Why Ron Paul Is Wrong.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

But I might add, and I'm talking core principles now, not technology, the USA of 1776, or 1795, bears little resemblance to the USA of 2012. As a name, we have made it to 2012, but as an experiment in freedom, we have fallen way short. We have met the enemy, and he is us.

Presently I'm re-watching the Inside Job while studying All The Devil's Are Here. Wall Street is responsible, and very little has been done to punish the guilty or prevent it from happening again.

[yaddayadda]

The founding fathers went into great detail to make a WEAK central government, very limited federal power up to about 1860. The speaker of the house was probably more powerful than the president up until then. States determined how people lived.

Ron Paul is right about one thing for sure, war should be declared by congress, and by war I mean killing people foreign to us.
We have perpetual war now, undeclared since Korea to present day.
The absolute arrogance of the government that feels we have the right to fly around the world and drop bombs on people that we disagree with is so lame it would be funny if people weren't dieing. It sort of justifies Pearl Harbor for the Japanese....

I am a Vietnam Veteran and I am proud of serving my country. I am not proud of the endless war machine and the damage it has done. I have revisited Vietnam and its doing fine now, but the scars run deep. I have also worked for 10 years in the Mid East, 5 in Saudi, 1 in Libya and 4 in Iraq. We need to let them work out their own problems. The U.S. is not smart enough, or consistent enough to "nation build". We don't need their oil. If we wanted to we could refine gasoline from coal or natural gas.

Right wing, left wing....it's the same fucking chicken.

[I B Hankering]

Most countries with any international stature have been involved in "police actions" for the last two centuries. The claim that the U.S. has only recently been at perpetual war is completely false. The U.S. was at "war" with various Native American tribes until the end of the 19th century. The U.S. was indirectly linked to scores of filibuster expeditions in Mexico, the Caribbean, Central and South America before and after the Civil War. And don't forget Nicaragua, Puerto Rico, Panama, Cuba, Guam, Wake Island, Hawaii, the Philippines, China, Korea, Japan, etc., -- and that was all before Taft.

Far too many people do not know the history of this country, or the history of other countries, and therefore are not qualified to sit in judgement as they view the world through their rosy colored glasses. People who ignorantly argue that "Pearl Harbor was justifiable" really ought to study the history of Japanese Imperialism. Japan signed onto the Tripartite Pact with Hitler and Mussolini in 1940: fifteen months before Pearl harbor.

[CuteOldGuy]

+1 Yadda, and thank you!

[dilbert firestorm]

Originally Posted by WTF

All sides are dard at some point. That includes yours!

LOL

dard?

[CuteOldGuy]

Yeah, dard. Don't you get it? You know, like, dard. Geez.

[dilbert firestorm]

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Yeah, dard. Don't you get it? You know, like, dard. Geez.

no, eye don't get it.

[yaddayadda]

I do not favor an isolated country but comparing the Indian Wars and South American banana wars to Korea, Vietnam, GW I, GWII, Libya, and the Afgan war is a bit of a stretch.
And my point about Japan was if we can go around dropping bombs willy nilly on people for our own benefit why can't Japan?
If going to war is truly in our national interest then why can't we let Congress, as outlined in the Constitution, declare the war? I have been to Vietnam and I have been to Iraq and I am telling you that war should be the absolute LAST item on our options list, it causes death, hate and distrust. The human suffering lasts for generations and so does the hate. If all out war ever came to the USA it would change a lot of peoples minds about military force.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by nevergaveitathought

i appreciate you when you dont rant and rave and spray spittle and call names. is this the new you?

Originally Posted by WTF

i appreciate you when you dont say stupid shit! Keeps my spittle intact

Originally Posted by WTF

I don't give a flip what you care about!

Originally Posted by nevergaveitathought

for a minute there i thought you had left the dark side

Originally Posted by nevergaveitathought

thats the WTF that we all know and detest

Originally Posted by WTF

All sides are dard at some point. That includes yours!

Originally Posted by WTF

LOL

dark

Sorry , meant dark , we all have a dark side we can't see that others seem to be able to clearly see. I can see nevergivesitathought's dark side. He can see mine. I know I have one. He seems to think he does not.

All you righties seem to think like that. You are pure and blue and the rest of us are evil! Cracks me the fuc up!

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by yaddayadda

I do not favor an isolated country but comparing the Indian Wars and South American banana wars to Korea, Vietnam, GW I, GWII, Libya, and the Afgan war is a bit of a stretch.

Grenada, Panama, Kosovo, Somalia, Lebanon, Libya, Yemen, Pakistan, the First Gulf War and some others are proportionately comparable to the Indian Wars (significant military forces were deployed to defeat the Sioux, Nez Perce and Apaches in the late 19th century). The First Gulf War can also be compared to the Mexican American War. The Spanish American War in conjunction with the ensuing Philippine Insurrection and Moro Rebellion (1898 to 19113) can certainly be compared to Vietnam, Afghanistan and/or Iraq.

American troops were deployed to China for a year (1899-1900), in Nicaragua for 21 years (1912-1933), Haiti for 19 years (1915 to 1919), and the Dominican Republic for 8 years (1916 to 1924). Wilson also sent U.S. troops into Mexico during the Mexican Revolution (1914 to 1919) and into the Russian Civil War (1918 to 1920).

Originally Posted by yaddayadda

And my point about Japan was if we can go around dropping bombs willy nilly on people for our own benefit why can't Japan?

My point is, they were. It was Japan’s military expansion into Manchuria, China and Indochina that was the principal point of conflict between the U.S. and Japan in the months leading up to Pearl Harbor. Meanwhile, the U.S. had already set a time table to end U.S. political imperialism in the Philippines and ‘establish’ (not ‘re-establish’) Filipino self-rule by the mid-1940s.

Originally Posted by yaddayadda

If going to war is truly in our national interest then why can't we let Congress, as outlined in the Constitution, declare the war?

Recently, Congress is a collection of cowards. They are afraid to make a decision for which someone might hold them accountable. Instead, they equivocate and posture and vote for ‘resolutions’ approving military actions. However, it is notable that there have been only five instances where Congress did declare war: War of 1812; Mexican-American War; Spanish-American War; WWI and WWII.

Originally Posted by yaddayadda

I have been to Vietnam and I have been to Iraq and I am telling you that war should be the absolute LAST item on our options list, it causes death, hate and distrust. The human suffering lasts for generations and so does the hate. If all out war ever came to the USA it would change a lot of peoples minds about military force.

I deployed to Afghanistan and lived on the battlefield (Soviets vs Mujahideen) that was Bagram. I witnessed the destruction and the distrust. But I have also been stationed in Korea, Germany and Italy and experienced no animosity. The Koreans are very happy we are there. Additionally, my experiences while in SW Asia, Panama and Japan were, for the most part, positive. It's been my personal experience that the faculties and students of American universities and the townspeople living near military bases in the U.S. are more hostile towards and contemptuous of U.S. soldiers and their presence than any of the people in any of the countries I have named.

But to return to the point of my original post: the Islamic theocracies and cults despise Western culture and all that it stands for: egalitarianism, free speech, religious tolerance – especially as it pertains to women. So, withdrawing U.S. military forces from overseas bases won’t change that fact. And it's the nature of modern commerce that U.S. interests will exist in close proximity to their boundaries and influence, e.g., the Straits of Hormuz. Hence, there will be conflict so long as they choose to strike out (e.g., 9/11, the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, the U.S.S. Cole, etc.) in hatred of our culture and traditions.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

The U.S. was at "war" with various Native American tribes until the end of the 19th century. .

People forget that this so called freedom loving country did not have a shit pile of respect for the folks called Native Americans.

We do things to advance our own agenda...at the peril of others who do not agree!

But my arguement is that we used to actually get more in return that we spent to get. That seems not to be the case nowdays. Or it is the case that the middle class is transfering their wealth to the upper class in these expansions and nation building causes. That is how I see it.

[yaddayadda]

I would note that none of the five declared "Wars" lasted longer than 4 years.

I would also say that whether we have a military presence in the Mid East or whether we don't it will not change the Arab mentality towards western culture. Let MTV and rock and roll change the culture of the mid east, it will not be done at the end of a rifle barrel. Teenage Abdul wants the same thing teenage Johnny wants, pussy and cars. I know the "Arab spring" is looking like a fundamentalist play now but that's because the fundamentalists are the only real organization. I give Egypt about three years and it will be wide open.
And I still think you relating a platoon of marines with bolt action rifles in South America and the trumped up Spanish American War to napalm in Vietnam to be less than an honest comparison. And the Mexican War was essentially over in 6 months, it took another 3 years for Mexico to put together a government for the U.S. to give the country back.
I agree that after we left Vietnam in 1975 about 3 million Laos, Cambodian and Vietnamese people were killed( 76 to 79) and maybe we should of stayed...I dunno. Did we cause the mass murder by arming all those people or did we stop the inevitable for a while....I don't know. But I do know the end result was a Vietnam which is no threat to us, and probably never was.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by yaddayadda

I would note that none of the five declared "Wars" lasted longer than 4 years.

Those were the only wars where the U.S. invested a 100% effort. Every other war was fought as a side show event. Case-in-point, Rumsfeld's half-ass approach to engaging Iraq: "Shock and Awe" didn't impress. It was grunts on the ground in significant numbers that somewhat settled the matter, but they came in too late to impose a lasting peace. The enemy(ies) was allowed to regain its footing, and it now looks like the U.S. is retreating for lack of will rather than withdrawing in the wake of victory.

Originally Posted by yaddayadda

I would also say that whether we have a military presence in the Mid East or whether we don't it will not change the Arab mentality towards western culture. Let MTV and rock and roll change the culture of the mid east, it will not be done at the end of a rifle barrel. Teenage Abdul wants the same thing teenage Johnny wants, pussy and cars.

I’m saying the same thing, and this is what most angers men like bin Laden. But American interests in that region must be defended. I rue the day 'they' bring down a dozen commercial airliners or sink two or three supertankers - imagine what an Eco-catastrophe that would be.

Originally Posted by yaddayadda

I know the "Arab spring" is looking like a fundamentalist play now but that's because the fundamentalists are the only real organization. I give Egypt about three years and it will be wide open.

I’m not so optimistic.

Originally Posted by yaddayadda

And I still think you relating a platoon of marines with bolt action rifles in South America and the trumped up Spanish American War to napalm in Vietnam to be less than an honest comparison. And the Mexican War was essentially over in 6 months, it took another 3 years for Mexico to put together a government for the U.S. to give the country back.

It is scale and proportionality. Almost all U.S. military forces were devoted to both of those actions you are scoffing at. The U.S. was not as rich and powerful as it is today, so those wars were as proportionally significant to the U.S. economy in their day as the Vietnam War was to the post WWII U.S. economy in the ‘60s. Plus, during Vietnam, the U.S. maintained sizable forces in Germany, Korea, Japan, the Philippines, etc., - not nearly as wholly committed.

Originally Posted by yaddayadda

I agree that after we left Vietnam in 1975 about 3 million Laos, Cambodian and Vietnamese people were killed( 76 to 79) and maybe we should of stayed...I dunno. Did we cause the mass murder by arming all those people or did we stop the inevitable for a while....I don't know. But I do know the end result was a Vietnam which is no threat to us, and probably never was.

The Vietnamese were already armed. They’d been fighting the Chinese for centuries and then fought the French for another century. Plus, they had just suffered through occupation by the Japanese.

The Cold War colored U.S. perceptions. Having France as an ally against the U.S.S.R. in Europe was considered more important than Vietnamese nationalism. Had Wilson or Truman truly listened to Hồ Chí Minh following WWI and WWII respectively, things might have been different. Hindsight certainly shows the French to be a poor ally, and they are why we fought in Vietnam. We saw our interest in preserving their interest. BTW, I honor your service. I went in ’72, but did not go to Vietnam.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by WTF

People forget that this so called freedom loving country did not have a shit pile of respect for the folks called Native Americans.

I personally have great respect for Native Americans. They have a proud heritage. I wrote what follows as a Post Script to an earlier post, but it can go here as well. It is about one of those proud moments in their history.

Post Script: Again, in regards to scale and magnitude, the Indian Wars are not to be scoffed at:

After the American Revolution, the Continental Army was quickly disbanded as part of the American distrust of standing armies. Irregular state militias became the new nation's sole ground army, with the exception of ‘a single regiment of U.S. regulars’ to guard the Western Frontier and one battery of artillery guarding West Point's arsenal.

In 1790, General in Chief Harmar led the regiment, the Regiment of Infantry, consisting of 320 regulars, and over 1,000 militia on the disastrous Harmar Campaign. The Regiment of Infantry suffered over 70 casualties. Subsequently, March 1791, Congress allowed for a second regiment to be formed; thus, creating the 1st Regiment of Infantry and the 2nd Regiment of Infantry.

In 1791, General St. Clair was ordered to lead a punitive expedition comprised of the 1st Regiment (formerly The Regiment of Infantry) augmented by elements of the 2nd Regiment; plus, some militia against the Miamis. This force – comprised of most the entire U.S. Army – advanced to the location of Indian settlements near the headwaters of the Wabash River in Ohio. St. Clair's Soldiers were improperly trained, ill equipped, underfed, and sickly.

On November 4, 1791, St. Clair’s army was surprised at breakfast by 1,000 warriors from the tribal confederation led by Miami Chief Little Turtle and the Shawnee chief Blue Jacket at the ‘Battle of the Wabash’ (AKA ‘St. Clair's Defeat’, the ‘Columbia Massacre’, or the ‘Battle of a Thousand Slain’).

St. Clair summarized the battle a few days later in a letter to the Secretary of War. Out of his initial force numbering nearly 1,400, the American casualty rate, among the soldiers, was 97.4 percent, including 632 of 920 killed (69%) and 264 wounded. Nearly all of the 200 camp followers (wives, prostitutes, sutlers and teamsters) were slaughtered, for a total of 832 Americans killed. Approximately one-quarter of the entire U.S. Army had been wiped out. Only 24 of the 920 officers and men engaged came out of the battle unscathed. The Miamis and Shawnee confederation suffered about 61, with at least 21 killed. ‘The Battle of the Wabash’ was—and remains—the greatest defeat (surpassing even Custer’s defeat) in the history of the U.S. Army.

After this debacle, St. Clair resigned from the army at the request of President Washington, but continued to serve as Governor of the Northwest Territory [wiki].

Originally Posted by WTF

We do things to advance our own agenda...at the peril of others who do not agree!

Real Politik.

Originally Posted by WTF

But my arguement is that we used to actually get more in return that we spent to get. That seems not to be the case nowdays. Or it is the case that the middle class is transfering their wealth to the upper class in these expansions and nation building causes. That is how I see it.

Damn the politicians!

[Iaintliein]

Paul may not be entirely right, but he's certainly partially right. The cult in question is diametrically opposed to democracy, always was, probably always will be, just like the other, popular middle eastern cult was in the dark ages. A large portion of the population of the world gets 100% of their "news" and world view via religious indoctrination, and that is a sad, scary commentary. Sure some of them envy our standard of living (positions at least), but they're also conflicted about the religion that's been beaten into them since birth. This is not unlike America's fascination with sex in politics, media, marketing etc., and simultaneous urge to repress it.

But, to say "being there" hasn't contributed to getting attacked is like saying that swimming in the Amazon had nothing to do with a piranha biting your ass.

I wonder why anyone who wants us to stop being the world's "rent a cop / meals on wheels" combo gets immediately labeled as an "isolationist"? It seriously makes me wonder what the hells wrong with isolationism.

Bring 'em home I say, put them on the borders and re-establish the deterrence of our non-conventional armaments.