I'll Buy Mad Mike A Christmas Present If He Doesn't Like This Video. Really. (Or: You Like Ron Paul, Except On Foreign Policy.)

[SnyderShrugged]

Here's a secret many may not know about me. I love being the big bad proactive government that controls the world. There are real benefits to me personally, not being in the military industrial complex but living near DC. It's not that I am against American Exceptionalism. I completely understand it. I understand that we don't want NK or Iran to become more powerful, it's not in our interest.

However, I understand the far bigger threat to our way of life is ourselves. Not NK, not Iran, but our money. We are running out. No one wants to face the real problems we face and too many are acting like the problems we have aren't real. It's very frustrating. I'm all for pulling out of everywhere and waiting to see what happens. I'm against continuing this insane status quo.

I'm not really concerned. I've read your posts and you are clearly on the other side of the foreign policy debate. We will never see eye to eye on that. I'd much rather have a strong home front than nothing. You advocate continuing the way things are which is simply unsustainable. We would have much larger issues than those we think we face today.

+1 Yep, I'd love to hear how folks feel these ongoing, never ended wars will be continually paid fort and not cause more harm to us as a people. No one has ever explained that little troubling point effectively to me.

[Madison Redskin]

Here's a secret many may not know about me. I love being the big bad proactive government that controls the world. There are real benefits to me personally, not being in the military industrial complex but living near DC. It's not that I am against American Exceptionalism. I completely understand it. I understand that we don't want NK or Iran to become more powerful, it's not in our interest.

However, I understand the far bigger threat to our way of life is ourselves. Not NK, not Iran, but our money. We are running out. No one wants to face the real problems we face and too many are acting like the problems we have aren't real. It's very frustrating. I'm all for pulling out of everywhere and waiting to see what happens. I'm against continuing this insane status quo.

I'm not really concerned. I've read your posts and you are clearly on the other side of the foreign policy debate. We will never see eye to eye on that. I'd much rather have a strong home front than nothing. You advocate continuing the way things are which is simply unsustainable. We would have much larger issues than those we think we face today.

Fair enough GF. Reasonable minds will disagree. However, I should point out that my view of our proper role in world affairs is a lot closer to yours than you think. I have opposed nearly every military intervention that took place during my adult life (the exception being Afghanistan). Moreover, I think I have made clear in numerous threads that I think we spend far too much on defense, maintain far too many bases overseas, and are far too quick to use our military muscle. Don't lump me in with the neocons or Wilsonian liberals just because I think the use of military force is sometimes appropriate or stationing troops abroad may, in certain circumstances, make sense.

[SnyderShrugged]

Fair enough GF. Reasonable minds will disagree. However, I should point out that my view of our proper role in world affairs is a lot closer to yours than you think. I have opposed nearly every military intervention that took place during my adult life (the exception being Afghanistan). Moreover, I think I have made clear in numerous threads that I think we spend far too much on defense, maintain far too many bases overseas, and are far too quick to use our military muscle. Don't lump me in with the neocons or Wilsonian liberals just because I think the use of military force is sometimes appropriate or stationing troops abroad may, in certain circumstances, make sense.

sounds like you pretty much agree with the majority of RP's foreign policy stance then. He would use military force when necessary too. The main difference is where you each feel troops should be placed.

[visionary]

I don't really like the whole tripewire idea for keeping troops in South Korea.

That said, keeping troops and/or a base there is an important visable and symbolic deterrent.

I don't know if I would risk embolding the North Korean government right now with the power struggle that they may be going on, by making it look as if we are turning our eyes away from them.

I think it should be evaluated to see what sort of effects a withdrawal from South Korea would have on both our partner and the North Korean side.

If things have settled in North Korea and it is determined that visibly pulling our troops of South Korea won't make things worse, then at that point, we ought to give it very strong consideration.

It is an interesting dynamic though, because our bases are somewhat unpopular with the people in both South Korea and Japan, although the military/defense forces and politicians often feel that we are needed there.

(I'm sure they have some personal reaons for that too though....)

It should be made clear though that under no conditions will we allow someone to attack Japan or South Korea without serious repercussions.

(I'd probably include Tiawan in that as well.)

As an aside, why do Ron Paul fans focus so much on money?

It seems like everything comes down to how much it costs.

I don't have much appreciation for that kind of world view.

[SnyderShrugged]

I don't really like the whole tripewire idea for keeping troops in South Korea.

That said, keeping troops and/or a base there is an important visable and symbolic deterrent.

I don't know if I would risk embolding the North Korean government right now with the power struggle that they may be going on, by making it look as if we are turning our eyes away from them.

I think it should be evaluated to see what sort of effects a withdrawal from South Korea would have on both our partner and the North Korean side.

If things have settled in North Korea and it is determined that visibly pulling our troops of South Korea won't make things worse, then at that point, we ought to give it very strong consideration.

It is an interesting dynamic though, because our bases are somewhat unpopular with the people in both South Korea and Japan, although the military/defense forces and politicians often feel that we are needed there.

(I'm sure they have some personal reaons for that too though....)

It should be made clear though that under no conditions will we allow someone to attack Japan or South Korea without serious repercussions.

(I'd probably include Tiawan in that as well.)

As an aside, why do Ron Paul fans focus so much on money?

It seems like everything comes down to how much it costs.

I don't have much appreciation for that kind of world view.

I bet you will appreciate it when the money is totally gone.

How long do you believe America's standing and strength would last should we face complete economic collapse?

Who gets protected by us then?

[Madison Redskin]

sounds like you pretty much agree with the majority of RP's foreign policy stance then. He would use military force when necessary too. The main difference is where you each feel troops should be placed.

I agree with many of the things Ron Paul says about our foreign policy and national defense.

[visionary]

I bet you will appreciate it when the money is totally gone.

How long do you believe America's standing and strength would last should we face complete economic collapse?

Who gets protected by us then?

I don't think that's possible or likely.

I'm not saying we shouldn't consider the monetary price of our actions, but I get real sick of the end of the world type statements about our economy every time we do anything in the world.

[Madison Redskin]

sounds like you pretty much agree with the majority of RP's foreign policy stance then. He would use military force when necessary too. The main difference is where you each feel troops should be placed.

I agree with many of the things Ron Paul says about our foreign policy and national defense.

[Madison Redskin]

EDIT: Deleted dup post.

[visionary]

I bet you will appreciate it when the money is totally gone.

How long do you believe America's standing and strength would last should we face complete economic collapse?

Who gets protected by us then?

This is the sort of wild exaggeration that completely turns me off from Ron Paul and co.

Have to go to work now, I'll leave it at this for the moment.

[visionary]

Extra post. Sorry. It's not posting right for me at the moment.

The hell? none of my posts showed up and now all of them are.

Again, sorry.

[AsburySkinsFan]

Here's the saddest part...insofar as Ron Paul and other potential reformers are concerned.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c_VD0pE37vo#t=01h31m36s til 1hr 32m 00s. This is actually from a former W administration official who still defends Cheney et al, and the simple fact is that he's right. Getting Ron Paul elected will change nothing, in much the same way that Eisenhower found that he was helpless to stand against the Military Industrial Complex so will Paul and any others. We are the new Rome, and we are making the same mistakes that she made and we will die the same death she died.

[GibbsFactor]

As an aside, why do Ron Paul fans focus so much on money?

It seems like everything comes down to how much it costs.

I don't have much appreciation for that kind of world view.

It's always about the money. My support for Paul is almost totally due to the economy. Everything he preaches is about money and liberty. Who doesn't like those things?

We look at past failures. Rome, USSR, Egypt, etc... Nothing lasts forever. We are close to our forever now. By mid-century we will be completely fubared. We have 40 years to fix it or the world is going to change one way or the other. Why not get ahead of it?

No one wants to get rid of services that help us. At least no one that isn't insane. We are overspending every where and no one seems to want to raise taxes to 60%. So we MUST cut and cut a lot.

[alexey]

I'm down with Ron Paul on foreign policy. Just this morning I was listening to him in Iowa on C-SPAN, and thinking how increased airtime for Ron Paul's non-interventionist foreign policy views could be one great thing coming out of this year's GOP primary.

[GibbsFactor]

Here's the saddest part...insofar as Ron Paul and other potential reformers are concerned.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c_VD0pE37vo#t=01h31m36s til 1hr 32m 00s. This is actually from a former W administration official who still defends Cheney et al, and the simple fact is that he's right. Getting Ron Paul elected will change nothing, in much the same way that Eisenhower found that he was helpless to stand against the Military Industrial Complex so will Paul and any others. We are the new Rome, and we are making the same mistakes that she made and we will die the same death she died.

W won the white house on Ron Paul's platform. Non-interventionist. We see how long that lasted.

[SkinsHokieFan]

As an aside, why do Ron Paul fans focus so much on money?

It seems like everything comes down to how much it costs.

I don't have much appreciation for that kind of world view.

To me its a simple matter of this concept called mathematics.

On our current course, the math is working completely against us. Domestically, demographics are working against our welfare system

Internationally, our aggressive actions are working against us and will cause us to spend even more money.

15 trillion in the hole, baby boomers retiring, empire expanding (why are we fighting in Uganda?, how many thousands of contractors are being left in Iraq?)

The course can no longer sustain itself. Raising taxes on rich people is a sugar high solution where again the math doesn't work for the long run.

Its a real **** worldview and dramatically different from what I had in 2000, but that is the 2012 world we are about to be in. Scarcity, austerity, reducing our empire. People our age have been entirely screwed by the selfish generations before us and these are the consequences

[AsburySkinsFan]

W won the white house on Ron Paul's platform. Non-interventionist. We see how long that lasted.

The notion that W wanted to be a non-interventionist is quickly put to rest when you see who you filled his administration with...almost all PNAC (Project for the New American Century) members, the think tank that is all about expansionism and American imperialism.

---------- Post added December-29th-2011 at 03:03 PM ----------

Dammit the least they could do was use a different line! Seriously after watching "Why We Fight" again I read this article and I feel like it was taken straight from the movie. We're sooooo screwed.

http://www.cnn.com/2011/12/29/world/meast/u-s--saudi-fighter-sale/index.html

The White House also said the deal will provide a $3.5 billion boost to the U.S. economy, saying it will support over 50,000 American jobs and help 600 suppliers in 44 states.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c_VD0pE37vo#t=00h38m33s

[Hubbs]

I thought I made it pretty clear that (1) the North Koreans would not invade the South if they believed such an invasion would result in a full blown war with the US,

No, that's actually not what you said at all. You said there would be less of a deterrent. I agree. But I completely and totally disagree with the suggestion that North Korea will not attack if they believe it will result in full blown war with the US. I think there's about a 2% chance of that happening. I think there's about a 2.1% chance of the North attacking if it will merely result in the wrath of our full and overwhelming air power and naval power, which I thoroughly described in an earlier post that you seem to be ignoring so you can instead offer the theory that our only response would be "sorties from bases in Diego Garcia," which is so incredibly unrealistic that it's practically sarcasm.

Moreover, it doesn't even matter if we assume that North Korean leadership is rational or irrational. If they're rational, they'd know that even if we committed to not interfering in a second Korean war in any way whatsoever, attacking the South would still be a tremendously bad idea that would most likely result in the end of North Korea and the death of its leaders, and it would become a still worse idea with every passing day. They'd also have to know that they must assume that there will be American boots on the ground very soon after the initial attack, as any rational military officer would tell them. If they're irrational, then your assumption that the North will not force our 30,000 troops to fulfill their role of dying in this new war because it would guarantee full US support of the South goes completely out the window. I'm deeply troubled by the suggestion that it's good policy to put 30,000 of our men and women in jeopardy of losing their lives, with their survival protected by saying, "Surely the most militarized nation on Earth won't start a war as long as we're there."

(2) the North Koreans must know that, given the US military presence in South Korea, any invasion of the South would result in a full blown war with the US and (3) therefore, the North Koreans will not invade the South and the US troops stationed in South Korea are not sacrificial lambs.

...as long as you're right.

You seem to be awfully cavalier about gambling with not just one life, not just ten lives, but thirty thousand American lives.

I think the American people, and Congress, would react very differently to the following two situations: (1) North Korea invades South Korea despite the presence of US military bases (which is, for the reasons I discussed above, extremely unlikely) and US forces are engaged in combat with North Korean forces in the air and on land and sea; and (2) North Korea invades South Korea and we're launching air sorties from bases in Diego Garcia to try to slow or stop it. In the former situation, I think a full blown commitment of US troops is inevitable. In the latter situation, I think it is very plausible that the US would limit its involvement to air sorties.

Yeah, in the former scenario we'd be pissed beyond imagination and respond with full force, while in the latter scenario we'd merely be pissed within imagination and respond with full force. If you honestly think that the United States wouldn't respond to a North Korean attempt to flat-out conquer South Korea with boots on the ground because there's war weariness regarding two countries that we invaded, one of which a majority of Americans agree we never should have invaded in the first place, and the decade of occupation, policing, and nation-building that came afterward, you're kidding yourself. But let's say, hypothetically, that some implausible combination of scenarios evolves over the next couple of years that actually would cause Americans to be so sick of doing any fighting abroad that there would be significant popular and political resistance to responding to another Korean war. You're then suggesting that we should have 30,000 troops in Korea to fulfill their role of dying in that war in order to force us to not only do something that we otherwise would not do, but, again, also to do something which is very unlikely to be necessary for South Korea to ultimately win the war, especially assuming we'd still have no problem providing the massive amount of air and naval support I described in this thread. And that, to me, seems like something that should be more strongly rejected than even the idea that we should risk 30,000 lives to force us to do something that we would do anyway, which I already find horrible.

[Kosher Ham]

Who offers belated Christmas presents ?

I think that vid is pretty easy to like regardless.

[twa]

Who offers belated Christmas presents ?

I.

it was a bribery attempt

[Madison Redskin]

No, that's actually not what you said at all. You said there would be less of a deterrent. I agree.

Actually, you’re right. I didn’t say that, but I implied as much and meant to say it.

But I completely and totally disagree with the suggestion that North Korea will not attack if they believe it will result in full blown war with the US. I think there's about a 2% chance of that happening. I think there's about a 2.1% chance of the North attacking if it will merely result in the wrath of our full and overwhelming air power and naval power, which I thoroughly described in an earlier post that you seem to be ignoring so you can instead offer the theory that our only response would be "sorties from bases in Diego Garcia," which is so incredibly unrealistic that it's practically sarcasm.

I read your post and did not feel compelled to list every possible base from which we would launch airstrikes or other means by which we would respond to a North Korean invasion. You did a good enough job delving into the minutia. I referred to Diego Garcia because it's the first airbase that came to mind.

Moreover, it doesn't even matter if we assume that North Korean leadership is rational or irrational. If they're rational, they'd know that even if we committed to not interfering in a second Korean war in any way whatsoever, attacking the South would still be a tremendously bad idea that would most likely result in the end of North Korea and the death of its leaders, and it would become a still worse idea with every passing day.

The North Korean leadership knows that, even if the US stayed out of the conflict, attacking the South “would most likely result in the end of North Korea and the death of its leaders.” That’s a bit over the top Hubbs. I think ROK forces would do a good job against DPRK forces, but I think you’re kidding yourself if you think the outcome of the war would be all but certain, particularly if the US stayed out fo the fight.

They'd also have to know that they must assume that there will be American boots on the ground very soon after the initial attack, as any rational military officer would tell them.

If we withdrew our forces from the peninsula, we would have a very tough time assembling and transporting the ground forces necessary to provide timely and significant assistance to ROK forces in a big, nasty, conventional ground war with North Korea. It took us what, 6 months to assemble the forces for Desert Storm and about the same amount of time for Iraqi Freedom?

If they're irrational, then your assumption that the North will not force our 30,000 troops to fulfill their role of dying in this new war because it would guarantee full US support of the South goes completely out the window. I'm deeply troubled by the suggestion that it's good policy to put 30,000 of our men and women in jeopardy of losing their lives, with their survival protected by saying, "Surely the most militarized nation on Earth won't start a war as long as we're there."

You seem to be awfully cavalier about gambling with not just one life, not just ten lives, but thirty thousand American lives.

Perhaps that is because I hate America and don’t care about 30,000 American lives. Or, perhaps I think we have a compelling interest in keeping the peace on the Korean continent, stationing tens of thousands of toops in Korea will continue to keep the peace on the continent as it has done for the past 60 years, we shouldn’t station more troops in Korean than is reasonably necessary to keep the peace, and feel confident that, in the event of an invasion, our air and naval forces would be able to provide assistance to, or help redeploy, the 30,000 troops we have there.

You're then suggesting that we should have 30,000 troops in Korea to fulfill their role of dying in that war in order to force us to not only do something that we otherwise would not do, but, again, also to do something which is very unlikely to be necessary for South Korea to ultimately win the war, especially assuming we'd still have no problem providing the massive amount of air and naval support I described in this thread. And that, to me, seems like something that should be more strongly rejected than even the idea that we should risk 30,000 lives to force us to do something that we would do anyway, which I already find horrible.

I did not say the role of the 30,000 troops in Korea is to die in the event of a war. I said their role is to deter the North Koreans from invading the South and they’ve been successful because the North Koreans know that, if we have ground troops in South Korea and they invade, we’re going to go “all in.” There's a big difference between those two statements and I suspect you know as much. But, if you want to keep pretending that I don’t give a **** about 30,000 American lives and fantasize about North Korea tripping the “trip wire” we’ve laid, so be it.

[PeterMP]

1. The S. Koreans pay a large chunk of the costs associated with us having troops there.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/apr/01/donald-trump/donald-trump-says-south-korea-doesnt-pay-us-troop-/

2. There is value in having troops there, in the case of any war (not just against the N. Koreans, but any war where the Korean Pennisula would be important), in terms of knowing the culture, the people (generally, but also on a person-to-person basis), the country, their technology, methods, approaches, and cross-training (and vice-versa for them w/ respect to us.).)

[visionary]

2. There is value in having troops there, in the case of any war (not just against the N. Koreans, but any war where the Korean Pennisula would be important), in terms of knowing the culture, the people (generally, but also on a person-to-person basis), the country, their technology, methods, approaches, and cross-training (and vice-versa for them w/ respect to us.).)

I like that idea...but do we need 10's of thousands of troops over there for that?

On the other hand I wonder how the US military people stationed there feel about the deployment.

---------- Post added December-29th-2011 at 11:24 PM ----------

This is what bugs me, the constant and unswerving focus on money and the economy.

I don't think that's what America should be about.

We have to be more than just a nation concerned with our own money.

In addition I think it's a large part of why we're disliked by a lot of people in other countries.

Not because we get involved in others' disputes (Some obviously feel that way, but many want our help and get really pissed off when we say we can't because of monetary reasons), but because often when we have done do so it looks like we're only doing so to line our own pockets off the backs of these people.

This is what in my opinion is the fundmental flaw with Ron Paul's foreign policy.

People don't hate America because we get involved around the world.

They hate us because we have used that involvement for selfish and deludedly paranoid reasons to subvert democracy and set up puppets and others to pay us back while they scew over their own people.

It is not the intervention that is the problem, it is the obvious and yet sometimes deceitful selective self-enriching intervention that makes us look like hypocrites and imperialists.

That isn't to say that we should try to do everything.

But there is much that can and should be done by us on the international stage.

It doesn't necessarily have to include expanding our empire or even sustaining it

My point is not that we should attempt to do everything, but that we and the world can not afford for us just focus on our own problems. There are intelligent, cost-effective ways to help out around the word.

I have no problem with us cutting back wherever.

I'm no expert on the econmy, I don't pay mcuh attention to it honestly.

Do what we need to do to fix things...but don't let the world go to hell around us while we do.

[Hubbs]

1. The S. Koreans pay a large chunk of the costs associated with us having troops there.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/apr/01/donald-trump/donald-trump-says-south-korea-doesnt-pay-us-troop-/

And that's fine, and if we want to examine whether or not we're being paid enough for our bases to be worth it, that's a discussion worth having. That's not what the debate in this thread has been about, however.

2. There is value in having troops there, in the case of any war (not just against the N. Koreans, but any war where the Korean Pennisula would be important), in terms of knowing the culture, the people (generally, but also on a person-to-person basis), the country, their technology, methods, approaches, and cross-training (and vice-versa for them w/ respect to us.).)

This is an argument for having 100 bases in every country. Such an argument is incompatible with reality.

I'll continue my discussion with Madison tomorrow.

[PeterMP]

And that's fine, and if we want to examine whether or not we're being paid enough for our bases to be worth it, that's a discussion worth having. That's not what the debate in this thread has been about, however.

This is an argument for having 100 bases in every country. Such an argument is incompatible with reality.

I'll continue my discussion with Madison tomorrow.

Just thought that I'd point that out.

Korea has a strategic importance in terms of its location to the major Asian powers (Russia and China), close to important (and historically) contested water ways, and a place that allows support and access to the Pacific (which with other bases in the area (e.g. Japan, the Phillipines, and Australia) has been important in terms of any broader conflict that might generally occur in the Pacific (and to a less extent the Indian Ocean)).

The area in general is more strategic than many other areas of the world (areas around large bodies of water tend to be). Though you could trade the bases in Korea for other countries in the region, without losing much in terms of the larger picture. Of course then, having the bases in S. Korea diminish/eliminate the need for bases in other countries in the region.