Ron Paul needs to be stronger on the military issue

[JackieDan]

I totally agree, but what happens when we're faced with a REAL threat?

Ron Paul has talked about only go to war with a declaration. That means if America is faced with a threat, he goes to congress and takes this issue up with the people. This is how things should be dealt with. Ron Paul believes in a strong national defense but that doesn't mean that the U.S. is stronger by having troops around the world and act as if they are the policeman. His foreign policy is based on peace and therefore any threat would be minimal by not meddling in the affairs of others.

However, in an imminent threat you can go without congress and you rely on the information from intelligence within the military, but that doesn't mean you go to war. That's essentially what the military is for - to protect when threat is imminent and prepare for readiness in case of a planned attack. Today, the military is heavily weakened by its size and that's one of the reasons why America never win wars. Military buildup is not necessarily a tool for success. All military powers collapse because of their uncontrollable size.

 

[A Son of Liberty]

The problem is that the definition of national defense has been completely corrupted in this country. "National defense" has come to mean pursuing and eliminating any and all threats, great and small, across the entire planet, with an eye toward not allowing so much as a hair on the head of one single American ever come within a mile of harm. It's an absurd, impossible goal that is dangerous, ruinously expensive, and ultimately completely destructive of true liberty.

But as long as enough people accept this definition, Ron Paul will be "weak on national defense".

 

[tremendoustie]

I thought that was what congress was for, to carry out the will of the people. If congress can muster the votes to go to war then you'd still be against it?

There is no single "will of the people" - there are 300 million people in this country. I don't support the notion that the majority has a right to forcibly use the lives and property of the minority, as if they own them. Really, this is the core idea of socialism. Immoral acts don't magically become moral because the group perpetrating them is large.

People have a right to run their own lives and property as they choose, so long as they don't harm others.

To me, this is the only moral way to organize society, and also the most practical. I know it won't happen overnight, and in the mean time I do wish the federal government would at least stay within the bounds of the constitution.

 

[EWM]

Ron Paul has talked about only go to war with a declaration. That means if America is faced with a threat, he goes to congress and takes this issue up with the people. This is how things should be dealt with. Ron Paul believes in a strong national defense but that doesn't mean that the U.S. is stronger by having troops around the world and act as if they are the policeman. His foreign policy is based on peace and therefore any threat would be minimal by not meddling in the affairs of others.

However, in an imminent threat you can go without congress and you rely on the information from intelligence within the military, but that doesn't mean you go to war. That's essentially what the military is for - to protect when threat is imminent and prepare for readiness in case of a planned attack. Today, the military is heavily weakened by its size and that's one of the reasons why America never win wars. Military buildup is not necessarily a tool for success. All military powers collapse because of their uncontrollable size.

I hear ya. But people do need to hear some military strategy from candidates. If he wants people to stop calling him a wimp, he's gotta talk about it. When so many people have that one issue against him, he's gotta let people know where he stands, with specific details.

 

[furface]

The intent of this thread should be obvious, i.e. the talk about protecting our "allies." Just my take, but if Israel becomes in imminent danger of losing its ability to ethnically cleanse Palestinians, I'm guessing Ron Paul would do absolutely nothing.

 

[owlbug]

There is no single "will of the people" - there are 300 million people in this country. I don't support the notion that the majority has a right to forcibly use the lives and property of the minority, as if they own them. Really, this is the core idea of socialism. Immoral acts don't magically become moral because the group perpetrating them is large.

People have a right to run their own lives and property as they choose, so long as they don't harm others.

To me, this is the only moral way to organize society, and also the most practical. I know it won't happen overnight, and in the mean time I do wish the federal government would at least stay within the bounds of the constitution.

First of all, the only way I can see going to war without congress is if the US is attacked.

Secondly, we have a representative form of government. If the people we elect to represent us vote to go to war, I may not agree with it but I think it would be the right thing to do. Politicians wouldn't be quick to do it because there are real political consequences to voting yay or nay. If the constitution isn't good enough for you, you probably should consider moving to another nation or joining a commune. There are restrictions one must accept when living in society.