Ron Paul’s Novel Coalition Faces Its Major Moment in Iowa

The War On Terrorism as its played out in Iraq and Afghanistan looks to me like a higher tech and lower casualty version of Vietnam.

We did not and have not gone after Iran or Pakistan, which were the equivalent of Haiphong Harbor in Vietnam, the lifeline of support for killing and injuring our forces on the battlefield.

The same old thinking about Nam I suspect plays into what Bush and Obama have chosen not to do with Iran or Pakistan in the last ten years.

The War On Terrorism as its played out in Iraq and Afghanistan looks to me like a higher tech and lower casualty version of Vietnam. I lean that direction too.

We did not and have not gone after Iran or Pakistan, which were the equivalent of Haiphong Harbor in Vietnam, the lifeline of support for killing and injuring our forces on the battlefield. I think that's a good analogy as well.

If you remember the history, the Haiphong Harbor was off limits to bombing out of fear of Russian sailors being killed and creating the possibility of a “wider war” with the potential for a “nuclear conflict. I'm not going to differ with that in total. It does seem to me there were alternatives. In the first months of his administration Nixon should have made an ultimatum to the North, you pull back across the DMZ and never venture south again, or we give you ten days warning and bomb Hanoi until there isn't a tooth-pick size shred of anything left. We then give you two days to comply, and start the process over with your next largest city. We will continue until you get the message.

The same old thinking about Nam I suspect plays into what Bush and Obama have chosen not to do with Iran or Pakistan in the last ten years. I'm not going to disagree with you here either, because I think there's good reason to believe what you do. None the less, you can't tell me there wasn't a way to get the message through to Iran. I don't think we put enough effort into it frankly. I have had some rather powerful negative thoughts about Bush concerning this. Syria is another sore topic, and Saudi Arabia deserves some attention on this problem too. That being said, there are pragmatic reasons for not taking Saudi Arabia to task as vehemently as we would Iran and Syria. Saudi Arabia for all it's negatives, still does our bidding in the Middle East. That's not to say it's Wahhabi sect isn't a real pain in the ass though. When this leadership is gone, folks will begin to understand more clearly how much worse Saudi Arabia could have been all along. IMO

As for Pakistan, the world has benefitted from it being misdirected away from Nuclear conflict with India. As a nuclear state, we needed to play a reasoned game there. I think we walked the fine line about as well as we could have. We have used drones in country. We took Lauden out from in country. What really told me a lot, was that the Pakistani people weren't all that bothered by it. Our media were camped out around the compound for a few weeks, and retaliation was not taken. Frankly, that amazed me.

Answering for Ron Paul is presumptious, but he is unlikely to join the conversation.

"I have not seen him focus on Welfare with anything approaching the same vigor."

I think this might have something to do with the scope of the Presidency, and what can actually be done once in office. IOW: the President has quite a bit of control over the military, but not so much over Congress.

"Why does Ron go ape over the cost of the War on Terrorism.."

Not only the cost in terms of money, but lives of our military personnel, and the overall loss of freedom to Americans. Furthermore, the whole way in which it was "sold" to the American people and Congress was, at best, misleading. IOW: the "WOT" is extremely expansive of the Executive Branch, and yields continual military action anywhere in the world, and against anyone the President wishes. Knowing the propensity of humans to aggregate more power to themselves, it could also mean government troops taking action against its own citizens.

That's how I would answer if I were Ron Paul.

Answering for Ron Paul is presumptious, but he is unlikely to join the conversation.

"I have not seen him focus on Welfare with anything approaching the same vigor."

I think this might have something to do with the scope of the Presidency, and what can actually be done once in office. IOW: the President has quite a bit of control over the military, but not so much over Congress.

My perception was that I had heard Ron spouting off concerning the War on Terrorism all the time, but had seldom if ever heard him talking about welfare. I went to Google and ran two searches. The first was "Ron Paul Welfare". I found 9,310,000 results. LINK The second was "Ron Paul War on Terrorism". I found 120,000,000 results. LINK By appearances, it would seem Paul spent only 7.76% as much time talking about Welfare as he did on the War on Terrorism.

War is an important issue. It deserves more air-time. I just don't understand the frequent claim that the United States can't afford projects like the War on Terrorism at a cost of $1.25 trillion over ten years, but an unconstittuional effort that has cost us nearly five times as much, hasn't been called a threat to this nation. Perhaps I'm just not recollecting as well as I should. Perhaps you've heard him speak in those terms.

"Why does Ron go ape over the cost of the War on Terrorism.."

Not only the cost in terms of money, but lives of our military personnel, and the overall loss of freedom to Americans. Furthermore, the whole way in which it was "sold" to the American people and Congress was, at best, misleading. IOW: the "WOT" is extremely expansive of the Executive Branch, and yields continual military action anywhere in the world, and against anyone the President wishes. Knowing the propensity of humans to aggregate more power to themselves, it could also mean government troops taking action against its own citizens.

I believe that the United States has opted to forgo the option to declare wars seeking to reduce the likelihood that nations not inclined to be involved, might forgo entering into conflicts out of sense of duty by agreement. One could look at it as keeping our options open. Should the U. S. narrow it's options? Some would say yes, the issue of wars is too important. I would entertain that option at times, but I also think we should keep the non-declarative war option on the table too. If it seems as if we could keep the conflict from spreading, involving more nations, it would be best in the interest of our troops and national interests.

The non-declarative war has become evidence to some people, that the president acts unilaterally. I think that is a mistaken notion. Yes the president can introduce troops, but he still has to come back to Congress for authorization. In the case of the War on Terrorism, President Bush obtained an authorization for war up front. Please use this LINK to read the resolution approved by both chambers of the 107th Congress on September 18th, 2001.

That's how I would answer if I were Ron Paul.

I don't believe you're far off base with your responses, related to what Ron Paul would say.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.