Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

RON PAUL: REACTIONARY OR VISIONARY?
CNS News ^ | 2/3/2012 | Patrick J Buchanan

Posted on 02/04/2012 5:31:16 AM PST by IbJensen

After his fourth-place showing in Florida, Ron Paul, by then in Nevada, told supporters he had been advised by friends that he would do better if only he dumped his foreign policy views, which have been derided as isolationism.

Not going to do it, said Dr. Paul to cheers. And why should he?

Observing developments in U.S. foreign and defense policy, Paul's views seem as far out in front of where America is heading as John McCain's seem to belong to yesterday's Bush-era bellicosity.

Consider. In December, the last U.S. troops left Iraq. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta now says that all U.S. combat operations in Afghanistan will end in 18 months.

The strategic outposts of empire are being abandoned.

The defense budget for 2013 is $525 billion, down $6 billion from 2012. The Army is to be cut by 75,000 troops; the Marine Corps by 20,000. Where Ronald Reagan sought a 600-ship Navy, the Navy will fall from 285 ships today to 250. U.S. combat aircraft are to be reduced by six fighter squadrons and 130 transport aircraft.

Republicans say this will reduce our ability to fight and win two land wars at once — say, in Iran and Korea. Undeniably true.

Why, then, is Ron Paul winning the argument?

The hawkishness of the GOP candidates aside, the United States, facing its fourth consecutive trillion-dollar deficit, can no longer afford to sustain all its alliance commitments, some of which we made 50 years ago during a Cold War that ended two decades ago, in a world that no longer exists.

As our situation is new, said Abraham Lincoln, we must think and act anew.

As Paul argues, why close bases in the U.S. when we have 700 to 1,000 bases abroad? Why not bring the troops home and let them spend their paychecks here?

Begin with South Korea. At last report, the United States had 28,000 troops on the peninsula. But why, when South Korea has twice the population of the North, an economy 40 times as large, and access to U.S. weapons, the most effective in the world, should any U.S. troops be on the DMZ? Or in South Korea?

U.S. forces there are too few to mount an invasion of the North, as Gen. MacArthur did in the 1950s. And any such invasion might be the one thing to convince Pyongyang to fire its nuclear weapons to save the hermit kingdom.

But if not needed to defend the South, and a U.S. invasion could risk nuclear reprisal, what are U.S. troops still doing there?

Answer: They are on the DMZ as a tripwire to bring us, from the first day of fighting, into a new land war in Asia that many American strategists believe we should never again fight.

Consider Central Asia. By pushing to bring Ukraine and Georgia into NATO, and building air bases in nations that were republics of the Soviet Union two decades ago, the United States generated strategic blowback.

China and Russia, though natural rivals and antagonists, joined with four Central Asian nations in a Shanghai Cooperation Organization to expel U.S. military power from a region that is their backyard, but is half a world away from the United States.

Solution: The United States should inform the SCO that when the Afghan war is over we will close all U.S. military bases in Central Asia. No U.S. interest there justifies a conflict with Russia or China.

Indeed, a Russia-China clash over influence and resources in the Far East and Central Asia seems inevitable. Let us get out of the way.

But it is in Europe that America may find the greatest savings.

During the Cold War, 300,000 U.S. troops faced hundreds of thousands of Soviet troops from northern Norway to Central Germany to Turkey. But not only are there no Russian troops on the Elbe today, or surrounding West Berlin, they are gone from Germany, Hungary, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Bulgaria, Romania, Moldova, Poland, Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia. Between Russia and Poland lie Belarus and Ukraine. Moscow no longer even has a border with Turkey.

Why, when NATO Europe has two nuclear powers and more than twice the population of a Russia whose own population has shrunk by 8 million in 20 years and is scheduled to shrink by 25 million more by 2050, does Europe still need U.S. troops to defend it?

She does not. The Europeans are freeloading, as they have been for years, preserving their welfare states, skimping on defense and letting Uncle Sam carry the hod.

In the Panetta budgets, America will still invest more in defense than the next 10 nations combined and retain sufficient power to secure, with a surplus to spare, all her vital interests.

But we cannot forever be first responder for scores of nations that have nothing to do with our vital interests. As Frederick the Great observed, "He who defends everything defends nothing."


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Editorial; Government; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: mullahpat; mullahron; patbuchanan; ronpaul; spotthelooney
The establishment Republican party is rapidly becoming the enemy as much as the marxist progressive pukes that currently Occupy the government institutions of Washington. Ron Paul won the CPAC straw pole in 2010 and 2011. Ron Paul has been "not invited back" to CPAC in 2012. So, we're supposed to choose between a stunningly sterile corporatist, i.e. Mitt Romeny, or the la-la land Pillsbury doughboy, i.e. Newt Gingrich. What mother would name their babies Mitt or Newt? Yes... they're sure to invoke fear in our enemies.
1 posted on 02/04/2012 5:31:19 AM PST by IbJensen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: IbJensen
IBTZ!!
2 posted on 02/04/2012 5:51:27 AM PST by 2ndDivisionVet (You can't invade the US. There'd be a rifle behind every blade of grass.~Admiral Yamamoto)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

ZAZU


3 posted on 02/04/2012 5:52:41 AM PST by IbJensen (Sic semper tyrannis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: IbJensen

Zinga!.... oh you mean you weren’t being sarcastic?


4 posted on 02/04/2012 6:05:01 AM PST by Nifster
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: IbJensen
RON PAUL: REACTIONARY OR VISIONARY? IS DELUSIONAL,
and so are his supporters.

5 posted on 02/04/2012 6:31:51 AM PST by svcw (For the new year: you better toughen up, if you are going to continue to be stupid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: IbJensen

Which one means “nutcase”?


6 posted on 02/04/2012 6:44:46 AM PST by BibChr ("...behold, they have rejected the word of the LORD, so what wisdom is in them?" [Jer. 8:9])
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: IbJensen

Ron Paul represents my core values. However, the reality is that we’ll be at war within a year..


7 posted on 02/04/2012 6:48:20 AM PST by goseminoles
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: IbJensen
RON PAUL: REACTIONARY OR VISIONARY?

If those are the only choices, I'll have to write-in "nutcase smacktard".

8 posted on 02/04/2012 6:53:21 AM PST by humblegunner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: IbJensen

Neither . . . “COMPLETE NUTJOB” is the most appropriate description.


9 posted on 02/04/2012 6:58:56 AM PST by Sudetenland (Anybody but Obama!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All

Just left a church where the pastor was all over public forums on the internet making derogatory and sometimes very judgemental statements about all in the GOP field except Ron Paul, his candidate. He even went so far as to manipulate a sermon to buck up Paul while hitting Gingrich over the head with the ex-wife’s “She said, he said Open Marriage” interview. I’ve not met many Ron Paulbots as these folks are called. But now that I have it’s almost cult like in their devotion. That’s kind of scary.


10 posted on 02/04/2012 7:03:43 AM PST by navymom1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: IbJensen
Hey Pat, your arguing in support of Paul does nothing for Paul, you are just as insane as he and just as much of a Nazi sympathizer and Israel hater.

As for you IbJensen, your arguments are as compellingly well thought our and logical as I have come to expect from Paulbots.

"So, we're supposed to choose between a stunningly sterile corporatist, i.e. Mitt Romeny, or the la-la land Pillsbury doughboy, i.e. Newt Gingrich. What mother would name their babies Mitt or Newt? Yes... they're sure to invoke fear in our enemies."

Such compelling reasoning! Such stunning logic! Such awe-inspring logic! Only a true Paultard or any run of the mill liberal could come up with arguments of this emotionally driven irrationality.

"OH!!! Mitt is boring! Newt is fat!" LOL!!!!! Yeah those are such compelling arguments, I feel the need to go out and get a lobotomy so I can also become a Paulbot.

"Ron Paul. Ron Paul. Money-bomb. Liberty. Constitution. Free Marijuana. Ron Paul."

Hey, I think I've got it!

HAR-HAR-HAR-HAR!!!!
11 posted on 02/04/2012 7:08:51 AM PST by Sudetenland (Anybody but Obama!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: IbJensen

>> RON PAUL: REACTIONARY OR VISIONARY?

If it’s ElRon we’re being asked to label, I would expect “douchebag” to be among the choices, and I didn’t see it.


12 posted on 02/04/2012 7:16:10 AM PST by Nervous Tick (Trust in God, but row away from the rocks!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: IbJensen

13 posted on 02/04/2012 7:23:20 AM PST by Thunder90 (Fighting for truth and the American way... http://citizensfortruthandtheamericanway.blogspot.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: IbJensen
Sorry, Ib... that's the environment here. Those who advocate for Ron Paul on FR are called names and, if they persist, banned.

Which is JimRob's prerogative, given that this is privately owned web-space. Just FYI.

14 posted on 02/04/2012 7:24:31 AM PST by Oberon (Big Brutha Be Watchin'.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: IbJensen

Ron Paul is a self-serving creep.


15 posted on 02/04/2012 7:28:29 AM PST by trisham (Zen is not easy. It takes effort to attain nothingness. And then what do you have? Bupkis.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Oberon

I would say to you that Congressman Paul has some great ideas about the monetary system. I don’t advocate for him because of his foreign policy, which I find completely out of touch with the reality of today’s technology and the lengths our enemies are committed to go to destroy us. I truly wish the Congressman had a different view, but he refuses to change his position. That’s a big problem for him. He needs to get out of the race.


16 posted on 02/04/2012 7:44:49 AM PST by navymom1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: navymom1
'Tehran has arguably been among the biggest beneficiaries, albeit inadvertently, of the U.S. invasion of Iraq. Not only has the United States neutralized Iran’s historical nemesis, namely the Baathist Sunni regime in Baghdad, but it also facilitated the commencement of a new chapter in Tehran’s bilateral relations with Iraq.

I remember when Palin got tripped up on the Bush Doctrine question. Being a political junky I knew all about the Bush Doctrine, and had serious questions about it since it when against all of our precedent in military affairs. You obviously have bought into the idea that preemptive military strikes are justifiable. While I can see the merit of say Israel striking Iraq in 1981 to take out Iraq's nuclear weapons program I fail to see why we had to invade Iraq and spend 1000s of lives and 100s of billions of dollars building Iraqis schools, roads and water treatment plants. And why with Bin Lauden Dead are we still in Afghanistan?

The neocons have used the pretext of a justifiable preemptive strike (Bush Doctrine) on a physical treat to our security to engage in a ruinous policy of expanding the "Empire". The bush Doctrine as now practiced means we do what we want, where we want, when we want with out regard to costs either in US lives/dollars or easily foreseen "blowback".

Considering we are past broke, deeply in debt and grossly over extended militarily perhaps a reset on foreign policy is not such a bad idea? Maybe a return to the Monroe Doctrine? "Mexican officials said Wednesday almost 13,000 people died in drug violence in the first nine months of 2011" Maybe our backyard needs attention? Just saying.

17 posted on 02/04/2012 8:39:18 AM PST by jpsb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Oberon

I help pay for the space.


18 posted on 02/04/2012 9:04:36 AM PST by IbJensen (Sic semper tyrannis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: IbJensen

Pat is building up Paul knocking Newt, all in the hopes of saving his sister’s new crush mittens.


19 posted on 02/04/2012 9:18:32 AM PST by Sybeck1 (Mitt Romney, a piss poor choice)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: trisham

I usually use self-serving, un-principled, and slimey but your descrirtion is short, accurate and to the point.


20 posted on 02/04/2012 10:02:07 AM PST by duffee (NEWT 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: navymom1

I also have problems with his stand on drugs and prostitution and that he was for open borders before he was against them and has stated that now only drug smugglers want to come across anyway, even if he is running for president to fix our economy and create jobs, which of course add more illegals to the mix of those crossing the border. I also don’t like his association with stormfront and organizations that are primarily rascist. And then there was the remark that said we had nothing to fear from a nuclear Iran because they don’t have an ICBM capable of reaching the US, while ignoring they are close to if not already having one that would reach Israel and him obviously having no insight to ahkaninejad (don’t really care if I spell his name right or not)and his belief that when the 12th Iman comes their duty is to destroy Israel and they themselves will be destroyed and go to haeven with their 72 virgins. They are both NUTS. Paul has so many faults and negatives it is a waste of time and effort to even discuss anything he may happen to be right about.. Any one of these “issues” I have brought up would destroy a serious candidate, of course I don’t consider Paul a serious candidate


21 posted on 02/04/2012 10:21:01 AM PST by duffee (NEWT 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: duffee

I do believe the US should pull out of Europe, not only because they are freeloading but because they are giving aid and comfort to an enemy : Islam


22 posted on 02/04/2012 10:42:11 AM PST by Nateman (If liberals are not screaming you are doing it wrong!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: jpsb

I sure don’t have all the answers to what you stated in your post, but if you think Ron Paul does or think he makes good sense, then you’re nuts.


23 posted on 02/04/2012 11:01:16 AM PST by navymom1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Nateman

Some things he has said have merit and I don’t have a problem in discussing them, only not in the context of RP or his campaign.


24 posted on 02/04/2012 11:09:03 AM PST by duffee (NEWT 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet
Well, the one issue I haven't seen come up:

Romney's track record on gun control is pretty well known: he supports a ban on "assault weapons".

Gingrich voted FOR the Lautenberg Amendment, which means if you were were convicted of a misdemeanor crime of "domestic violence" even before the passage of the act, you can't own a gun (ex post facto gun-grabbing). link

Ron Paul has consistently voted against gun control.

Why is this issue so absent from the discussion?

Every other election, gun control has been a (if not the) deal-breaker issue.

25 posted on 02/04/2012 11:16:00 AM PST by Smokin' Joe (How often God must weep at humans' folly. Stand fast. God knows what He is doing)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: IbJensen

It is now official. Pat Buchanan cares more about isolationism than illegal immigration. He is shilling for Ron Paul, even after Paul compared people who wish to reduce illegal immigration to Nazis.


26 posted on 02/04/2012 2:21:00 PM PST by rmlew ("Mosques are our barracks, minarets our bayonets, domes our helmets, the believers our soldiers.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: IbJensen

Whatever he is, he is not a get-it-done conservative. What has the man accomplished, actually? I mean besides the speeches and books?

Oh, that’s right, I forgot, he was chief executive officer of a newsletter.


27 posted on 02/04/2012 3:02:17 PM PST by cookcounty (Newt 2012: ---> Because he got it DONE.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cookcounty
Whatever he is, he is not a get-it-done conservative. What has the man accomplished, actually? I mean besides the speeches and books? Oh, that’s right, I forgot, he was chief executive officer of a newsletter.

Can you name anyone more accomplished than the surrender monkey at bringing home the bacon? He is not called the Earmark King for nothing.
28 posted on 02/05/2012 4:33:54 AM PST by John D
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: cookcounty

To be fair we must admit that with the majority of America’s Congress there wasn’t a way in hell that Dr. Paul’s proposals would make it through.

Imagine! Abolish the Fed, the DOE which was one of Jimmie Carter’s greatest achievements. Close up our foreign bases and bring those troops back to CONUS to spend their money at home.


29 posted on 02/05/2012 4:37:52 AM PST by IbJensen (Sic semper tyrannis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: navymom1
But now that I have it’s almost cult like in their devotion. That’s kind of scary.

Our devotion is not to Paul, it is to the alternative he represents. My opinion of Paul on foreign policy is that he is right for the wrong reasons.


30 posted on 02/05/2012 5:01:40 AM PST by Theophilus (Not merely prolife, but prolific)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Theophilus

I appreciate your level headed response and I respect your views although they do not represent mine. I’d like to go a little further and explain the comment on cult behavior I made, because I just came away from a very unhealthy experience.

Sadly, my experience with an individual who passionately supported Ron Paul was the pastor of my former church. His devotion to Congressman Paul was blinding to where he was mocking, openly mocking other GOP candidates in public forums. In December alone, his facebook page was 95% political commentary and 94% supportive of Ron Paul. The other 1% made reference to religion. When called out on it, he’d justify his actions and doubled down. This is why I found him cult like—perhaps I chose the wrong verbiage for this type of behavior. But it is disturbing.

As a private citizen his public mockery of the GOP field and assertions that Ron Paul was the only candidate walking a Christian faith was fine; as the pastor of a church representing his congregation, he crossed a boundary. And this is why he is the pastor of my FORMER church.


31 posted on 02/05/2012 8:30:41 AM PST by navymom1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: navymom1
As a private citizen his public mockery of the GOP field and assertions that Ron Paul was the only candidate walking a Christian faith was fine; as the pastor of a church representing his congregation, he crossed a boundary. And this is why he is the pastor of my FORMER church.

I'm sorry to hear it. I'll pray for your pastor, he is wrong if he is allowing his politics to alienate his church.

Although I am a Paul supporter, I also acknowledge that in the unlikely event that he could win, the consequences of his radical actions of reformation could be disastrous.

We can only trust in God, not in men.

32 posted on 02/05/2012 1:51:45 PM PST by Theophilus (Not merely prolife, but prolific)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson