The UK's cutting the Royal Navy? That's a shame.

Yes, the MoD had their defense budget slashed...while the nation's millions in debt. There's a lot of other ways to save money besides making more people unemployed.

I see a problem with Ron Paul however.

While his ideas may be noble, he is simply out of touch with the modern world.

For instance

The same policies are appearing over and over in the white house, and this country is on the road to ruins because of it. "Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results"-Albert Einstein

Okay, I'll give you a smaller government, however, how would such a smaller government be achieved in the current economic climate?

Just look at what happened after WWII. Ten Million veterans, compared to about 1 million today, came home finding jobs because of the loosened government restrictions on the economy. The colonies were successful at first because they had a small government whose job was primarily defense and nothing else, instead of all of the laws being passed today. We had an extremely successful economy during the late 1800's and early 1900's because there was no income tax and people spent more. The only exception to this was when the Civil War broke out and only for supporting the Union. It was removed in 1872 when it was no longer deemed necessary, and brought back in 1894 only to be struck down as unconstitutional. The only reason why it is "legal" is because an amendment was added to it.

Not gonna happen. The existing laws from 1777 on were drafted to work with the constitution at the time. Do you actually think he and his gov't would be able to work with every single constitutional amendment without breaking several laws, laws the media would leap all over him for?

I expect him to try as hard as he can. unlike our two most recent presidents who are violating the constitution with bills like the patriot act and NDAA (which ALL of the republican nominees besides Ron Paul suppport it).

Exactly the UK's reasoning. What are they doing? Firing 3,000 soldiers and scrapping the entire Navy for a start. That's 3,000 people in the Army who can't find work any more, several hundred thousand in the Navy who are either reassigned or let go simply because of a politician's wants and whims.

Ron Paul's philosophy on the military is to keep jobs, but station them on the US border to help stop illegal immigration, which wouldn't be an issue if we didn't give handouts to them in the first place. We have over 900 bases in nearly 150 countries, including over 200 bases in Germany, several hundred in the Pacific, and many others in Eastern Europe and the Middle East that serve no purpose and only drain money. The bases in the Pacific are unnecessary at this time and the other bases are only useful for the current war in Afghanistan, which is unconstitutional because Congress never declared war, only the killing of Osama Bin Laden.

For those who like Dubstep:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m8p_A5KrwGc

The same policies are appearing over and over in the white house, and this country is on the road to ruins because of it. "Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results"-Albert Einstein

I'm gonna dispute that. The 'same policies' are not appearing over and over. They are a recent development. Did LBJ have the same as Kennedy, Clinton the same as Bush, Carter the same as Ford? To say that the country is on the road to ruins due to the White House is not true. There's been bills proposed that either party has blocked that would help the US, it is not as simple as to lay the blame at the President's door.

Just look at what happened after WWII. Ten Million veterans, compared to about 1 million today, came home finding jobs because of the loosened government restrictions on the economy. The colonies were successful at first because they had a small government whose job was primarily defense and nothing else, instead of all of the laws being passed today. We had an extremely successful economy during the late 1800's and early 1900's because there was no income tax and people spent more. The only exception to this was when the Civil War broke out and only for supporting the Union. It was removed in 1872 when it was no longer deemed necessary, and brought back in 1894 only to be struck down as unconstitutional. The only reason why it is "legal" is because an amendment was added to it.

But, key thing, early 1900s. Not early 2010s, times and the world have changed though. You simply cannot expect in today's climate,to have a small army and successfully defend a nation with it.

I expect him to try as hard as he can. unlike our two most recent presidents who are violating the constitution with bills like the patriot act and NDAA (which ALL of the republican nominees besides Ron Paul suppport it).

Ron Paul is actually a Democrat, running Republican to get more votes. I expected Obama to try hard, but if he does not have a lot of influence in both houses, he can do all he can and not have a lot to show for it.

Ron Paul's philosophy on the military is to keep jobs, but station them on the US border to help stop illegal immigration, which wouldn't be an issue if we didn't give handouts to them in the first place. We have over 900 bases in nearly 150 countries, including over 200 bases in Germany, several hundred in the Pacific, and many others in Eastern Europe and the Middle East that serve no purpose and only drain money. The bases in the Pacific are unnecessary at this time and the other bases are only useful for the current war in Afghanistan, which is unconstitutional because Congress never declared war, only the killing of Osama Bin Laden.

Wrong. The 200 bases in Germany, the Middle East and Eastern Europe and the Pacific contribute majorly to the economies of those nations in both money, and jobs. By closing them, you'd leave the nations worse off by a large factor, those nations you said are in debt and need every dollar or euro or yen or whatever currency they use.

To illustrate, Angela Merkel stated in 2010 that the US bases generate in excess of 1 million Euros in money for the German economy. Closng them would harm certain countries and likely hurt diplomatic efforts.

Let's take a base in Dachau as a hypothetical example, I already quoted Merkel as stating it provides a lot of cash/jobs for Germany, it is also ideal, logistically to be closer to any front lines than to have to fly from the US in missions.

Suppose all the bases do close, and the US has to go into Syria to keep the peace, would you rather the troops make a round trip from the US, or from a base nearby? I would rather have troops on the ground nearby able to get there quicker, than waiting 14 or more hours for a plane.

Just to let you know...there isn't even close to 200 bases here in Germany...Trust me...I work at 1 of them ;)

I think he meant that the number of bases in Germany, the Middle East and Eastern Europe and the Pacific combined is about 200, not that there were 200 in Germany alone.

DOH! Not enough coffee this morning when I posted that CP...I guess the wife was driving me crazy cause we are supposed to fly to Teneriffe tomorrow...

I'm gonna dispute that. The 'same policies' are not appearing over and over. They are a recent development. Did LBJ have the same as Kennedy, Clinton the same as Bush, Carter the same as Ford? To say that the country is on the road to ruins due to the White House is not true. There's been bills proposed that either party has blocked that would help the US, it is not as simple as to lay the blame at the President's door.

No, the policies may not be as close to eachother, but look at GWB and Obama. Each have intervened in conflicts that were none of our business, and all of the presidential candidates besides Ron Paul are for starting a war with Iran, a country who we have refused to negotiate with, simply because they are developing nuclear power.

But, key thing, early 1900s. Not early 2010s, times and the world have changed though. You simply cannot expect in today's climate,to have a small army and successfully defend a nation with it.

Once again, Ron Paul's philosophies are to have the same amount of people we have in the military today, but to have them at home instead of wasting trillions of dollars fighting other people's wars. The policies today have only succeeded in getting us $15 trillion in debt, and we are operating off of emergency funds created by constantly raising the debt ceiling.

Ron Paul is actually a Democrat, running Republican to get more votes. I expected Obama to try hard, but if he does not have a lot of influence in both houses, he can do all he can and not have a lot to show for it.

Ron Paul is actually a constitutionalist libertarian running in one of the main political parties to raise support on important issues. The GOP and Dem parties are a lie, each are working for the big banks. Just look at Romney's and Obama's top contributors.

Wrong. The 200 bases in Germany, the Middle East and Eastern Europe and the Pacific contribute majorly to the economies of those nations in both money, and jobs. By closing them, you'd leave the nations worse off by a large factor, those nations you said are in debt and need every dollar or euro or yen or whatever currency they use.

To illustrate, Angela Merkel stated in 2010 that the US bases generate in excess of 1 million Euros in money for the German economy. Closng them would harm certain countries and likely hurt diplomatic efforts.

Let's take a base in Dachau as a hypothetical example, I already quoted Merkel as stating it provides a lot of cash/jobs for Germany, it is also ideal, logistically to be closer to any front lines than to have to fly from the US in missions.

But if we follow the Golden Rule, we would only have to fight on our home soil against actual enemies, rendering those bases obsolete. Also, about it generating over a million Euros, that is about $1.3 million US Dollars. According to wikipedia, there are 57 US military installations in Germany. Lets take a theoretical cost of operating those bases, and that is probably tens of millions of dollars on those bases. With an economy that is operating off of emergency funding, being a global military power is not practical and is only wasting money.

Suppose all the bases do close, and the US has to go into Syria to keep the peace, would you rather the troops make a round trip from the US, or from a base nearby? I would rather have troops on the ground nearby able to get there quicker, than waiting 14 or more hours for a plane.

I would rather have our country focus on our own people more than dictating what other countries can and can't do and then enforcing those policies (not to mention we are passing or considering to pass fascist laws ourselves, look at the NDAA, SOPA, and PIPA). Almost every major NATO and UN operation, we have had to spearhead the mission, which once again can't be done due to our economy. Yes, their leader is corrupt, but ousting him isn't worth it if we have to cut veterans benefits to finance it and possibly bankrupting our country.

Edited January 22, 201214 yr by c13

No, the policies may not be as close to eachother, but look at GWB and Obama. Each have intervened in conflicts that were none of our business, and all of the presidential candidates besides Ron Paul are for starting a war with Iran, a country who we have refused to negotiate with, simply because they are developing nuclear power.

For GWB, it was about finishing off what his father started in Desert Storm

Obama has to clean up what GWB started, I honestly feel GWB/Blair ought to be tried for war crimes, exactly the same as Mlacic/Milosevic/Rako were and are being, they are no different to any other war criminals.

Clinton did not take the US into any illegal or unconstitutional conflicts at all while he was in the White House, to my mind he was pretty much the best President since 1950 for that (putting aside his closet escapades for a moment), he stayed out of wars and had the guts to say 'No, we aren't going in'

Also, Iran has refused to negotiate thanks to cultural differences, going to war will only result in a nuclear war, something I for one don't wish to see thanks.

Once again, Ron Paul's philosophies are to have the same amount of people we have in the military today, but to have them at home instead of wasting trillions of dollars fighting other people's wars. The policies today have only succeeded in getting us $15 trillion in debt, and we are operating off of emergency funds created by constantly raising the debt ceiling.

I fail to see how having them at home and still fighting wars will reduce the debt however. You cannot expect in todays climate to not fight wars, it's the way of the world. Even the UK with its slashed military is making noise about the Falklands (the fact they'd get totally wiped out however...), if anything, having them at home would make wars more impractical given travel time.

Ron Paul is actually a constitutionalist libertarian running in one of the main political parties to raise support on important issues. The GOP and Dem parties are a lie, each are working for the big banks. Just look at Romney's and Obama's top contributors.

No different to here, the three big parties here are working for lobbyists. But over there, at least you got the choice of independant candidates. I find it scary how Romney and Obama have the same top few lobbyists.

But if we follow the Golden Rule, we would only have to fight on our home soil against actual enemies, rendering those bases obsolete. Also, about it generating over a million Euros, that is about $1.3 million US Dollars. According to wikipedia, there are 57 US military installations in Germany. Lets take a theoretical cost of operating those bases, and that is probably tens of millions of dollars on those bases. With an economy that is operating off of emergency funding, being a global military power is not practical and is only wasting money.

$1.3 million US dollars is a lot to Germany. I may be off on the figures, but Germany's also in a lot of debt along with most of the Eurozone, they would gladly take those Euros to pay off the debt, I looked up earlier how much a base is in the UK. Approximately

a stop for now is good those are big numbers..if they add it to another bill and it passes that sucks and thats low. especially if they dont rly make it publicly known.