Ron Paul foreign policy--who really wants it?

[Travis]

I find the existence of individuals who seem to like Ron Paul's isolationist foreign policy a bit hard to figure on.

I was not aware there were so many people who want a world that descends into anarchy, economic collapse, war and inevitable tyrannical domination by China (granted that is only one very probable outcome).

But....hell I still don't understand why some guys like to hire women to crush their testicles. I guess it takes all kinds.

I sort of suspect this is just people who really hated some of America's recent wars and are willing to throw support behind someone that also hates them without thinking through the results of an America that dismantles its military, lines its borders with landmines and basically stops talking and trading with the rest of the world.

Just so I'm clear there is a world of difference between pulling out of a few select Middle Eastern countries and total isolationism. Throwing your support behind the latter to achieve the former is sort of like amputating a leg to take care of those too long toenails.

 

[Galileo]

I find the existence of individuals who seem to like Ron Paul's isolationist foreign policy a bit hard to figure on.

I was not aware there were so many people who want a world that descends into anarchy, economic collapse, war and inevitable tyrannical domination by China (granted that is only one very probable outcome).

But....hell I still don't understand why some guys like to hire women to crush their testicles. I guess it takes all kinds.

I sort of suspect this is just people who really hated some of America's recent wars and are willing to throw support behind someone that also hates them without thinking through the results of an America that dismantles its military, lines its borders with landmines and basically stops talking and trading with the rest of the world.

Just so I'm clear there is a world of difference between pulling out of a few select Middle Eastern countries and total isolationism. Throwing your support behind the latter to achieve the former is sort of like amputating a leg to take care of those too long toenails.

Paul is not an isolationist, he is an ardent supporter of free trade and the right to travel.

 

[Undesired Walrus]

As far as I'm aware, isolationalism has been a popular course to travel for most of American history. I suppose Paul is old enough to remember that.

 

[angrysoba]

Well, it could be that your characterization of Ron Paul's position is ever so slightly misrepresented.

You seem to be assuming that the world will descend into anarchy and economic chaos if the United States isn't there to police the world and keep everybody in line. It certainly isn't necessarily true that this will happen. The United States has only fairly recently been a global power.

 

[Dancing David]

One can be against things like the expenditure of 3 trillion dollars on stupid wars in places like Iraq and not be an isolationist. Do we really need to spend more on our war machine than the erst of the world combined?

Not that I am a Ron Paul supporter.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

If Ron Paul became President, he'd have to invade 200 countries so that he could live up to his promise to withdraw US troops from them.

 

[MG1962]

One can be against things like the expenditure of 3 trillion dollars on stupid wars in places like Iraq and not be an isolationist. Do we really need to spend more on our war machine than the erst of the world combined?

Not that I am a Ron Paul supporter.

This and the constant demonic representation of China

 

[WildCat]

Paul is not an isolationist, he is an ardent supporter of free trade and the right to travel.

That's why he's against NAFTA?

 

[WildCat]

Well, it could be that your characterization of Ron Paul's position is ever so slightly misrepresented.

You seem to be assuming that the world will descend into anarchy and economic chaos if the United States isn't there to police the world and keep everybody in line. It certainly isn't necessarily true that this will happen. The United States has only fairly recently been a global power.

And there hasn't been a world war since.

 

[WildCat]

One can be against things like the expenditure of 3 trillion dollars on stupid wars in places like Iraq and not be an isolationist. Do we really need to spend more on our war machine than the erst of the world combined?

Not that I am a Ron Paul supporter.

Yes, we do. Do you realize the bulk of military expenditures are not for airplanes and ships and bombs, but personnell costs?

Would you take away veterans health care and the GI bill and lower pay to bring us more in line with other nations?

 

[Puppycow]

That's why he's against NAFTA?

And not just NAFTA:

He voted against the Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA), holding that it increased the size of government, eroded U.S. sovereignty, and was unconstitutional. He has also voted against the Australia–U.S. FTA, the U.S.–Singapore FTA, and the U.S.–Chile FTA, and voted to withdraw from the WTO. He believes that “fast track” powers, given by Congress to the President to devise and negotiate FTAs on the country’s behalf, are unconstitutional, and that Congress, rather than the executive branch, should construct FTAs.

Today, trade policy has been taken over by the executive branch and Congress graciously cedes this power. Transferring authority under fast-track legislation defies the intent of the Constitution. Trade treaties are not entered into, since senatorial approval by two-thirds would be required and more difficult to pass. This has led to international trade agreements such as WTO, NAFTA, and CAFTA that sacrifice national sovereignty to international government organizations. These agreements can supersede state laws as well. The Constitution assigns to the Congress the responsibility of regulating foreign trade. If the people and the Congress preferred that the President and international government entities control trade, the Constitution should have been amended. Ignoring the Constitution on these issues or any issue serves to undermine constitutional legitimacy.

He claims to be in favor of free trade, but opposes fast-track legislation authority in favor of a process that would require the consent of 67 senators or a constitutional amendment.

 

[WildCat]

And not just NAFTA:





He claims to be in favor of free trade, but opposes fast-track legislation authority in favor of a process that would require the consent of 67 senators or a constitutional amendment.

Right, he's for free trade but votes against it at every single opportunity.

It just astonishes me that anyone takes this assclown seriously.

 

[Trakar]

I find the existence of individuals who seem to like Ron Paul's isolationist foreign policy a bit hard to figure on.

I was not aware there were so many people who want a world that descends into anarchy, economic collapse, war and inevitable tyrannical domination by China (granted that is only one very probable outcome).

But....hell I still don't understand why some guys like to hire women to crush their testicles. I guess it takes all kinds.

I sort of suspect this is just people who really hated some of America's recent wars and are willing to throw support behind someone that also hates them without thinking through the results of an America that dismantles its military, lines its borders with landmines and basically stops talking and trading with the rest of the world.

Just so I'm clear there is a world of difference between pulling out of a few select Middle Eastern countries and total isolationism. Throwing your support behind the latter to achieve the former is sort of like amputating a leg to take care of those too long toenails.

Why does "Isolationism" sound so much worse than "non-interventionism"

 

[MG1962]

Yes, we do. Do you realize the bulk of military expenditures are not for airplanes and ships and bombs, but personnell costs?

You do realize not having so many ships airplanes and bombs would still reduce military expenditure

Would you take away veterans health care and the GI bill and lower pay to bring us more in line with other nations?

Appeal to emotion - fail. no one has suggested cutting veteran entitlements. And you don't have to cut pay - just stop recruiting and let numbers fall naturally.

 

[Trakar]

You do realize not having so many ships airplanes and bombs would still reduce military expenditure



Appeal to emotion - fail. no one has suggested cutting veteran entitlements. And you don't have to cut pay - just stop recruiting and let numbers fall naturally.

Raise the bar, I'd prefer fewer military personnel who are better qualified and motivated, than more personnel who are recruited to fill empty seats.

 

[WildCat]

You do realize not having so many ships airplanes and bombs would still reduce military expenditure

Take away all of them and we still have the most expensive military in the world.

eta: Personnel costs were $244 billion in 2010, that's what it would cost every year even if the didn't have even a single pistol to shoot. How many miitaries spend $244 billion annually for their entire budget? I'm guessing none.

Appeal to emotion - fail. no one has suggested cutting veteran entitlements. And you don't have to cut pay - just stop recruiting and let numbers fall naturally.

And it would take decades until we no longer have the most expensive military in ther world.

 

[WildCat]

Raise the bar, I'd prefer fewer military personnel who are better qualified and motivated, than more personnel who are recruited to fill empty seats.

That's what happened when we got rid of the draft.

 

[Ausmerican]

Take away all of them and we still have the most expensive military in the world.

So we'd still be #1 and save a bunch of money? Sounds like a win/win! Good plan WildCat!
How exactly does it matter if we would still have the most expensive military in the world? The topic was cutting back military spending. If there were cuts made, it might still be the most expensive military in the world, but it could be so for less and we could keep the difference.

And it would take decades until we no longer have the most expensive military in ther world.

Nothing wrong with thinking long term.

 

[WildCat]

So we'd still be #1 and save a bunch of money? Sounds like a win/win! Good plan WildCat!

#1 by what metric, cost?

How exactly does it matter if we would still have the most expensive military in the world?

I don't care if we have the most expensive military in the world, that was Dancing David's concern. I'd be happy with just the most capable military.

The topic was cutting back military spending. If there were cuts made, it might still be the most expensive military in the world, but it could be so for less and we could keep the difference.

So what would you cut from it? Be as specific as you can.

Nothing wrong with thinking long term.

Do you think the long-term goal of the military should be reducing costs, or the ability to defend the country and our interests?

 

[Ausmerican]

So what would you cut from it? Be as specific as you can.

Probably the Air Force. Roll the parts you need into the Navy. They have the carriers and fighter jets aren't much aren't much use without them. As a plus I hear the Air Force Academy these days is like the evangelical version of the Scientology Center so that goes bye bye too.

Do you think the long-term goal of the military should be reducing costs, or the ability to defend the country and our interests?

Short and long term goal should be the latter of course. But it's not binary.

The military is all about efficiency. This extends to most aspects of the military apart from spending. It should apply there too. And I think it could. But why would it?
The military keeps getting money thrown at it by politicians (both sides) doing favors for their big dollar constituents why would they refuse?

Military spending is a problem but it is not really a military problem, it is a political problem and it is at that level you could probably save some money. Just stop politicians from trying to give out spare engines for fighter jets that no-one wants or needs to the tune of billions just because the facotry is based in their district and things like that.