Beardless Gandalf for President!

Philhelm has accomplished what I (and I assume most folks here) thought was impossible. He shut Monger up!

Most of the time I think these political threads are tiresome and don't really have any business on eccie. However, I have to admit that this one has been very interesting and informative. At least until Monger decides to respond, lol. Thanks Philhelm.

I've been busy. Tell me more of these pirates. Can we send Dog the Bounty Hunter?

I've been busy. Tell me more of these pirates. Can we send Dog the Bounty Hunter? Originally Posted by Longermonger

So, you start a thread, and I answer the questions at length, yet this is all you have in response? I have to admit that I feel kind of cheated. I'm still waiting for John Galt to respond, for that matter.

Sorry, I've been busy with work and exams prior to spring break. Now I have time for a longer response.
I like a lot of what Ron Paul says but the poison is always his stance on foreign policy. I know you posted a lot of things that he has said but if I do like his stance how do I know he will follow through. His is not an executive position nor has it been for many years.
Unlike some of the people here I didn't really need all the supporting links. It was an opinion question but few instances of Paul's own words are good. I also realize that hypothetical questions are unfair because of all the variables that you don't talk about but I would still like to know how far someone will go.
I once posed a question in class to the students; you are the president and your intelligence briefing says that with 99% surety an airliner is being prepped overseas with both a nuclear weapon and a biological weapon for a nasty one-two punch to the US. The report tells you the plane is on the ground in Libya and the weapons are on board. You have a 12 window to attack the plane with 100% certainty but collateral casualties will be high (thousands). You can wait until the aircraft is over the ocean. The odds of success drop to 80% and you lose any evidence to back up the claims. You could wait until the aircraft is just outside US airspace but you don't know which city. The odds of success drop to 50% and you may still lose evidence. Because of the biological weapon there may be some US casualties. You could wait until the aircraft is inside US airspace and the odds drop to just below 50% because you have to react very fast. The odds of US casualties are high and the number could be great. You will get evidence to exonerate your administration. What do you do? You have an hour to make a decision in order to get assets in place before the plane takes off.
Hypothetical questions like that deserve an answer before I entrust our country into a person's hands.
I would like to know that Paul is not going to sit back (like some people) and watch to see what develops or is he going to be proactive even if it looks very bad for the administration.
You mention US interests. Most of our oil does not go through the Straits of Hormuz (between Iran and Saudi Arabia) but the rest of the world's does. If there was an interruption for the rest of the world they would be competing for the oil we buy and the price would go up. That seems to be an indirect US interest.
Would an uprising in Mexico be a US interest if refugees started pouring over the border (like they don't already)?
It has been reported that China is getting all the rare earth minerals under contract around the world. Without those minerals it will be very difficult to produce lasers, photovoltaic arrays and X-ray machines. Would being proactive be in the interest of the US?
How would Paul treat the military? By that I mean he wants a smaller force because we are not going to get involved in every war that comes along. We don't do that now and we are undermanned as it is. I mean the first line of defense would be the navy and at present it takes 10 years to produce an aircraft carrier. So you can't wait until you need it before you build it.

That is enough for now. I'm sure that we will be taking this up again.
Palin-Cain 2012

Forgive me; I will answer you shortly. Originally Posted by Philhelm

I'm thinking that it might be more fun just to not respond and let this thread die. But if I find time to post a full reply, I expect to be given leeway as both you were and Galt was.

If we drilled our own oil, it wouldn't matter what happens in the Strait of Hormuz. I'm tired of shedding blood for oil, when we have more than enough here. I think Paul would drill here. I think Paul would be good for the military, because he understands the Constitution, and knows that defense is the primary constitutional job of government. And I would hope he would avoid stupid wars, but I don't get the impression that he would give terrorists any leeway at all.

I'm thinking that it might be more fun just to not respond and let this thread die. But if I find time to post a full reply, I expect to be given leeway as both you were and Galt was. Originally Posted by Longermonger

Very well, take your time.

Sorry, I've been busy with work and exams prior to spring break. Now I have time for a longer response.
I like a lot of what Ron Paul says but the poison is always his stance on foreign policy. I know you posted a lot of things that he has said but if I do like his stance how do I know he will follow through. His is not an executive position nor has it been for many years.
Unlike some of the people here I didn't really need all the supporting links. It was an opinion question but few instances of Paul's own words are good. I also realize that hypothetical questions are unfair because of all the variables that you don't talk about but I would still like to know how far someone will go. Originally Posted by john_galt

First, as far as knowing whether one will follow through with their rhetoric, it is good to always be suspicious. In Ron Paul's case, his voting record has been so consistent that for once, I actually believe that he's being honest. I do not view his foreign policy as a poison. His position is simply not popular at this moment, since most Americans apparently believe that the U.S. should be spending its blood and money to police the world. Not only do we not have any moral authority to do such, I do not believe that we can afford it. Just because we can do something, doesn't mean that we should. Similarly, just because we should do something, doesn't mean that we can.

As far as providing links, I just wish to cover my own ass, so to speak, in case someone accuses me of pulling things out of my ass.

I once posed a question in class to the students; you are the president and your intelligence briefing says that with 99% surety an airliner is being prepped overseas with both a nuclear weapon and a biological weapon for a nasty one-two punch to the US. The report tells you the plane is on the ground in Libya and the weapons are on board. You have a 12 window to attack the plane with 100% certainty but collateral casualties will be high (thousands). You can wait until the aircraft is over the ocean. The odds of success drop to 80% and you lose any evidence to back up the claims. You could wait until the aircraft is just outside US airspace but you don't know which city. The odds of success drop to 50% and you may still lose evidence. Because of the biological weapon there may be some US casualties. You could wait until the aircraft is inside US airspace and the odds drop to just below 50% because you have to react very fast. The odds of US casualties are high and the number could be great. You will get evidence to exonerate your administration. What do you do? You have an hour to make a decision in order to get assets in place before the plane takes off.
Hypothetical questions like that deserve an answer before I entrust our country into a person's hands.
I would like to know that Paul is not going to sit back (like some people) and watch to see what develops or is he going to be proactive even if it looks very bad for the administration. Originally Posted by john_galt

I'd imagine that Ron Paul would order a strike in such a scenario. Ron Paul's policy of non-intervention does not mean that he would never declare war in order to protect America. He simply does not believe in starting wars when the U.S. is not in any imminent danger. Also, from a Constitutional standpoint, he believes that only Congress has the right to declare war, and that it is only proper for the President to use troops in order to face an imminent threat (such as the scenario above). As evidence, he did vote in favor of sending U.S. troops to Afghanistan, in order to deal with bin Laden. He changed his stance when the nation-building had begun. Because of the way Afghanistan was handled, he had voted against entering Iraq, and had cited the nation-building in Afghanistan as his reason. Even before Bush had entered Afghanistan, Ron Paul had suggested putting a bounty on bin Laden's head. Ron Paul is not anti-war in the hippie sense, he just is against stupid wars.


[quote=john_galt;1126313]You mention US interests. Most of our oil does not go through the Straits of Hormuz (between Iran and Saudi Arabia) but the rest of the world's does. If there was an interruption for the rest of the world they would be competing for the oil we buy and the price would go up. That seems to be an indirect US interest.
Would an uprising in Mexico be a US interest if refugees started pouring over the border (like they don't already)?
It has been reported that China is getting all the rare earth minerals under contract around the world. Without those minerals it will be very difficult to produce lasers, photovoltaic arrays and X-ray machines. Would being proactive be in the interest of the US?[quote]

That's a fair point, but I wonder if there would be a moral justification to physically intervene. If I am starving, do I have the right to murder my neighbor in order to take his food? If we are going to support wars in order to obtain resources, then we must be able to honestly answer such questions.

How would Paul treat the military? By that I mean he wants a smaller force because we are not going to get involved in every war that comes along. We don't do that now and we are undermanned as it is. I mean the first line of defense would be the navy and at present it takes 10 years to produce an aircraft carrier. So you can't wait until you need it before you build it. Originally Posted by john_galt

I don't believe that he has ever said anything about downsizing our forces. He has suggested closing down most of our overseas bases (somewhere around 100-200 in almost every nation in the world? I forget the exact figure offhand). Cutting the military expenditure doesn't necessarily mean downsizing the force. Not deploying our forces in support of lost causes saves money as well.

That is enough for now. I'm sure that we will be taking this up again.
Palin-Cain 2012 Originally Posted by john_galt

...

I'd like to add that the current issues with North Korea and Iran would be easily solved.

With North Korea, our mere presence in South Korea makes us a rallying target for the North Koreans. The simple, and obvious solution, would be to pack up our toys and go home. Oh yeah, and stop sending aid to the North Koreans. Problem solved. Let Kim Jong Il huff and puff all he wants.

Iran is a bit more tricky; however, the nation is justified in being somewhat hostile toward us. Let's put it this way: If, say, China were to invade both Canada and Mexico, and then have politicians openly discussing nuking or invading us, wouldn't we be a bit upset? Seriously, I don't think it's un-'Merican to use some common sense in our foreign policy.

In addition, I do not believe that Iran wishes to create a nuclear arsenal in order to use it. Realistically, nuclear weapons aren't at their most useful in actually being deployed; they are better suited as political bargaining chips, and to act as a deterrent against invasion. If we were to withdraw from Iraq and Afghanistan, and tell the Iranians that we have no interest in their nuclear program, I think we would easily be able to avoid yet another war. Of course, we would also remind them that any attack would be returned a thousand-fold.

This may seem like a canard but won't you logic also prevent us from attacking another country if they were in the process of committing genocide on not only their own people but anyone that they could get the hands on. Think Germany during World War II and the world is completely and fully cognizant of what was going on in the concentration camps.

As for the straits I don't think your analogy holds up. Let me give it a try...farmers and traders are not allowed to use a public waterway by a local thug who is threatening to use force to close it. The goods being transported down the waterway make their way into the local markets of which your family (tribe) must compete with to buy.

This may seem like a canard but won't you logic also prevent us from attacking another country if they were in the process of committing genocide on not only their own people but anyone that they could get the hands on. Think Germany during World War II and the world is completely and fully cognizant of what was going on in the concentration camps. Originally Posted by john_galt

Yes. If I were President, my loyalty would be to the U.S., its people, and its servicemen. I would never consider sacrificing American lives for a foreign interest, no matter how seemingly noble the cause. Again, it's very altruistic to sacrifice American lives and wealth for foreign interests. If I were to die in the service of the U.S., I'd rather it be in defense of the nation, and not just because we decide that we have to be the white knight.

As for the straits I don't think your analogy holds up. Let me give it a try...farmers and traders are not allowed to use a public waterway by a local thug who is threatening to use force to close it. The goods being transported down the waterway make their way into the local markets of which your family (tribe) must compete with to buy. Originally Posted by john_galt

And why is the thug threatening to use force? Oh yeah, because they are being dealt with in an intimidating manner. If we followed the advice of the Founding Fathers, trade with all and alliances with none, we'd be in much better shape. Policing the world is a decidedly progressive principle, and has no compatibility with true conservatism.

Shedding blood for oil is particularly stupid when your own country is sitting on such huge oil deposits. World oil deposits :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...n_oil_reserves

Total crude oil reserves for the entire world are estimated to be approx. 1.4 trillion barrels.....however:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_shale_reserves

The United States alone has Oil Shale deposits of between 1.466 and 2.6 trillion barrels (2.6 million million). In other words, we (the U.S.) have more Oil Shale than the entire world's crude oil reserves combined. Enough at current consumption levels, 21 million barrels per day in the U.S., to last us 339 years. Kinda makes the Chevy Volt seem a little silly doesn't it?

With current technology it costs between $70 and $90 a barrel to produce (depending on geography and infrastructure), so while crude oil costs under $100 a barrel it doesn't make economic sense to delve into our shale reserves. But, once crude oil exceeds $100 a barrel we could become the new Saudi Arabia.

Or if technology improves and it becomes cheaper to produce petroleum products with oil shale then OPEC can kiss our asses.

My point is that I agree with COG's sentiments, I'm tired of shedding blood for foreign oil. Instead, let's encourage the development of oil shale technology here at home and end our national bankruptcy at the hands of the Saudi royal family.

If we drilled our own oil, it wouldn't matter what happens in the Strait of Hormuz. I'm tired of shedding blood for oil, when we have more than enough here. I think Paul would drill here. I think Paul would be good for the military, because he understands the Constitution, and knows that defense is the primary constitutional job of government. And I would hope he would avoid stupid wars, but I don't get the impression that he would give terrorists any leeway at all. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

+1776

Beardless Gandalf opposes involvement in Libya, and the method in which the intervention had occured.