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.)

[Hubbs]

But aren't you assuming they will (aren't you really assuming that it is their Constitutional role (not that it isn't, but that the President can't act militarily w/o a Decleration of War)).

Aren't I assuming that Congress will declare war when the majority of the members of Congress feel that it's necessary, and that, God forbid, there could actually be conceivable scenarios in which the majority of those members could feel that it's not in our best interest to go to war?

Yes. I'm assuming that even when it comes to our hawk-saturated Congress, there could hypothetically be situations that would be so very extreme that we would actually vote to not go to war. And I'm assuming that in those scenarios, you would actually understand why. Because those scenarios involve such ridiculous conditions that the general populace would not favor war.

The entire premise that Ron Paul is dangerous because he would force Congress to actually declare war is sheer nonsense. Go ahead and tell me which fights we really, truly needed to fight that Congress wouldn't have supported when push came to shove.

Maybe they will point to the War Powers Act, the history of Presidents acting independent of a decleration of War (which goes back to Adams and the Quasi-War), the relevant Supreme Court decisions and say that Paul should have acted quickly in an independent manner?

I know, it's almost like the guy thinks that the decision to put our most important men and women in the direct path of bullets should be something that at least is supported by The People.

What a loon.

[PeterMP]

Aren't I assuming that Congress will declare war when the majority of the members of Congress feel that it's necessary, and that, God forbid, there could actually be conceivable scenarios in which the majority of those members could feel that it's not in our best interest to go to war?

Yes. I'm assuming that even when it comes to our hawk-saturated Congress, there could hypothetically be situations that would be so very extreme that we would actually vote to not go to war. And I'm assuming that in those scenarios, you would actually understand why. Because those scenarios involve such ridiculous conditions that the general populace would not favor war.

The entire premise that Ron Paul is dangerous because he would force Congress to actually declare war is sheer nonsense. Go ahead and tell me which fights we really, truly needed to fight that Congress wouldn't have supported when push came to shove.

I know, it's almost like the guy thinks that the decision to put our most important men and women in the direct path of bullets should be something that at least is supported by The People.

What a loon.

So we've moved from it is the Constitutionally required thing to it is the morally required thing?

Is it possible that there might be a time when a decision ideally should be made to committ our troops when consulting the people, especially w/ all of the relevant information, in a timely manner isn't really possible?

When doing so might in the long term prevent more deaths by US service men and women?

Especially at the speed modern military's can move?

(And that it isn't unconstitutional for a President to do so.)

(How many Americans have died in military conflicts that Congress hasn't "supported"?)

[Koolblue13]

Being former military should be a requirement to be CiC and it is for me.

Israel is no saint and can stand on they're own. I doubt any attack on them is unprovoked.

We can move almost our entire military anywhere in the world in just days. A country being attacked included. Especially if we had former bases there.

We can park an air craft carrier 5 miles off anybodies shore in just a few days and they each have more firepower than 80% of the countries in the world.

Our standing armies in other peoples countries, has been directly linked to a major reason for the US being hated and attacked. It needs to end. It's costly and unnecessary.

[SnyderShrugged]

If left to their own devices the event could be a matter of days,if not hours.....the capabilities are already largely in place and being added to daily

.

Voting to go to war afterwards seems a empty gesture,and cleaning up the fallout a more likely exercise.

You think Israel would/could wait?

add

Hubbs...what if they felt confident they could overwhelm the response capability? (though Israels added sub capability has negated that to a degree)

yet another add

It is indeed a academic exercise to us(though Pearl Harbor was too at one point) ,it is a life and death matter to others.

Strange how despite losing, Israels enemies still attack time after time eh?

But there is already evidence in history of congress declaring war quickly when needed, and under your prescribed circumstances, I dont think anyone would disagree that it would be needed.

We declared war formally, through an act of congress on Dec 8th 1941. Less than 24 hrs after the attack.

Your worry is unwarranted

[PeterMP]

But there is already evidence in history of congress declaring war quickly when needed, and under your prescribed circumstances, I dont think anyone would disagree that it would be needed.

We declared war formally, through an act of congress on Dec 8th 1941. Less than 24 hrs after the attack.

Your worry is unwarranted

1. Congress didn't need to declare war quickly. They could have easily waited another 48 hours and we wouldn't have lost anything.

2. What you are describing would an unprecedented event (the US declaring war w/o their being any reason to believe that Americans were intentionally killed). It isn't at all clear that it would it happen quickly, especially in the context of modern warfare.

Again, Kuwait was completely over run, and the US Congress didn't even take a vote going to war.

[SnyderShrugged]

1. Congress didn't need to declare war quickly. They could have easily waited another 48 hours and we wouldn't have lost anything.

2. What you are describing would an unprecedented event (the US declaring war w/o their being any reason to believe that Americans were intentionally killed). It isn't at all clear that it would it happen quickly, especially in the context of modern warfare.

Again, Kuwait was completely over run, and the US Congress didn't even take a vote going to war.

remember though, the specific worry was over the scenario posed by TWA is what we are speaking of. We can go into other random items later.

Recall, TWA said he wasnt confident that a President Paul would act quickly enough in the event of a multi front, multiple missile attack on Israel, That Israel couldnt handle. This is the premise we are working through, stay on topic.

In that specific event, TWA and maybe you both were somehow worried that Paul would in short, do the wrong thing. I countered that since the attack would be so monstrous (ie: Israel cant handle it) that congress would likely act with similar urgency as they did with Pearl Harbor, so the question of Paul's following a congressional declaration of war is moot in that scenario.

[PeterMP]

remember though, the specific worry was over the scenario posed by TWA is what we are speaking of. We can go into other random items later.

Recall, TWA said he wasnt confident that a President Paul would act quickly enough in the event of a multi front, multiple missile attack on Israel, That Israel couldnt handle. This is the premise we are working through, stay on topic.

In that specific event, TWA and maybe you both were somehow worried that Paul would in short, do the wrong thing. I countered that since the attack would be so monstrous (ie: Israel cant handle it) that congress would likely act with similar urgency as they did with Pearl Harbor, so the question of Paul's following a congressional declaration of war is moot in that scenario.

Why?

Kuwait was over run and no decleration of war.

France was over run in WWII. We didn't declare war (not to mention Poland and Belgium).

It took 2 days for the UN to pass the resolution under which we went to war in Korea. In the meantime, there was no US decleration of war, and they definitely were being over run.

The Phillipines were taken FROM us by the Japanese. We didn't declare war.

We don't have any sort of mutual self-defense treaty with Israel. The US has never declared war w/o their being a belief that there was essentially the intentional killing of Americans.

Why would Israel be different?

Has Ron Paul EVER said anything to suggest that the would support a decleration of war simply because some other country was being over run?

Has Congress ever delcared war w/o the explicit support of the President?

[SnyderShrugged]

Why?

Kuwait was over run and no decleration of war.

France was over run in WWII. We didn't declare war (not to mention Poland and Belgium).

It took 2 days for the UN to pass the resolution under which we went to war in Korea. In the meantime, there was no US decleration of war, and they definitely were being over run.

The Phillipines were taken FROM us by the Japanese. We didn't declare war.

We don't have any sort of mutual self-defense treaty with Israel. The US has never declared war w/o their being a belief that there was essentially the intentional killing of Americans.

Why would Israel be different?

Has Ron Paul EVER said anything to suggest that the would support a decleration of war simply because some other country was being over run?

Has Congress ever delcared war w/o the explicit support of the President?

He also has never said anything indicating that he wouldnt support a war under such extreme circumstances as TWA outlined. You can keep trying to reframe this by adding other scenarios, but it wont work with me bud. We started a specific conversation and I intend to stay on topic.

If you for a moment believe that either a President Paul or Congress wouldnt act quickly under those dire circumstances mentioned by TWA then I dont know what to tell ya.

I'm very confident the only frontrunner that is a veteran will be strong on defense.

[Larry]

We can move almost our entire military anywhere in the world in just days. A country being attacked included.

I think, for Desert Storm, it took like six weeks to move a small portion of our military, so we could begin ground operations. Our troops traveled commercial, landing unopposed at civilian airports in Saudi Arabia. Massive amounts of gear were shipped by sea, using Diego Garcia and, I think, the Philippines.

We used existing bases in Germany, the Med, Diego Garcia, and in Saudi Arabia.

Norman Schwartzkopf was so impressed with us getting the needed gear there in a mere six weeks, that he pinned a fourth star on the assistant who was in charge of his logistics, the day before ground combat started.

We can park an air craft carrier 5 miles off anybodies shore in just a few days and they each have more firepower than 80% of the countries in the world.

For one day. Then the carrier is out of ammo and jet fuel, and needs to be resupplied, at sea, from a specially-designed resupply ship.

The resupply ship then needs to be resupplied. From a navy base. A navy base where the ammo must already be stored.

[PeterMP]

He also has never said anything indicating that he wouldnt support a war under such extreme circumstances as TWA outlined. You can keep trying to reframe this by adding other scenarios, but it wont work with me bud. We started a specific conversation and I intend to stay on topic.

If you for a moment believe that either a President Paul or Congress wouldnt act quickly under those dire circumstances mentioned by TWA then I dont know what to tell ya.

I'm very confident the only frontrunner that is a veteran will be strong on defense.

I'm not adding any scenarios. I'm giving some historical context.

You are saying that something that has never happened before not only will happen, but that it will happen quickly without a single piece of evidence supporting your argument.

You might not believe it, but I'd guess a lot of people are going to be a little dubious.

[SnyderShrugged]

I'm not adding any scenarios. I'm giving some historical context.

You are saying that something that has never happened before not only will happen, but that it will happen quickly without a single piece of evidence supporting your argument.

You might not believe it, but I'd guess a lot of people are going to be a little dubious.

You are right, Israel hasnt had attacks that they couldnt handle without us thus far. Thus the entire base of the conversation between TWA and I that you are taking on a non-Israel tangent.

Be dubious, doesnt matter to me whatsoever.

Done with this silliness.

[Madison Redskin]

I think, for Desert Storm, it took like six weeks to move a small portion of our military, so we could begin ground operations. Our troops traveled commercial, landing unopposed at civilian airports in Saudi Arabia. Massive amounts of gear were shipped by sea, using Diego Garcia and, I think, the Philippines.

We used existing bases in Germany, the Med, Diego Garcia, and in Saudi Arabia.

Norman Schwartzkopf was so impressed with us getting the needed gear there in a mere six weeks, that he pinned a fourth star on the assistant who was in charge of his logistics, the day before ground combat started.

I believe it took 6 MONTHS to get the troops in place. We started deploying troops to Saudi Arabia in August of 1990 and I don't have the troops in place to begin offensive operations until January 1991. And that was when our military was still running on Cold War roids. The notion that we could move our entire military to anywhere in the world in a matter of days is utterly absurd.

[GibbsFactor]

You know who should have the burden to protect Israel?

The Germans.

---------- Post added January-3rd-2012 at 09:59 AM ----------

Besides, we might be at War with Iran before Paul's inauguration:

MSNBC: Iran Warns US Carrier to stay out of Gulf

And they are not in the habit of warning more than once according to this Reuters piece.

[CurseReversed]

I guess we are not strong enough to handle the various threats of the world without hundreds of bases throughout it. There are just too many ways some bad guy could really screw things up.

So we must defend other countries instead of them defending themselves. Finance other countries instead of them financing themselves. Even coming to their aid when their vital interests are threatened and not necessarily our own.

Its the only real strategy when you have to keep an international economic, political, and military empire afloat in modern times.

Except this empire is broke, its systems broken, its wars endless and unsustainable.

It fights for special interest more now then for public interest, despite what you might think. I used to think they were fighting for me too, and presented all the same arguments as many in this thread. I took nearly the complete opposite stance that I do now

Then I took a closer look.

Most of the power players are globalists, they have no true allegiance to the US or the constitution. Its the UN they believe in. They fight to control the worlds resources and vital areas, not for US benefit but for the benefit of the whole world... At least as they see it.

While we sit around arguing about why this works for us, and why it makes sense. They reap the rewards while we go broke. I used to love this empire too, and felt rightfully protected under its massive reach. Things have changed though, and I Truly believe we have to change with them to survive.

We gotta start letting it go.

[Larry]

Besides, we might be at War with Iran before Paul's inauguration:

MSNBC: Iran Warns US Carrier to stay out of Gulf

And they are not in the habit of warning more than once according to this Reuters piece.

Anybody want to argue that the US withdrawing from Iraq isn't a factor in this escalation?

Just observing that yeah, keeping troops in other people's countries can certainly tick some people off. But withdrawing them isn't guaranteed to result in a better situation.

[Madison Redskin]

Most of the power players are globalists, they have no true allegiance to the US or the constitution. Its the UN they believe in. They fight to control the worlds resources and vital areas, not for US benefit but for the benefit of the whole world... At least as they see it.

The "power players" don't give a rat's ass about the UN and they don't fight for the benefit of the whole world. Don't let the conspiracy theorists lead you to believe otherwise.

[GibbsFactor]

We gotta start letting it go.

These guys that are scared of changing our foreign policy can't do it. For whatever reason. They think that a Holocaust could happen in the Internet age. They think people will sit back and be controlled in the Internet age (obviously not true, Protesters are hip in today's world) They think France, Russia, China, England, Spain, Italy, Brazil, Japan, will all either take power or do little to help out more. They've been successfully brainwashed by the fear-mongerers.

People are more concerned with keeping up American Exceptionalism than not having anything exceptional about America. It really does remind me of 2005. Everyone that wants this foreign policy was refinancing 7 years ago. Admit it. You guys didn't think the price of houses would fall. Why? Because the media and economists and your friend from college who's now a mortgage broker said so. :doh:

[Larry]

These guys that are scared of changing our foreign policy can't do it. For whatever reason. They think that a Holocaust could happen in the Internet age. They think people will sit back and be controlled in the Internet age (obviously not true, Protesters are hip in today's world) They think France, Russia, China, England, Spain, Italy, Brazil, Japan, will all either take power or do little to help out more. They've been successfully brainwashed by the fear-mongerers.

People are more concerned with keeping up American Exceptionalism than not having anything exceptional about America. It really does remind me of 2005. Everyone that wants this foreign policy was refinancing 7 years ago. Admit it. You guys didn't think the price of houses would fall. Why? Because the media and economists and your friend from college who's now a mortgage broker said so. :doh:

Wow, can I play, too?

These hippies who think that a few slogans about how "our system is broken" mean that wh should immediately dismantle our military just don't get it. they think that singing kumbyah will stop tanks. They think that the internet makes war impossible. They think that the US military can beam troops, and their equipment, into combat.

Every one of them thinks that if the US would just legalize marijuana, then Iran won't make trouble in the Middle East. Heck, they're convinced that an Iran with nuclear weapons would be a good thing, since then they could defend themselves from the real aggressor, the US.

----------

Now that we've got that out of the way, how about actually responding to things that people are actually saying, and leaving the straw alone?

[GibbsFactor]

Anybody want to argue that the US withdrawing from Iraq isn't a factor in this escalation?

Just observing that yeah, keeping troops in other people's countries can certainly tick some people off. But withdrawing them isn't guaranteed to result in a better situation.

Not immediately. Of course there would be some immediate instability. Would it last? We can't afford not to find out.

---------- Post added January-3rd-2012 at 11:22 AM ----------

Wow, can I play, too?

You lost your turn for that play. Horrible.

BOO

[CurseReversed]

These guys that are scared of changing our foreign policy can't do it. For whatever reason. They think that a Holocaust could happen in the Internet age. They think people will sit back and be controlled in the Internet age (obviously not true, Protesters are hip in today's world) They think France, Russia, China, England, Spain, Italy, Brazil, Japan, will all either take power or do little to help out more. They've been successfully brainwashed by the fear-mongerers.

People are more concerned with keeping up American Exceptionalism than not having anything exceptional about America. It really does remind me of 2005. Everyone that wants this foreign policy was refinancing 7 years ago. Admit it. You guys didn't think the price of houses would fall. Why? Because the media and economists and your friend from college who's now a mortgage broker said so. :doh:

The internet is changing the world at a pace that we cant even keep up with. The days of countries being shrouded in secrecy and ignorance are getting shorter. The ability of the US to continue its heavy handed policies in regions using aid, bases, and covert ops, is getting weaker.

We have invested wisely though, if you want to look at it that way. Thats the great thing about a lot of military hardware, its good for a while. I dont think the libertarian plan is to scuttle the military. They are not going to tie the Aircraft carriers to anchor and leave them to rust.

We are powerful, we will be powerful. We could cut the military budget in half and still be equal to most of our enemies combined. We own space, we own the air, we own the water. People can screw with us, but they could do that with or without bases.

We might not be able to mount a full scale invasion quickly without hardened airstrips to strike from. But who really are these enemies out there that we would need to fight with a full scale invasion, that do not have nuclear weapons?

What is a scenario that does not involve nukes where we would need to fight a modern military?

There arent many. Most bases protect the strategic interests of the special interest. The soliders know this. Thats why they support Ron Paul. Overwhelmingly. He might not make the compromises you want to hear regarding the military.

Maybe he understands the dialectic? He will not give ground on principle to pander to the practical. He is not self destructive. We all want to be strong ,and we are. We just all don't want to be stupid anymore, either.

[twa]

[/color]Besides, we might be at War with Iran before Paul's inauguration:

MSNBC: Iran Warns US Carrier to stay out of Gulf

And they are not in the habit of warning more than once according to this Reuters piece.

Only if they are fools

Nothing but posturing to counter sanctions,just like the closing of the Straits

[Larry]

We might not be able to mount a full scale invasion quickly without hardened airstrips to strike from. But who really are these enemies out there that we would need to fight with a full scale invasion, that do not have nuclear weapons?

What is a scenario that does not involve nukes where we would need to fight a modern military?

Who says we only fight modern military?

Again, I'll point at Desert Storm.

Me, I think that we really need the ability to respond to situations like that.

If you want to argue that we need to not use that ability so often, then I'm right there with you.

But I think we need the ability.

And we don't have that ability, without some of our overseas bases.

How many do we need? I'll freely admit ignorance. I wouldn't be shocked if someone were to announce that we could get by with less than a dozen. (Although I wouldn't be shocked if the number was over three dozen, either.)

[CurseReversed]

Who says we only fight modern military?

Again, I'll point at Desert Storm.

Me, I think that we really need the ability to respond to situations like that.

If you want to argue that we need to not use that ability so often, then I'm right there with you.

But I think we need the ability.

And we don't have that ability, without some of our overseas bases.

How many do we need? I'll freely admit ignorance. I wouldn't be shocked if someone were to announce that we could get by with less than a dozen. (Although I wouldn't be shocked if the number was over three dozen, either.)

You mean situations like someone we have previously armed and funded going rogue? Yea we need to really stop that.

That war was probably the last one that would really fulfill the conditions I set in my previous question. A large non nuclear military. Maybe Iran is the only one left.... No wonder their worried.

We are sitting around arguing whether or not our strongest military in the world is strong enough. Whether or not our capabilities can contain threats, when they eclipse all other nations capabilities combined. Whether we should continue to fight wars that have no conceivable victory.

All this while we go definitively broke.. Tell me who is winning again?

I wonder what the hawkish people in supposedly enemy countries are arguing about, hate to be in their shoes. Do we need this cruiser or that destroyer? Will we ever be able to fight the americans? No they tell probably tell themselves, wait until they burn out.

12 bases? Sure, sounds good to me. If you want anything close to that your going to have a hard time finding anybody other then Paul who could get there.

[Madison Redskin]

You mean situations like someone we have previously armed and funded going rogue? Yea we need to really stop that.

If we were to refrain from assisting or developing alliances with persons, groups, or states that might, decades into the future, turn out to be an adversary, we'd almost never provide assistance to or develop alliances with anyone. I suspect that's exactly what Paul hopes for. Cue the quotes from the 18th century.

All this while we go definitively broke.. Tell me who is winning again?

Fair point and one I pretty much agree with.

12 bases? Sure, sounds good to me. If you want anything close to that your going to have a hard time finding anybody other then Paul who could get there.

Except Ron Paul will go too far in the other direction. In a Paultopia in which the government is run by Paulbots, I suspect we'd never had troops stationed abroad under any circumstances.

[GibbsFactor]

If we were to refrain from assisting or developing alliances with persons, groups, or states that might, decades into the future, turn out to be an adversary, we'd almost never provide assistance to or develop alliances with anyone. I suspect that's exactly what Paul hopes for.

Yep.

Fair point and one I pretty much agree with.

So you would rather us go broke than stop overextending ourselves. Do you not see the insanity?

Except Ron Paul will go too far in the other direction. In a Paultopia in which the government is run by Paulbots, I suspect we'd never had troops stationed abroad under any circumstances.

Maybe. It's that scary? The world wants to trade with us. It's obvious to me that our current philosophy won't work. The world is so dependent on the US support that if it goes away holocausts happen on every continent, war breaks out the likes we have never seen. At least with Paul's idea we'd be strong enough at home. With everyone elses idea, the world goes to **** anyway and we are the ones that bring it all down. That's much scarier to me.