FREDHEADS: Compare Fred Thompson to Ron Paul here

[Bruce4Ron]

I'll tell you one thing, his wife Jeri Thompson is a trophy! wooooo wee

 

[BrianB34]

A Fred Support Looking for a Home

I am a Fred refugee looking for a home. I do agree with the good Dr. on domestic policy in every case. And, I agree that we should not be nation building and never should have been in the business of doing so. I agree that we should bring our troops home from overseas.

I don't agree that we should just bail on Iraq. I don't know how we disengage without being seen as being weak by the Islamo-facists and inviting them to test their mettle here. What is Dr. Paul's plan? I haven't found much information on it except that we should bring the troops home.

What about intelligence? If we pull our entire global military presence back home(not an idea i'm opposed to), how are we going to know what the people that mean to do us harm are doing? And, it has to be intelligence that can be trusted.

The latest NIE is an example of an intelligence report that was riddled with agenda and not intelligence.

This is my only true problem with Dr. Paul's candidacy. I believe that we would be better served in kicking the UN out of NYC and turning that building into the best hospital on the planet for our Vets.

I believe that we should get back on the gold standard. I believe that the Federal Reserve is a vialoation of the Constitution, Article I, Section 8, Clause 5 to be exact says, "The Congress shall have Power To. To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;." The federal reserve is not a part of the government. It's a freakin' bank....of course I'm preaching to the choir here.

My major concern is how do we project strength in withdrawl. What are Dr. Paul's plans to speak softly and carry a big stick. Diplomacy cannot be the only option in all situations. And the only way to negotiate from a position of strength in all dealings is to know your opponents weaknesses, and that requires intelligence.

Enlighten me...please.

 

[GunnyFreedom]

I am a Fred refugee looking for a home. I do agree with the good Dr. on domestic policy in every case. And, I agree that we should not be nation building and never should have been in the business of doing so. I agree that we should bring our troops home from overseas.

I don't agree that we should just bail on Iraq. I don't know how we disengage without being seen as being weak by the Islamo-facists and inviting them to test their mettle here. What is Dr. Paul's plan? I haven't found much information on it except that we should bring the troops home.

What about intelligence? If we pull our entire global military presence back home(not an idea i'm opposed to), how are we going to know what the people that mean to do us harm are doing? And, it has to be intelligence that can be trusted.

The latest NIE is an example of an intelligence report that was riddled with agenda and not intelligence.

This is my only true problem with Dr. Paul's candidacy. I believe that we would be better served in kicking the UN out of NYC and turning that building into the best hospital on the planet for our Vets.

I believe that we should get back on the gold standard. I believe that the Federal Reserve is a vialoation of the Constitution, Article I, Section 8, Clause 5 to be exact says, "The Congress shall have Power To. To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;." The federal reserve is not a part of the government. It's a freakin' bank....of course I'm preaching to the choir here.

My major concern is how do we project strength in withdrawl. What are Dr. Paul's plans to speak softly and carry a big stick. Diplomacy cannot be the only option in all situations. And the only way to negotiate from a position of strength in all dealings is to know your opponents weaknesses, and that requires intelligence.

Enlighten me...please.

Well, first and foremost, to fight terrorists, you need a scalpel and not a broadsword. The scalpel solution was suggested shortly after 9/11 (by Dr Paul) in the issuance of Letters of Marque and Reprisal. The suggestion was not, of course, taken.

Therefore, today we have a situation before us where we are inside of Iraq and we should not have been in the first place. But, we are there.

The situation parallels Vietnam in more ways than one, and like in Vietnam, the most certain way to "lose" is to stay far too long. In Vietnam, we militarily won every battle we ever fought -- and decisively so. We literally crushed the VC and NVA in every engagement. But in doing so, we created the kind of resentment in which every time we killed 10 VC, we enraged 100 more non-actors to become VC in their stead. This same effect is only now starting to become a major factor in Iraq.

If we say, for the sake of argument, that Iraq was a just war, then the purpose now is to leave with the most victory possible. At this point in time, the longer we stay, the more enemies we create. I say, the next President should declare that victory occured when Saddam Hussein was tried and executed, and that we apologize but the last President overstayed his welcome and should have withdrawn then, but we will withdraw NOW, and claim the defeat, trial, and execution of Saddam as the primary goal of the action, and therefore leave in victory. It is a little bit of spin, but it is effective spin.

As for encouraging our enemies to test their mettle here in the US, well, I hate to tell you but they are already over here just waiting to be activated.

As a former US Marine, I sincerely believe that Dr. Paul's position will lead to the strongest national defense possible. You see, he does not want to reduce the size of the military, just bring them home, to defend us here. With the bulk of our armed forces attached to NORAD and domestic defence, our readiness will increase exponentially, as well will our equipment be properly repaired and made battle worthy again. Our forward bases should be Hawaii, Guam, and Puerto Rico, not Korea, Japan, and Germany.

There will be a coming Islamic insurgency within the US. It is not aquestion of IF, but of WHEN. They are already over here, and we created the situation by giving them battle experience in Iraq, and then leaving our southern border wide open for them to cross. The question is, will we be ready for them when they start attacking us here at home?

If we continue deploying our National Guard troops on their 5th and 6th combat tours, then I am sad to say that no, we will not be ready when they start. But if we bring our entire set of armed forces back to the US, we will be MORE than ready. We will be re-opening domestic bases that have closed (in order to expand foreign bases or build new ones) and we will have a huge force in exquisite readiness right here at home.

Not to mention, if we bring the troops home from Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Egypt, etc etc, we will be removing the major cause of motivation that makes them want to attack us in the first place. Oh, the ones who are already here will still assuredly attack, but as any soldier can tell you, 10 soldiers with motivation are worth 1000 without.

So, to recap -

1) declare that the capture, trial, and execution of Saddam Hussein was really the primary goal in Iraq, declare victory, apologize for overstaying our welcome, and come home. This is the closest thing to victory that can possibly wrought from Iraq.

2) Bring all the troops home from around the world, and place them in a domestic defense posture, in readiness forthe imported insurgency that is sure to come (their fighters are already here, there is no avoiding it at this point)

3) Remove our presence from Muslim "Holy Lands" thus removing the primary motivation for those fighters, making them easier to defeat when they do attack.

(and additionally)

4) Issue letters of Marque and Reprisal for Osama Bin Laden and his lieutenants. Call it a billion dollar bounty, with an additional $500 Million set aside for bribes, and give the potential claimants a Spec Ops platoon (with intell) to work together with. The quick capture, trial, and execution of Bin Laden (if he is still alive) will surely mitigate any claims of 'weakness.'

 

[Just Some Guy]

I don't agree that we should just bail on Iraq. I don't know how we disengage without being seen as being weak by the Islamo-facists and inviting them to test their mettle here. What is Dr. Paul's plan? I haven't found much information on it except that we should bring the troops home.

Right now appearing weak should probably be the least of our worries. I do not believe they will think we are weak for "pulling out." We are simple smart enough to realize we do not want to bankrupt ourselves. If appearing weak is that big of an issue, we can always declare victory then come home. Perhaps we could have a little victory ceremony on an aircraft carrier or something. There's no point in fighting a war we've already won.

Speaking of winning, here's some food for thought. They say we have to stay the course in Iraq until we win. But does anyone know what the winning conditions are? What would have to happen before Bush can say, "Hey, we just won!" If we capture Bin Laden, will he say we've won? What about the leader of Iraq, if we capture him, will we have won? What has to happen before we can say we've won the war in Iraq?

But I am getting side tracked. Ron Paul's plan is to find the root causes of terrorism. Starting a war is like treating the symptoms instead of the cause of the problem. He wants to use diplomacy to find out why others want to do harm to us. And use diplomacy to fix the problems.

Ron Paul wants to open trade with other countries. Note: we have never been to war with a country with a McDonald's. He wants to make friends with other countries. They won't attack us if they don't hate us.

The middle east is like putty. If you're trying to get a good grasp on it by squeezing too tight, it's going to ooze through your fingers and you're left with a mess. However, if you hold it gently, it's... well, it's like putty in your hands.

 

[Joe3113]

First I'd like to say welcome

I don't agree that we should just bail on Iraq. I don't know how we disengage without being seen as being weak by the Islamo-facists and inviting them to test their mettle here. What is Dr. Paul's plan? I haven't found much information on it except that we should bring the troops home.

You have got to understand that the reason they attack is because the United States occupies their land. If you understand that then you'll realise why they won't attack the US after the troops are removed from places like Saudi Arabia. This position is supported by the former head of the Bin-Laden unit at the CIA. Look at this video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Ohz0omUjIE

Ron's plan for getting out of Iraq is to responsibly remove each brigade, one at a time, over a period of months.

What about intelligence? If we pull our entire global military presence back home(not an idea i'm opposed to), how are we going to know what the people that mean to do us harm are doing? And, it has to be intelligence that can be trusted.

The majority of intelligence is gathered covertly, rather than via a military presence. Obviously covert presence in other countries cannot be discussed openly in the campaign. What we do know is that Ron is opposed using a covert presence to overthrow governments and interfere. If he did use it, it would be purely for information gathering.

The latest NIE is an example of an intelligence report that was riddled with agenda and not intelligence.

Ron has said he wants to clean out the CIA, FBI, NSA of their politicized cobwebs. He has even hinted at abolishing these organizations and transferring their power to military intelligence.

This is my only true problem with Dr. Paul's candidacy. I believe that we would be better served in kicking the UN out of NYC and turning that building into the best hospital on the planet for our Vets.

Ron Paul is very critical of the United Nations. In fact he doesn't even want the United States to be a member because the United Nations has agendas other than those of world peace. However, you have to understand that private property is something protected under the constitution. If the government had the power to interfere with private property it would eventually become tyrannical.

I believe that we should get back on the gold standard. I believe that the Federal Reserve is a vialoation of the Constitution, Article I, Section 8, Clause 5 to be exact says, "The Congress shall have Power To. To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;." The federal reserve is not a part of the government. It's a freakin' bank....of course I'm preaching to the choir here.

You sure are. The Federal Reserve is probably number 1 on our most hated list. Even for those of us who are not from the United States.

My major concern is how do we project strength in withdrawal. What are Dr. Paul's plans to speak softly and carry a big stick. Diplomacy cannot be the only option in all situations. And the only way to negotiate from a position of strength in all dealings is to know your opponents weaknesses, and that requires intelligence.

Ron Paul is no weakling. If the United States is attacked in any way, he will respond without hesitation, as long a war is declared and the process is handled is a constitutional manner. In fact, by bringing the troops home you can improve the defense of the United States itself and also protect the borders.

In terms of strength in withdrawal, I think the Islamic world know the power of the United States military. They know they could be taken out at any time the United States chooses.

Enlighten me...please.

Hope that helped

 

[GunnyFreedom]

And now a bit of history.

Did you know that America's first war was against Islamic Terrorists? Yes, the Barbary Pirates war was engaged by President Thomas Jefferson through the use of letters of Marque and Reprisal, faught primarily by the US Marine Corps ("...to the shores of Tripoli..." Look on a map where Tripoli is...) and is considered to be pretty much the only true decisive victory against Islmaic terror in world history.

And Dr. Paul's foreign policy is nearly a precise match for Thomas Jefferson.

Thomas Jefferson so far has been the only man ever to defeat radical Islamic terror. At the onset of the Barbary Pirates War, he read a Koran from cover to cover to learn how to defeat them, and then he engaged in a kind of "Hit and Run" war that crushed them, and left their remnants nothing to shoot at, until they surrendered.

By engaging in the same kind of war, we can defeat radical Islamic terror again in our modern age. Only Dr Paul wants to use the same methods as did Thomas Jefferson when he defeated radical Islamic terror.

From day one of this conflict, I have constantly wondered why we did not pull from Thomas Jefferson's experiencein the Barbary Pirates War. Surely, that is precisely how to achieve victory in the Global War on Terror. Learn from the only guy in world history ever to defeat them. Makes sense, no?

 

[GunnyFreedom]

There's no point in fighting a war we've already won.

ding! ding! ding!

if you keep fighting a war you have already won, you turn it into a defeat. Imagine if we had continued to attack Germany after defeating Hitler! Yeah, we'd still be at war with Germany today if we had done that methinks.

 

[BrianB34]

Thanks for your thoughtful responses

I disagree with Curlz and Dr. Paul on the point that they will not attack us here if we remove our presence from their lands. Please don't read this as being combative. It's in my nature. I'm one for spirited debate. But, even Dr. Paul has stated on numerous occasions that 11 of the 19 9/11 attackers were Saudis. A lot of the insurgents in Iraq are Saudis. How do you reconcile that with the fact that our military no longer has any presence in Saudi Arabia?

I am certainly in agreement with you GunnyFreedom on them already being here, and it's not a question of "If" but a question of "When". Why my personal weapons cache is well maintained.

I agree that we should have pulled out as soon as Saddam was captured. But, there were a lot things we should have done, but didn't.

And, the spin may work on declaring victory. It worked for Saddam in the first gulf conflict.

I'll go back and read Dr. Paul's stances on energy. Short term and long term solutions.

 

[colin1]

Well, first and foremost, to fight terrorists, you need a scalpel and not a broadsword. The scalpel solution was suggested shortly after 9/11 (by Dr Paul) in the issuance of Letters of Marque and Reprisal. The suggestion was not, of course, taken.

Therefore, today we have a situation before us where we are inside of Iraq and we should not have been in the first place. But, we are there.

The situation parallels Vietnam in more ways than one, and like in Vietnam, the most certain way to "lose" is to stay far too long. In Vietnam, we militarily won every battle we ever fought -- and decisively so. We literally crushed the VC and NVA in every engagement. But in doing so, we created the kind of resentment in which every time we killed 10 VC, we enraged 100 more non-actors to become VC in their stead. This same effect is only now starting to become a major factor in Iraq.

If we say, for the sake of argument, that Iraq was a just war, then the purpose now is to leave with the most victory possible. At this point in time, the longer we stay, the more enemies we create. I say, the next President should declare that victory occured when Saddam Hussein was tried and executed, and that we apologize but the last President overstayed his welcome and should have withdrawn then, but we will withdraw NOW, and claim the defeat, trial, and execution of Saddam as the primary goal of the action, and therefore leave in victory. It is a little bit of spin, but it is effective spin.

As for encouraging our enemies to test their mettle here in the US, well, I hate to tell you but they are already over here just waiting to be activated.

As a former US Marine, I sincerely believe that Dr. Paul's position will lead to the strongest national defense possible. You see, he does not want to reduce the size of the military, just bring them home, to defend us here. With the bulk of our armed forces attached to NORAD and domestic defence, our readiness will increase exponentially, as well will our equipment be properly repaired and made battle worthy again. Our forward bases should be Hawaii, Guam, and Puerto Rico, not Korea, Japan, and Germany.

There will be a coming Islamic insurgency within the US. It is not aquestion of IF, but of WHEN. They are already over here, and we created the situation by giving them battle experience in Iraq, and then leaving our southern border wide open for them to cross. The question is, will we be ready for them when they start attacking us here at home?

If we continue deploying our National Guard troops on their 5th and 6th combat tours, then I am sad to say that no, we will not be ready when they start. But if we bring our entire set of armed forces back to the US, we will be MORE than ready. We will be re-opening domestic bases that have closed (in order to expand foreign bases or build new ones) and we will have a huge force in exquisite readiness right here at home.

Not to mention, if we bring the troops home from Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Egypt, etc etc, we will be removing the major cause of motivation that makes them want to attack us in the first place. Oh, the ones who are already here will still assuredly attack, but as any soldier can tell you, 10 soldiers with motivation are worth 1000 without.

So, to recap -

1) declare that the capture, trial, and execution of Saddam Hussein was really the primary goal in Iraq, declare victory, apologize for overstaying our welcome, and come home. This is the closest thing to victory that can possibly wrought from Iraq.

2) Bring all the troops home from around the world, and place them in a domestic defense posture, in readiness forthe imported insurgency that is sure to come (their fighters are already here, there is no avoiding it at this point)

3) Remove our presence from Muslim "Holy Lands" thus removing the primary motivation for those fighters, making them easier to defeat when they do attack.

(and additionally)

4) Issue letters of Marque and Reprisal for Osama Bin Laden and his lieutenants. Call it a billion dollar bounty, with an additional $500 Million set aside for bribes, and give the potential claimants a Spec Ops platoon (with intell) to work together with. The quick capture, trial, and execution of Bin Laden (if he is still alive) will surely mitigate any claims of 'weakness.'

I tip my hat to you gunny, that's one persuasive arugment you've made there!

 

[Joe3113]

I disagree with Curlz and Dr. Paul on the point that they will not attack us here if we remove our presence from their lands. Please don't read this as being combative. It's in my nature. I'm one for spirited debate.

We love debate here . I'm just saying that Michael Scheuer, the former head of the Bin-Laden unit in the CIA, has said that the reason they attack is because Americans occupy their land. I think he is a pretty reasonable source.

But, even Dr. Paul has stated on numerous occasions that 11 of the 19 9/11 attackers were Saudis. A lot of the insurgents in Iraq are Saudis. How do you reconcile that with the fact that our military no longer has any presence in Saudi Arabia?

It's not the occupation of specific countries that is the problem, it is occupying ANY muslim lands. A muslim in Saudi Arabia is still angry when Americans are occupying Iraq, because Iraq is a holy place for Muslims.

I'll go back and read Dr. Paul's stances on energy. Short term and long term solutions.

The free-market cures a lot of what ails the US.

 

[Bilgefisher]

Sorry for the double post.

 

[Bilgefisher]

BrainB34. First and foremost thank you for your intelligent discussions. I believe the 11 Saudi's of the 19 hijackers can be explained simply. While we don't have a presence in their home country, we do have a presence in what they consider the holy land. The Arabian Peninsula.

I'll be perfectly honest with you. I don't agree with Ron Paul stance on immediate withdrawal either. I think it can create an unseen power vacuum. That said, no man is perfect. Ron Paul has stated it would take months to fully get our troops back. Months works for me. The reason why I do support the withdrawal in this time frame is because of the financial burden placed on the US. If we keep up our current policy, we'll go broke. Plain and simple. The fall of most great nations is due to financial concerns not war.

I picked Ron Paul over other candidates on the war issue because I do believe we keep hitting a hornets nest with a stick. Were getting stung here. I was right with you until I heard a very strong statement. What would we do if they did that over here? If China or even Iran built a base in the Middle of the US with over 50,000 soldiers that not only lived on base but patrolled our streets. I tell ya, I would be fighting mad in the most literal sense of the saying.

For a break down.
-Bring the troops home from Iraq and 130 other countries with 700 bases. 50 years in Korea and Japan is a bit much.
-That significantly reduces Military costs while also bringing home over 500,000 soldiers (not including Iraq). Those soldiers will spend their money here providing an immediate economic stimulus to the country. This is US dollars spent here that our soldiers currently spend in other countries.
-The reduction in federal government programs that can be handled on the state level will also lower our spending.
-The reduction in spending allows for the reduction in taxes with the eventual removal of the IRS. All we need to do is reduce spending to pre-2000 levels.

Again Sir, I applaud you on researching the candidates before making your choice. Its not exactly easy going to another candidates board and striking a conversation that they may not agree with 100%. Have a good day.

 

[GunnyFreedom]

I disagree with Curlz and Dr. Paul on the point that they will not attack us here if we remove our presence from their lands. Please don't read this as being combative. It's in my nature. I'm one for spirited debate. But, even Dr. Paul has stated on numerous occasions that 11 of the 19 9/11 attackers were Saudis. A lot of the insurgents in Iraq are Saudis. How do you reconcile that with the fact that our military no longer has any presence in Saudi Arabia?

I am certainly in agreement with you GunnyFreedom on them already being here, and it's not a question of "If" but a question of "When". Why my personal weapons cache is well maintained.

I agree that we should have pulled out as soon as Saddam was captured. But, there were a lot things we should have done, but didn't.

And, the spin may work on declaring victory. It worked for Saddam in the first gulf conflict.

I'll go back and read Dr. Paul's stances on energy. Short term and long term solutions.

There is very, very little that I disagree with Dr. Paul on. I do not believe that he thinks if we pull all of our troops home, that there will be no further attacks, period. He has been talking about blowback from 1953 hitting us even today, and has stated time and again that the Middle East has a very long memory.

However, let's stipulate for the discussion that he does believe that if we bring all the troops home, the attacks will stop. What, then, is the end effect of the policy? The attacks may come, but then our troops are in the best possible place and condition of readiness to defend us.

I, for one, believe that the next round of terrorist attacks in the US will come from battle-hardened radical Islamic militants bent on bringing the Iraq insurgence to mainland USA. The best possible posture for our Armed Forces to combatthat threat, will be if they are allhere at our domestic bases, well rested, well trained, and with equipment at 100%.

So regardless of whether he would bring the troops home to defend us here, or he just wants to bring the troops home because he believes that the enemy will stop attacking us, the net effect of either motive will be to have our troops home, rested, and ready for the attacks here in the US which are sure to come.

If, like all the other Presidential candidates want, we remain overseas with 90% of our military, they will be too far away, very tired, and with broken equipment when the attacks start. We will have to bring them back here in "Panic Mode" which will be universally seen as a defeat for us.

Strategically, I believe our best course of action today, would be to bring all the troops home from around the world, lock down the borders, and train them to defeat an imported insurgency here on mainstreet America. Then when the inevitable attack comes, it will be swiftly and decisively defeated. Yes, that will mean the suspention of Posse Comitatus (which Bush has already suspended, by the way) but rather than permanently remove Posse Comitatus in case of "national emergency" as Bush has done, I believe President Paul would only temporarily suspend it, constitutionally, in order to defeat foreign combatants here in the US. And *not* to use the Military as a police-force against US Citizens, which is the crux of the current Bush plan.

I, too, am well stocked with ammo, and have maintained 98% efficiency against man-sized targets at 500 yards on iron sights through practice, practice, practice. I am even more motivated to do so, as I believe within 3 years we will be in a shooting war with Islamic terror within our own borders no matter who gets elected. The difference being with Dr Paul (no matter what his actual motivation is) will have the troops right where we need them, when we need them: here at home.

When the shooting starts inside the USA, I want Ft Bragg full, not empty. I want our Army and Marines HERE, not in Germany and Korea.

My only concern here, is we will need some kind of IFF to help the Military discern civilian combatants (on their side) from foreign combatants (against them).

Now, I also have concern in another direction. Specifically in regards to McCain, Giuliani, and Clinton. I believe that if any of those three get elected, we will become a fascist police state under martial law, inside of 3 years, as bad as it was under the height of fascist Germany. The draconian laws that have been put in place already under the Bush Administration are just waiting to be used, and those are the guys who would use the heck out of them. I also believe that with anti-war sentiment at 75% now, the only republican who can defeat a Democrat in the General, is Dr. Paul.

 

[BrianB34]

Thanks again for the responses.

I can live with a phased withdrawl of troops levels from all foreign bases. Removing our presence from the the DMZ is about 40 years overdue in my opinion. And, I'm thinking that our presence in the European Theater is unnecessary.

It is my hope that diplomacy will work. It is my fear that it will not, because I believe the fundamental differences in our views of governance will never be reconciled.

Curlz - "The free-market cures a lot of what ails the US."

As long as it's truly a free market. Amen and Amen.

 

[BrianB34]

There is very, very little that I disagree with Dr. Paul on. I do not believe that he thinks if we pull all of our troops home, that there will be no further attacks, period. He has been talking about blowback from 1953 hitting us even today, and has stated time and again that the Middle East has a very long memory.

However, let's stipulate for the discussion that he does believe that if we bring all the troops home, the attacks will stop. What, then, is the end effect of the policy? The attacks may come, but then our troops are in the best possible place and condition of readiness to defend us.

I, for one, believe that the next round of terrorist attacks in the US will come from battle-hardened radical Islamic militants bent on bringing the Iraq insurgence to mainland USA. The best possible posture for our Armed Forces to combatthat threat, will be if they are allhere at our domestic bases, well rested, well trained, and with equipment at 100%.

So regardless of whether he would bring the troops home to defend us here, or he just wants to bring the troops home because he believes that the enemy will stop attacking us, the net effect of either motive will be to have our troops home, rested, and ready for the attacks here in the US which are sure to come.

If, like all the other Presidential candidates want, we remain overseas with 90% of our military, they will be too far away, very tired, and with broken equipment when the attacks start. We will have to bring them back here in "Panic Mode" which will be universally seen as a defeat for us.

Strategically, I believe our best course of action today, would be to bring all the troops home from around the world, lock down the borders, and train them to defeat an imported insurgency here on mainstreet America. Then when the inevitable attack comes, it will be swiftly and decisively defeated. Yes, that will mean the suspention of Posse Comitatus (which Bush has already suspended, by the way) but rather than permanently remove Posse Comitatus in case of "national emergency" as Bush has done, I believe President Paul would only temporarily suspend it, constitutionally, in order to defeat foreign combatants here in the US. And *not* to use the Military as a police-force against US Citizens, which is the crux of the current Bush plan.

I, too, am well stocked with ammo, and have maintained 98% efficiency against man-sized targets at 500 yards on iron sights through practice, practice, practice. I am even more motivated to do so, as I believe within 3 years we will be in a shooting war with Islamic terror within our own borders no matter who gets elected. The difference being with Dr Paul (no matter what his actual motivation is) will have the troops right where we need them, when we need them: here at home.

When the shooting starts inside the USA, I want Ft Bragg full, not empty. I want our Army and Marines HERE, not in Germany and Korea.

My only concern here, is we will need some kind of IFF to help the Military discern civilian combatants (on their side) from foreign combatants (against them).

Now, I also have concern in another direction. Specifically in regards to McCain, Giuliani, and Clinton. I believe that if any of those three get elected, we will become a fascist police state under martial law, inside of 3 years, as bad as it was under the height of fascist Germany. The draconian laws that have been put in place already under the Bush Administration are just waiting to be used, and those are the guys who would use the heck out of them. I also believe that with anti-war sentiment at 75% now, the only republican who can defeat a Democrat in the General, is Dr. Paul.

One of the most well reasoned arguments for bringing the troops home that I've ever heard. Thank you very much.

 

[GunnyFreedom]

I tip my hat to you gunny, that's one persuasive arugment you've made there!

Aww shucks. It's no native brilliance, I can assure you. In the Marines, I was S-2 (that's intelligence to the uninitiated) and I used to brief Generals on this stuff, and kick scenarios around with my fellow Jarheads over coffee and mission briefings. My area of primary responsibility was North Korea, and I can assure you, that NK is the last place on the planet we would ever want to go to war. We'd rather go head to head with China or Russia than North Korea, and there are very good (many still classified) reasons behind that. Including the NK's propensity for tunneling. They could 'disappear' an entire Corps or Army in one spot, and 'reappear' them 200 miles away in 2-3 hours. They can launch a 747 and be at full speed in mid-air before they ever emerged from underground. NK has more underground space than above ground space, and they worship their leader as a god. Yeah, no good. NK bad.

 

[BrianB34]

Sorry for posting the entire quote

I apologize for quoting your entire post Gunny. But that was a very well reasoned argument.

As for your last point about the 3 liberals, McCain, Guiliani and Clinton, I couldn't agree with you more. I think you can include Obama in that mix as well.

I fear what may happen if it comes to that.

The tree of liberty must be watered with the blood of patriots and tyrants.

 

[GunnyFreedom]

One of the most well reasoned arguments for bringing the troops home that I've ever heard. Thank you very much.

Well, thanks. I honestly and sincerely appreciate your willingness the even discuss these matters objectively. Time and again I have run into McCain supporters who buy the propaganda and think anybody who supports Ron Paul is a hippy peace-nik who has wet dreams of being defeated by a foreign enemy. Clearly that is not the case.

We have among us Ron Paul supporters who are veterans and active members of the military, who support him from a posture of military strength, not weakness. It has become a favorite practice amongst the darlings of McCain and Giuliani to characterize any foreign policy other than their own as "surrender" when most of us veterans supporting Paul see his divergent foreign policy as one of 'the best way to fight back' or, one of strength.

Now, I'm no brighter than your average bear, but I can speak credibly to military tactics and strategies, simply because that's what I did in the Marines, and I have the experience on the taxpayers dime from when I was on active duty and studying these issues intently. I was S-2 (Intelligence) and I worked closely with S-3 (Operations) in the formulations of strategies, battle plans, and contingency plans. That's the only reason I can speak to these issues and not sound like a total fool.

 

[GunnyFreedom]

I apologize for quoting your entire post Gunny. But that was a very well reasoned argument.

As for your last point about the 3 liberals, McCain, Guiliani and Clinton, I couldn't agree with you more. I think you can include Obama in that mix as well.

I fear what may happen if it comes to that.

The tree of liberty must be watered with the blood of patriots and tyrants.

Oh no worries at all. We do that all the time here on RPF. And thanks again.

I don't know what to make of Obama. He frightens me. The people who support him walk around daze-like and praise his desire to make "change" but can never actually specify what he wants to change, or how. I have yet to meet an Obama supporter that can actually speak to Obama's platform. They all talk about how "uplifting" he is etc etc. Something's rotten in Denmark if you ask me.

And Obama's unwillingness to 'take off the table' a preemptive nuclear strike on Iran is positively horrifying! I didn't include Obama in the fascist-police-state makers above, not because he is any less dangerous, but because I think his danger probably comes from a different direction. I just can't identify that direction as yet.

 

[Bilgefisher]

We have among us Ron Paul supporters who are veterans and active members of the military, who support him from a posture of military strength, not weakness. It has become a favorite practice amongst the darlings of McCain and Giuliani to characterize any foreign policy other than their own as "surrender" when most of us veterans supporting Paul see his divergent foreign policy as one of 'the best way to fight back' or, one of strength.

Its funny you mention that Gunny. My perspective comes from serving under the ocean on Trident Missile Sub.

I gotta ask, anyone else enjoying the heck out of this thread? Bloody brilliant discussions.