Most mainstream Republicans and conservative pundits will berate Presidential candidate Ron Paul for his views on foreign policy.  But besides Rick Perry, Ron Paul is the only veteran running for the office, whose support among the military eclipses all other candidates.  The kookiness of his policy:  that 1) he wants any military action (war) to be approved by Congress, 2) he wants to draw back the US presence around the world, and 3) he wants Uncle Sam to stop being the world's policeman.  Pretty weird until you devote some thought to it, and listen to his rationale behind it.

 

The first is just what the Constitution declares, and is a refreshing change from other candidates, who are trying to increase the power of the presidency by allowing them the ability to get into conflicts without congressional oversight.  The second is sensible when you look at all the places where our military have bases in where they are not really needed-- 700 bases in 130 countries?!   The third is arguably a burden that just one country should not be responsible for, diluting the resources of our country.  Exposing weaknesses as we get overextended in areas not vital to our national security.

 

To me, this makes more common sense than what hawkish conservatives and the dove-ish liberals propose.  The reaction to Ron Paul's military policy by the other candidates and right-leaning media figures is thus typically visceral and negative.  But do they not have conflicting loyalties?  Ron Paul made a point with one of the "chicken hawks" over this last weekend.

 

 

Ron Paul with son Rand when he was in San Antonio in the Air Force.

 

Ron Paul's three biggest contributors are the PACs of Armed forces.  This money comes from servicemen and their families.  Mainstream, hawkish, Republicans (the rest of the pack) who owe allegiance to the Military Industrial Complex that Eisenhower warned about at the end of his presidency, cannot match Mr. Paul's total when you add all their financial support from the military together. 

Why is this?  I think it's along this line.  Military service is voluntary.  Those who join believe in what they're doing and are generally young and idealistic enough to believe the oath they take to support and defend the Constitution.  They see this quality in Ron Paul in his lifelong devotion to this founding document of America.  They see it absent in their current commander in chief, and other candidates. 

Almost all of recent history's overseas conflicts have been initiated with little regard for that document, or have been politically based or fitted to loose alliances, etc.   The military sees in Paul someone who will use armed forces judiciously and according to the Constitution's ideals.  Among the rest, no one else will.  Without consolidating the ever-expanding spending on redundant military and social programs and policies, America's empire is doomed to the fate that all over-reaching empires eventually meet.  Would the historian in Newt Gingrich debate that point?

Views: 266

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

The problem with Pauls assumptions is that the U.S. is the cause of the terrorism in the World. He completely ignores the root causes of the current state of the World. A perfect example of this would be North Korea. We pulled out of North Korea and settled south of the DMZ and a oppressive and deadly regime took over. Or how about the massacres if civilians in Viet nam and Cambodia by the terrorists that took over after the U.S. disengaged from those countries. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see what happens to a country when revolutionary terrorist and dictators assume power. Why is it that if given a chance most people would gladly take up residency in the U.S. I'm not saying that U.S. policy has not been a sore spot when it comes to providing aid to oppressive regimes. I am apposed to that. But to lay the blame for the Worlds problems at our doorstep does not make sense. Radical Islam and related terrorism is not a product of the United States. Radical Islam wants to conquer and rule the World and if we fail to comply with their beliefs then our death will be the only alternative as far as the extremists are concerned. We haven't been saints but God knows the rest of the World has not grown angel wings either.

Quite the video of "truth" Max. Glad someone else isn't brainwashed too, like the media and pundits want us to be, and sadly some very nice people on here too, cause it's epidemic for our people for too long. Just consider, why would Ike, a 4 star general, winner of WW2, President for 8 years,  graduate supreme of West Point, totally dedicated to the Military, say such a thing, after he had the inside scoop of the President to know what the public isn't privy to? It's obvious we have over-stepped our bounds of necessary force and national security in this world stage long ago. And now we are finally paying the invisible price of it, that of poverty for our own here at home.

As far as Ron Paul on terrorism, let me offer an analogy after Ron Paul talks about it in his own words in a video I can't embed here:   ron-paul-terrorism-is-a-crime-not-a-war/

 

The people in Occupy Wall Street, et. al., go into areas and camp out in public areas, making themselves at home in public areas and hindering the rest of the public from fully utilizing those areas.  Some people that support the cause are fine with it, but those that don't wind up resenting their intrusions.  Even though they may be peacefully protesting, many of these Occupy groups have been escorted out of areas by force (using police powers) or by legislation-- enacting laws to control, neutralize or outright ban protesters from public areas. 

Meanwhile, a November 16th poll from Public Policy Polling found that only 33 percent support Occupy Wall St, with opposition at 45 percent.  An unpopular popular movement?!

 

The USA, for good, ill, or neutral are occupying countries.  Even if we give aid and gifts to the country and are excellent guests, we will still wear out our welcome among segments of the population, particularly since the aid and gifts won't be evenly distributed.  This invokes reaction; in the Occupy situation our government reacts to knock down our own protesters over time occupying their public lands.  In foreign lands, terrorism is sometimes the only answer they can afford, and many of the powerless would believe, the only answer that may work to achieve their ends.   

ICBM's, Patriot Missiles, Minute Man Missiles, that's at home, then 3-4 bases per country in the entire world, plus, plus, plus, Naval, Aircraft, Land Military, Nato, national guard, to be landed, and then some. How much do we really need for defense here? Esp. when our very own borders South and North cannot be protected here at home! Then count the Billions we do not even count spent into the world as part of our very home budget into the equation? WTH is going on here? Just think for a moment and realize/rationalize it all........makes a person wonder.........are we truly free and secure? Or are we? Look esp. at history, more recently. What's really in the National Security, it seems it's in the eyes of the Military Industrial Complex, not our eyes.

RSS

© 2024   Created by XLFD.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service