Focus on Ron Paul's words.

WillowTree

Diamond Member
Sep 15, 2008
84,532
16,091
2,180
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cfcvzhGu0WA]Tea Party Republican Debate Question #10: Do You Plan To Decrease Defense Spending? - YouTube[/ame]






start at 2.41







he will never be President. Ever.
 
Paul was corrct. We can EASILY reduce 'military' spending, without harming 'defense spending' or reducing our national security.

I started a thread a while back on the topic 'what would your first act as President be'. Most of the responses were silly nonsense, partisan hackery, etc. A few were serious. Mine was...'get my staff to list every military asset, base, outpost, etc, in every country we have them. List them in descending order by cost to maintain. Cross reference them with their importance to national security. This would be used to make reductions in military spending that do not adversely affect our national security.
 
Paul is right. the neocons in the audience are wrong. facts are facts...truth is truth...if truth and facts are "unelectable" then enjoy another four years of lies.
 
I'll post most of what RP actually said.

Ron Paul said:
There's a difference between military spending and defense spending

Ron Paul said:
I'm tired of all the militarism that we're involved in; we're wasting all this money and getting us involved, and I agree, we are still in danger, but most of the danger comes by our lack of wisdom on how we run our foreign policy

Ron Paul said:
So I would say there's a lot of room to cut on the military, but not on the defense. You can slash the military spending.

Ron Paul said:
We don't need to be building airplanes that we used in WWII. We're always fighting the last war.

Ron Paul said:
But we under great threat because we occupy so many countries. We're in 130 countries. We have 900 bases around the world. We're going broke. The purpose of Al Qaeda was to attack us and invite us over there where they can target us, and they have been doing it. They have had more attacks against us per month than occurred in all the years before 9-11. But we're there, occupying their land. And if we think we can do that and not have retaliations, we're kidding ourselves.

Ron Paul said:
We have to be honest with ourselves. What would we do if another country, say China, did to us what we do to all those countries over there. So I would say that a foreign policy that takes care of our national defense; we're willing to get along with people and trade people as the Founding Fathers advise . . . just remember that George W. Bush won the Presidency on that platform in the year 2000. And I still think its a good platform.
 
I love Santorum's response. Watch Santorum's face.
Ron Paul is completely correct, go figure he would get boo'ed for telling the facts.

The other guys response scared me though, blaming the muslim tactic.

Then you must be elated that Paul will do "nothing" about the 20 million that are here "until the border is secure?" Which mean he will do nothing during his term.:confused:
 
I love Santorum's response. Watch Santorum's face.
Ron Paul is completely correct, go figure he would get boo'ed for telling the facts.

The other guys response scared me though, blaming the muslim tactic.

Then you must be elated that Paul will do "nothing" about the 20 million that are here "until the border is secure?" Which mean he will do nothing during his term.:confused:

source your quotes please.
 
I'll post most of what RP actually said.

Ron Paul said:
There's a difference between military spending and defense spending

Ron Paul said:
I'm tired of all the militarism that we're involved in; we're wasting all this money and getting us involved, and I agree, we are still in danger, but most of the danger comes by our lack of wisdom on how we run our foreign policy





Ron Paul said:
But we under great threat because we occupy so many countries. We're in 130 countries. We have 900 bases around the world. We're going broke. The purpose of Al Qaeda was to attack us and invite us over there where they can target us, and they have been doing it. They have had more attacks against us per month than occurred in all the years before 9-11. But we're there, occupying their land. And if we think we can do that and not have retaliations, we're kidding ourselves.

Ron Paul said:
We have to be honest with ourselves. What would we do if another country, say China, did to us what we do to all those countries over there. So I would say that a foreign policy that takes care of our national defense; we're willing to get along with people and trade people as the Founding Fathers advise . . . just remember that George W. Bush won the Presidency on that platform in the year 2000. And I still think its a good platform.

Ron Paul is breathtakingly - and actually dangerously - naive about defense.
 
I love Santorum's response. Watch Santorum's face.
Ron Paul is completely correct, go figure he would get boo'ed for telling the facts.
This. Too many Americans don't know the difference between having a strong Military for defense and sending our Military overseas to fight unnecessary and hugely unpopular wars along side our supposed enemy Al Qaida.
 
The Repubs , and to a lesser extent the Dem's, have been using the Pentagon as a cash- cow to curry favor w/ constituents who may have mil bases or weapons manufactures in their district/state and get campaign $ from big biz. Hows that working out for the budget? :rolleyes: The only manufacturing base we have is for constructing weapons which, 95%+ of the time, kill brown people. Willow Tree doesn't mind LOL
 
Last edited:
I'll post most of what RP actually said.

Ron Paul said:
There's a difference between military spending and defense spending


Ron Paul said:
We have to be honest with ourselves. What would we do if another country, say China, did to us what we do to all those countries over there. So I would say that a foreign policy that takes care of our national defense; we're willing to get along with people and trade people as the Founding Fathers advise . . . just remember that George W. Bush won the Presidency on that platform in the year 2000. And I still think its a good platform.

Ron Paul is breathtakingly - and actually dangerously - naive about defense.

Perhaps you can explain to us what was defensive about the war in Iraq. Or what is defensive about being in Afghanistan nation-building 10 YEARS AFTER 9-11.

Or maybe you can get into why George Washington's philosophy of no-entangling-alliances is outdated or wrong.

Or maybe you can explain why the US is spending $1 trillion on manned F-35s when the future of airpower appears to be drones.

Or maybe you can explain how having a military as expensive as the next 10 biggest militaries keeps us safe . . . against the primary threat of asymmetrical terrorism.
 
I'll post most of what RP actually said.

Ron Paul said:
There's a difference between military spending and defense spending









Ron Paul said:
We have to be honest with ourselves. What would we do if another country, say China, did to us what we do to all those countries over there. So I would say that a foreign policy that takes care of our national defense; we're willing to get along with people and trade people as the Founding Fathers advise . . . just remember that George W. Bush won the Presidency on that platform in the year 2000. And I still think its a good platform.

Ron Paul is breathtakingly - and actually dangerously - naive about defense.

You guys always say that, but I think it is just to rationalize having so much military personal all over the world.

I have seen the maps of where our bases are in the world. I may not know much about military but I doubt we need that many, plus I have a real problem with us acting like an Empire. History is very informative on what happens to countries that act like Empires.


Of course now I will get some response as to why we need all those bases... I just want to know one good reason why we still have so many in Germany.
 
Of course now I will get some response as to why we need all those bases... I just want to know one good reason why we still have so many in Germany.
Because they need America to foot the bill for a good portion of their military defense, so they can keep their socialistic welfare state propped up....Ditto Great Britain and the rest of Continental Europe.
 
Last edited:
I love Santorum's response. Watch Santorum's face.

Yeah... them commercial candidates are pretty good at making faces. It's when they try to think for themselves that they can't hang. Santorum served up a nice Guiliani moment, that in fact only makes Paul's position look that much stronger.
 
Why do we need a bases in both POrtugal and Spain? Especially when we have so many in other European countries??
 
I'd love to hear how the war beloved by Republicans (Iraq) had anything to do with US defense.

I'd love to hear how the war beloved by Democrats (Libya) has anything to do with US defense.

Is their anyone besides Paul who disagreed with both from the beginning?
 
Of course now I will get some response as to why we need all those bases... I just want to know one good reason why we still have so many in Germany.
Because they need America to foot the bill for a good portion of their military defense, so they can keep their socialistic welfare state propped up....Ditto Great Britain and the rest of Continental Europe.

IN some of the countries listed we have army, marine, and air force bases.. Do we have to have a base for each branch? Couldn't we maybe share? LOL

Its all fine and dandy to act like an EMpire when you have the money, but when our country is going into trillions worth of debt there is a point where you have to cut back. HOw many Empires are around today that started to go broke by taking over the world?
NOt too many.
 

Forum List

Back
Top