Cagematch: Ron Paul's two views - wacky or sane?

[yllus]

Originally posted by: NaughtyGeek
Power projection has been a dead horse in the sense that you've listed it here since the first atomic bomb was used. That's ALL the power projection we'll ever need. Everything else is posturing and wasting money. In the age of instant communications, it's quite possible for us to reach foreign leaders and express our disapproval of their actions should that be required. Power projection is just a nice way of saying schoolyard bully when it comes to our current use of the word. Our reign as world police needs to be over and the sooner the better.

Except that everyone knows that the U.S. will never use a nuke unless nuked first. What would you have done in '95, threaten to nuke Bosnia if they didn't stop the genocide? How about Afghanistan in 2002? Your plan is especially silly when you consider the prevalence of non-state actors as a security issue.

Originally posted by: Mavtek3100
Again I'm awaiting any type of response to my posts, maybe they are too loony.

You've named two people (well, von Mises is a school of thought now) who agree with Ron Paul. All of the economists who live in these countries think the opposite. Now, despite most of the world believing in a spherical Earth, I can find you some people who think the Earth is flat too. Do you think we should start sailing the world and seeing if our ships fall off? Maybe you should leave the criticisms to people who actually know of the subject.

Offhand, nothing you've said has really been very deserving of a response. You're asking silly questions that have been answered a hundred times over in other threads, and nobody has the patience to do it yet again.

 

[NoStateofMind]

Originally posted by: bamacre
I would be happy to see a large percentage of our 700 overseas bases closed up. We simply must shave off military spending. I oppose a permanent base in Iraq.

I would be ok with the Fed staying, but I would like to see some more oversight. I think the overspending Congress is a bigger problem.

Let me agree with a few hard facts. I would say close 70% of those bases. They arent needed and could save us tons of cash.

FED: Not only do I want congressional oversight, I want a regular audit of FED assets. A slow gradual move to hard assets. Then some kind of rule as to how much money can be printed and only in emergencies (clearly defined as: war).


I reserve the right to edit my conditions

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: NaughtyGeek
Power projection has been a dead horse in the sense that you've listed it here since the first atomic bomb was used. That's ALL the power projection we'll ever need. Everything else is posturing and wasting money. In the age of instant communications, it's quite possible for us to reach foreign leaders and express our disapproval of their actions should that be required. Power projection is just a nice way of saying schoolyard bully when it comes to our current use of the word. Our reign as world police needs to be over and the sooner the better.

Your not a "bully" if your presence somewhere in the world is to act as a deterrent.

Example: our 20k troops in Taiwan are a symbol of our interests therein. Should China decide to attack and reclaim Taiwan -- destroying a democratic nation in the process -- they currently know that they'd have to go through us first. If we withdrew our naval and ground forces from around Taiwan, China would invade and own them the very next day. Our mere possession of nuclear weapons wouldn't faze them in the least, because they know we'd never use them unless we're personally threatened or attacked. Therefore, withdrawing our forces there would essentially destroy Taiwan's democracy -- all of that after giving them our word, as an ally and friend, that we wouldnt let that happen.

That's one example out of thousands of similar situations...

 

[Mavtek3100]

I'm came to this topic in good faith that LK would engage in a real debate on the issue of the Federal Reserve. I have gotten nothing but a paragraph explaining to me why in his opinion the system is so wonderful. Will I get a retort to my original post?

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: Capitalizt
Having a dollar backed by something other than debt?

Using the defense budget for DEFENSE?

Yep...real wacky.

How is the dollar backed by debt?

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon
Let me agree with a few hard facts. I would say close 70% of those bases. They arent needed and could save us tons of cash.

on what "hard facts" do you base that percentage? From where was it derived?

Was it www.pulledfromyourass.com?

Seriously... where did you get that number, and which ~490 bases do you plan to close?

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: Mavtek3100
I'm came to this topic in good faith that LK would engage in a real debate on the issue of the Federal Reserve. I have gotten nothing but a paragraph explaining to me why in his opinion the system is so wonderful. Will I get a retort to my original post?

You didn't do anything but project other people's opinions. They aren't your own, they aren't an idea of your own, nor are they a solution. All you did was post two people's names, not even what they believe in.

So far, you have two names and nothing more. Good job at refuting any of my post. Good job at not even answering my post regarding yours.

Really good start.

 

[Mavtek3100]

Originally posted by: yllus

Originally posted by: NaughtyGeek
Power projection has been a dead horse in the sense that you've listed it here since the first atomic bomb was used. That's ALL the power projection we'll ever need. Everything else is posturing and wasting money. In the age of instant communications, it's quite possible for us to reach foreign leaders and express our disapproval of their actions should that be required. Power projection is just a nice way of saying schoolyard bully when it comes to our current use of the word. Our reign as world police needs to be over and the sooner the better.

Except that everyone knows that the U.S. will never use a nuke unless nuked first. What would you have done in '95, threaten to nuke Bosnia if they didn't stop the genocide? How about Afghanistan in 2002? Your plan is especially silly when you consider the prevalence of non-state actors as a security issue.

I have a great question concerning both accounts of intervention by our Military. For Afghanistan we were supposed to be getting Osama Bin Laden, not spending Billions to rebuild a nation. I'd say we have failed miserably in this regard. In Bosnia we intervened, that intervention has now put us at further odds with Putin.

It's simple really, every action has an equal and opposite reaction. It's the reactions we don't take into consideration when we take action. Could their be reaction with no action taken, possibly if action is expected. It's time we make sure others don't expect action, it's time for others to take responsibility for themselves.

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon

Originally posted by: bamacre
I would be happy to see a large percentage of our 700 overseas bases closed up. We simply must shave off military spending. I oppose a permanent base in Iraq.

I would be ok with the Fed staying, but I would like to see some more oversight. I think the overspending Congress is a bigger problem.

Let me agree with a few hard facts. I would say close 70% of those bases. They arent needed and could save us tons of cash.

FED: Not only do I want congressional oversight, I want a regular audit of FED assets. A slow gradual move to hard assets. Then some kind of rule as to how much money can be printed and only in emergencies (clearly defined as: war).


I reserve the right to edit my conditions

Umm, there is a quarterly and annual audit of Fed assets.

Why a move to hard assets? Everybody has already proven that thats a bad system. Furthermore, if it was a great system, then why haven't any other countries taken it up? What about Austria, the famed home of Mises? If it was such a rocking system and it worked so well, then a country would have adopted it and had been kicking ass.

 

[Mavtek3100]

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: Mavtek3100
I'm came to this topic in good faith that LK would engage in a real debate on the issue of the Federal Reserve. I have gotten nothing but a paragraph explaining to me why in his opinion the system is so wonderful. Will I get a retort to my original post?

You didn't do anything but project other people's opinions. They aren't your own, they aren't an idea of your own, nor are they a solution. All you did was post two people's names, not even what they believe in.

So far, you have two names and nothing more. Good job at refuting any of my post. Good job at not even answering my post regarding yours.

Really good start.

Well don't we need to argue the positions of those economists as those are the positions that Ron Paul is advocating? In order to do so don't you agree that you need to understand their alternatives, it will be hard for me to establish a basis of for debate if the person I'm debating doesn't understand the alternative I'm advocating for. I'm simply attempting to ascertain if you have the basis for both understandings before engaging in a debate with someone who doesn't understand the alternative theories we're supposed to be debating.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: palehorse74
The United States Department of Defense defines "power projection" as the following:

The ability of a nation to apply all or some of its elements of national power - political, economic, informational, or military - to rapidly and effectively deploy and sustain forces in and from multiple dispersed locations to respond to crises, to contribute to deterrence, and to enhance regional stability.

As a challenge to the RP camp, please explain to me how the above strategy of power projection is flawed, and present your case for bringing EVERY troop and piece of equipment back to the continental United States.

I will formulate a thorough rebuttal based on your response.

Tell me how can we afford to keep all of this.

First you must explain why you believe our presence throughout the world is unnecessary to begin with -- perhaps then we can discuss financing.

Unless, of course, your entire justification is fiscal... is that the case? is that the basis for your entire argument against our current strategy of power projection?

1) If that's the case, then roughly how much money would we save, over time, if we were to close down operations at all 700 foreign bases?

2) What impacts will the closings have on global security and stability? For simplicity's sake, break it down by major regions, or according to our current global Commands. (PACCOM, SOUTHCOM, AFRICOM, CENTCOM, etc)

3) Where will we house all of the troops and equipment back in CONUS? What will they do in their downtime? If you plan to cut troop levels, what size Army, Navy, USAF, and Marine components do you foresee? What will the hundreds of thousands of troops do once they've been laid off?

4) Does this include the NAVY's global operations and foreign bases with ports? Should they stop patrolling the worlds' oceans? What effect will doing so have on the safety of the shipping lanes? How will stopping their missions effect trade?

5) What about those troops who are overseas at the request of a foreign host nation?

6) Do you have the answer to ANY of these questions? Has RP thought ANY of this out beyond the main bullet points?!?

We disagree mainly because you are complicit with the USA being the world's policeman. As if we should break up every fight, take a side on every issue. If peace and freedom were our goals in all instances, we would likely obtain some respect. But that is not the case, in fact, it is far from it. We act as the world's police only out of our own interest, whether that means propping up a democracy here, or providing security for a dictatorship there. Whichever better suits our needs, so it is done. In that light, we are not in fact a world's policeman, we are a tyrant. We are not in fact a beacon of hope, we are a rather large target for those brave, or even stupid, enough to fight us. However patience is their virtue, because it is our fiscal irresponsibility in regards to our empire that will eventually bring us down.

 

[BeauJangles]

Originally posted by: NaughtyGeek
Power projection has been a dead horse in the sense that you've listed it here since the first atomic bomb was used. That's ALL the power projection we'll ever need. Everything else is posturing and wasting money. In the age of instant communications, it's quite possible for us to reach foreign leaders and express our disapproval of their actions should that be required. Power projection is just a nice way of saying schoolyard bully when it comes to our current use of the word. Our reign as world police needs to be over and the sooner the better.

So when pirates threaten trade in the South China Sea, we should nuke them?

The US's overseas military presence helps secure international trade. It has NOTHING to do with being world police. Our military is the best prepared organization in the world to respond to humanitarian crises and military crises in the world. The presence of US troops in S. Korea helps stabilize the region, the presence of them in Saudi Arabia has helped ensure a steady oil supply for our country (selfish maybe, but important).

We cannot stick our heads in the sand and hope the world figures itself out in the meantime. Our country needs to be actively involved in shaping the future of the planet that we live in. The more active we are, the more influence we will have and the better off we'll be. I'm not talking about engaging in foreign wars, I'm talking about resuming as role as a leader on this planet - not a maverick.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: Mavtek3100

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: Mavtek3100
I'm came to this topic in good faith that LK would engage in a real debate on the issue of the Federal Reserve. I have gotten nothing but a paragraph explaining to me why in his opinion the system is so wonderful. Will I get a retort to my original post?

You didn't do anything but project other people's opinions. They aren't your own, they aren't an idea of your own, nor are they a solution. All you did was post two people's names, not even what they believe in.

So far, you have two names and nothing more. Good job at refuting any of my post. Good job at not even answering my post regarding yours.

Really good start.

Well don't we need to argue the positions of those economists as those are the positions that Ron Paul is advocating? In order to do so don't you agree that you need to understand their alternatives, it will be hard for me to establish a basis of for debate if the person I'm debating doesn't understand the alternative I'm advocating for. I'm simply attempting to ascertain if you have the basis for both understandings before engaging in a debate with someone who doesn't understand the alternative theories we're supposed to be debating.

Please summarize Friedman's and Mises' positions, in your own terms, as they relate to Ron Paul's plans.

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: Mavtek3100

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: Mavtek3100
I'm came to this topic in good faith that LK would engage in a real debate on the issue of the Federal Reserve. I have gotten nothing but a paragraph explaining to me why in his opinion the system is so wonderful. Will I get a retort to my original post?

You didn't do anything but project other people's opinions. They aren't your own, they aren't an idea of your own, nor are they a solution. All you did was post two people's names, not even what they believe in.

So far, you have two names and nothing more. Good job at refuting any of my post. Good job at not even answering my post regarding yours.

Really good start.

Well don't we need to argue the positions of those economists as those are the positions that Ron Paul is advocating? In order to do so don't you agree that you need to understand their alternatives, it will be hard for me to establish a basis of for debate if the person I'm debating doesn't understand the alternative I'm advocating for. I'm simply attempting to ascertain if you have the basis for both understandings before engaging in a debate with someone who doesn't understand the alternative theories we're supposed to be debating.

No, you are throwing out names and theories rather than hard ideas. I understand fully what they propose, but not everybody does. Ever notice that I explain things in real terms? Is it for your benefit, or everybody elses?

Try to explain yourself and put it into an actionable plan, not just toss out two names.

I don't go to work and say. "Hey, I think we should do a Greg Pelzer for this deal, which perfectly defines the structure of the transaction". No, I create a term sheet, listing my own terms, in my own words, and how I plan to carry them out.

I'd love to know what world you live in defines action plans by the names of the people who created a theory, which may or may not be comletely applicable to your idea.

 

[yllus]

Originally posted by: Mavtek3100

Originally posted by: yllus

Originally posted by: NaughtyGeek
Power projection has been a dead horse in the sense that you've listed it here since the first atomic bomb was used. That's ALL the power projection we'll ever need. Everything else is posturing and wasting money. In the age of instant communications, it's quite possible for us to reach foreign leaders and express our disapproval of their actions should that be required. Power projection is just a nice way of saying schoolyard bully when it comes to our current use of the word. Our reign as world police needs to be over and the sooner the better.

Except that everyone knows that the U.S. will never use a nuke unless nuked first. What would you have done in '95, threaten to nuke Bosnia if they didn't stop the genocide? How about Afghanistan in 2002? Your plan is especially silly when you consider the prevalence of non-state actors as a security issue.

I have a great question concerning both accounts of intervention by our Military. For Afghanistan we were supposed to be getting Osama Bin Laden, not spending Billions to rebuild a nation. I'd say we have failed miserably in this regard. In Bosnia we intervened, that intervention has now put us at further odds with Putin.

It's simple really, every action has an equal and opposite reaction. It's the reactions we don't take into consideration when we take action. Could their be reaction with no action taken, possibly if action is expected. It's time we make sure others don't expect action, it's time for others to take responsibility for themselves.

Okay, I have to get back to some work but I'll answer what I think is a pretty silly set of questions first.

Getting Osama Bin Laden is, on the grand scheme of things, a minor detail. Dismantling Al Qaeda and like-minded organizations, on the other hand, is what the true goal is. Makes sense, right? The individual is immaterial if you can take away his organization and its capability to project violence.

Al Qaeda was able to took root in Afghanistan because it is a country with an absence of the rule of law, is desperately poor and consists of a largely uneducated populace. Without that lack of rule of law, their violence would not be tolerated locally. Without that lack of money, leaders in various parts of the country could not be swayed to look the other way while the troublemakers get up to no good. And without the lack of education, they'd have a significantly harder time winning converts and sympathizers.

The key to rooting out Al Qaeda, then, is to deprive it of what allows it to thrive. When it could thrive openly in Afghanistan, they were free to plot and carry out attacks with far greater ease. Banishing them to the mountains and taking away those three factors that allow them to stay put in Afghanistan is essential in the long term to destroying the organization. None of this can be accomplished in five years time - who expected it to? When's the last time a country went from zero to industrialized nation in half a decade?

Folks around here love to put down short, definitive sentences to solve large, complex issues. Those people are never right and should never be allowed near a decision making role. Unfortunately, one seemed to have made his way all the way to your Presidency. But I digress.

 

[Mavtek3100]

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon

Originally posted by: bamacre
I would be happy to see a large percentage of our 700 overseas bases closed up. We simply must shave off military spending. I oppose a permanent base in Iraq.

I would be ok with the Fed staying, but I would like to see some more oversight. I think the overspending Congress is a bigger problem.

Let me agree with a few hard facts. I would say close 70% of those bases. They arent needed and could save us tons of cash.

FED: Not only do I want congressional oversight, I want a regular audit of FED assets. A slow gradual move to hard assets. Then some kind of rule as to how much money can be printed and only in emergencies (clearly defined as: war).


I reserve the right to edit my conditions

Umm, there is a quarterly and annual audit of Fed assets.

Why a move to hard assets? Everybody has already proven that thats a bad system. Furthermore, if it was a great system, then why haven't any other countries taken it up? What about Austria, the famed home of Mises? If it was such a rocking system and it worked so well, then a country would have adopted it and had been kicking ass.

Yes the Fed's assets are indeed audited. My only argument for the movement to hard assets is the relative hamper it clamps on inflation. I like Mises do not see why inflation has to be part of an economy. What is the point of inflation in a currency, and why is more rampant in a fiat system than one backed by something? To hedge the response, when we had the gold standard inflation was an issue but the rate of inflation was much much less than it is now.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: palehorse74
The United States Department of Defense defines "power projection" as the following:

The ability of a nation to apply all or some of its elements of national power - political, economic, informational, or military - to rapidly and effectively deploy and sustain forces in and from multiple dispersed locations to respond to crises, to contribute to deterrence, and to enhance regional stability.

As a challenge to the RP camp, please explain to me how the above strategy of power projection is flawed, and present your case for bringing EVERY troop and piece of equipment back to the continental United States.

I will formulate a thorough rebuttal based on your response.

Tell me how can we afford to keep all of this.

First you must explain why you believe our presence throughout the world is unnecessary to begin with -- perhaps then we can discuss financing.

Unless, of course, your entire justification is fiscal... is that the case? is that the basis for your entire argument against our current strategy of power projection?

1) If that's the case, then roughly how much money would we save, over time, if we were to close down operations at all 700 foreign bases?

2) What impacts will the closings have on global security and stability? For simplicity's sake, break it down by major regions, or according to our current global Commands. (PACCOM, SOUTHCOM, AFRICOM, CENTCOM, etc)

3) Where will we house all of the troops and equipment back in CONUS? What will they do in their downtime? If you plan to cut troop levels, what size Army, Navy, USAF, and Marine components do you foresee? What will the hundreds of thousands of troops do once they've been laid off?

4) Does this include the NAVY's global operations and foreign bases with ports? Should they stop patrolling the worlds' oceans? What effect will doing so have on the safety of the shipping lanes? How will stopping their missions effect trade?

5) What about those troops who are overseas at the request of a foreign host nation?

6) Do you have the answer to ANY of these questions? Has RP thought ANY of this out beyond the main bullet points?!?

We disagree mainly because you are complicit with the USA being the world's policeman. As if we should break up every fight, take a side on every issue. If peace and freedom were our goals in all instances, we would likely obtain some respect. But that is not the case, in fact, it is far from it. We act as the world's police only out of our own interest, whether that means propping up a democracy here, or providing security for a dictatorship there. Whichever better suits our needs, so it is done. In that light, we are not in fact a world's policeman, we are a tyrant. We are not in fact a beacon of hope, we are a rather large target for those brave, or even stupid, enough to fight us. However patience is their virtue, because it is our fiscal irresponsibility in regards to our empire that will eventually bring us down.

uhh... nice rhetoric... but once again, you completely failed to answer any single one of my questions. You went, like, 0 for 15... so... uhhh... GG?

 

[BeauJangles]

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: palehorse74
The United States Department of Defense defines "power projection" as the following:

The ability of a nation to apply all or some of its elements of national power - political, economic, informational, or military - to rapidly and effectively deploy and sustain forces in and from multiple dispersed locations to respond to crises, to contribute to deterrence, and to enhance regional stability.

As a challenge to the RP camp, please explain to me how the above strategy of power projection is flawed, and present your case for bringing EVERY troop and piece of equipment back to the continental United States.

I will formulate a thorough rebuttal based on your response.

Tell me how can we afford to keep all of this.

First you must explain why you believe our presence throughout the world is unnecessary to begin with -- perhaps then we can discuss financing.

Unless, of course, your entire justification is fiscal... is that the case? is that the basis for your entire argument against our current strategy of power projection?

1) If that's the case, then roughly how much money would we save, over time, if we were to close down operations at all 700 foreign bases?

2) What impacts will the closings have on global security and stability? For simplicity's sake, break it down by major regions, or according to our current global Commands. (PACCOM, SOUTHCOM, AFRICOM, CENTCOM, etc)

3) Where will we house all of the troops and equipment back in CONUS? What will they do in their downtime? If you plan to cut troop levels, what size Army, Navy, USAF, and Marine components do you foresee? What will the hundreds of thousands of troops do once they've been laid off?

4) Does this include the NAVY's global operations and foreign bases with ports? Should they stop patrolling the worlds' oceans? What effect will doing so have on the safety of the shipping lanes? How will stopping their missions effect trade?

5) What about those troops who are overseas at the request of a foreign host nation?

6) Do you have the answer to ANY of these questions? Has RP thought ANY of this out beyond the main bullet points?!?

We disagree mainly because you are complicit with the USA being the world's policeman. As if we should break up every fight, take a side on every issue. If peace and freedom were our goals in all instances, we would likely obtain some respect. But that is not the case, in fact, it is far from it. We act as the world's police only out of our own interest, whether that means propping up a democracy here, or providing security for a dictatorship there. Whichever better suits our needs, so it is done. In that light, we are not in fact a world's policeman, we are a tyrant. We are not in fact a beacon of hope, we are a rather large target for those brave, or even stupid, enough to fight us. However patience is their virtue, because it is our fiscal irresponsibility in regards to our empire that will eventually bring us down.

So, because politicians abuse an extremely powerful tool, we should axe it? Why not elect a more responsible leader that can use it to do some damn good in the world?

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: BlinderBomber
So, because politicians abuse an extremely powerful tool, we should axe it?

This is exactly why the founders gave the federal government very little power. Because power will always be abused. They were right then, and we have proven them right now.

Why not elect a more responsible leader that can use it to do some damn good in the world?

Now, THAT is a dream. Perhaps you would be comfortable with the clown avatar when making such statements?

 

[Mavtek3100]

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: Mavtek3100

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: Mavtek3100
I'm came to this topic in good faith that LK would engage in a real debate on the issue of the Federal Reserve. I have gotten nothing but a paragraph explaining to me why in his opinion the system is so wonderful. Will I get a retort to my original post?

You didn't do anything but project other people's opinions. They aren't your own, they aren't an idea of your own, nor are they a solution. All you did was post two people's names, not even what they believe in.

So far, you have two names and nothing more. Good job at refuting any of my post. Good job at not even answering my post regarding yours.

Really good start.

Well don't we need to argue the positions of those economists as those are the positions that Ron Paul is advocating? In order to do so don't you agree that you need to understand their alternatives, it will be hard for me to establish a basis of for debate if the person I'm debating doesn't understand the alternative I'm advocating for. I'm simply attempting to ascertain if you have the basis for both understandings before engaging in a debate with someone who doesn't understand the alternative theories we're supposed to be debating.

No, you are throwing out names and theories rather than hard ideas. I understand fully what they propose, but not everybody does. Ever notice that I explain things in real terms? Is it for your benefit, or everybody elses?

Try to explain yourself and put it into an actionable plan, not just toss out two names.

I don't go to work and say. "Hey, I think we should do a Greg Pelzer for this deal, which perfectly defines the structure of the transaction". No, I create a term sheet, listing my own terms, in my own words, and how I plan to carry them out.

I'd love to know what world you live in defines action plans by the names of the people who created a theory, which may or may not be comletely applicable to your idea.

If you understand what they propose than what is your reasoning for why their logic is flawed? If your reason is because everyone else is doing it, then it is indeed your logic that is flawed. If you have some tangible reason as to why these theories are flawed, present it. Otherwise it is you who has been so miserably "bitchslapped" in this debate as you have already lost before it ever began.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: BlinderBomber
Why not elect a more responsible leader that can use it to do some damn good in the world?

Now, THAT is a dream. Perhaps you would be comfortable with the clown avatar when making such statements?

...does that include RP?

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: Mavtek3100
If you understand what they propose than what is your reasoning for why their logic is flawed? If your reason is because everyone else is doing it, then it is indeed your logic that is flawed. If you have some tangible reason as to why these theories are flawed, present it. Otherwise it is you who has been so miserably "bitchslapped" in this debate as you have already lost before it ever began.

once again... Please summarize Friedman's and Mises' positions, as they relate to Ron Paul's plans, in your own terms!

We shall then restart the debate between you and LK. If you fail to do so, then you have completely negated the point of this thread, and you have effectively lost the debate.

LK gave us his position, in his own words, and you've given us nothing in response. IOW, you havent made it much of a debate...

What if I were to respond to every point concerning the military with "Because Colin Powell says so"?? Would that work?

 

[BeauJangles]

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: BlinderBomber
So, because politicians abuse an extremely powerful tool, we should axe it?

This is exactly why the founders gave the federal government very little power. Because power will always be abused. They were right then, and we have proven them right now.

Why not elect a more responsible leader that can use it to do some damn good in the world?

Now, THAT is a dream. Perhaps you would be comfortable with the clown avatar when making such statements?

If the federal government didn't have the power, the state governments would be doing equally as stupid things on a smaller scale. Believing we'd be better off with a weaker federal government is foolish, we'd have different problems.

We've had plenty of responsible leaders who haven't gotten us knee-deep in shit. What we need is our damned senate to step up and stop bending over backwards for the executive. The founding fathers, in their infinite glory, never really foresaw an alliance between those two branches.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: BlinderBomber
Why not elect a more responsible leader that can use it to do some damn good in the world?

Now, THAT is a dream. Perhaps you would be comfortable with the clown avatar when making such statements?

...does that include RP?

That's kind of a dumb question, especially for you. Regardless of stances on the issues, I don't know when we have last elected a President with real honesty and real integrity.

 

[Mavtek3100]

Originally posted by: yllus

Originally posted by: Mavtek3100

Originally posted by: yllus

Originally posted by: NaughtyGeek
Power projection has been a dead horse in the sense that you've listed it here since the first atomic bomb was used. That's ALL the power projection we'll ever need. Everything else is posturing and wasting money. In the age of instant communications, it's quite possible for us to reach foreign leaders and express our disapproval of their actions should that be required. Power projection is just a nice way of saying schoolyard bully when it comes to our current use of the word. Our reign as world police needs to be over and the sooner the better.

Except that everyone knows that the U.S. will never use a nuke unless nuked first. What would you have done in '95, threaten to nuke Bosnia if they didn't stop the genocide? How about Afghanistan in 2002? Your plan is especially silly when you consider the prevalence of non-state actors as a security issue.

I have a great question concerning both accounts of intervention by our Military. For Afghanistan we were supposed to be getting Osama Bin Laden, not spending Billions to rebuild a nation. I'd say we have failed miserably in this regard. In Bosnia we intervened, that intervention has now put us at further odds with Putin.

It's simple really, every action has an equal and opposite reaction. It's the reactions we don't take into consideration when we take action. Could their be reaction with no action taken, possibly if action is expected. It's time we make sure others don't expect action, it's time for others to take responsibility for themselves.

Okay, I have to get back to some work but I'll answer what I think is a pretty silly set of questions first.

Getting Osama Bin Laden is, on the grand scheme of things, a minor detail. Dismantling Al Qaeda and like-minded organizations, on the other hand, is what the true goal is. Makes sense, right? The individual is immaterial if you can take away his organization and its capability to project violence.

Al Qaeda was able to took root in Afghanistan because it is a country with an absence of the rule of law, is desperately poor and consists of a largely uneducated populace. Without that lack of rule of law, their violence would not be tolerated locally. Without that lack of money, leaders in various parts of the country could not be swayed to look the other way while the troublemakers get up to no good. And without the lack of education, they'd have a significantly harder time winning converts and sympathizers.

Al Qaeda was nothing before we invaded Afghanistan. They were not in control, they were a rag tag group of terrorists numbering in the 100's who adored Osama Bin Laden. The Taliban were sympathizers to their cause because in actuality the Al Qeada are none other than remnants of the CIA financed Mujahdeen force which helped the Taliban overthrow Soviet rule.

The key to rooting out Al Qaeda, then, is to deprive it of what allows it to thrive. When it could thrive openly in Afghanistan, they were free to plot and carry out attacks with far greater ease. Banishing them to the mountains and taking away those three factors that allow them to stay put in Afghanistan is essential in the long term to destroying the organization. None of this can be accomplished in five years time - who expected it to? When's the last time a country went from zero to industrialized nation in half a decade?

Folks around here love to put down short, definitive sentences to solve large, complex issues. Those people are never right and should never be allowed near a decision making role. Unfortunately, one seemed to have made his way all the way to your Presidency. But I digress.

We have given Osama recruiting tools as we attempt to uproot and install our own democracies throughout the middle east. Our intervention has done the exact opposite of what was intended. How one can not see that is beyond me.