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

[AuH20]

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

Diem was eventually assassinated, with Western backing I suspect. Nevertheless, the North Vietnamese feared him and he did prove to be a stalwart against their desires:

Upon learning of Diệm's ouster and death, Hồ Chí Minh reportedly said, "I can scarcely believe the Americans would be so stupid." The North Vietnamese Politburo was more explicit, predicting: "The consequences of the 1 November coup d'état will be contrary to the calculations of the U.S. imperialists ... Diệm was one of the strongest individuals resisting the people and Communism. Everything that could be done in an attempt to crush the revolution was carried out by Diệm. Diệm was one of the most competent lackeys of the U.S. imperialists ... Among the anti-Communists in South Vietnam or exiled in other countries, no one has sufficient political assets and abilities to cause others to obey. Therefore, the lackey administration cannot be stabilized. The coup d'état on 1 November 1963 will not be the last."[55]

 

[AuH20]

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!

I'm not an advocate for war, since I clearly understand the unholy ramifications. We agree. But you apparently want to act paralyzed, when certain events make the ability to turn back the proverbial clock impossible. That is where we differ.

 

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Diem was eventually assassinated, with Western backing I suspect. Nevertheless, the North Vietnamese feared him and he did prove to be a stalwart against their desires:

The US had no business being involved in Vietnam, especially not in a war. In any event, you are considerably more hawkish than Paul or a lot of others here, that's for sure.

 

[BLS]

I think you all have bigger fish to fry than to argue on the internet.

For the record, i agree Ron needs to change the wording of his message. it doesn't mean you change how you feel, but more how you CONVEY it.
Words have meaning.

 

[AuH20]

The US had no business being involved in Vietnam, especially not in a war. In any event, you are considerably more hawkish than Paul or a lot of others here, that's for sure.

Agreed. Goldwater agreed as well. The U.S. had no business meddling in Vietnam, going back to Eisenhower as well as Kennedy. But at a certain stage, with so much American blood being spilled, you have to force the issue and stop your enemy cold. It got personal after Tet.

 

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

I'm not an advocate for war, since I clearly understand the unholy ramifications. We agree. But you apparently want to act paralyzed, when certain events make the ability to turn back the proverbial clock impossible. That is where we differ.

My actions would be dictated by the initial response of the aggressor. Ergo, if say, a robber entered my home with a baseball bat, I'm not going to launch a RPG at him. Or, say my neighbor decides to take a few shots at my house, I'm not going to drop a bomb that would wipe out the block on him. You seem to think any means necessary is perfectly fine, and if that means the destruction of an entire country to find one person, then so be it. I simply disagree, especially with your Democratic view of war, people, and the State.

 

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Agreed. Goldwater agreed as well. The U.S. had no business meddling in Vietnam, going back to Eisenhower as well as Kennedy. But at a certain stage, with so much American blood being spilled, you have to force the issue and stop your enemy cold. It got personal after Tet.

Can you even define what 'certain stage' means? Should we have doubled-down on Beirut? If we have no business there in the first place, then it means immediate withdrawal. To commit more innocent lives to death, more property to destruction, and more liberty lost at home -- that's simply incalculable. How can you even agree to such a position!

 

[AuH20]

My actions would be dictated by the initial response of the aggressor. Ergo, if say, a robber entered my home with a baseball bat, I'm not going to launch a RPG at him. Or, say my neighbor decides to take a few shots at my house, I'm not going to drop a bomb that would wipe out the block on him. You seem to think any means necessary is perfectly fine, and if that means the destruction of an entire country to find one person, then so be it. I simply disagree, especially with your Democratic view of war, people, and the State.

But I'm not going to ante up in terms of response, until I talk to my neighbor. For example, if my neighbor acknowledges I possess the capabilities to follow through on my threats, they will be more likely to hammer out a peaceful solution. I'm simply not an advocate for disproportionate collateral damage. I think the golden rule of vigilance is to not allow the military industrial complex to lure us into decade long conflicts of their choosing, so as to force us into these horrible decisions, predicated largely on self-defense.

 

[Brett85]

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.

Absolutely. You said it very well.

 

[AuH20]

Can you even define what 'certain stage' means? Should we have doubled-down on Beirut? If we have no business there in the first place, then it means immediate withdrawal. To commit more innocent lives to death, more property to destruction, and more liberty lost at home -- that's simply incalculable. How can you even agree to such a position!

No, the Beirut incident was easily ignorable. It didn't merit a response. Same with Somalia. Discretion is the better part of valor in some cases. Vietnam became personal after Tet, though the war should have been over far before that. Any theoretical, meaningful peace in that region could not have been hammered out without the US decisively winning that war at the ground level. We saw what happened when the North Vietnamese were main drivers of the peace agreement and the US was basically handcuffed, thanks to the years of prior bungling as well as the increase in popular dissent back at home.

 

[GunnyFreedom]

Tabling ahead of the debate. On iPhone so pictures are at Facebook/glenbradley

Joe Scarborough just lied on Ron Paul and I shouted NO!

 

[georgiaboy]

Tabling ahead of the debate. On iPhone so pictures are at Facebook/glenbradley

Joe Scarborough just lied on Ron Paul and I shouted NO!

cool. can you elaborate?

 

[GunnyFreedom]

cool. can you elaborate?

He said no Republican candidate wants to balance the budget or make big cuts. Someone in the audience shouted Ron Paul. Joe said 'oh well he wants to get rid of everything.' I shouted 'NO!'

 

[ohgodno]

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.

YES x 9,001

I've been trying to make this point for so long, and have taken so much shit for it too. All voters want is him to express a clear idea of his vision to defend the country concisely during the debates.

 

[GunnyFreedom]

I shoulda yelled "YOU LIE!" but I didnt exactly expect it.

 

[nayjevin]

I've been trying to make this point for so long, and have taken so much shit for it too. All voters want is him to express a clear idea of his vision to defend the country concisely during the debates.

Be patient.

 

[kylejack]

Agreed. Goldwater agreed as well. The U.S. had no business meddling in Vietnam, going back to Eisenhower as well as Kennedy. But at a certain stage, with so much American blood being spilled, you have to force the issue and stop your enemy cold. It got personal after Tet.

You break into a guy's house, he punches you in the nose, and you think the moral choice is to kill him rather than just leaving his house where you don't belong?

Any theoretical, meaningful peace in that region could not have been hammered out without the US decisively winning that war at the ground level.

The peace came after we packed our shit and headed home, which is what we should have done at every stage of the conflict.

 

[Matthanuf06]

YES x 9,001

I've been trying to make this point for so long, and have taken so much shit for it too. All voters want is him to express a clear idea of his vision to defend the country concisely during the debates.

All Ron needs to do is make people believe that he will keep them safe. Posters here say he can't "compromise his principles", but the truth is if his "principles" don't make Americans safe then none of us should vote for him anyways. Point being, making Americans safe is part of his principles, and while different than the status quo, makes us safe nonetheless. He just needs to pound it into the heads of voters, 1000x different ways, that they'll be safe under POTUS Paul. And people don't want/need an academic lecture in doing so, he just needs to let them know that his ear will be to the ground for possible threats, and when America is at risk he will be willing to fight for our safety. If he cannot do that, then none of us should vote for him anyways. And that what hurts so much, the biggest barrier for him is the biggest no brainer.

 

[Matthanuf06]

You break into a guy's house, he punches you in the nose, and you think the moral choice is to kill him rather than just leaving his house where you don't belong?

The peace came after we packed our shit and headed home, which is what we should have done at every stage of the conflict.

If we use this for our current "wars", then what do we do if we "leave the house", yet they continue to follow us attacking. Do we fight back, even though we caused the initial skirmish?

 

[kylejack]

If we use this for our current "wars", then what do we do if we "leave the house", yet they continue to follow us attacking. Do we fight back, even though we caused the initial skirmish?

Sure, we should defend ourselves. Ron Paul says we have a right to defend ourselves from an imminent attack.