did that war give us?

Why are we stationed in South Korea? Can't they defend their own country? If they do want us there, why aren't they paying for our services?

Why did we invade Panama?

Why did we overthrow the government of Iran?

Why did we go into Somalia?

Why are we bombing Libya?

Why didn't we go after Israel when they bombed our ship in international waters?