Ron Paul on Defense and War in Iraq

[Sergeant Bob]

As a certain axe murderer (or philosopher?) once said (paraphrasing), "People can always come up with a perfectly logical argument to support their point, no matter how wrong it is."

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

In the absence of some treaty violation, why is it our job to police 'large swaths of the world running amok'?

And how is a trillion dollar occupation, all time high record gov borrowing and debt, thousands of Americans killed and tens of thousands wounded, oil at $100/barrel and rising, a dollar that has lost half its value in the last 6 years, etc and on and on..........how are those 'favorable results'?

I find it funny that everyone choose to clamor about the slight hyperbole in Riley's post and totally ignore everything else. Wonder why that is...

It's because debunking ever bit of stupidity that comes along is tedious.

It isn't out 'job' to police the world.  It is, however, generally in our best interests.  We do it because it's better for us than not doing so.

I woulda figured that was obvious...

[Len Budney]

It isn't out 'job' to police the world.  It is, however, generally in our best interests.  We do it because it's better for us than not doing so. I woulda figured that was obvious...

It's obviously wrong. For one thing, "policing the world" is hideously expensive; it's guaranteed to overwhelm our economy in the end because... For another thing, the burden continually grows without limit. Our attempts to dictate to the world pisses people off, who react by doing things that are bad for us--forcing us to escalate our control to stop them, which only pisses them off worse, and so on. Ultimately we can win only by exterminating everyone outside our borders. Anything less represents a war of attrition that simply can't be won in the long run.

The belief that policing the world can work is, funnily enough, exactly what hawks accuse doves of: it's the fantasy that sooner or later everyone will simmer down and decide to be our friends. Hawks believe this will happen because the US will display such terrifying might that everyone will decide that NOT being our friends is simply suicidal. The trouble is that terror can't produce friendship. Instead it produces asymmetrical warfare.

--Len.
 

[Perd Hapley]

Policing the world I don't like so much.  Draining the terrorist swamp we know as the Middle East?  Yeah, that's become quite necessary. 

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

I never suggested we try to conquer or dominate the world.  Take your straw men elsewhere.

If we wanted to "display terrifying might" we certainly could.  For example, it would be a trivial matter to glass the entire middle east.  I don't think anyone is proposing that we do that.  "Policing the world" doesn't mean we go Roman on everyone and salt the earth whenever anyone dares to oppose us.

What we can do, and should do, is take serious threats seriously.  Depending on the situation, that might mean using diplomacy (as with North Korea right now), or that might mean engaging in a cold war (as with the Soviets), or that mioght mean forced regime change (as with Iraq and Afghanistan). 

War isn't my first choice in all situations, but in some situations it makes sense.  It doesn't have to bankrupt the country.  We can win these things if we want to.  All we have to do is fight like we want to win.  The success of the surge shows that. 

The United States will someday be bankrupt, but it won't be low-level brush wars like IRaq that bring us down.  It'll be our newfound belief in welfare programs like Social Security that kill us.

[Manedwolf]

Hawks believe this will happen because the US will display such terrifying might that everyone will decide that NOT being our friends is simply suicidal.

When you are dealing with people who respect only strength and who view diplomacy as a chance for deceit as part of war, who view concessions and negotiations as weakness, that generally works, yes.

There was one thing the Taliban in Afghanistan feared, as one prisoner said, and that was the scream of a descending A-10, for it meant death was coming.

The only thing jihadists understand is a bigger gun or bigger bomb landing on them. That, they'll respect. Nothing less.

[Finch]

Hawks believe this will happen because the US will display such terrifying might that everyone will decide that NOT being our friends is simply suicidal.

The only thing jihadists understand is a bigger gun or bigger bomb landing on them. That, they'll respect. Nothing less.

Are we talking about the same guys who blow themselves up? The same guys who believe that dying a martyr in a holy jihad will bring them 72 virgins and other B.S. Somehow I doubt death is very high up on their list of fears.

Now maybe if we coated our bullets with bacon grease first...that might do something.

[Len Budney]

"Policing the world" doesn't mean we go Roman on everyone and salt the earth whenever anyone dares to oppose us.

You're correct that that's not the intention when we set out to police the world. But because policing the world is impossible, attempting to do so forces us to escalate until we are "going Roman on everyone."

What we can do, and should do, is take serious threats seriously.

That's not what the administration is doing. They're ignoring real threats, such as our porous borders, and expending trillions on non-threats.

The United States will someday be bankrupt, but it won't be low-level brush wars like IRaq that bring us down.  It'll be our newfound belief in welfare programs like Social Security that kill us.

See? The only difference between "conservatives" today and "liberals" is whether they want to spend trillions on guns, or butter. Both take trillion-dollar budgets as a given.

--Len.

[Paddy]

The United States will someday be bankrupt, but it won't be low-level brush wars like IRaq that bring us down.  It'll be our newfound belief in welfare programs like Social Security that kill us.

Social Security would be in great shape if every President since Reagan hadn't collectively stolen trillions $ from it. Two things happened under Reagan.  First he transferred the tax burden from the very wealthy to the working middle class.  He did this with massive tax cuts for the rich and a huge increase in the Social Security taxes for the middle class.  Then he didn't have enough money to run the government because Social Security didn't go into the general fund.  So Greenspan came to his rescue and told Reagan he could 'borrow' from the SS Trust Fund and wouldn't have to report it because it was simply 'moving government money from one place to another.'

Due to the huge social security tax increases, the Boomer generation were to be the first to prepay their own social security benefits.  Which the Boomers have done, but Reagan, Bush, Clinton and Bush Jr. have ripped off the money the Boomers paid.   So now, working people will have to pay the benefits (which is why you think it's 'welfare') because three Republican and one Democrat president took the money and squandered it.

It won't be 'welfare' programs that bankrupt the U.S.  It will be so-called 'free market' capitalism.  It'll work like this.  We will continue our military adventures in the world under various pretenses, but they are all false.  The reason will be simply to enforce the continuing use of petrodollars throughout the world for the purpose of maintaining our artificially high standard of living.  This provides us with more dollars to give (mostly) to the Chinese in exchange for their cheap crap that winds up in our landfills. 

The Chinese in turn will use our dollars to buy our debt (the debt we incurred to finance the military adventures -like Iraq- in the first place), as well as to continue their military buildup.  At some point in this process, we will become economically and militarily subordinate to China.  And that my friend will be the end of the United States as we know it.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

The United States will someday be bankrupt, but it won't be low-level brush wars like IRaq that bring us down.  It'll be our newfound belief in welfare programs like Social Security that kill us.

Social Security would be in great shape if every President since Reagan hadn't collectively stolen trillions $ from it. Two things happened under Reagan.  First he transferred the tax burden from the very wealthy to the working middle class.  He did this with massive tax cuts for the rich and a huge increase in the Social Security taxes for the middle class.  Then he didn't have enough money to run the government because Social Security didn't go into the general fund.  So Greenspan came to his rescue and told Reagan he could 'borrow' from the SS Trust Fund and wouldn't have to report it because it was simply 'moving government money from one place to another.'

Due to the huge social security tax increases, the Boomer generation were to be the first to prepay their own social security benefits.  Which the Boomers have done, but Reagan, Bush, Clinton and Bush Jr. have ripped off the money the Boomers paid.   So now, working people will have to pay the benefits (which is why you think it's 'welfare') because three Republican and one Democrat president took the money and squandered it.

It won't be 'welfare' programs that bankrupt the U.S.  It will be so-called 'free market' capitalism.  It'll work like this.  We will continue our military adventures in the world under various pretenses, but they are all false.  The reason will be simply to enforce the continuing use of petrodollars throughout the world for the purpose of maintaining our artificially high standard of living.  This provides us with more dollars to give (mostly) to the Chinese in exchange for their cheap crap that winds up in our landfills. 

The Chinese in turn will use our dollars to buy our debt (the debt we incurred to finance the military adventures -like Iraq- in the first place), as well as to continue their military buildup.  At some point in this process, we will become economically and militarily subordinate to China.  And that my friend will be the end of the United States as we know it.

 

[Scout26]

Pick which ever lie reason bush gave for going into Iraq, we met them all. No WMD's, Saddam's dead, let's go. 

The Kaiser has abdicated, the German General Staff has been disbanded, the Versaillies Treaty has been signed, and the German Army is only 100,000 soldiers.  Let's pull our troops out.

That worked out real well didn't it ??   

[Len Budney]

The Kaiser has abdicated, the German General Staff has been disbanded, the Versaillies Treaty has been signed, and the German Army is only 100,000 soldiers.  Let's pull our troops out. That worked out real well didn't it ??   

Good point, but it's the opposite of the one you intended. Under the ruinous terms of Versailles, we made the next war inevitable. The correct thing to do was not to occupy Germany forever, but to refrain from driving them to the brink of despair with our heavy-handed treatment in the first place. To paraphrase your scenario:

"I've gotten my neighbor fired, had child services take his new baby, slept with his wife, shot his dog and slashed his tires. Time to go home and get some rest. I've earned it."

How would you expect that to work out?

--Len.

[beatnik]

What is with all the Nazi references?

I've never heard Paul say that he's going to severely cull our military - a requisite for the WWII analogy.
I've never heard Paul say that he's going to ignore our allies getting invaded - another requisite.
I seem to remember hearing about other nations like Brittain and France actually being able, militarily, to deal with a threat like the Nazis - and I believe their RKBA state of affairs now has a lot to do with our voluntary police work...

In fact, I've heard RP say a couple times things like bringing our military forces back to the US is a good start to securing our borders, or it makes no sense to fight people overseas when our front door is left open.  That gets conveniently ignored.

I also like the fact that nobody ever attempts to defend the nation building thing.  Ok - I'll grant that there was cassus belli with Iraq in that the 1990 war never got settled - but where, from 1990 to about 2004, did anyone say anything about nation building?  Why didn't we pull Saddam out of the hole, drill him, and leave?  When did it become our problem whether their trash is picked up, and why can't we just leave and let them figure it out?

Why don't I preemptively suggest this to the "they'll kill each other" argument:  Give everyone in the *expletive deleted*it population tickets out of Iraq, and give every Kurd an AK and an RPG.  Wouldn't that be cheaper?

Also, regarding the gold comments... I'm no economic rocket scientist, but I know that the value of gold has remained pretty constant since the beginning of time.  I don't understand the argument that making the money in my pocket worth the exact same amount next week is somehow a bad thing... will someone explain that one to me?

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

In fact, I've heard RP say a couple times things like bringing our military forces back to the US is a good start to securing our borders, or it makes no sense to fight people overseas when our front door is left open.  That gets conveniently ignored.

I also like the fact that nobody ever attempts to defend the nation building thing.  Ok - I'll grant that there was cassus belli with Iraq in that the 1990 war never got settled - but where, from 1990 to about 2004, did anyone say anything about nation building?  Why didn't we pull Saddam out of the hole, drill him, and leave?  When did it become our problem whether their trash is picked up, and why can't we just leave and let them figure it out?

Why don't I preemptively suggest this to the "they'll kill each other" argument:  Give everyone in the *expletive deleted*it population tickets out of Iraq, and give every Kurd an AK and an RPG.  Wouldn't that be cheaper?

Also, regarding the gold comments... I'm no economic rocket scientist, but I know that the value of gold has remained pretty constant since the beginning of time.  I don't understand the argument that making the money in my pocket worth the exact same amount next week is somehow a bad thing... will someone explain that one to me?

Simple explanations all around.

The security of our southern border has no correlation to the Iraq war.  The border could be open or closed with troops in Iraq, or it could be open or closed with troops not in Iraq.

Leaving Iraq without a stable government would leave the country a safe haven for terrorists, much like Afghanistan was under the Taliban.  Unacceptable.

Forced eviction of the Shiites is both stupid and impractical.  Arming Kurds is practical, but it doesn't solve any of the problems in Iraq.  Besides, they're largely armed already.

Stable currency is certainly a noble ideal, but the gold standard will not lead to that result.  It ties the value of our currency to (primarily) South Africa's ability to dig gold out of the ground.  There isn't enough gold in the world to meet the needs of our growing economy.

[WeedWhacker]

Simple explanations all around.

Stable currency is certainly a noble ideal, but the gold standard will not lead to that result.  It ties the value of our currency to (primarily) South Africa's ability to dig gold out of the ground.  There isn't enough gold in the world to meet the needs of our growing economy.

You're assuming that the minimum transaction size is a dollar, a quarter, a penny, etc. Those of us advocating a gold standard have seen the out-and-out theft and fraud being visited heavily upon every single man and woman in the US with a positive bank account balance: inflation. Inflation is NOT necessary for economic growth - it is necessary to allow the government (and possibly associated banks) to steal the money saved by citizens right out of bank vaults, savings accounts, pocketbooks, and mattresses. We've seen how well inflation works out for We the People: check out a 1964 half dollar. Face value, 50 cents. Silver content, 0.35-ish ounces. Going rate for silver content alone is around five DOLLARS. That's a NINTY PERCENT THEFT since 1964 alone. Yeah, this fractional-reserve, fiat currency system is really working out well for us middle class folks.

[K Frame]

"Under the ruinous terms of Versailles, we made the next war inevitable."

I hope you don't me "we" as in the United States.

Britain was against unfettered freedom of the seas as proposed in Wilson's 14 points, while France demanded harsh reparations be paid to the allies.

The peace talks at Versailles were driven primarily by Britain and France, who were in almost complete agreement on the demands made on Germany, effectively isolating the US position.

[Len Budney]

"Under the ruinous terms of Versailles, we made the next war inevitable."

I hope you don't me "we" as in the United States.

Wilson initially opposed the French and English desire to sock it to the Germans, but his opposition was weak and he promptly dropped it. He didn't want to antagonize them because he thought it would interfere with his hope to form a league of nations. But France and England wouldn't have been in a position to dictate ruinous terms in the first place if we hadn't joined a war that had nearly ended in (the usual European) stalemate, and turned it into a complete rout of the Germans.

--Len.

[Paddy]

Um. Oil never got to $100 a barrel. And now it's down to $87.

I guess some people like to make up their own news instead of reading the real news...?

OK.  Here's the 'real news' for ya......I didn't have to wait long, did I?

Crude oil price hits record $100 mark

Violence in Nigeria helps give crude final push over $100
   
BREAKING NEWS
updated 34 minutes ago

NEW YORK - Oil prices soared to $100 a barrel Wednesday for the first time ever, reaching that milestone amid an unshakeable view that global demand for oil and petroleum products will continue to outstrip supplies.

Surging economies in China and India fed by oil and gasoline have sent prices soaring over the past year, while tensions in oil producing nations like Nigeria and Iran have increasingly made investors nervous and invited speculators to drive prices even higher.

Violence in Nigeria helped give crude the final push over $100. Bands of armed men invaded Port Harcourt, the center of Nigerias oil industry Tuesday, attacking two police stations and raiding the lobby of a major hotel. Word that several Mexican oil export ports were closed due to rough weather added to the gains, as did a report that OPEC may not be able to meet its share of global oil demand by 2024.
Story continues below ↓advertisement

Light, sweet crude for January delivery rose $4.02 to $100 a barrel on the New York Mercantile Exchange, according to Brenda Guzman, a Nymex spokeswoman, before slipping back to $99.48.

Crude prices, which have flirted with $100 for months, have risen in recent days on supply concerns exacerbated by Turkish attacks on Kurdish rebels in northern Iraq and falling domestic inventories. However, post-holiday trading volumes were about 50 percent of normal Wednesday, meaning the price move was likely exaggerated by speculative buying.

I would imagine the speculators are the biggest drivers today, said Phil Flynn, an analyst at Alaron Trading Corp., in Chicago.

Its hard to say whether prices would have risen as quickly on a normal trading day, Flynn said. While crude prices have soared on mounting supply concerns in recent months, speculators have often been cited as a reason for the swiftness of oils climb.

Moreover, many of the concerns about supply disruptions have yet to materialize, but that hasnt stopped buyers from driving prices higher.

Although the (Nigerian) violence has not impacted oil flow out of the country, it has reignited supply concerns as militant attacks have reduced Nigerias crude output by roughly 20 percent since 2006, said John Gerdes, an analyst at SunTrust Robinson Humphrey in a research note. Nigeria is Africas largest oil producer.

Separately, the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries said its member nations may not be able to meet demand as early as 2024, though OPEC also said that deadline could slide for decades if members increase production more quickly. Word that several Mexican oil export ports were closed due to rough weather added to the gains.

On top of those concerns, investors are anticipating that crude inventories fell by 1.8 million barrels last week, which would be the 7th weekly decline in a row.

(A decline) is not anything unusual for this time of year, but when it happens for 7 weeks in a row, it starts to add up, said Amanda Kurzendoerfer, an analyst at Summit Energy Services Inc. in Louisville, Ky.

Oil prices are within the range of inflation-adjusted highs set in early 1980. Depending on how the adjustment is calculated, $38 a barrel then would be worth $96 to $103

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12400801/


   

[K Frame]

Yep, oil futures, for a short time, hit $100 a barrel today. That very likely won't be the only time they go that high.

That still doesn't make your previous claim, at the time it was uttered, true.

At that point in time your claim was demonstratably false.

You didn't caveat your claim until AFTER you were called on it.

[Paddy]

Right.  My claim on Dec 3 that oil was $100 was not true.  I retract that statement.  However, ALL of my other claims are in fact true.

And how is a trillion dollar occupation, all time high record gov borrowing and debt, thousands of Americans killed and tens of thousands wounded, oil at $100/barrel and rising, a dollar that has lost half its value in the last 6 years, etc and on and on..........how are those 'favorable results'?

And oil WILL trade at $100 and ABOVE.  It's only a matter of time.  A short time.

The question stands. "How are those favorable results?"

[TwitchALot]

Right.  My claim on Dec 3 that oil was $100 was not true.  I retract that statement.  However, ALL of my other claims are in fact true.

And how is a trillion dollar occupation, all time high record gov borrowing and debt, thousands of Americans killed and tens of thousands wounded, oil at $100/barrel and rising, a dollar that has lost half its value in the last 6 years, etc and on and on..........how are those 'favorable results'?

And oil WILL trade at $100 and ABOVE.  It's only a matter of time.  A short time.

The question stands. "How are those favorable results?"

Kind of like... today? 

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12400801/

[Perd Hapley]

And how is a trillion dollar occupation, all time high record gov borrowing and debt, thousands of Americans killed and tens of thousands wounded, oil at $100/barrel and rising, a dollar that has lost half its value in the last 6 years, etc and on and on..........how are those 'favorable results'?

 

The question stands. "How are those favorable results?"

Those aren't the favorable results to which he referred.  Some of the things you listed are simply the cost of fighting a war.  Some of them are the cost of mis-steps in the course of fighting a war.  Some are side effects of other, un-related policies. 

[LAK]

Len Budney

It's obviously wrong. For one thing, "policing the world" is hideously expensive; it's guaranteed to overwhelm our economy in the end because... For another thing, the burden continually grows without limit.

Perfectly rational and logical. As is the fact that our socalled "policing" has not really accomplished anything longterm anywhere.

It is possible to maintain control of a limited geographical area. We only actually, loosely, control a small portion of Iraq. It is almost impossible to maintain control of a whole nation though, unless you place it under martial law and have many hundreds of thousands of troops on the ground.

The purported enemy in Iraq is actually spread over an entire region much larger than the United States. And that does not even include the remoter areas such as Indonesia and a growing enclave in places like S. America. Pakistan is teetering on chaos or civil war, with tenuous stability in India and other neighboring countries like Myanmar (formerly Burma).

The idea that we are going to commit our resources to "policing" the region is outright insanity, and even shoring up segments of it are going to bankrupt us - as if we are not already about there as it is.

--------------------------------

http://searchronpaul.com
http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org

[Scout26]

As is the fact that our socalled "policing" has not really accomplished anything longterm anywhere.

Most of Europe would like to have a word with you.  And when they're done South Korea and Japan are waiting....

<---- 8th Infantry Divison, Baumholder, Germany 1987-1991.  I was there when The Wall came down.

Seemed like a pretty damn important accomplishment at the time.

[LAK]

I was there from 1979 to '82 - and stayed on until '88. The wall coming down changed little as far as the longterm prospect of germany and other european nations as they slipped into a greater socialist state under the EU. One thing germans, and all others legally residing there must do, is register with the police where they live - and each time they move. Not just criminals - everyone. Anmeldung, abmeldung. Jedesmal.

Japan has the highest suicide rate in the world - although it has jockeyed for this position with some other states from time to time. South Korea could be overrun quite rapidly.

However, these occupations were not the result of a "policing" action. Far from it. Germany was culturally and in most other ways very similar to ours and the other western occupying forces. Under a considerable occupation force, wherein the whole country was under adequate control, there was rebuilding to do, commerce to resume, and a return to business as usual right along side a swift transitional government.

The idea that we are going to do this to muslim central asia, north africa, indonesia and elsewhere is more than a bad joke. Unless you want to declare a real war on all muslim states and completely destroy them. But this again, would not be "policing", and the costs in blood and money are realistically well beyond - a long way beyond - even the combined resources of the United States and a number of other countries put together.