Its interesting that someone is now gettng around to running ads critical to Dr. Paul. The entity running the ads "the Emergency committe for Israel" is interesting, as well. If Dr. Paul were elected, his policies would result in less interference in Israel's affiairs by America. This would be better for both America and Israel.
As I understand it, in an interview, Dr. Paul stated he does not think he has a good chance to be elected. I wonder how his supporters who have worked long hours for him might feel about a candidate making such a statement. I'm not a supporter of his but I know how I'd feel if I was.
I think you know exactly what it means, Anonymous.
Poster, we've had this conversation before. What Ron Paul wants is for the US to give up it's strategic alliance with Israel because it's a Jewish state.
That's why back in February of last year he put out an amendment in Congress to cut off all aid to Israel and only Israel.
The issue is not whether this would be 'better or worse for Israel' but better or worse for the US. I assure you it wouldn't.
Just in dollar terms, to replace what we get form Israel in use of facilities, joint weapons projects high tech, intel and costs of deployment would cost America between $10 and $15 billion more per year.
We have had this conversation before. If we redployed to defensible positions along our borders, I think the net savings would be more than 10 to 15 billion per year. Without constant meddling by American personnel in positions of power who have no comprehension of the myriad of threats Israel faces Israel would have a freer hand to deal with Iran, Hamas, Hezbollah, and other entities who pose a serious threat to tem and to us. Also, their skill sets make it much more likely that they could be successful than America could realistically expect to be. This beneifts both countries more than what we are currently doing. It should be clear to everyone right now that America can no longer afford the type of military situatin that we currently have.
I'm with you, however, on the costs of deployments. The media drones on and on breathlessly and endlessly about the costs of the US military and the costs of "empire." No one ever really discusses what the benefits that accrue to America because of this or the benefits to world trade that accrue by America doing this. In order to make a fair assessment of all of this, we really need this cost beneift analysis.
I think optimally we should continue doing alot of what we do but the Europeans especially should step up and assume some of the costs in terms of money, men, and equipment for these things. It does not seem likely that we can continue to afford what it costs to carry the bulk of the wieght on this. It seems the Europeans always want to b!tch about how we do it but the first time they have a problem they expect us to use our military assets to take care of their problems. Please note I put the term "empire" in quotations because Aemrica does not possess an empire in the traditional sense of the word no matter how many times anti-American ding bat pundits want to claim it is so.
Also, just to be clear, I'm not a supporter of Dr. Paul. I'm not comfortabel with how he tends to take the side of Aemrica's enemies. Also, while his domestic policies are likely better than anyone else running, I have some serious questions about some of them. Specifically how can we realistically expect to go back to a gold standard? Perhaps as his stock continues to rise in the nomination process the media and other folks will get around to questioning him on these issues.
Hi Poster, I don't agree with you about Paul's domestic policies. Although he has a few good ideas, the devil's in the details. His drugs policy for instance. The UK tried it and it became just another costly entitlement. Also, one thing no one asks him...if we retreat to our borders, what exactly is he planning to do when the sea lanes are blocked and our trade is constrained? What is he planning on doing in the interim between when our foreign oil is cut off and until we can have our own additional oil infrastructure up and running? Doesn't happen overnight, you know.
These are only a few of the details he makes no effort to address.
I also don't think his 'stock is rising'. I think Iowa was the high point, though I guess we'll see.
As for your defensive strategy, allow me to quote General MacArthur on the subject. When some moron reporter asked him to define defensive war around the time of Korea, his answer was one word: "Defeat".
Having our sea lanes blocked and what are we going to do in the interim on our oil production are all very good questions. To get the infrastructure up and running on oil production and the manufacturing infrastructure to make here the things we currently import, will take some thime. No questions. I estimate it will take about 10 years, if we get rid of some of the ridiculous regulations we currently have in place that constrain oil production and industry. If we insist on keeping all of this nonsenseincal regulation, it will take even longer.
I think Dr. Paul and those on the "left" think all the world's problems are our fault and if we will just "play nice" they will too. Now with that said we will have to find some way to have at least cordial relations with Russia and China. These nations are or likely will be the most powerful nations on earth in the coming decades. As such, we will have to find some way of having at least non hostile relations with them.
Also, the dollar will lose its role as world reseve currency very soon. This will further constrain us. America's leaders need to be preparing for this.
As for General McArthur's statement we actually need men like him in positions of leadership. Unfortunaely due to the political correct nature of today's armed forces it seems unlikely that such a man could rise through the ranks today.
With that said we still should not be in Korea today. Maybe if we had fully defeatd the Norks we would not have forces there today. I suggest a withdrawl from this region. Our forces are needed elsewhere and it causes strain between us and South Korrea. We have at least 2,000 nuclear weapons I'm told. When we withdraw we can leave South Korea a few of them as a parting gift. This should help an ally to be on par with their bitter enemy and our bitter enemy. It would save us money and it would make our relations with South Korea much better I think.
Finally, the US Navy keeps shipping lanes open for every one. What would the cost to world trade be if we stopped fulfilling this role? Optimallty European nations should be stepping up and assisting here.
Its interesting that someone is now gettng around to running ads critical to Dr. Paul. The entity running the ads "the Emergency committe for Israel" is interesting, as well. If Dr. Paul were elected, his policies would result in less interference in Israel's affiairs by America. This would be better for both America and Israel.
ReplyDeleteAs I understand it, in an interview, Dr. Paul stated he does not think he has a good chance to be elected. I wonder how his supporters who have worked long hours for him might feel about a candidate making such a statement. I'm not a supporter of his but I know how I'd feel if I was.
Gary Bauer talking about himself = bad, generic, twinkly piano music
ReplyDeleteGary Bauer talking about Ron Paul = Beethoven
I'll be damned if I know what that means.
I think you know exactly what it means, Anonymous.
ReplyDeletePoster, we've had this conversation before. What Ron Paul wants is for the US to give up it's strategic alliance with Israel because it's a Jewish state.
That's why back in February of last year he put out an amendment in Congress to cut off all aid to Israel and only Israel.
The issue is not whether this would be 'better or worse for Israel' but better or worse for the US. I assure you it wouldn't.
Just in dollar terms, to replace what we get form Israel in use of facilities, joint weapons projects high tech, intel and costs of deployment would cost America between $10 and $15 billion more per year.
Bauer is lame and Paul is a genius? Seriously, the music choice there was baffling. Rob, you'll have to fill me in here.
ReplyDeleteFirst of all, Bauer ain't lame, and Paul for sure is no genius, Anonymous.
ReplyDeleteSecond, as far as the music choice goes, there are always people who wouldn't appreciate a ten-year-old St. Emilion because of the color of the label
If that isn't enough of a fill-in, sorry.
Rob,
ReplyDeleteWe have had this conversation before. If we redployed to defensible positions along our borders, I think the net savings would be more than 10 to 15 billion per year. Without constant meddling by American personnel in positions of power who have no comprehension of the myriad of threats Israel faces Israel would have a freer hand to deal with Iran, Hamas, Hezbollah, and other entities who pose a serious threat to tem and to us. Also, their skill sets make it much more likely that they could be successful than America could realistically expect to be. This beneifts both countries more than what we are currently doing. It should be clear to everyone right now that America can no longer afford the type of military situatin that we currently have.
I'm with you, however, on the costs of deployments. The media drones on and on breathlessly and endlessly about the costs of the US military and the costs of "empire." No one ever really discusses what the benefits that accrue to America because of this or the benefits to world trade that accrue by America doing this. In order to make a fair assessment of all of this, we really need this cost beneift analysis.
I think optimally we should continue doing alot of what we do but the Europeans especially should step up and assume some of the costs in terms of money, men, and equipment for these things. It does not seem likely that we can continue to afford what it costs to carry the bulk of the wieght on this. It seems the Europeans always want to b!tch about how we do it but the first time they have a problem they expect us to use our military assets to take care of their problems. Please note I put the term "empire" in quotations because Aemrica does not possess an empire in the traditional sense of the word no matter how many times anti-American ding bat pundits want to claim it is so.
Also, just to be clear, I'm not a supporter of Dr. Paul. I'm not comfortabel with how he tends to take the side of Aemrica's enemies. Also, while his domestic policies are likely better than anyone else running, I have some serious questions about some of them. Specifically how can we realistically expect to go back to a gold standard? Perhaps as his stock continues to rise in the nomination process the media and other folks will get around to questioning him on these issues.
Hi Poster,
ReplyDeleteI don't agree with you about Paul's domestic policies. Although he has a few good ideas, the devil's in the details. His drugs policy for instance. The UK tried it and it became just another costly entitlement. Also, one thing no one asks him...if we retreat to our borders, what exactly is he planning to do when the sea lanes are blocked and our trade is constrained? What is he planning on doing in the interim between when our foreign oil is cut off and until we can have our own additional oil infrastructure up and running? Doesn't happen overnight, you know.
These are only a few of the details he makes no effort to address.
I also don't think his 'stock is rising'. I think Iowa was the high point, though I guess we'll see.
As for your defensive strategy, allow me to quote General MacArthur on the subject. When some moron reporter asked him to define defensive war around the time of Korea, his answer was one word: "Defeat".
Having our sea lanes blocked and what are we going to do in the interim on our oil production are all very good questions. To get the infrastructure up and running on oil production and the manufacturing infrastructure to make here the things we currently import, will take some thime. No questions. I estimate it will take about 10 years, if we get rid of some of the ridiculous regulations we currently have in place that constrain oil production and industry. If we insist on keeping all of this nonsenseincal regulation, it will take even longer.
ReplyDeleteI think Dr. Paul and those on the "left" think all the world's problems are our fault and if we will just "play nice" they will too. Now with that said we will have to find some way to have at least cordial relations with Russia and China. These nations are or likely will be the most powerful nations on earth in the coming decades. As such, we will have to find some way of having at least non hostile relations with them.
Also, the dollar will lose its role as world reseve currency very soon. This will further constrain us. America's leaders need to be preparing for this.
As for General McArthur's statement we actually need men like him in positions of leadership. Unfortunaely due to the political correct nature of today's armed forces it seems unlikely that such a man could rise through the ranks today.
With that said we still should not be in Korea today. Maybe if we had fully defeatd the Norks we would not have forces there today. I suggest a withdrawl from this region. Our forces are needed elsewhere and it causes strain between us and South Korrea. We have at least 2,000 nuclear weapons I'm told. When we withdraw we can leave South Korea a few of them as a parting gift. This should help an ally to be on par with their bitter enemy and our bitter enemy. It would save us money and it would make our relations with South Korea much better I think.
Finally, the US Navy keeps shipping lanes open for every one. What would the cost to world trade be if we stopped fulfilling this role? Optimallty European nations should be stepping up and assisting here.