Thanks for the insight.:salute:

I think he acts as a nice foil to conventional thinking on monetary policy. A lot of his ideas are far out there (such as ending the Federal Reserve) but what I really admire is his guts in standing up to the GOP establishment on foreign policy and civil rights. He sees the real issue with this country is not a descent into socialism, but rather fascism.

He rightly called out Obama on Libya, and I really subscribe to his non-interventionalist idea. We've created a lot of our own problems by meddling in the Middle East and creating guys like Saddam and bin Laden, and enough's enough. We've spent too much American wealth and blood by being the world's policeman and it's time we knock off the nation building and democracy spreading and get our own house in order.

I think he's a nice counterpoint to a lot of traditional thinking in Washington.

Paul's fiscal ideas are great. He has an economic understanding that is unrivalled with the current other candidates. He is a little flaky on "constitutional rights" - civil rights as it were. Some are great - others he not only went off the farm with, he went to other planets....

His foreign policy is flawed, because he fails to comprehend that one you get in a pasture with a bull, step it the cowpies, and get see the bull sizing you up for a charge, you can't just pat it on the head, smile and say "don't mind me, I'm leaving now"..... He doesn't get the danger a nuclear Iran creates - not just for the region, but for us. He doesn't comprehend the dangers of sitting idly by while Islamic radicals take over 25% or more of the world. He doesn't understand that being a superpower comes with responsibility.

Yes, Mookie is right - we should not be nation building - and we shouldn't be the worlds policeman. What we should be is a superpower willing to flex our muscles when a friend and ally in the world is threatened, a force that will take clearly announced threats to our citizens seriously, and a power that the world knows is sitting home, watching, waiting - because no one wants us to come outside (our borders) and start knocking heads....

Here in lies the problem one can not be a super power and not have long term forward bases in other nations there are too many interests outside of the United States for the US not to have a constant presence in some locations.In the modern world if you are a super power then you also have made yourself the worlds policeman if you help your allies and friends then you are the police man in effect.You directly contradict yourself by agreeing with the need to combat Islamic radicals(They are a long way from being on the verge of controlling half of the world though) to combat them you must do one of two things or a combination you must either commit your own military forces to the given region to combat the threat or you must influence the majority of that regions population to be willing to combat the threat on their own both militarily and civilly (nation building) either way that is going to cost money.

To support the idea of the US being a superpower but at the same time feeling that we should stay with in our own borders is simply a contradiction in terms you can not have your cake and eat it too.The US has had an interventionalist mind set for some time long before the modern times we love our Monroe doctrine as I said though by wanting to be a superpower that helps it allies and "friends" you also make yourself a police man your little ally is getting bullied "Hey tough guy leave me alone the USA is my buddy."

No - there is no contradiction in terms. The problem is that you are subscribing to the notion that force means boots on the ground for extended periods of time. Yes, some "forward bases" are necessary - but we have those. Let us use a hypothetical example, shall we? Lets say Syria doesn't have any internal turmoil. They decide to try and retake the Heights, and use Hezbollah to initiate and divert the Israelis in Lebanaon. A plausible scenario. Then, they strike, taking Golan. An attack on an ally is an attack on us. We could flatten Damascus from the air. We could launch a "piercing" strike (similiar to the invasion of Iraq) that goes in, hits hard at its targets (in this case, the Syrian Government) - and does so flattening anything in its way. Then it turns around, and lets Syria deal with the utter chaos of what is left. We could respond in any number of ways with overwelming force.

No nation building. No worry about "collateral damage". You want to stop being the policeman, then make sure the world knows that if they make you show up, your not going to read them their miranda warnings and see them in court. Your going to bloody them badly, embarrass them on the world stage, and then walk off leavingthem to deal with the chaos their own stupidity has caused.

This is why Sun-Tzu advised politics and war to stay seperate. He understood that you can't play diplomat or politician when it comes time for a fight. You do what you must, you do it quickly and with maximum effect, and you get the heck back home.

Lets pretend the above scenario occured - and our response was to carpet bomb Damascus with a flight of heavily escorted B-52's. Do you think other nations in the region would look to pick a fight with us or our friends, knowing that their center of power would turn into a shattered, crattered ruin? Do you think governments who tacitly support terrorists (like Pakistan) would not be faced with the realization that their support of such elements leads to their own destruction? Self-presevation is a powerful instinct in humans - and even more so in politicians.....

Oh yes just like we did in what was it? Oh World War I a lot of good your idea did then that humiliated foe turned around and the whole mess started all over again.

Sun Tzu would say that such a plan is foolish.

We gave aid to the Afghans to fight the Soviets when they left we did nothing left their destroyed nation to crumble look at what the result was.

Carpet bomb Damascus what a grand idea lets kill all the Syrians who cares if they are on the side of Assad or not that will add even more followers in for the Islamic extremist camp.. why are you not in the joint chiefs?If you think that we should be non-interventists why then do you promote bombing them with B-52s in the first place that sounds very interventinst to me.

I think the IDF can well handle itself against Syria with their current little "problem" and even withotut they are not going to attack Israel any time soon.Do you really think that the IDF is stupid enough to not consider such a ruse?They have most of their crack forces sitting and waiting for Syria to be stupid enough to try and take the Golan heights.Any nation or group of nations stupid enough to try and invade Israel is in for a world of hurt and that is without our help they simply have a far superior military than any foe in the region.And Israel confirms that your theory of just having a strong military is not enough to stop stop someone from attacking you when the enemies of Israel saw that they could not win fighting a conventional war they resorted to terrorist style attacks. Syria did not invade the Golan Heights in 1983 when the IDF was in Lebanon nor did they do anything in 2006 because on both occations there was more than enough force in Israel to make such a move a very poor idea not to mention the fact that such action would make the deployed IDF forces turn round right away.

To be honest I am not really a big fan of the US having to risk our lives for Israel of course I am not one of the ones that thinks that Israel is the 51st state and am not anti Jewish either I'd look pretty damn stupid if I where seeing as my wife is jewish.

Steelhead - you seem to confuse non-intervention - aka world police - with isolationism. Non-intervention means we don't get involved unless we need to. In the case above - I put forth a hypothetical situation in which our ally was attacked. Doing so requires a response - and if we are a superpower, the response should be overwhelming, quick and complete.

There was no such action in WW1 - not sure where you got that idea. However, the close of WW2 is a perfect example.... instead of invading, we demonstrated we could annihilate the enemy at will - and the leadership folded because it knew it could not even fight what it faced.
If you doubt the extremism of the Japanese power structure, then you have missed the lessons of history that are readily available....

As for Afghanistan - yes we "left" after helping them run the Soviets out. What would have been the outcome had we stayed? Some utopian society? I think not. Non-intervention means we don't decide for a people HOW they build or rebuild - we simply protect our own and our friends. Perhaps "non" is a misnomer here - we should have a minimalist intervention policy.

The idea of superior power is that we don't have to use it. Its there as a deterrent as much as anything. Sure, sometimes someone will get "uppity" and poke the junkyard dog with a stick. When that happens, they get bit, and all the neighborhood kids learn - don't poke the dog with a stick - he bites.

What your demonstrating is the inherent flaw in most modern thinking. Who blows up themselves to kill others? Is it the rank and file "extremist", or is it the leadership? That's right - its the rank and file. Why is that? Its because the powers that be don't care to get themselves martyred - they like life too much. Look at Bin Laden - when the chips were down what did he do - pushed a woman in front of himself to try and save his miserable hide. He was as scared of death as the dictators that are found hiding in pits and sewer pipes. The "extremist" leaders don't believe in this mess any more than you or I do - they simply use the combination of religious indoctrination and economic hopelessness to manipulate the weak minded. It is THIS that shows where the weakness is. When Muhmar Q got bombed by Reagan, what did he do? He got off the world stage, stopped sponsoring terrorism - all in the interest of self preservation. He knew that the US wouldn't go after him further if he "behaved". Course, he later fell to his own people - but he could back down from the US and get us to leave him alone - he couldn't do that with his own people.

The true leaders, movers and shakers of extremism don't believe one word of the crap they spew. Well ok - maybe a couple of them do - but most don't. That is why you target the leadership - and not just of the extremists themselves - but those that provide the material support such groups need. Again - do you really think Pakistan would have worked so hard to hide Bin Laden if they knew such an act would result in islamabad (and them) deing ravaged? No - as I said - self preservation is a powerful instinct.

Sure - we might have to have 2 or 3 examples of the danger is screwing with us or our friends, but I assure you - the lesson would take. Lets say we used the earlier scenario to deal with Syria, Lebanan (for harboring terrorists that attack Israel). 2 examples. Think Komeni would be wondering how safe he is sitting in Tehran - knowing that providing training and IED's in Iraq is something we will view as an act of provocation at best, an act of war at most.... He will be considering cutting off the funding and aid to such groups - because he won't want to be next......

Yes, extremists exist - but they are simply the tools of those in power who use them to insure their continued grip on the reighns. If you want to end "terror" - you cut off its head - the leaders who promote - and facilitate - such acts. You don't even have to kill them all - just make them feel their own mortality - and watch the vast majority of them change their actions. Won't stop them all - but convince enough to shape up - and the flow of supplies and money will dry up. It gets a lot harder to blow up innocents when you don't have any explosives....

"There was no such action in WW1 - not sure where you got that idea."

I have no idea what you are thinking of here.I was pointing out that the allies left the Axis forces of WWI in humiliation and it only served in Germany wanting revenge for its humiliation and a mere 20 years later another costly war was the result.

We never had troops in Afghanistan then only our money and weapons we could have easily given aid to the Afghan factions that where not pro extremist fundamentalist after the Soviets left.

You are nit picking your results as well we did not invade Japan but we damn sure did invade Germany.You are nit picking facts to make your world view correct and completely ignoring facts that disprove your views.

And intervention is a buzz word really someone can come up with a reason to intervene.You cant just go blow them all up and leave it is never that easy.

I am not confusing anything you just disagree with me.

Komeni has been dead since 1989 I think he fells pretty safe or at least has little concern for this world. Perhaps you mean the current Grand Ayatollah of Iran or Mahmoud Ahmadinejad the current president.

Muhmar Q stopped supporting terrorism in the 2000s nearly 20 years after Reagan bombed him in 1986 the worst attack that he supported the bombing of Pan Am flight 103 occurred in 1988 so I think the bombings in 1986 served to anger him the 1986 bombing must have really had an effect on him.

You read some interesting history books I will give that.The only that i agree with out of anything you said in your last post was about the WWII Japanese government but you are wrong that our bombing convinced them for there was an attempted coup to try and stop the Hirohito from announcing the surrender even if it meant killing him something extremely drastic in Shinto culture.

If I remember, we cam pretty close to nailing him. I remember those air raids.

One of his sons was killed but my point was that those bombings obviously did not convince him to stop his behavior he finally played ball around 2005 and Libya was removed from the terror list in 2006.

If I recall it was in retaliation for bombing of a German night club frequented by american soldiers.

Haplo, you seem to be using a lot of supporting examples which are counterfactual.
If the examples are not true then they do not support your position.


It cost a lot of money and a huge pile of "special offer" business deals to make him play ball, plus they had to give in to that blackmail thing on the medics and then pay up again and again over the illegal immigrants.

Persia is not Libya.
One of the reasons they wants nukes is to be able to do their business without warring of being bombed.
Some little pay off here or there will not do the job.

An here lies the problem with that, the US doesn't have that money, so It cant sustain that military empire without further increasing its frederal defecit.
The US just like every other nation in the western hemisphere, has to stop spending money it doesnt have and start paying off it debts, because if doesnt, it will default or worse -collapes the Dollar altogether.
Then we're all right back to where we were in the 1930s (x 10)

Which is the reason why Paul should not be president. The number one criteria for POTUS, in my opinion, is the ability to "make the deal" with Congress. I think we have learned this with President Obama.

A president that can't get congress on their side will be a failure as a president. Unfortunately, this means that absent of an absolute change over in both houses (which would take about 12 years due to the staggered terms), we are stuck with Dumbos and Jackasses.

Look at Paul's legislative record in the House. How many of his bills have even made it out of committee? Voting pretty much against everything is not the way to build up political capital. As POTUS, Paul would be fighting both parties on every decision. We might even see congress team up just to block vetoes against Paul.

This raises the question: Can any of the remaining Republican Keystone Kops running for president demonstrate an ability to "make the deal" with congress.

Newton is probably the only one with actual experience, but on a personal level, I don't want many of the deals he would make.

To me, an attractive POTUS candidate would be a long time Senator who has a demonstrated history of making cross party deals. Unfortunately in the decisive political environment we have these days, I fear there ain't none.

And that's depressing.

Ok I misunderstood you - I thought you meant WW1 saw the US use "overpowering force" to suddenly end conflict.

Sure we did - they were called "advisers" - but then if we give "aid" to specific groups in a nation in turmoil, we are in effect nation building....

No, I am providing a contrast between what happens when we use overwhelming force and when we don't.

Why not? See your stuck in that modern, conventional thinking again. I am not saying that its a perfect answer by any means, but recent history shows us that long term intervention is to costly and doesn't work. Pure isolationism is to dangerous to our long term survival. So its time to break the pattern and do something entirely different.

I spelled it wrong - khamenei - and he is the current supreme ayatollah in Iran. Guys like him and Rafsanjani are the ones who hold true power in Iran.

Really? What terrorists acts did Libya support/finance after 1986 through 2000? Q kept his head down when it came to such actions after the bombing.

Your proving my point - a few extremists in the military in Japan didn't want to surrender. However, they could not convince even the rest of the Military High Command to overthrow the Emperor. The majority of people in positions of power chose surrender - ie. self-preservation. Thus - the coup failed. The fanatacism of a few did not carry the day when faces with the desire to continue survival (even at great "dishonor" in defeat) at the end. Overwhelming force that you can't hope to defend against has the effect of bringing rational thought to most people.....

No dictator is truly ever the only power in a government. He has those around him that carry out his orders. If enough of the next few teirs of power fear for their lives, they won't obey suicidal directions. History shows us that the true fanatics in power are often not numerous.....

Edit - ok I was incorrect on tehe 1988 Pan am Bombing - for some reason I remembered that as being attributed to Iran, not Libya - so you are correct that MQ did continue to support terror.