Willard is so funny ha-ha-ha

[lbuehler325]

TAM and Matriculated,

Kook, crazy, etc. seem to come out in your basic arguments against Ron Paul. Let me ask a few very important questions to what I believe are individual liberty loving, Constitution respecting folks. Who is the greatest proponent of the individual, the free market, and the rights (all of them) guaranteed to us in the Constitution and Bill of Rights? That said, now, who signed into law the nation's strictest anti-gun legislation (I know the answer to this one, because I lived in said state for two years, where the state ban is still in effect)? Which candidates, as members of Congress, voted in favor of the Lautenberg Amendment (Clinton gun ban)? Now, which candidate has voted against every measure ever introduced that would limit an individual's right to keep and bear arms? This assumption that previously anti-gunners, if nominated as the Republican nominee, would all of a sudden become ardent defenders of the Constitution is a pipe dream which I cannot just lie into reality.

With regard to foreign policy, how's that hegemony/empire worked out for us lately? Lest we be reminded how every great nation has failed throughout history? It wasn't losses in battle. It was the collapse of their economy due to an unsustainable foreign policy. I would even argue that the ChiComs weren't one of those major nations until recently. China has risen based on a stronger debt to equity ratio than us (with a lot attributed to the fact that China is financing our foreign policy, which we seem to believe holds them at bay???).

Personally, the best thing we can do to maintain our position in the world is to act as a beacon of liberty for other nations to strive (not as a director of nations), and get our debt under control.

And this idea that a Paul presidency would be isolationist is preposterous. Does anyone consider Switzerland isolationist? No, of course not, they are a major business center, who does much trade with many nations. As far as the current CinC relinquishing our current position as the first to get involved (sorry, 'leader of the free world'), tell that to all my tax dollars being spent in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Egypt, Pakistan, Yemen, and soon to be Syria (and possibly Iran... do you see a trend here?). Why, exactly is it wrong to have an expectation that our Congress vote on a declaration of war before spending our precious resources (not just the money we are forced to borrow from China, but the lives of our young men and women who our Chickenhawk politicians are so willing to send into harm's way) on empire maintenance?

As someone who carried out the policies of a previous CinC (GW) over 38 months of direct combat over three separate deployments (losing my fair share of young Infantrymen, friends, and brothers in arms, and being wounded in the process, I am more adamant about a declaration of war than I ever was (and I've always been adamant about it). When Tagg Romney, or Santorum's 18 year old boy enlist in the Infantry, I'll consider rescinding the Chickenhawk label. Until then, I'll consider their hubris (without personal investment) a danger to our liberty. Gingrich cannot get out of the label. He's already declared he had 'better things to do' with his time than serve in the military.

The responses I read here and across the internet are so contradictory to my ideal of what I believe my party is supposed to stand for, I am not certain there will be a Republican candidate whom I can enthusiastically support, as I see no real difference in the either ever-increasingly statist party. A Republican party that dismisses the values of a Constitutionally limited federal government, the ideals of individual liberty, and restrained government spending (a truly free market economy) is not one which I can support any more simply because it isn't Socialism (because it moves closer and closer to that every day).

P.S. I can enlighten you all on Massachusetts gun laws if you want to get an idea about what Mitt Romney might be willing to support (hint: just about anything the Brady Campaign wants).

[G26ster]

And this idea that a Paul presidency would be isolationist is preposterous. Does anyone consider Switzerland isolationist? No, of course not, they are a major business center, who does much trade with many nations. As far as the current CinC relinquishing our current position as the first to get involved (sorry, 'leader of the free world'), tell that to all my tax dollars being spent in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Egypt, Pakistan, Yemen, and soon to be Syria (and possibly Iran... do you see a trend here?). Why, exactly is it wrong to have an expectation that our Congress vote on a declaration of war before spending our precious resources (not just the money we are forced to borrow from China, but the lives of our young men and women who our Chickenhawk politicians are so willing to send into harm's way) on empire maintenance?

As someone who carried out the policies of a previous CinC (GW) over 38 months of direct combat over three separate deployments (losing my fair share of young Infantrymen, friends, and brothers in arms, and being wounded in the process, I am more adamant about a declaration of war than I ever was (and I've always been adamant about it). When Tagg Romney, or Santorum's 18 year old boy enlist in the Infantry, I'll consider rescinding the Chickenhawk label. Until then, I'll consider their hubris (without personal investment) a danger to our liberty. Gingrich cannot get out of the label. He's already declared he had 'better things to do' with his time than serve in the military.

The responses I read here and across the internet are so contradictory to my ideal of what I believe my party is supposed to stand for, I am not certain there will be a Republican candidate whom I can enthusiastically support, as I see no real difference in the either ever-increasingly statist party. A Republican party that dismisses the values of a Constitutionally limited federal government, the ideals of individual liberty, and restrained government spending (a truly free market economy) is not one which I can support any more simply because it isn't Socialism (because it moves closer and closer to that every day).

P.S. I can enlighten you all on Massachusetts gun laws if you want to get an idea about what Mitt Romney might be willing to support (hint: just about anything the Brady Campaign wants).

Although your post was not addressed to me, I'd like to respond if I may. First, your service is without question and you are a true hero in my eyes, and I can't thank you enough for your service. It's hard to imagine 38 months of voluntary combat. You speak from personal experience, and based on my past, I can feel what you feel. I served two non-combat Infantry tours in Korea (early '60's) on the DMZ, and one combat tour in the jungle ('69-'70). In Korea, I think our mission was to DIP (Die in Place). I was lucky though, only some fractures in RVN, but I never took a hit. When I came home I felt as you do. Let down by my government, and for what? 58,000 dead while they squabbled back and forth with no skin in the game. I lost friends too. There was no declaration of war then either, but what would it have mattered? Back then, I think it was even worse than today, as there was an involuntary draft, and an awful lot of young people died who wouldn't/shouldn't have been there in the first place sans the draft.

My problem with Dr. Paul is his foreign policy, as I agree with his economic policy to a great degree. But I believe Dr. Paul is dead wrong about Iran and it's power. Statements like, "they don't even have an Army," or "even if they have nuclear weapons, they have no way to deliver it." This, to me, is naive. Iran is a hair away from nuclear weapons by all accounts and a long range ICBM is not far off either. They already have medium range missiles. Heck, they don't even need a missile, when a ship will deliver it to any port city in the U.S. or Europe just fine. Dr. Paul uses the Soviet Union as an illustration because they had thousands of missiles aimed at us, and nothing happened. He forgets about MAD. You destroy us and get destroyed in the process. Makes a country think real hard about starting a nuclear war. MAD means nothing to the ideological rulers of Iran. Having lived in Iran for several years, and trained their military, it's blatantly obvious Dr. Paul and the POTUS simply don't understand the the rulers and the mentality we are up against. We have made this mistake lately in dealing with foreign conflicts, and it has always cost us dearly. During Vietnam, the average citizen and congressman thought we were fighting a rag tag bunch of farmers in black pajamas. Perhaps it started that way, but someone forget to tell them about the highly trained, equipped and motivated North Vietnamese army that we were up against. or, they probably weren't listening to the commanders in the field anyway.

Switzerland is free to do as they wish because they live under the protective umbrella of the U.S. and the E.U. who spend vast amounts of their taxpayer's money to protect and defend the region. On their own, Switzerland would be gone in days, in any regional conflict. I think the U.S. has a higher role in the world, not only to set an example, but to protect those that simply cannot protect themselves. Call me old fashioned. Heck, I'm 70, so I guess I am - regardless.

So, let's say it comes down to Romney vs. Obama. Do you stay home? Or, do you believe Romney will be more destructive to this country than the current POTUS? It's noble to vote one's conscience, but if Dr. Paul is not the nominee you'll have to decide whether to vote for "your party" or stay home. I hope you make the right decision for our country.

[lbuehler325]

G26ster,
"Obama or Romney" is hardly an inspiring choice for one who loves a Constitution which I swore to defend. No, I will certainly not stay home. I will choose, but there is a write in for a reason. I will vote my conscience. Romney, Santorum, or Gingrich will have a significant task convincing me otherwise. Frankly, I don't believe than can sway my view.

By the way, the same argument against Iran seems quite familiar. I swear, we heard the same in 2002 about WMD, hidden nuclear programs, and dirty bombs in the hands of a mad man with no accountability or checks preventing said weapons from ending up in the hands of terrorists. And while Hezbollah is by no means a friendly actor, they have not demonstrated a pension for international terrorism like Al Qaeda. In fact, Shia dominated Iran hates Al Qaeda. If Iran is such a destabilizing threat in the region, why does American foreign policy seek to tie Israel's hands and their ability to face what they consider to be a threat to their own sovereignty?

Look, I am all for helping those in need. But it has to be within our own means. Remember, we are going broke with this policy, propping up governments around the world. Why is China not acting the aggressor in the world? Because they are allowing us to weaken ourselves. We propped up Egypt under Mubarak. We propped up Pakistan under Musharraf (a military dictator who came to power in a military cue, overthrowing a democratically elected government, and developed a nuclear arsenal under our noses... and we're still propping them up). Benjamin Netanyahu (sp?) said it best when he lectured the US and the West, stating that Israel does not need the West's protection, for they can defend themselves. Attempting to limit a sovereign ally's ability to self determine is hardly a foreign policy I'd like to be live under if I were an Israeli (with friends like us...).

By the way, between the terrain, and the armed populous, I think the Swiss would do just fine in a defensive fight.

Those are my two cents. I am tired of generation after generation of progressively liberal, and more socialistic leaders, and I am finally drawing a line in the sand. Never have the words "Give me Liberty" rang truer than these times. I'll stand with the principles of my Constitution.

[G26ster]

By the way, the same argument against Iran seems quite familiar. I swear, we heard the same in 2002 about WMD, hidden nuclear programs, and dirty bombs in the hands of a mad man with no accountability or checks preventing said weapons from ending up in the hands of terrorists. And while Hezbollah is by no means a friendly actor, they have not demonstrated a pension for international terrorism like Al Qaeda. In fact, Shia dominated Iran hates Al Qaeda. If Iran is such a destabilizing threat in the region, why does American foreign policy seek to tie Israel's hands and their ability to face what they consider to be a threat to their own sovereignty?

It is not U.S. foreign policy that ties Israel's hands IMHO, it's the current administration. I wouldn't use a mistake in intelligence in 2002 as the indicator that all intelligence is misguided in the future. Iran's nuclear program is not "hidden" and it's not terrorists that concern me, it's the theocracy in Iran that does. Iran and Iraq couldn't be more different. Iraq was ruled by a dictator who was as materialistic as they come. Iran is ruled by theocrats who value death more than life. It's not the people of these countries that worry me.

Benjamin Netanyahu (sp?) said it best when he lectured the US and the West, stating that Israel does not need the West's protection, for they can defend themselves. Attempting to limit a sovereign ally's ability to self determine is hardly a foreign policy I'd like to be live under if I were an Israeli (with friends like us...).

Israel is a nuclear power, but Netanyahu has made an awful lot of trips to the U.S. for our assistance. Not direct protection, but for support in their position to defend themselves, and for the U. S. not to undermine their territorial claims. And they do need our assistance if they are to take out Iran's nuclear weapons program. If not directly with heavy air power, then with U.S. pressure on regional gov'ts for airspace and perhaps airfields for Israel to use. As for Mubarak, like Sadat before him, there would have been no stability in the Middle East. While not peace, it's a darn sight better than constant wars with a key ally. And as for why we must defend Israel, well I guess as the world said, "Never again" to the genocide of Jewish people after WWII, and almost every other nation has already forgotten that pledge, someone must stand up to actually back it up. Otherwise it's just words.

By the way, between the terrain, and the armed populous, I think the Swiss would do just fine in a defensive fight.

We have not been involved in a real "war" since WWII. Everything has been a containment in support of an ally. In a real war, the rules are different. Nations bent on conquest care nothing for the populace. Regardless of the terrain in Switzerland, if a power took out every major city, village, and hamlet with air power without regard to civilian casualties, the populace can run around all they want with their rifles to no avail. Their country would be basically "gone."

Those are my two cents. I am tired of generation after generation of progressively liberal, and more socialistic leaders, and I am finally drawing a line in the sand. Never have the words "Give me Liberty" rang truer than these times. I'll stand with the principles of my Constitution.

I still believe Dr. Paul is Naive when it comes to foreign policy. IIRC, France, Spain, the Netherlands helped the U.S. during our revolution. In 1941, if Japan did not attack Pearl Harbor, then Germany would not have declared war against us. Europe would be under total German control and the Far East under total Japanese control. How many more millions would be dead? What would the world be like? When does the U.S. stand up for the principles of freedom? Only if we are attacked directly? I'm afraid that waiting until then it will be too late. To me, the U.S. is the greatest force for good and freedom the world has ever known, and yes, it comes with a price.

Vote as you wish. We all have to vote for what we think is best for our country.

[The Annoyed Man]

By the way, the same argument against Iran seems quite familiar. I swear, we heard the same in 2002 about WMD, hidden nuclear programs, and dirty bombs in the hands of a mad man with no accountability or checks preventing said weapons from ending up in the hands of terrorists. And while Hezbollah is by no means a friendly actor, they have not demonstrated a pension for international terrorism like Al Qaeda. In fact, Shia dominated Iran hates Al Qaeda. If Iran is such a destabilizing threat in the region, why does American foreign policy seek to tie Israel's hands and their ability to face what they consider to be a threat to their own sovereignty?

It is not U.S. foreign policy that ties Israel's hands IMHO, it's the current administration. I wouldn't use a mistake in intelligence in 2002 as the indicator that all intelligence is misguided in the future. Iran's nuclear program is not "hidden" and it's not terrorists that concern me, it's the theocracy in Iran that does. Iran and Iraq couldn't be more different. Iraq was ruled by a dictator who was as materialistic as they come. Iran is ruled by theocrats who value death more than life. It's not the people of these countries that worry me.

Don't forget, it wasn't just US intelligence that was fooled. The Brits, the French, and the Russians all believed that Iraq was developing nukes and biological weapons. I would add this, and that is a comment about the specific theology of the Iranian Mullahs. As everyone well knows, there are different sects of Islam, just as there are with Christianity and Judaism. In the aggregate, the Shia sect is probably no more or no less toxic or benevolent than any other sect. A lot of any existing toxicity depends entirely on the personal bents of the most vocally radical leaders, and those folks are some particularly twisted SOBs. Ahmadinejad and the Mullahs all hew to a particularly virulent type of Shia in which they A) believe in an Armageddon-ish scenario which will precipitate the return of the 12th Imam (their messianic figure); B) believe that it is their religious duty as followers of that theology to pro-actively bring about that Armageddon; AND C) believe that they will be rewarded for being the instigators of that Armageddon. That is why Ahmadinejad is so deliberately and smugly provocative. He not only most strongly desires a violent confrontation involving nuclear weapons, he believes that he'll be rewarded in paradise for it. Maybe he'll get 80 virgins instead of 72. The greedy bastard. Anyway, he has NO VESTED INTEREST IN PEACE. He will be most joyful when Israel is burning, and Americans and "heathen" europeans are dying in the hundreds of thousands of radiation poisoning—joyful because the carnage will be a sign that his eternal reward is near. His religion demands it. His most immediate goal is to keep the US and the rest of the world talking (instead of doing) until he can complete his nuclear arsenal. At that point he will have the weapons AND the means of delivering them. He's not only not afraid of a nuclear retaliation, he actually yearns for it because it will be part of the fulfillment of what he passionately believes to be a prophetic testimony.

In the light of that, can the US, or any other nation for that matter, really afford to be hands off about Iran's nuclear program? There are plenty of other members of the nuclear club who are stable nations with good control over their nuclear inventories. When the USSR collapsed, the obvious concern was what would happen to their warheads, and in hindsight, that has been a legitimate fear as they haven't ever all been accounted for since. It's never the stable nations you have to worry about with nukes, because they are culturally unable to use nukes offensively.

Iran would light nukes off like they were firecrackers at a quinceañera party and they were serving beer to minors. They simply aren't responsible enough to be allowed the possession of nukes. Furthermore, they'll give the technology to every murderous terrorist with an axe to grind.....just like they're already doing in other parts of the world. Any presidential candidate who doesn't see that cannot be trusted with the keys to the oval office. So, somebody please convince me that Ron Paul takes this very real threat seriously.......because his public pronouncements in that regard aren't very confidence inspiring. Is it just that he's a poor communicator? Or, does he really not get? Or worse yet, does he really not believe it?

Help me out here.

[lbuehler325]

All good points brought up. I do believe Ron Paul takes our national security seriously, just as he does our Constitution. All he has ever asked for was a humble foreign policy (that which GW Bush campaigned for) and that Congress do its job before sending our young men and women off to fight. A President Paul, in my opinion, would not hesitate to use force to protect this nation. As the CinC, he is responsible for prosecuting such action... once Congress has authorized it... as directed... by the Constitution. Anything short of this is a waste of our servicemen and money.