Questions about Ron Paul and Foreign Policy

[Butterbean]

I have heard he wants all of our (visible?) troops pulled out of all countries and to pretty much leave everyone alone other than to have free trade, etc.

1)  Is that accurate? 
2)  Do you think he would still allow our covert forces to operate in other countries?
3)  What are your thoughts on his position on Iran, nuke-wise? 

[headhuntersix]

He wants to pull out of everywhere. His foreign policy is naive beyond belief. He's popular among college kids and the left because he attacks America harder then he does anybody else. He's a wack job.

[Deicide]

I have heard he wants all of our (visible?) troops pulled out of all countries and to pretty much leave everyone alone other than to have free trade, etc.

1)  Is that accurate? 
2)  Do you think he would still allow our covert forces to operate in other countries?
3)  What are your thoughts on his position on Iran, nuke-wise? 

1) more or less; there is a lot online about this but in summary yes, that is accurate.
2) He might do but I think that would need to be asked specifics.
3)

[Deicide]

He wants to pull out of everywhere. His foreign policy is naive beyond belief. He's popular among college kids and the left because he attacks America harder then he does anybody else. He's a wack job.

This retired colonel is probably more experienced than you and he disagrees:

[headhuntersix]

Do u really need a UTube video to fight ur battles. Come up with your own ideas instead of poaching Macgregor's. I have read his books, he's ideas were ok but to radical for the US Army. I'm betting u never heard of him before posting the video.

[Butterbean]

"countries you put sanctions on..you are more likely to fight" 

But you don't put sanctions on countries that aren't seen as problematic in some way.
It is not the sanctions that cause the fight imo.


I think Ron Paul wants to be fair to everyone but it seems like maybe he thinks that everyone can be reasoned with.   Unfortunately, that just doesn't seem to be the case w/some people.

I like him but his foreign policy approach worries me.

[Deicide]

Do u really need a UTube video to fight ur battles. Come up with your own ideas instead of poaching Macgregor's. I have read his books, he's ideas were ok but to radical for the US Army. I'm betting u never heard of him before posting the video.

I knew of him before because he is different from others within the armed forces (neowilsonians are he calls them).

It doesn't matter what I think or what you think at the end of the day, because when the money runs out the empire will fall regardless.

[Deicide]

"countries you put sanctions on..you are more likely to fight" 

But you don't put sanctions on countries that aren't seen as problematic in some way.
It is not the sanctions that cause the fight imo.


I think Ron Paul wants to be fair to everyone but it seems like maybe he thinks that everyone can be reasoned with.   Unfortunately, that just doesn't seem to be the case w/some people.

I like him but his foreign policy approach worries me.

Do you think it was right that we deposed a democratically elected Iranian leader in 1953 and installed a puppet dictator because Anglo-American oil wanted us to do so?

[headhuntersix]

Yes......Iran served until 1979 as a hedge against Soviet expansion into the Middle East.  Mossadegh was atleast sympathetic to the commies and would not have served as an ally in the region. He was weak and would have been toppled one way or the other..better us then the Russians.

[Butterbean]

Do you think it was right that we deposed a democratically elected Iranian leader in 1953 and installed a puppet dictator because Anglo-American oil wanted us to do so?

If that is what happened, no, that doesn't seem "right."

But back to the thread....Would you be comfortable with pulling our covert forces out of all countries?

[Deicide]

If that is what happened, no, that doesn't seem "right."

But back to the thread....Would you be comfortable with pulling our covert forces out of all countries?

Covert forces...define what you mean by that? Covert torture prisons run by the CIA? or do you mean special forces that go in and 'take care of business'? It would all depend but generally speaking if a country has not iniated violence against the US then there is no need for such things. There could be exceptions. I look at these things from the perspective of how would we feel if people dropped bombs on our civilians and countrymen? and we were told it was for our own good? I think we would be angry and it would not make things more stable.

[headhuntersix]

You presuppose a level playing field and thats why your posts are ridiculously naive. Covert torture prisons aside , we do whats in our best interest and despite your Hollywood black ops view of our foreign policy, we're not just rolling in and wacking people. Stuff like that is hard to do, even for the US. We're not Pakistan who refuses to do anything about their own terrorists, despite all the hardware, intell and training we provide them. If a threat is identified we're going to take action in some way. Most of the time that does not involve us using direct action. Libya is a good example of not getting involved. Bosnia was another. But Libya has shown how inept the Europeans are because they shelved their military capabilities or expected us to do it for them. All of which would be fine if their economies weren't tanking as well. Italy has more to loose in Libya and they can't do a thing.

[Dos Equis]

I have heard he wants all of our (visible?) troops pulled out of all countries and to pretty much leave everyone alone other than to have free trade, etc.

1)  Is that accurate? 
2)  Do you think he would still allow our covert forces to operate in other countries?
3)  What are your thoughts on his position on Iran, nuke-wise? 

1.  Yes.
2.  No.
3.  Extremely naive.  He believes if we just leave them alone, they will develop nukes, but not use them.  It's similar to his view on drug policy:  legalize them because people will not use them anyway. 

[Deicide]

1.  Yes.
2.  No.
3.  Extremely naive.  He believes if we just leave them alone, they will develop nukes, but not use them.  It's similar to his view on drug policy:  legalize them because people will not use them anyway. 

Totally wrong. Not his position on drugs AT ALL. He simply maintains that adults have a right to do whatever they want with their bodies, not because they won't do it.

[Dos Equis]

Totally wrong. Not his position on drugs AT ALL. He simply maintains that adults have a right to do whatever they want with their bodies, not because they won't do it.

Actually, I'm relying on his own words.  That's exactly what he said.  It isn't just about individual liberty.  He believes people will not use heroin, etc. 

[Bindare_Dundat]

Do u really need a UTube video to fight ur battles. Come up with your own ideas instead of poaching Macgregor's. I have read his books, he's ideas were ok but to radical for the US Army. I'm betting u never heard of him before posting the video.

That doesnt take the power and truth away from the message.

[Bindare_Dundat]

Actually, I'm relying on his own words.  That's exactly what he said.  It isn't just about individual liberty.  He believes people will not use heroin, etc. 

And you believe everyone will?

[Dos Equis]

And you believe everyone will?

Of course not.  That doesn't make his view any less simplistic or naive.  

[Deicide]

Actually, I'm relying on his own words.  That's exactly what he said.  It isn't just about individual liberty.  He believes people will not use heroin, etc. 

No, he said that once but his actual position is that adult in a free society should be able to do what they want with their bodies.

[Dos Equis]

No, he said that once but his actual position is that adult in a free society should be able to do what they want with their bodies.

Here is the clip I was talking about (originally posted by BD). 

And my response to his comments:

According to the clip, it's a bill to decriminalize marijuana on the federal level and let states decide how to regulate it.  He actually made decent arguments in support of that concept.

His comments about heroin are a little simplistic.  Because he asked a room full of people if they would start using heroin if it was legalized tomorrow, and nobody raised their hands, he thinks that supports his belief that legalizing heroin will not increase its use.  I'd say you need a little more complex analysis than that.  

He also said it's easier for a kid to get marijuana than alcohol.  Really?  

[Deicide]

Here is the clip I was talking about (originally posted by BD). 

And my response to his comments:

His main point is still that the government has no authority to regulate any drugs and that is a state issue.

[Dos Equis]

His main point is still that the government has no authority to regulate any drugs and that is a state issue.

Yes, true, and part of the basis for his view is pretty simplistic. 

[Deicide]

Yes, true, and part of the basis for his view is pretty simplistic. 

So following the Constitution is simplistic?

[Dos Equis]

So following the Constitution is simplistic?

No.  This:

Because he asked a room full of people if they would start using heroin if it was legalized tomorrow, and nobody raised their hands, he thinks that supports his belief that legalizing heroin will not increase its use.  I'd say you need a little more complex analysis than that.  

is simplistic.

[Deicide]

No.  This:


is simplistic.

The point is actually that if adults choose to use heroine, it is their choice as are the consequences.