Ron Paul: The candidate for the lazy uninvolved American

Forums: Politics, Political, American Politics
Email this Topic • Print this Page

Ron Paul has made quite a stir

Although never appearing in any major polls he's the darling of text messagers everywhere. And has cornered the market on internet buzz.

There's a good reason for this, his politics largely appeal to the cynical, disenfranchised American who's frustration has caused them to more and more "look out for #1". This is a growing subculture.

Why wouldn't it be? Presidential and and Congressional approval figures are at an all time low, and the opposition in question (the Dem's) are far more interested in avenging Clinton's impeachment then actually passing legislation. In such an atmosphere it is a near certainty that a Dark Horse candidate will appear and endear himself to the American who feels his government is no longer "for the people".

But is choosing one because it is not like the other the best policy? Will Ron Paul actually fix America? Or is he himself just a disenfranchised American who has lowest common denominatored himself to the point where he's just in it for him?

Forget the Hype, let's just look at what he's saying, forgetting it's him saying it, and let's consider if these are good ideas.

YouTube - Ron Paul @ Republican Fox Debate 9-5-07

Point One: Leaving Iraq

Paul was as asked if he would in fact pull us, to a man, out of Iraq. He was asked the genocide question which is based on lessons learned from leaving Vietnam, he was also asked if America should prevent Terror Camps from forming there in the Future. His replies:

Genocide after withdrawal: "The experts are wrong, listen to the people who think we shouldn't have been there to begin with"

Unfortunately the experts are right here. This isn't guestimation, it's history repeating itself. For 30 years the Sunni minority ruled Iraq with an Iron fist under Saddam, brutalizing and killing hundreds of thousands of Shiite. The sectarian violence, which is now being quelled by the success of the surge, is living proof that escalation would be the only result of premature withdrawal. A good term for Dr. Paul here, to help him understand it, is something he knows well. Blowback; blowback retaliation would be the only possible result after so many years of oppression, and Iran (also a Shiite people seeking a larger footprint in Iraq) would help them do it. The interesting thing is that Paul, just like the Democrats, doesn't even address the issue, he just says "they're wrong" and then moves on. And while this isn't a good stance it is a convenient one if you're an American male 18-30 who can't actually be bothered to defend your country but at the same time don't want to be called a "girly man" for not doing so.

Leaving Troops Behind to Fight Terror:

"We don't need troops on the Arabian Peninsula"

I would call this the classic pre 911 mindset. Before that fateful day the only reason we were in the area was to monitor Iraq's compliance with UN resolutions and to a much lessor degree help keep Israel safe. We weren't a bully, we were in fact there at the continued request of Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. Since then we have learned that had we been disrupting terror camps in the area, maybe we could have prevented 911 (planned in Afghanistan). Ron Paul seems to want to unlearn that lesson, that coupled with his plans for the CIA and FBI (which I'll expound on later) is a recipe for disaster in national security. And while it isn't a good stance, it is a convenient one. After all doing nothing is easy to do...

Point Two: The divided states of America and losing elections

Paul blames the "failed foreign policy" on "a small group of Neo-Cons" and rejects the idea that when we foul as a country we foul together. Dr. Paul also says that we need to change this country's foreign policy because if we don't Republicans won't win elections.

Every time America has made giant steps forward she has been largely united. The Revolution, The Reformation, WWI and II, Civil Rights, and the Cold War were all great successes. It's no coincidence that we were largely unified.

When we fail is when we're divided. The Civil War, while necessary, was a tragedy for American Unity. Vietnam is another example. Abraham Lincoln himself said "A house divided against itself cannot stand", yet Ron Paul would ignore the facts: that Democrats wanted this war when it happened, that moderates wanted this war when it happened, that America wanted this war when in happened. He would have you believe that it was some action which never carried a majority approval.

Well Ron Paul history debunks you, we did get into this mess as a country, and we won't get out of it by blaming minority sects within the government. We will win the day when we stand together and strengthen our resolve. While your blame game isn't a path to victory, I will yield that it is more convenient to point the finger and claim it isn't your problem then it is to roll up your sleeves and make good on a difficult responsibility. Also, changing policy to simply win elections is what Democrats do, part of doing what is right is doing it because it is right, not because it is convenient.

Point Three: Taxes and Spending

Well it's hard to comment here because Paul won't address it. The moderator stated Paul's own words that he would eliminate the FBI/CIA/IRS/Homeland Security/ etc. Paul instead blasts burocrasy (a product of legislation) but at the same time doesn't want further executive power either and offers no mention of what he actually plans to do to fix it. I would surmise that's because he has no plan, he's obviously flatly bitter and cynical and unfortunately that strikes a real cord with the America of today. Then in a classless act he plays the conspiracy theory card accusing our country of conducting torture at secret prisons, something usually reserved for Al Gore, and oh yeah by the way there is absolutely no proof this is happening at all.

One thought: Without an FBI, CIA, or a military disrupting terror camps in Al Qaeda sponsored countries how long do you think this country would go without an attack? Wasn't it Homeland Security and the FBI who nabbed the shoe bomber? What about the Al Qeada leadership which the CIA has helped nab over the last few years in several countries? What about the terror camp that was being planned in Oregon which the FBI just shut down before it ever got started.

Ron Paul was right, the pre 911 intelligence agencies were ineffective, but he can't actually expect Americans to forget the overhaul they over went after 911 and the progress which has been made sense. He's banking on America's frustration to overtake her rationality and unfortunately to some extent it's worked.

Point Four: Dealing with a nuclear Iran

"I would back off" -Ron Paul

Did JFK win the Cuban Missile Crisis by backing off? Did we get Iraq out of Kuwait by backing off? NO! We put our forces in striking distance and then negotiated. Military action wasn't threatened, if negotiations failed it was a certainty. That's how we achieved compliance.

Iran is a country who's foreign policy includes the destruction of Israel. Iran is also a country which describes Israel as a "One nuke conflict" while building a nuclear weapons program. Knowing all this Dr. Paul would have you believe that "Iran isn't a threat to Israel" .

History will again tell us that America has really been the only force in the world that has ever had any success getting the Muslim and Jewish communities to work together. Yet Ron Paul would have us leave the equation entirely. While this is a very convenient thing to do it will not however prevent Nuclear War on the Arabian peninsula.

Ron Paul's America: A country with no central intelligence, that allows terror to flourish in other countries. A country which would put away our responsibilities to the people of Iraq and leave them to dissolve into genocidal civil war. A country that would allow renegade sates like Iran acquire nuclear weapons which they will use to start a second holocaust against Jewish people. A nuclear conflict which will cripple the global economy and destabilize the region from Egypt to Turkey to India. That's WW III. A country which does what is convenient rather then what is the right thing to do for our children.

I'm as sick of our government as the rest of America. I'm not currently a big fan of Bush and Capital Hill is a joke. Yet my cynicism will not drive me to electing a man who's ideas border on insane. Who's ideas would lead us to a much less stable world then the one we are building. While an inconvenient task, not backing off Iran will prevent the greatest threat world peace we face this century.

[SIZE="4"]DO NOT ELECT RON PAUL[/SIZE]

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 2,631 • Replies: 50

No top replies

@Silverchild79,

Silverchild79;39213 wrote:

Point One: Leaving Iraq

Paul was as asked if he would in fact pull us, to a man, out of Iraq. He was asked the genocide question which is based on lessons learned from leaving Vietnam, he was also asked if America should prevent Terror Camps from forming there in the Future. His replies:

Genocide after withdrawal: "The experts are wrong, listen to the people who think we shouldn't have been there to begin with"

Unfortunately the experts are right here. This isn't guestimation, it's history repeating itself. For 30 years the Sunni minority ruled Iraq with an Iron fist under Saddam, brutalizing and killing hundreds of thousands of Shiite. The sectarian violence, which is now being quelled by the success of the surge, is living proof that escalation would be the only result of premature withdrawal. A good term for Dr. Paul here, to help him understand it, is something he knows well. Blowback; blowback retaliation would be the only possible result after so many years of oppression, and Iran (also a Shiite people seeking a larger footprint in Iraq) would help them do it. The interesting thing is that Paul, just like the Democrats, doesn't even address the issue, he just says "they're wrong" and then moves on. And while this isn't a good stance it is a convenient one if you're an American male 18-30 who can't actually be bothered to defend your country but at the same time don't want to be called a "girly man" for not doing so.

No, no, and no. Paul has a point. The SAME people who are telling us genocide will occur are the SAME people who told us Iraqi oil would pay for the war, and that it would be over quickly. Why believe them? We left Somalia "prematurely", and their civil war did not escalate. In fact, today they have some semblance of government, and fight AGAINST radical Islamists. You have cherry-picked history, the country could go either way.

Quote:

Leaving Troops Behind to Fight Terror:

"We don't need troops on the Arabian Peninsula"

I would call this the classic pre 911 mindset. Before that fateful day the only reason we were in the area was to monitor Iraq's compliance with UN resolutions and to a much lessor degree help keep Israel safe. We weren't a bully, we were in fact there at the continued request of Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. Since then we have learned that had we been disrupting terror camps in the area, maybe we could have prevented 911 (planned in Afghanistan). Ron Paul seems to want to unlearn that lesson, that coupled with his plans for the CIA and FBI (which I'll expound on later) is a recipe for disaster in national security. And while it isn't a good stance, it is a convenient one. After all doing nothing is easy to do...

The Saudi and Kuwaiti governments are monarchies who greatly benefit from our presence in the gulf, the people do not want us there. Osama bin Laden in his 1994 fatwa SPECIFICALLY listed our presence in the gulf, support of Israel, and sanctions on Iraq as motivation for violence. Prior to this decree, America did not have an enemy in Osama bin Laden. Your solution? More troops, stay longer, and outright INVADE Iraq. How can you fail to see the logical fallacy in this foreign policy? Of the 1991 coalition, the US is the only one with permanent military presence still in the Kingdom of Saud, the holiest of muslim lands, and you actually wonder why 9/11 happened? Osama has TOLD us why we're targets, so remove the impetus for an attack and make it clear that violence will be met with violence. Not only will removal of US forces from the middle east somewhat placate radical Islam, it will ultimately benefit the United States economically. Lest you forget, our own comptroller general has predicted federal bankruptcy in less than half a century. Bring ALL troops home, including from Germany and Japan, and in a few years, see how many terrorists want to harm us.

Quote:

Point Two: The divided states of America and losing elections

Paul blames the "failed foreign policy" on "a small group of Neo-Cons" and rejects the idea that when we foul as a country we foul together. Dr. Paul also says that we need to change this country's foreign policy because if we don't Republicans won't win elections.

Every time America has made giant steps forward she has been largely united. The Revolution, The Reformation, WWI and II, Civil Rights, and the Cold War were all great successes. It's no coincidence that we were largely unified.

When we fail is when we're divided. The Civil War, while necessary, was a tragedy for American Unity. Vietnam is another example. Abraham Lincoln himself said "A house divided against itself cannot stand", yet Ron Paul would ignore the facts: that Democrats wanted this war when it happened, that moderates wanted this war when it happened, that America wanted this war when in happened. He would have you believe that it was some action which never carried a majority approval.

Well Ron Paul history debunks you, we did get into this mess as a country, and we won't get out of it by blaming minority sects within the government. We will win the day when we stand together and strengthen our resolve. While your blame game isn't a path to victory, I will yield that it is more convenient to point the finger and claim it isn't your problem then it is to roll up your sleeves and make good on a difficult responsibility. Also, changing policy to simply win elections is what Democrats do, part of doing what is right is doing it because it is right, not because it is convenient.

Actually, the Revolution was highly contentious and sported numerous loyalist militias. In fact, most of the fighting from 1775-1776 was between American colonists. Civil War was also highly contentious on both sides; draft riots, deserters, and the border states all point to LACK OF CONSENSUS. Civil rights? Federal troops were required to integrate southern colleges, you're wrong. Cold War, nope. Ike warned AGAINST militarization, republicans wanted us out of Nam, and oh yeah, McCarthy accused everybody of being a communist.

Fact is, America is NEVER united, dissent is a part of our heritage and a valuable one at that. History sides with Dr. Paul, you sir, have either lied, or simply do not fully understand the history of this country.

Our policy can't remain stagnant given new developments. If you put your hand on an open flame, you don't leave it there depite the pain because you "made a decision". You re-evaluate policy given changing circumstances. This is called being REASONABLE.

As far as winning elections, that Paul's way of trying to win over the RNC. I don't particularly care for it, but if he wants to go there, he's allowed.

Quote:

Point Three: Taxes and Spending

Well it's hard to comment here because Paul won't address it. The moderator stated Paul's own words that he would eliminate the FBI/CIA/IRS/Homeland Security/ etc. Paul instead blasts burocrasy (a product of legislation) but at the same time doesn't want further executive power either and offers no mention of what he actually plans to do to fix it. I would surmise that's because he has no plan, he's obviously flatly bitter and cynical and unfortunately that strikes a real cord with the America of today. Then in a classless act he plays the conspiracy theory card accusing our country of conducting torture at secret prisons, something usually reserved for Al Gore, and oh yeah by the way there is absolutely no proof this is happening at all.

One thought: Without an FBI, CIA, or a military disrupting terror camps in Al Qaeda sponsored countries how long do you think this country would go without an attack? Wasn't it Homeland Security and the FBI who nabbed the shoe bomber? What about the Al Qeada leadership which the CIA has helped nab over the last few years in several countries? What about the terror camp that was being planned in Oregon which the FBI just shut down before it ever got started.

Ron Paul was right, the pre 911 intelligence agencies were ineffective, but he can't actually expect Americans to forget the overhaul they over went after 911 and the progress which has been made sense. He's banking on America's frustration to overtake her rationality and unfortunately to some extent it's worked.

Paul has NEVER, EVER advocated the disbanding of the FBI directly. He wants to scale it down considerably and limit its role to enforcing federal law, not domestic spying. The CIA has done this country more harm than good since its inception, from Iran to the USSR they have fucked up time and time again. I don't agree with disbanding it, but I agree that it's scope as well should be considerably limited. The terrorist threat only exists BECAUSE of the agencies that are now trying to eliminate it, so your point is moot. He wants the IRS gone because they constantly harass the citizenry of this country unlawfully, and he wants it gone as part of a larger strategy to reinstitute REAL SPECIE CURRENCY (ie, money backed by gold/silver) and end the unConstitutional Federal Reserve System. Fun fact, all of your income tax is used up on debt to the FED before any government programs are funded.

Paul DOES have a plan for the government, it's called the US Constitution. He doesn't need more executive power, we need less, and the same goes for Congress. Read the Constitution, I have asked this of neocons many, many times. More than half of our government programs and agencies are not authorized under the Constitution, and yet they exist. It's really quite simple. If Congress isn't authorized to do it, they can't. If the president isn't authorized to do it, he can't. Paul's plan is the FOUNDERS' plan.

Quote:

Point Four: Dealing with a nuclear Iran

"I would back off" -Ron Paul

Did JFK win the Cuban Missile Crisis by backing off? Did we get Iraq out of Kuwait by backing off? NO! We put our forces in striking distance and then negotiated. Military action wasn't threatened, if negotiations failed it was a certainty. That's how we achieved compliance.

Iran is a country who's foreign policy includes the destruction of Israel. Iran is also a country which describes Israel as a "One nuke conflict" while building a nuclear weapons program. Knowing all this Dr. Paul would have you believe that "Iran isn't a threat to Israel" .

History will again tell us that America has really been the only force in the world that has ever had any success getting the Muslim and Jewish communities to work together. Yet Ron Paul would have us leave the equation entirely. While this is a very convenient thing to do it will not however prevent Nuclear War on the Arabian peninsula.

Israel can take care of itself. Sovereign nations are responsible for their own defense. Iran is surrounded by US forces, this does not DETER nuclear armament but HASTEN it. Iran has never attacked the US save for the 1979 Embassy attack, which by all accounts was justified given what we did to them (install a brutal dictator). Let sovereign nations work things out on their own, Israel has demonstrated countless times that they neither need nor desire our aide (USS Liberty, all pan-Arab wars, etc), so we should stop giving it.

We brought the jews and muslims together? Huh? After that five minutes was over they were back to killing each other. Nobody is innocent over there, so let them fight it out.

Quote:

Ron Paul's America: A country with no central intelligence, that allows terror to flourish in other countries. A country which would put away our responsibilities to the people of Iraq and leave them to dissolve into genocidal civil war. A country that would allow renegade sates like Iran acquire nuclear weapons which they will use to start a second holocaust against Jewish people. A nuclear conflict which will cripple the global economy and destabilize the region from Egypt to Turkey to India. That's WW III. A country which does what is convenient rather then what is the right thing to do for our children.

You have ZERO evidence to support the Iraqi genocide claim, or the Iranian nuclear war claim. We spent 50 years facing down the USSR, but neither one of us used nukes because one was afraid of the other. Israel is nuclear, so Iran knows not to go there, it WON'T HAPPEN. Don't try the terrorist hand off THEORY either, because no country will simply GIVE billions of dollars of military research to a terrorist entity with no credible means of command and control. Do our children benefit more from a bankrupt and militaristic society which ignores the rule of law, or a nation of wealth, reason, and Constitutionality.

Quote:

I'm as sick of our government as the rest of America. I'm not currently a big fan of Bush and Capital Hill is a joke. Yet my cynicism will not drive me to electing a man who's ideas border on insane. Who's ideas would lead us to a much less stable world then the one we are building. While an inconvenient task, not backing off Iran will prevent the greatest threat world peace we face this century.

I suppose Jefferson was insane then?

Quote:

[SIZE="4"]DO NOT ELECT RON PAUL[/SIZE]

Unless you want a restoration of our Constitutional Republic.

1 Reply

@Freeman15,

Well I certainly like his ideas about the IRS

and he is dead on about closing the borders and immigration reform.

I like his idea to protect social security and change our failed foreign policies .

But I am a little upset that as a doctor he has not put forth a plan to help fix the health care crisis in the US.

he seems to want to see more holistic medicine and that is great , but we have to be able to pay for it.

2 Replies

@wvpeach,

wvpeach;39254 wrote:

Well I certainly like his ideas about the IRS

and he is dead on about closing the borders and immigration reform.

I like his idea to protect social security and change our failed foreign policies .

But I am a little upset that as a doctor he has not put forth a plan to help fix the health care crisis in the US.

he seems to want to see more holistic medicine and that is great , but we have to be able to pay for it.

Ron Paul has some great ideas (flat tax, protecting social security) but when you consider his foreign policy includes an end to intelligence to prevent terror, and his incredibly bad ideas on other things you realize that he bats about .250 and I'm not about to let a man who would leave us wide open to attack be the leader of the free world. Even if I like his tax policy.

3 Replies

@Silverchild79,

you're mis-interpreting his foreign policy.

0 Replies

@Silverchild79,

Silverchild79;39354 wrote:

Ron Paul has some great ideas (flat tax, protecting social security) but when you consider his foreign policy includes an end to intelligence to prevent terror, and his incredibly bad ideas on other things you realize that he bats about .250 and I'm not about to let a man who would leave us wide open to attack be the leader of the free world. Even if I like his tax policy.

He won't leave us open to attack if he eliminates the motivation for said attack. Stop intervening in other nations' domestic politics, and you'll see s sharp decline in anti-American sentiment.

1 Reply

@Silverchild79,

Really and with our worlds greatest huge military resources you do not think we can protect this country silverchild?

I have heard ron paul speak about protecting our home land and his ideas are much like my own.

Pull our troops out of the hundreds of bases they are stationed at around the world. He would leave very few foreign bases open just enough to have strategic striking distance if we had to go after somebody.

Pull those troops home and station them on the borders , closing the influx of terrorists walking across the border.

Tell the rest of the world that from now on the US will be minding our own business where war is concerned. We plan to remain active in trade with the rest of the world and would respond militarily if a ally needs our help . But we will not be occupying foreign lands anymore.

Round up all illegals in the country and deport them if they do not pass a background check. Make sure we know who comes into this country from now on and deport them if they over stay visa's.

Put most of our navy and our air force guarding our own coasts and leave a few able to help the allies.

Our military is well able under the above circumstances to defend this country from any and all threats from any place in the world .

Ron Paul has some common sense. And his ideas would save billions and billions a year making this country solvent again

Unlike our current president who has left the borders wide open. Started two wars which are bound in a 1/2 generation to have generated many more terrorists who hate the US because they held their mother or father in their arms as they died due to US occupation. And has wasted and depleted our military assets . I swear sometimes I look at what Bush has done and I think he is trying to make sure the country is left like a sitting duck so one of his buddies , communist china perhaps can just walk in here and take us over with barely a shot fired. Oops he will say I had no idea. Or maybe the pan is for China to install Bush as Governor over the US and he will not tell us anything except to shut up or face the penalties . I'm sure he will not hesitate to kill those that give him trouble.

Silverchild79;39354 wrote:

Ron Paul has some great ideas (flat tax, protecting social security) but when you consider his foreign policy includes an end to intelligence to prevent terror, and his incredibly bad ideas on other things you realize that he bats about .250 and I'm not about to let a man who would leave us wide open to attack be the leader of the free world. Even if I like his tax policy.

2 Replies

@Silverchild79,

This hit piece reads like a cat vomited up the golden oldies of neocon bullet points.

1 Reply

@92b16vx,

Forget this hit piece. God damn Ron Paul Spammers have raised over 500 thousand in 2 days

1 Reply

@I Understand,

I Understand;39390 wrote:

Forget this hit piece. God damn Ron Paul Spammers have raised over 500 thousand in 2 days

50,000 in 45 minutes :thumbup:

0 Replies

@Silverchild79,

Silverchild79;39354 wrote:

Ron Paul has some great ideas (flat tax, protecting social security) but when you consider his foreign policy includes an end to intelligence to prevent terror, and his incredibly bad ideas on other things you realize that he bats about .250 and I'm not about to let a man who would leave us wide open to attack be the leader of the free world. Even if I like his tax policy.

Get your facts straight. Ron believes the DIA can provide the intelligence necessary to protect the country. That pretty much negates your biggest criticism.

0 Replies

@wvpeach,

But to get one you get the full bag. He isn't sharp he is pointed. little room upstairs for much brain power.
Quote: Point Two: The divided states of America and losing elections
Paul blames the "failed foreign policy" on "a small group of Neo-Cons" and rejects the idea that when we foul as a country we foul together. Dr. Paul also says that we need to change this country's foreign policy because if we don't Republicans won't win elections. End Quote,

I thought the Republicans put this foreign policy in place to begin with. neo Cons??? Say it like it is, Machiavellians. darn third party. The 3rd party candidate can win if his party becomes the American party with American values an the peoples voice is heard. And the agenda being what the American People decide. And no new ones till the first agenda is completed.

wvpeach;39254 wrote:

Well I certainly like his ideas about the IRS

Ron Paul 2008 › Issues › Ending the IRS

and he is dead on about closing the borders and immigration reform.

Ron Paul 2008 › Issues › Border Security and Immigration Reform

I like his idea to protect social security and change our failed foreign policies .

But I am a little upset that as a doctor he has not put forth a plan to help fix the health care crisis in the US.

he seems to want to see more holistic medicine and that is great , but we have to be able to pay for it.

1 Reply

@mlurp,

mlurp;39477 wrote:

And the agenda being what the American People decide.

The American people were fed proven lies for a decade, and in the months after 9/11, leading up to the invasion it was poured on in spades. Deciding to do something is one thing, but that descision needs to be based on truth. Congress wouldn't even commit to the invasion, they passed the buck to Bush, who immediately did what he has planned to do all along, invade a sovereign, secular nation that had nothing to do with 9/11 AGAINST the advice of MANY senior military leaders who knew it was a really bad idea.

Now we are at a point where the neocon agenda is past the point of no return. People that want to get out of a situation we shouldn't have been in, in the first place are label unpatriotic, or traitor, which is complete bullshit. They want to hide behind "Oh, what will happen to the poor iraqis?" Who cares. They want to try pretending it will become a wholesale slaughter, when the FACT is that most of the violence is because we are there. Sure, there will be a struggle for power, but it will not be genocide. I like how people try to compare will they think will happen to Vietnam, the country that in less than a decade to stablize and institue a free market that we trade with today.

Or military and economy are about to take a serious ****, but hey, as long as people keep falling for the buzzword phrases it's all good.

1 Reply

@92b16vx,

QUOTE: The American people were fed proven lies for a decade END QUOTE, I want you to know my government has been liying before I was born. That is what needs to be stopped. And much other fixed.

But I got it right while doing a nuke test. Duck and Cover, it was called. I got under my wood desk and while there thought gee the film showed a fierce fire storm. And I was under kindling. Made me think.....

0 Replies

@wvpeach,

wvpeach;39362 wrote:

Really and with our worlds greatest huge military resources you do not think we can protect this country silverchild?

I have heard ron paul speak about protecting our home land and his ideas are much like my own.

The War on Terror is "A-symmetrical", military power can only defend against combative targets. A tank can't take out a guy at Dallas Ft Worth International who was trained 6 months ago in Iran that's hidden a box cutter in his ass and plans to hijack an aircraft. The military isn't suited to do that job, it doesn't work, and without an entire restructuring it couldn't work

The DIA has a role in intelligence and they do their job well. But there are things which are better left to the FBI/CIA just like the Army is good at it's job but really don't do allot of Air Force type stuff.

Again to make his plan work you're talking about dismantling a CIA/FBI which after 911 has done a wonderful job, and replacing it with a bloated reshapen DIA which now is some kind of Wallmart of intel.

Like many other Ideas Ron Paul has, it's ludicrous and wasteful, there is no need to kill off the CIA or FBI, they've done their job well since adjusting after 911 and if it's not broken don't fix it. Been over 6 years, the proof is in the pudding. The war on terror has thus far kept America safe at home.

1 Reply

@Silverchild79,

Silverchild79;39621 wrote:

Like many other Ideas Ron Paul has, it's ludicrous and wasteful, there is no need to kill off the CIA or FBI, they've done their job well since adjusting after 911 and if it's not broken don't fix it. Been over 6 years, the proof is in the pudding. The war on terror has thus far kept America safe at home.

This statement means nothing since you obviously can not grasp his plans. And niether does "The war on terror has kept America safe", as it was how many years between the last WTC attacks and 9/11? You can't just claim that such action has "kept America safe", because maybe there wasn't any plan to attack on their part. It's like me saying that having my pistol on me kept me from getting robbed when I went to the store to get a drink.

2 Replies

@92b16vx,

92b16vx;39622 wrote:

This statement means nothing since you obviously can not grasp his plans. And niether does "The war on terror has kept America safe", as it was how many years between the last WTC attacks and 9/11? You can't just claim that such action has "kept America safe", because maybe there wasn't any plan to attack on their part. It's like me saying that having my pistol on me kept me from getting robbed when I went to the store to get a drink.

Unfortunately for you there are multiple cases documented where the FBI and CIA have broken up attacks which were in fact being planned.

CNN.com - Agent infiltrated terror cell, U.S. says - Aug 11, 2006

so I would say my statement is actually very verifiable

0 Replies

@92b16vx,

92b16vx;39622 wrote:

This statement means nothing since you obviously can not grasp his plans.

I grasp it just fine, I even grasp how it won't work

I don't believe in the Easter Bunny, I don't believe in Politicians (or there followers) who say "well you just have to trust he knows better then you", and I don't believe Ron Paul can make the DIA do something it was not designed to do, at least not on that level

it's a moot point anyways, even if he was elected tomorrow his chances of getting the CIA shut down are about as good as mine

1 Reply

@Silverchild79,

Silverchild79;39648 wrote:

I grasp it just fine, I even grasp how it won't work

I don't believe in the Easter Bunny, I don't believe in Politicians (or there followers) who say "well you just have to trust he knows better then you", and I don't believe Ron Paul can make the DIA do something it was not designed to do, at least not on that level

it's a moot point anyways, even if he was elected tomorrow his chances of getting the CIA shut down are about as good as mine

Actually, he could limit their scope of authority through a simple issuance of an Executive Order, effectively marginalizing them.

Further, you do not understand Paul's policy at all. He would limit the CIA in conjuction with a foreign policy that would limit anti-American sentiment abroad. If you apply Paul's CIA plan to current foreign policy, no, it won't work, which is why he has put forth a DIFFERENT foreign policy. Taken together his idea makes perfect sense and is attainable.

0 Replies

@Silverchild79,

the funny thing is he criticizes Bush's use of executive power but doing what you claim he would do would be way a more controversial use of executive power, and Paul would do it to "limit anti American sentiment"? So Ron Paul, the Candidate who most loudly claims "America First", would change his foreign policy so that other countries would think well of us? This is where I say something about having your cake and eating it too....

I'll say it again, since the restructuring following 911 the FBI and CIA have broken up many terror plots and in conjunction with the War on Terror have kept this country safe. We could be allot worse off then having Iran mad at us. In fact Iran is a brutal dictatorship who's striving to attain nuclear weapons so they can commit genocide against another people, if America is doing the right thing Iran should hate us

1 Reply

Ron Paul: The candidate for the lazy uninvolved American

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know