Ron Paul.
09-07-2007, 01:49 AM
#151
3.0 BAR
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 9,282
Re: Ron Paul.
easiest rebuttle to the "we need bases everywhere to be safe" argument is that technology has caught up and we can mobilize any number of troops to any part of the world at any time... very quickly and very efficiently..
09-07-2007, 01:50 AM
#152
0.0 BAR
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 0
Re: Ron Paul.
Originally Posted by Stealthmode
Well that's easy. If a country doesn't want us there, we'll kick their asses and set up shop anyhow. Communism isn't a threat anymore, so why would "anti-communism" bases still be around today? It doesn't make sense, so obviously it looks like we think we own the earth. Yeah, we've liberated alot of people, which wouldn't be out of the question in the future, but I'm sure you can see from the outside looking in, what it looks like, and why INDIVIDUALS, not governments want to tear the roof off the motha.
Empathy. Evaluate the situation from both sides of the fence.
09-07-2007, 02:57 AM
#153
0.5 BAR
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 126
Re: Ron Paul.
I quit reading after page one but Ron Paul would not be able to do anything he wants to do becuase of Congress. The president cant make laws or even change them unless the house and then the senate agree with him. and unless in the next election 51% of both become liberterian I dont think its gonna happen.
Giuliani has my vote. He is like clinton except republican. Who cares about his personal life so he got laid sue him. New York was a shithole and how its decent. Maybe he can turn America around too.
Giuliani has my vote. He is like clinton except republican. Who cares about his personal life so he got laid sue him. New York was a shithole and how its decent. Maybe he can turn America around too.
09-07-2007, 10:56 AM
#155
0.0 BAR
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 0
Re: Ron Paul.
Originally Posted by random-strike
we don't have any bases in the countries that are a threat to us, so your point really doesn't work
Originally Posted by Ichi-Go
I quit reading after page one but Ron Paul would not be able to do anything he wants to do becuase of Congress. The president cant make laws or even change them unless the house and then the senate agree with him. and unless in the next election 51% of both become liberterian I dont think its gonna happen.
I can't stand people who say we can't have what we want because of the way things are now. If a President convinced people to open thier eyes in massive numbers, congress wouldn't have any other way to vote. Believe it or not, they're still accountable to the people, it's just that more than half of America has no clue what's happening on a day to day basis, so they get away with murder.
09-07-2007, 11:11 AM
#156
0.0 BAR
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 0
Re: Ron Paul.
Originally Posted by buk9tp
easiest rebuttle to the "we need bases everywhere to be safe" argument is that technology has caught up and we can mobilize any number of troops to any part of the world at any time... very quickly and very efficiently..
this leads me to believe that you have not spent any time in the military.
I spent 7 years (3 active duty, 4 in the gaurd) in the Infantry, and I am sorry to say, the military cannot mobilize large numbers quickly or efficiently.
granted, we would be able to send Special Ops, Rangers, Air Assult units, and Green Berets in small numbers quickly and MAYBE slightly efficiently for a small situation, but for a all out war/attack, no way, no how will it be quick or efficient.
09-07-2007, 11:22 AM
#157
1.0 BAR
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 345
Re: Ron Paul.
Originally Posted by jo_gobel
buk, have you ever been in the military? you say that we can mobilize very quickly and efficiently...
this leads me to believe that you have not spent any time in the military.
I spent 7 years (3 active duty, 4 in the gaurd) in the Infantry, and I am sorry to say, the military cannot mobilize large numbers quickly or efficiently.
granted, we would be able to send Special Ops, Rangers, Air Assult units, and Green Berets in small numbers quickly and MAYBE slightly efficiently for a small situation, but for a all out war/attack, no way, no how will it be quick or efficient.
this leads me to believe that you have not spent any time in the military.
I spent 7 years (3 active duty, 4 in the gaurd) in the Infantry, and I am sorry to say, the military cannot mobilize large numbers quickly or efficiently.
granted, we would be able to send Special Ops, Rangers, Air Assult units, and Green Berets in small numbers quickly and MAYBE slightly efficiently for a small situation, but for a all out war/attack, no way, no how will it be quick or efficient.
09-07-2007, 12:12 PM
#158
0.0 BAR
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 0
Re: Ron Paul.
This day and age we should be bombing by air first, and sending ground units to secure the mess. Ground units shouldn't be first anywhere with the air power we have.
09-07-2007, 12:18 PM
#159
3.0 BAR
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 5,322
Re: Ron Paul.
Originally Posted by Stealthmode
This day and age we should be bombing by air first, and sending ground units to secure the mess. Ground units shouldn't be first anywhere with the air power we have.
I predict china will take over the world with their mass produced SSAC army.
09-07-2007, 01:15 PM
#160
0.0 BAR
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 0
Re: Ron Paul.
I agree that the air attacks and robotic warfare is the logical first steps, however, there has to be someone controlling the planes and bots.
we can never take the human aspect out of war, it will always be there.
however, in the situation in iraq, you cant really bomb the ---- out of them, bombs dont "think" and cannot recognize civilians from enemies.
when the war is halfway around the world, it would take a LOT of time just to mobilize the Rangers, Special Forces, etc... and then get them over there. there is a LOT of red tape that has to be delt with. You cant just say "go there" and it will be done. orders have to be cut, medical records have to review, updated shots and vacines have to be done, mobilization has to be arranged, transportation has to be arranged.
as long as we have bases in other contries and boats in the ocean, we are able to get the "first stream" of attacks going, but those first soldiers are not going to win the war, NOR are we going to only setup those attacks "out of the blue". the military will have had orders to mobilize for months before we attack and we would have thousands and thousands of soldiers on the borders and in place before those inital attacks.
now, if its like Pearl Harbor, well we will get our *** kicked like we did that day, then regroup, and go ---- some ---- up!
we can never take the human aspect out of war, it will always be there.
however, in the situation in iraq, you cant really bomb the ---- out of them, bombs dont "think" and cannot recognize civilians from enemies.
when the war is halfway around the world, it would take a LOT of time just to mobilize the Rangers, Special Forces, etc... and then get them over there. there is a LOT of red tape that has to be delt with. You cant just say "go there" and it will be done. orders have to be cut, medical records have to review, updated shots and vacines have to be done, mobilization has to be arranged, transportation has to be arranged.
as long as we have bases in other contries and boats in the ocean, we are able to get the "first stream" of attacks going, but those first soldiers are not going to win the war, NOR are we going to only setup those attacks "out of the blue". the military will have had orders to mobilize for months before we attack and we would have thousands and thousands of soldiers on the borders and in place before those inital attacks.
now, if its like Pearl Harbor, well we will get our *** kicked like we did that day, then regroup, and go ---- some ---- up!
