• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

For non RP Bots, why is Ron Paul a Loon?

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

bbdub333

Senior member
Aug 21, 2007
684
0
0
Originally posted by: Mavtek3100
Originally posted by: bbdub333
Originally posted by: Mavtek3100

My only questions are: What is stragery? What would happen to South Korea, they are immensely more powerful militarily than North Korea.
Post some figures on each country and then explain to me how you came up with this fact.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_of_South_Korea

Created in 1948, following the division of the Korean Peninsula by occupying Soviet and U.S. forces, the Republic of Korea Armed Forces is one of the largest standing armed forces in the world with a reported personnel strength of 5,187,000 in 2006 (687,000 active force and 4,500,000 regular reserve).[1]
You're halfway there. Now post the figures on the N Korean military.
 

Mavtek3100

Senior member
Jan 15, 2008
524
0
0
Originally posted by: bbdub333
Originally posted by: Mavtek3100
Originally posted by: bbdub333
Originally posted by: Mavtek3100

My only questions are: What is stragery? What would happen to South Korea, they are immensely more powerful militarily than North Korea.
Post some figures on each country and then explain to me how you came up with this fact.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_of_South_Korea

Created in 1948, following the division of the Korean Peninsula by occupying Soviet and U.S. forces, the Republic of Korea Armed Forces is one of the largest standing armed forces in the world with a reported personnel strength of 5,187,000 in 2006 (687,000 active force and 4,500,000 regular reserve).[1]
You're halfway there. Now post the figures on the N Korean military.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L...number_of_total_troops

there you go dude look for yourself
 

LegendKiller

Lifer
Mar 5, 2001
18,256
68
86
Originally posted by: Mavtek3100
Originally posted by: bbdub333
Originally posted by: Mavtek3100
Originally posted by: bbdub333
Originally posted by: Mavtek3100

My only questions are: What is stragery? What would happen to South Korea, they are immensely more powerful militarily than North Korea.
Post some figures on each country and then explain to me how you came up with this fact.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_of_South_Korea

Created in 1948, following the division of the Korean Peninsula by occupying Soviet and U.S. forces, the Republic of Korea Armed Forces is one of the largest standing armed forces in the world with a reported personnel strength of 5,187,000 in 2006 (687,000 active force and 4,500,000 regular reserve).[1]
You're halfway there. Now post the figures on the N Korean military.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L...number_of_total_troops

there you go dude look for yourself
Waffles. Yet another RPB proving that RPBs make stupid claims and have nothing to back them up. I am sure, somewhere inside, RP smiles for all of his unfortunate, retarded, followers.

Does this stupid thread end now?
 

BeauJangles

Lifer
Aug 26, 2001
13,941
1
0
Originally posted by: Mavtek3100
Question of the day, why is Ron Paul a loon? I'd love a "non-bots" take on this. Oh and one other question for you to ponder. When you come up with an idea to take care of a solution that is not conventional thinking do you consider yourself a loon?

Thanks!
Like I've said countless times before, Ron's gang somehow thinks that any idea that isn't accepted by the mainstream must be a good one because the mainstream doesn't accept it. That isn't true. Ron has ideas that aren't accepted by the mainstream because, quite frankly, they're stupid.

Like others are saying in this thread abolishing the federal reserve is a terrible, terrible, terrible, idea. Ron's gang wants to abandon the very system that saw the US through our longest, most prosperous period because, in the short-term, our currency is worth less money. Instead of abandoning the system, why don't we address the real issue! Our currency isn't weak because of the fed, it's weak because of our national debt, our trade deficit, and the war we're waging in Iraq.

As for withdrawing troops from around the world, that's an equally terrible idea. Ron preaches isolationism. That won't get anything done. The US needs to be a full and active participant in the world - just without using our military so much. We have a vested interest in how the world unfolds and, believe it or not, the rest of the world has a vested interest in keeping the US involved in global discussions.

Let me say it again - not all radical ideas have the same merit. Ron Paul's ideas are drastically short-sighted and will ultimately ruin this country if he were allowed to implement them.
 

Mavtek3100

Senior member
Jan 15, 2008
524
0
0
The ROK Air Force (ROKAF) is a modern air force, which fields some 600+ combat aircraft of American design. In contrast, the North Korean Army has roughly 150-300 more aircraft, but mostly obsolete types of Soviet and Chinese origin.

For those who don't like to click links.
 

palehorse

Lifer
Dec 21, 2005
11,521
0
76
Originally posted by: Mavtek3100
Originally posted by: palehorse74
Originally posted by: Mavtek3100
Originally posted by: loki8481
his foreign policy of a complete, immediate 100% withdraw of all troops stationed on foreign soil and cutting off all foreign aid is naive and would be disastrous for both the US and the world.
Well immediate is a strong word, if you'd have paid attention to what he has said in both interviews and debates we can start the withdrawal immediately, but it would take years to accomplish it. At least for the around the world withdrawal. Iraq would take months.

So this would be disastrous? Can you explain how it would be, cause all I see it doing is saving buttloads of money?

Thanks, in advance.
There are very valid reasons for having troops and equipment staged throughout the world -- reasons that RP seems to ignore in favor of saving a few dollars.

Bringing everyone home would have severe and dire consequences to the security of the US and many other nations around the world (ie. Taiwan and South Korea come to mind).

Also, unless he plans to overturn the Posse Comitatus Act, bringing all of them home wouldn't do a damn thing to bolster border security. Do you want to see armed US soldiers patrolling our borders and streets? Yikes!

I think you and RP need to take an introduction class in military strategery...
My only questions are: What is stragery? What would happen to South Korea, they are immensely more powerful militarily than North Korea. Are you saying the south would invade and dominate the North if we weren't there? Would this be a bad thing? As far as Taiwan goes you're basically saying our 20,000 troops we have there is a deterrent for the Chinese 3 million man army?

Who is the loon again? God damn I had no idea how much fun this would be!
Alright kiddo, I'll play...

1) "strategery" was a verbal gaff GWB made many years ago. You must have been living in a cave to have missed it... did you used to live in a cave? Or maybe you're a recent HS graduate who just discovered politics? :Q

2) On what do you base your strategic analysis describing the ROK's military as "immensely more powerful" than North Korea's? What gives you that idea? Wikipedia? You're joking, right?! :confused:

there's a reason why Wiki's are not authorized sources for research papers in school... but you know that, so why do you insist on using it as your only source here? Are wikipedia and RP speeches your only exposure to military strategery? ya...

Then again, even wikipedia shows that you're wrong... DOH! :Q:Q

3) The troops may act as quick reaction force for Taiwan, and elsewhere, but they are actually just one small part of the equation. Our Naval carriers that patrol their waters are a much larger piece of the strategic projection of power Taiwan relies upon for its entire existence. This is the result of a defense pact we made with Taiwan when they broke from Communist China. As you can see, they have been quite productive since that occurred, so China would LOVE to absorb them once again -- do you want that to happen? Or do you simply not care?

Maybe you don't understand the need for, or definition of, global alliances and defense pacts... or maybe you're just talking out of your arse and repeating RP soundbites...?
 

LegendKiller

Lifer
Mar 5, 2001
18,256
68
86
Originally posted by: Mavtek3100
The ROK Air Force (ROKAF) is a modern air force, which fields some 600+ combat aircraft of American design. In contrast, the North Korean Army has roughly 150-300 more aircraft, but mostly obsolete types of Soviet and Chinese origin.

For those who don't like to click links.
And the NK has massive Sam nets to take them down. Not to mention that the first sign of aggression and seoul is a smouldering heap from all of the artillery NK has pointed at it.

It's funny how we go from a "massive advantage" to bickering over the size of the ROKAF.
 

jonks

Lifer
Feb 7, 2005
13,918
18
81
I don't think he's a loon. I think he proposes too many radical ideas for a president to implement, and that undermines his platform. He doesn't like big government. I get it. But running on a platform of disbanding the Federal Reserve, the FBI, CIA, Homeland Security, IRS, Dept of Education, UNICEF, withdrawing from the UN, etc. etc. It's TOO much change to run on.

I do think most of his followers are loons. They flood message boards and online polls and then point to that as evidence of nationwide support, admit zero faults in any of RP's positions, think not just that there is a media bias against RP (which there may be) but that there is a concerted effort and conspiracy among the media and everyone else to keep RP out of the news and debates, predict victory in all of the primaries though he polls at sub 10%, they question every poll as inaccurate though they have all so far pretty much nailed his numbers, call everyone who says RP is not a viable candidate delusional, and basically think if RP doesn't get elected the country is going to end within the next 10 years.

Examples i just found in 2 minutes:

- lol.. i like how CNN uses a pic of everyone smiling except Ron Paul
[must be a conspiracy]

- As it stands now Paul has garnered support from roughly 1.5 million people. What does that mean? It means you, your kids, and America in general will be saved. Why? Because 1.5 million people actually care, that's why.
[saved? as in jesus?]
 

bbdub333

Senior member
Aug 21, 2007
684
0
0
Originally posted by: Mavtek3100
The ROK Air Force (ROKAF) is a modern air force, which fields some 600+ combat aircraft of American design. In contrast, the North Korean Army has roughly 150-300 more aircraft, but mostly obsolete types of Soviet and Chinese origin.

For those who don't like to click links.
As of 2007, North Korea's airforce comprises about 1,200 - 1500 aircraft and 110,000 personnel, about twice the number of aircraft as the South, though the operational status of many of these aircraft is unknown.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K...ple%27s_Army_Air_Force

For those who like selective research.

You also obviously don't want to acknowledge the fact that N Korea's active army is almost twice the size of S Korea's.

You got called on your bullshit. Man up and admit it.

 

brxndxn

Diamond Member
Apr 3, 2001
8,475
0
76
Originally posted by: palehorse74

Maybe you don't understand the need for, or definition of, global alliances and defense pacts...?
When you're the most powerful nation in the world, you need no entangling alliances or defense pacts. You need no alliances other than trade alliances. When you make friends with one entity, you make an enemy with another.

The American people owe money to no other nation. We should not have to pay our tax dollars to foreign countries in the name of 'aid.'

If we took our entire military and moved it back into the US, our borders would be more secure, the American people would be more secure, and other countries would be free to figure things out for themselves. America should have nothing to do with 'Peace in the Middle East.'

Our foreign policy should be easy to understand:

Leave us alone and we will leave you alone.
If you attack us, then parking lot.
If you disrupt our trade, we will defend against it.
 

Sinsear

Diamond Member
Jan 13, 2007
6,434
79
91
Originally posted by: LegendKiller
Originally posted by: Mavtek3100
The ROK Air Force (ROKAF) is a modern air force, which fields some 600+ combat aircraft of American design. In contrast, the North Korean Army has roughly 150-300 more aircraft, but mostly obsolete types of Soviet and Chinese origin.

For those who don't like to click links.
And the NK has massive Sam nets to take them down. Not to mention that the first sign of aggression and seoul is a smouldering heap from all of the artillery NK has pointed at it.

Stop spreading the truth.
 

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
20,977
848
126
Originally posted by: brxndxn
Originally posted by: palehorse74

Maybe you don't understand the need for, or definition of, global alliances and defense pacts...?
When you're the most powerful nation in the world, you need no entangling alliances or defense pacts. You need no alliances other than trade alliances. When you make friends with one entity, you make an enemy with another.

The American people owe money to no other nation. We should not have to pay our tax dollars to foreign countries in the name of 'aid.'

If we took our entire military and moved it back into the US, our borders would be more secure, the American people would be more secure, and other countries would be free to figure things out for themselves. America should have nothing to do with 'Peace in the Middle East.'

Our foreign policy should be easy to understand:

Leave us alone and we will leave you alone.
If you attack us, then parking lot.
If you disrupt our trade, we will defend against it.
I tend to agree. Im in the isolationist camp myself.

 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
73,139
24,713
136
Originally posted by: Mavtek3100

My only questions are: What is stragery? What would happen to South Korea, they are immensely more powerful militarily than North Korea. Are you saying the south would invade and dominate the North if we weren't there? Would this be a bad thing? As far as Taiwan goes you're basically saying our 20,000 troops we have there is a deterrent for the Chinese 3 million man army?

Who is the loon again? God damn I had no idea how much fun this would be!
You are showing here that you don't understand the situation over there. The primary question is not if one side would conquer the other (difficult for the south due to lack of political will, difficult for the north because of logistical collapse), its how much damage would be done to the peninsula when it happened. We are there trying to ensure no war breaks out until North Korea collapses on its own, not win a war.

As far as our 20,000 troops being a deterrant to China's 3 million man army, you're damn right it is. Its 20,000 troops that we will use to defend Taiwan, thus ensuring the Chinese that when they fight Taiwan they are fighting US troops as well. Its again not a question of if China could take Taiwan (they could), its that they know it would provoke us, and if US troops start dying instead of a quick and easy takeover they now have a situation in which the US must respond on a far larger scale. So again, the 20,000 troops prevent conflict.

Quick note though: those who are trying to pimp the power of the North Korean army are a little misguided. Most of its equipment is seriously outdated, their troops are severely lacking basic training, and their logistical support is a catastrophe. If the armies fought as they are right now, the south would almost certainly kick total ass. The problem would be how much damage NK could cause before it collapsed.
 

BeauJangles

Lifer
Aug 26, 2001
13,941
1
0
Originally posted by: brxndxn
Originally posted by: palehorse74

Maybe you don't understand the need for, or definition of, global alliances and defense pacts...?
When you're the most powerful nation in the world, you need no entangling alliances or defense pacts. You need no alliances other than trade alliances. When you make friends with one entity, you make an enemy with another.

The American people owe money to no other nation. We should not have to pay our tax dollars to foreign countries in the name of 'aid.'

If we took our entire military and moved it back into the US, our borders would be more secure, the American people would be more secure, and other countries would be free to figure things out for themselves. America should have nothing to do with 'Peace in the Middle East.'

Our foreign policy should be easy to understand:

Leave us alone and we will leave you alone.
If you attack us, then parking lot.
If you disrupt our trade, we will defend against it.
Our borders would not be more secure. This isn't 1800 anymore. The US's defensive priority should be protecting American interests abroad, not at home. That doesn't mean I believing getting into wars all the time is a good (or even prudent) approach, but the very idea of withdrawing ourselves from the world stage is completely wrong. We need to be MORE active in the world. We need to use our military to help secure shipping lanes from pirates, to help out with humanitarian crises, and, generally, to do some good in this world.

You want other countries to figure things out for themselves? Why? The US should be leading the world, not antagonizing it. We are still one of the most respected countries in the world because of our military and economic power and we should use that to influence the world to our liking.

I'm sorry, but the idea of retreating behind our own borders would make ourselves more secure is insane. We cannot, should not, and will not bury our heads in the sand.
 

palehorse

Lifer
Dec 21, 2005
11,521
0
76
Originally posted by: brxndxn
When you're the most powerful nation in the world, you need no entangling alliances or defense pacts. You need no alliances other than trade alliances. When you make friends with one entity, you make an enemy with another.
That is a very scary philosophy -- and one that would only work in a world wherein nobody formed alliances and defense pacts.

The American people owe money to no other nation. We should not have to pay our tax dollars to foreign countries in the name of 'aid.'
That, of course, depends on the nature of the "aid," and our motives for providing it. In some cases, I would agree. (Egypt comes to mind...)

If we took our entire military and moved it back into the US, our borders would be more secure, the American people would be more secure, and other countries would be free to figure things out for themselves.
How so? will armed US troops be patrolling the borders and streets of America? Will the active US military be used to respond to domestic incidents?

Again, that's some scary sh*t!

America should have nothing to do with 'Peace in the Middle East.'
You honestly can't see how completely ignoring it would eventually lead to it hitting our shores and bank accounts? :confused:

Our foreign policy should be easy to understand:

Leave us alone and we will leave you alone.
If you attack us, then parking lot.
If you disrupt our trade, we will defend against it.
OK, nevermind, the bolded phrase tells me that you're another fvcking nutcase.
 

palehorse

Lifer
Dec 21, 2005
11,521
0
76
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Quick note though: those who are trying to pimp the power of the North Korean army are a little misguided. Most of its equipment is seriously outdated, their troops are severely lacking basic training, and their logistical support is a catastrophe. If the armies fought as they are right now, the south would almost certainly kick total ass. The problem would be how much damage NK could cause before it collapsed.
...and the China factor?
 

LegendKiller

Lifer
Mar 5, 2001
18,256
68
86
Originally posted by: palehorse74
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Quick note though: those who are trying to pimp the power of the North Korean army are a little misguided. Most of its equipment is seriously outdated, their troops are severely lacking basic training, and their logistical support is a catastrophe. If the armies fought as they are right now, the south would almost certainly kick total ass. The problem would be how much damage NK could cause before it collapsed.
...and the China factor?
Not to mention this...


http://cns.miis.edu/research/korea/dprkmil.htm
 

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
20,977
848
126
Originally posted by: LegendKiller
Originally posted by: palehorse74
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Quick note though: those who are trying to pimp the power of the North Korean army are a little misguided. Most of its equipment is seriously outdated, their troops are severely lacking basic training, and their logistical support is a catastrophe. If the armies fought as they are right now, the south would almost certainly kick total ass. The problem would be how much damage NK could cause before it collapsed.
...and the China factor?
Not to mention this...


http://cns.miis.edu/research/korea/dprkmil.htm
Fucking scary. And this is the reason we dont do anything militarily against NK:

"Seoul, the South Korean capitol, lies within range of North Korean long-range artillery. Five hundred 170mm Koksan guns and 200 multiple-launch rocket systems could hit Seoul with artillery shells and chemical weapons, causing panic and massive civilian casualties. North Korea has between 500 and 600 Scud missiles that could strike targets throughout South Korea with conventional warheads or chemical weapons. North Korea could hit Japan with its 100 No-dong missiles.[7] Seventy percent of North Korean army ground units are located within 100 miles of the demilitarized zone separating North and South Korea, positioned to undertake offensive ground operations. These units could fire up to 500,000 artillery rounds per hour against South Korean defenses for several hours.[8] Finally, if North Korea does have one or two deliverable nuclear weapons, nuclear retaliation (or nuclear threats) would also be available to North Korea leaders."
 

palehorse

Lifer
Dec 21, 2005
11,521
0
76
When RP and his supporters propose an isolationist military strategy, they are essentially saying that they genuinely dont care what happens to innocent people outside of the United States. In other words, most of the world could die tomorrow, or be forced into slavery, and RP supporters just wouldnt give a flying fvck.

seriously.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
73,139
24,713
136
Originally posted by: palehorse74
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Quick note though: those who are trying to pimp the power of the North Korean army are a little misguided. Most of its equipment is seriously outdated, their troops are severely lacking basic training, and their logistical support is a catastrophe. If the armies fought as they are right now, the south would almost certainly kick total ass. The problem would be how much damage NK could cause before it collapsed.
...and the China factor?
I guess I was thinking defensively not offensively. I seriously doubt China would get involved to help the North invade the South... and the SK's have absolutely no reason to attempt to invade the North.

North Korea would fare far better in a defensive situation actually even without Chinese help, as the horrendous logistics problems NK has would be far less inside their own territory.
 

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
20,977
848
126
Originally posted by: palehorse74
When RP and his supporters propose an isolationist military strategy, they are essentially saying that they genuinely dont care what happens to innocent people outside of the United States. In other words, most of the world could die tomorrow, or be forced into slavery, and RP supporters just wouldnt give a flying fvck.

seriously.
So, do YOU think the US should be the worlds police? Where's the middle road?
 

palehorse

Lifer
Dec 21, 2005
11,521
0
76
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Originally posted by: palehorse74
When RP and his supporters propose an isolationist military strategy, they are essentially saying that they genuinely dont care what happens to innocent people outside of the United States. In other words, most of the world could die tomorrow, or be forced into slavery, and RP supporters just wouldnt give a flying fvck.

seriously.
So, do YOU think the US should be the worlds police? Where's the middle road?
World "police"? no.

I can't necessarily articulate a "middle of the road" either, but I do believe there is one.
 

NaughtyGeek

Golden Member
May 3, 2005
1,065
0
71
Originally posted by: eskimospy

You are showing here that you don't understand the situation over there. The primary question is not if one side would conquer the other (difficult for the south due to lack of political will, difficult for the north because of logistical collapse), its how much damage would be done to the peninsula when it happened. We are there trying to ensure no war breaks out until North Korea collapses on its own, not win a war.

As far as our 20,000 troops being a deterrant to China's 3 million man army, you're damn right it is. Its 20,000 troops that we will use to defend Taiwan, thus ensuring the Chinese that when they fight Taiwan they are fighting US troops as well. Its again not a question of if China could take Taiwan (they could), its that they know it would provoke us, and if US troops start dying instead of a quick and easy takeover they now have a situation in which the US must respond on a far larger scale. So again, the 20,000 troops prevent conflict.

Quick note though: those who are trying to pimp the power of the North Korean army are a little misguided. Most of its equipment is seriously outdated, their troops are severely lacking basic training, and their logistical support is a catastrophe. If the armies fought as they are right now, the south would almost certainly kick total ass. The problem would be how much damage NK could cause before it collapsed.

So we must have 20,000 troops on foreign soil to let China know if they attack we will retaliate? That simple message can't be communicated by any means other than a military presence?

Originally posted by: sirjonk

I don't think he's a loon. I think he proposes too many radical ideas for a president to implement, and that undermines his platform. He doesn't like big government. I get it. But running on a platform of disbanding the Federal Reserve, the FBI, CIA, Homeland Security, IRS, Dept of Education, UNICEF, withdrawing from the UN, etc. etc. It's TOO much change to run on.

I do think most of his followers are loons. They flood message boards and online polls and then point to that as evidence of nationwide support, admit zero faults in any of RP's positions, think not just that there is a media bias against RP (which there may be) but that there is a concerted effort and conspiracy among the media and everyone else to keep RP out of the news and debates, predict victory in all of the primaries though he polls at sub 10%, they question every poll as inaccurate though they have all so far pretty much nailed his numbers, call everyone who says RP is not a viable candidate delusional, and basically think if RP doesn't get elected the country is going to end within the next 10 years.


While he most certainly could not implement all the changes he proposes, his resounding message shows that he will move in that general direction. Are some folks who support Dr. Paul blind followers? Of course there are just as there are plenty of blind followers for any other organized group out there. Fundamental Muslims, Christians, Republicans, Democrats, etc come to mind. For God's sake, there are still people who think a candidate's views on abortion are more important than whether they think their views should be acted upon or not.

I think there's enough naivety/ignorance in all the different thought groups out there to keep things sufficiently screwed up for a good time to come. Until we can get corporate/special interests out of our politicians pockets, we will continue to head down a dim path for personal prosperity in our nation. The gini coefficient continues to rise every year in this country and until we as a people find enough common ground with one another to acknowledge the fact that We The People no longer run this country candidates that wish to change this will continue to be seen as fringe/unelectable.

To the OP, Ron Paul is a loon because he isn't playing ball the way the rest of the candidates do plain and simple. No conspiracy, no "loony" ideas, just different from the status quo and we all fear change to some extent and he proposes change in a Very Big way.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY