it's a strange thing, is it not, that virtually all the countries that host US bases want them there. Would cry foul if we even hinted we were moving out. US global presence has a far more stabilizing affect than you give it credit for. If the US pulled bases from all of those countries, do you think they would be content to leave their own military levels unchanged? It is the US military umbrella that has diffused many of the regional arms races. Those countries benefit from from being able to swing public dollars from guns to butter (which may be encouraging harmful socialistic tendencies, but that is a different story).

History shows that empires who spread themselves too far and wide will fall very soon after.  We have major problems at home.  We shouldn't be spending money keeping troops in so many countries.  Sure they may like it, but its really not our place to be the global cop.  

I don't think many people understand Ron's message.  Its very much an anti-government message.  If you think the government should run our lives from cradle to grave, Ron Paul isn't your man.  If you believe in honestly, freedom, and peace, he is your man.  He is against delving into the personal affairs of people.  I think he is a great man that is very smart and intelligent.  He would be loads better than most of the candidates running right now.   

Do you agree that America should leave both NATO and the UN?

I'm not an American, so I don't have to choose my presidential candidate, but I would like to hear more from the Ron Paul supporters.

 Didn't that happen already? Heh.

There is no question that the WMD was wrong. The intelligence was wrong. Who disputes it? You just choose to believe the worst of all possibilities. That everything that went worng was known and intended. Like some sort of conspiracy theory. I would not elect a president that could only react to information he knew was absolutely 100% correct. I need a leader who can make a difficult decision when everything is not known and being able to weigh the consequences of those choices. Which would be worse, to assume there were no WMD when there really was or to assume there is WMD when there really is not? (no need to answer, I can guess it already) It is the science of knowledge and decisions. Anyone waiting for perfect clairvoyance would be paralyzed to do anything.

Informants are often times shadey characters. Curveball was no exception. The effort we have made over the last few decades to restrict our intelligence agencies from engaging less than scrupulous people has hurt our intelligence gathering, not helped it. But that is what intelligence gathering is. Sifting through data, some of which might conflict, to try to paint an overall picture. The fact that the British, French and Russians were in independent agreement with the administration in their assessment is telling. But feel free to discount it.

It's cheap also a cheap shot to call out a leader for saying victory is certain. Anyone in a contest would make a similar declaration. Whether it be war, a political campaign, or a sport. (Didn't the Stealers declare victory was certain over the Pats. THE LIARS! Oops. I compared war to football! It's a joke.)

I don't see Wolf as a credible source. Anyone more independent?

N-Syte:

The local economies need the bases. Why should foreign cities be part of our welfare state?

The biggest example is Israel. Of course they don't want us to stop supporting them, but in the process we basically take their sovereignty.

I really don't think the rest of the world is made up of savages who will kill each other if we remove our guns.

BTW, I'm not some big Wolf slurper, I just think it's an interesting piece, if sometimes a stretch.




Final Fan

Churches eclipsing the state does not mean they get to dictate their will to the people. Teaching morality and civility does not mean enforcing them like laws, like a state might. And the power should be derived from free-will offerings, not taxes, meaning it is really the people's power.

What ever happened to "God, Family and Country"? That was supposed to be the order of importance, AFAIC.

History does show us that Socialism and Atheism many times go hand-in-hand. And I do see a movement to make religion private, instead of simply personal, which even the far left evangelicals like Jim Wallis talk about. There's nothing wrong with religion being public.

I'll find some more context for the (interesting) Paul and Jefferson quotes you contrasted there.



I've really enjoyed this conversation, but I think it's time to call it quits. I can only do so much of this at a time, and it's getting late.

Ron Paul is certainly more principled than most. He has philosophical frame work that he is passionate and open about. He wants to educate. Many politicians could not be so bold to say aloud what they really believe. I agree with much of what he says regarding the place of government, but it bothers me that he cannot square his foreign policy beliefs against history. He tends to avoid the line of dialogue lest he say something contradictory or unpopular. How would his worldview deal with a growing fascist regime? Chamberlain them, or Churchill them? I would like to think the answer obvious, but there are always caveats with him. I guess I need to be more nuanced.

 I suppose you have professional knowledge of the intelligence gathering process? What you described is not the intelligence gathering process, it is two steps out four steps that you seem to have confabulated. 

This thread is long and full of lots of things that I really don't feel like reading because they have already been addressed a million other places on the internet, like his position on abortion.

However, I would like to point out just a few of my own beliefs. I think Ron Paul is great, not because he is perfect, but because he is calling for some serious reform in an honest manner. I am 23 [you can vote at 18 in America] and I have never voted. This will be the first time I vote because I actually care about a candidate. Ron Paul is not perfect on all matters and if he carried out everything he believes in, in one 4 year term things may not be great. But the truth is this: He can't carry out everything in 4 years. This is what makes the Constitution GREAT! He won't be president for 20 years and turn the country on it's head. He can, however, make some headway to get out dollar based more in reality and not on whatever the Fed wants and he can get the national government more out of our lives.

Stof, especially I would like to hear which views you see as "crazy" because I respect your intelligence and I have thought thoroughly about Paul's message. This isn't the call for the perfect candidate people. This is the call for someone who actually believes in what he says and wants more power to the people. Can any other candidate come close to saying that??

Well Erik. When you you put it that way:
"I really don't think the rest of the world is made up of savages who will kill each other if we remove our guns."

I suppose they're not. World War 3 will not necessarily break out the day after we leave the world. But while I appreciate your penchant for hyperbole, try thinking longer term.

Do you not think Japan would strongly consider a military build up if the US just up and left? South Korea? Neither are very happy about China's military investment. Russia has been somewhat more beligerant. Do you suppose eastern Europe would prefer to stay unarmed in the absence of US coverage. Even the Middle East, countries like Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, the Gulf States, Egypt and even parts of IRAQ! enjoy having a US presence nearby in the event Iran became agressive (even though they disbanded there weapons programs and just want to be friends!) Many of these countries feel a level of protection knowing that a potential adversary would also be striking US interests if it launched an attack.

There are real threats of renewed arms races in all three regions. US presence is one of the deterrents. It does far greater good than harm.

If these threats seem like pipe dreams to you, I don't know what to say. Again, you are more worried about Bush than the world's true madmen (ah, but I guess Bush is the madman, eh?) I only know that many times the conflicts/changes of a decade seemed unimaginable just 10 years earlier.

Best to be prepared.