Boots on the Ground in SC - FP is the Issue that is Holding Us Back

[Brett85]

I hate to say this, but wow... your view of liberty is so warped. You don't even understand the idea of finding your target and using a justified and proportional response. You can't just knock down a building with 3000 people. WHose building woud it be? As far as I know, Al Qaeda doesn't have any skyscrapers. It's hard to believe you can't even imagine what proportional force would be. Regardless, you must realize that your idea of overwhelming force and total war is not Ron Paul's position, so stop trying to get him to advocate it.

I didn't say that we should knock down a building with 3,000 people in it. I was criticizing that idea. But that's what a "proportionate" response would actually be, because it's exactly the same thing that happened to us.

But, I think you can support liberty and still support defending our country.

 

[tbone717]

It's silly however to think he will ever change his position to pander for votes. That's not who Ron Paul is. I still can't believe the extent of people who have not realized this yet.

Just to clarify, since I am the one that started the thread, I don't suggest that he change his position, nor should he pander. That is what Romney does when he flip-flops and changes his positions to suit the mood of the day. There is a huge difference between pandering and changing the words you use to describe your position so that your intended audience is receptive to your message. He has done this with his economic plan and has done so successfully. He can very well do the same with FP.

 

[AuH20]

He's never said overwhelming force. He has send to end the war quickly, which does not necessitate 'overwhelming force', and further you couldn't even remember him talking about imminent attacks (which I agree are preposterous), but you can about him saying something he's never said. Ron advocates the traditional Classical Liberal position -- the same of Ludwig von Mises, Richard Cobden, Henry Bright, Frederic Bastiat, Thomas Paine, and the rest.

You simply disagree to the degree of which he is not as hawkish as you. Fine. It's silly however to think he will ever change his position to pander for votes. That's not who Ron Paul is. I still can't believe the extent of people who have not realized this yet.

It is implied that to bring a conflict to an end, you will need to strike a decisive blow. That reminds me of a great Barry Goldwater quote:

“If I had inherited the mess that Johnson got into, I would have said to North Vietnam, by dropping leaflets out of B-52s, 'You quit the war in three days or the next time these babies come over there going to drop some big bombs on you.' And I'd make a swamp out of North Vietnam ... I'd rather kill a hell of a lot of North Vietnamese than one American and we've lost enough of them,”

No dinking around. War is hell and you bring it to a resolution as soon as possible. Goldwater was one never to go around looking for a fight, as opposed to these treacherous neocon vermin, but he knew how to end them.

 

[Brett85]

Also, "using overwhelming force" doesn't mean that we should intentionally target civilians. That's somewhat of a straw man argument. "Using overwhelming force" to end a war quickly can simply mean bringing enough troops to get the job done. Ron should point out that we don't have the troops that we need to win wars quickly because they're spread out in countries like Germany, Japan, Korea, etc. That's another argument in favor of closing down bases in those countries and using our troops for our own defense.

 

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

I didn't say that we should knock down a building with 3,000 people in it. I was criticizing that idea. But that's what a "proportionate" response would actually be, because it's exactly the same thing that happened to us.

But, I think you can support liberty and still support defending our country.

I think you should open a dictionary because you have no idea what the word proportionate means.

 

[kylejack]

There are many good things about Goldwater, but he was dead wrong on the war of aggression against the Vietnamese people to prop up an unelected dictator.

 

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

It is implied that to bring a conflict to an end, you will need to strike a decisive blow. That reminds me of a great Barry Goldwater quote:



No dinking around. War is hell and you bring it to a resolution as soon as possible. Goldwater was one never to go around looking for a fight, as opposed to these treacherous neocon vermin, but he knew how to end them.

So you have no problem with Scorched Earth and Total War? I suppose you also aren't a Southerner who didn't have any family get massacred by Sherman, or say, Indian relatives get massacred by Jackson. Easy to spout that BS when you are on the other side. There's no justification for Total War, period. It's inhumane and a characteristic of a State which places no value on life, liberty, or justice -- it is the creed of the totalitarian State.

 

[AuH20]

There are many good things about Goldwater, but he was dead wrong on the war of aggression against the Vietnamese people to prop up an unelected dictator.

Goldwater agreed that getting involved in North Vietnam was a mistake, but after the conflict reaches a certain plateau there is no going back. If I was president I would have done the same thing Goldwater advocated, especially if the war was in it's early stages. I would have left the NVA and Viet Cong with one ultimatum. Formally and informally discard all aspirations to conquer South Vietnam or we will remove you from the map via conventional means. Very simple and to the point. And Goldwater was proved correct because North Vietnam eventually abandoned the agreement in the Paris peace accord and successfully invaded the South. Anytime you operate from a position of weakness, bad things usually occur.

 

[AuH20]

So you have no problem with Scorched Earth and Total War? I suppose you also aren't a Southerner who didn't have any family get massacred by Sherman, or say, Indian relatives get massacred by Jackson. Easy to spout that BS when you are on the other side. There's no justification for Total War, period. It's inhumane and a characteristic of a State which places no value on life, liberty, or justice -- it is the creed of the totalitarian State.

No, that choice would ultimately be determined by the enemy. I would offer them a proposal with certain terms and conditions.

 

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

No, that choice would ultimately be determined by the enemy. I would offer them a proposal with certain terms and conditions.

Again, you have this Democratic ideal that you believe whole heartily. It is at the very heart of Total War and Scorched Earth. The Government is not the people, and the people aren't the Government. There's never a justification to wantonly massacre innocents, period. I think it's sickening you even consider such a thing justifiable. What about all those Germans in Dresden who had nothing to do with Hitler and the Nazi's? Or all the innocent Southerners getting ploughed through by Sherman, or the innocent Cherokee and Seminoles massacred by the USG?

This is where you just fundamentally disagree with Ron. I think it's well known that you aren't a Classical Liberal, but you have to understand Ron is, and he will never accept your position.

 

[Brett85]

Again, you have this Democratic ideal that you believe whole heartily. It is at the very heart of Total War and Scorched Earth. The Government is not the people, and the people aren't the Government. There's never a justification to wantonly massacre innocents, period. I think it's sickening you even consider such a thing justifiable. What about all those Germans in Dresden who had nothing to do with Hitler and the Nazi's? Or all the innocent Southerners getting ploughed through by Sherman, or the innocent Cherokee and Seminoles massacred by the USG?

This is where you just fundamentally disagree with Ron. I think it's well known that you aren't a Classical Liberal, but you have to understand Ron is, and he will never accept your position.

I've never really heard Ron discuss this issue, so I don't really know how anybody can say with certainly which side he would be on. It's obvious that he doesn't believe in pre-emptive war, and I believe everybody here is opposed to pre-emptive war. But he hasn't really talked about what tactics we should use during a war.

 

[kylejack]

Goldwater agreed that getting involved in North Vietnam was a mistake, but after the conflict reaches a certain plateau there is no going back. If I was president I would have done the same thing Goldwater advocated. I would have left the NVA and Viet Cong with one ultimatum. Formally and informally discard all aspirations to conquer South Vietnam or we will remove you from the map via conventional means. Very simple and to the point. And Goldwater was proved correct because North Vietnam eventually abandoned the agreement in the Paris peace accord and successfully invaded the South. Anytime you operate from a position of weakness, bad things usually occur.

Uh, why? The people of South Vietnam wanted reunification. They never elected Ngo Dinh Diem, and he was torturing and executing them for their political beliefs. The Viet Cong was a South Vietnamese resistance force that was fighting to overthrow a dictator and reunify with North Vietnam. We were backing the dictator. We were the "bad guys."

A Vietnamese general told McNamara after the fact, (paraphrase) "Don't you understand? As far as we were concerned, you were just the next colonial power trying to control us after the French left. We were fighting for our freedom."

 

[Matthanuf06]

We can debate this all day and night. It is pretty simple, if Ron doesn't change his FP message than he is certain to fail. I listen to his debates, and his FP makes no sense unless you are very well versed. It just isn't easy to follow. He rambles, and his message isn't conherent. Last debate he went on about "military vs defense", which makes sense to us, made no sense to anyone else. Even the moderator was confused. We can continue to blame the voter, but blaming the voter does not get you elected. We have to help the voter, educate the voter, and convince the voter. It really is in Ron's court. He botches literally every FP question because he doesn't phrase it in a manner that the average voter can digest. The average voter is certainly not a war hungry neocon. They just want to rebuild the nation's economy, and be safe. The average voter does not think Ron will keep us safe. We (Ron especially) need to stop blaming them and educate them.

He needs to have clear answers: bring troops home and reallocate/open bases here in the US, protect our borders, and defend our nation through declared war if attacked or if there is an imminent threat. He needs to quit focusing on the hypothetical BS. Just say, if we are attacked (or if there is an imminent threat) that he will go to war and fight it to win it. He needs to say he is going to close foreign bases that offer limited strategic bases and move those troops to bases here. He needs to talk about protecting the borders and other "defense" related things. I don't care what the question is. Spin it back to the pillars of his foreign policy.

The thing that sucks, is Paul has by far the best foreign policy of the group, but he frames it so poorly that it makes him look like he has the worst; even to people that could easily be ideologically aligned with him. It is a ton of lost votes. I can't even count the number of people I know that believe Paul is going to let us get nuked.

 

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

I've never really heard Ron discuss this issue, so I don't really know how anybody can say with certainly which side he would be on. It's obvious that he doesn't believe in pre-emptive war, and I believe everybody here is opposed to pre-emptive war. But he hasn't really talked about what tactics we should use during a war.

Yes he has!

 

[AuH20]

Again, you have this Democratic ideal that you believe whole heartily. It is at the very heart of Total War and Scorched Earth. The Government is not the people, and the people aren't the Government. There's never a justification to wantonly massacre innocents, period. I think it's sickening you even consider such a thing justifiable. What about all those Germans in Dresden who had nothing to do with Hitler and the Nazi's? Or all the innocent Southerners getting ploughed through by Sherman, or the innocent Cherokee and Seminoles massacred by the USG?

This is where you just fundamentally disagree with Ron. I think it's well known that you aren't a Classical Liberal, but you have to understand Ron is, and he will never accept your position.

But I'm not the party that chose Total War or whatever term suits you. My opponent had a choice. There is no egalitarian give and take in war. You're trying to apply humanitarian concerns to war, which is a construct that is blatantly immoral at it's core. Secondly, I'm not going to specifically target civilians, but I will do all in my power to make certain that my enemy can no longer wage war and in turn, they eventually will agree to my terms of conditions.

 

[EBounding]

I think this thread is starting to fall off the rails. The discussion is what should Ron say to appeal to more Republicans without compromising principles in regards to foreign policy. To be honest, I think him saying "decimate the enemy country into submission" would compromise Ron's principles, even if it was in reaction to a real threat. I could never imagine him saying that. It's too absolutist and I personally wouldn't agree with it either.

But can we all agree that it would be helpful for Paul to simply lay out the facts of his National Defense strategy, like he has for every other issue?

 

[AuH20]

Uh, why? The people of South Vietnam wanted reunification. They never elected Ngo Dinh Diem, and he was torturing and executing them for their political beliefs. The Viet Cong was a South Vietnamese resistance force that was fighting to overthrow a dictator and reunify with North Vietnam. We were backing the dictator. We were the "bad guys."

A Vietnamese general told McNamara after the fact, (paraphrase) "Don't you understand? As far as we were concerned, you were just the next colonial power trying to control us after the French left. We were fighting for our freedom."

Tell that to the 300,000 South Vietnamese who ended up in re-education camps after the North ran roughshod over the South. There certainly was no love for the catholic Diem but there was similar distaste for the Northern communists.

 

[kylejack]

He needs to quit focusing on the hypothetical BS. Just say, if we are attacked (or if there is an imminent threat) that he will go to war and fight it to win it.

????

 

[kylejack]

Tell that to the 300,000 South Vietnamese who ended up in re-education camps after the North ran roughshod over the South. There certainly was no love for the catholic Diem but there was similar distaste for the Northern communists.

Then why would you bomb the people of North Vietnam? Why not bomb Diem? Or how about bombing nobody?

 

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

But I'm not the party that chose Total War or whatever term suits you. My opponent had a choice. There is no egalitarian give and take in war. You're trying to apply humanitarian concerns to war, which is a construct that is blatantly immoral at it's core. Secondly, I'm not going to specifically target civilians, but I will do all in my power to make certain that my enemy can no longer wage war and in turn, they eventually agree to my terms of conditions.

War must be a magical word. All laws of morality, good conscience, honor, justice, and codes of conduct are thrown out. This is why war is so dangerous as it breeds this maniacly dangerous viewpoints and beliefs. I can't believe you cannot even see you contradicted yourself in the same sentence. In order to prevent an entity from having the means to wage war, it necessarily means attacking civilians, infrastructure, hardware, basic living quarters, food supplies, etc. You are the one choosing Total War. You are free to not target civilians, housing, food, water, and the rest, and respond in proportion.

It would be like the cops arresting the entire city block because there are a few criminals residing there. It's completely insane. People like you make me look fondly back on the Monarchs, if only for a fleeting moment. King George had better morals than you!