Speak Out: Ron Paul Is On Target

Posted by FreedomFadingFast on Mon, Feb 24, 2014, at 7:20 PM:

Ron Paul: Don't Just Cut Troops, 'Downsize' US Foreign Policy

Former Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul has backed defense Secretary Chuck Hagel's Pentagon plan to slash the number of troops in the next five years, but declared that what the country really needs to do is "downsize"its foreign policy.

The Pentagon plans to cut the size of U.S. military forces to fewer than before the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, as well as to retire older weapons like the U-2 spy plane and the A-10 attack aircraft. Paul, former 12-term Texas congressman and founder of the group Campaign for Liberty, told "The Steve Malzberg Show"on Newsmax TV that that's "a good idea."

He said, "You don't need hundreds of thousands of troops planning for the next war because nobody's going to invade us, nobody's going to attack us.

"What I really want is (President Barack Obama) to downsize the foreign policy because if you stay involved in 140 countries... stirring up trouble, and you downsize the military, you run into a problem. So it's our intervention that needs downsizing. But I certainly agree that in this day and age, we shouldn't be building all these weapons."

Paul pointed out that the U.S. is unlikely to get into dogfights in the skies with other countries because they cannot match America's far superior aerial power.

"[T]he F-35... they say it's to be the most advanced aircraft in the world... and they're going to spend $400 billion on it. It's just a total fiasco. So that kind of stuff they certainly could cut back on. But my suspicion is that the politics of even the F-35 means that they're not going to cut back."

Paul noted that the if the U.S. stops being the world's policeman, then there would be no need to have a vast military buildup. "Now, if you want to remain the policemen of the world, you can't cut back,"he said.

"You probably won't even want to cut back as much as Hagel's talking about. A proper foreign policy would mean that we would have a strong national defense, but it would be quite a bit different. A lot of people equate military spending and national defense, and I don't. I believe very strongly in national defense. But I believe in a lot less military spending and that's the big difference."

Paul said that the U.S. was right to stay out of Syria, saying that "we don't need another war."And he believes that that the crisis in Ukraine is none of our business.

"I've talked to people from the Ukraine and they are very much supportive for having let the Ukrainians deal with their problems,"he said.

Replies (26)

  • both Pauls are nut cases

    -- Posted by survivalist on Mon, Feb 24, 2014, at 7:24 PM
  • The U.S. government and a majority of citizens agree with you pummel. Anyone against war and the needless death and destruction it brings, is a nut case.

    -- Posted by FreedomFadingFast on Mon, Feb 24, 2014, at 7:38 PM
  • Pummel is a Liberal parrot.

    -- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Mon, Feb 24, 2014, at 8:02 PM
  • pummel,

    Coconut Telegraph asked you a question. Do you have an answer?

    Can you substantiate your ad hominem attack?

    -- Posted by Givemeliberty on Mon, Feb 24, 2014, at 10:10 PM
  • pummel,

    Coconut Telegraph asked you a question. Do you have an answer?

    Can you substantiate your ad hominem attack?

    -- Posted by Givemeliberty on Mon, Feb 24, 2014, at 10:47 PM
  • I find it pretty easy to agree with Ron Paul. Regardless of our original framing we need a strong national defense ready and equipped but not the entanglements with foreign countries acquired since post WWII.

    The confusion comes when terms like "national interests" are considered. Going way back, our military and economic might has been deployed in security of U.S. shipping and trade in all parts of the world.

    In the other realm of military and economic might that is foreign policy [imaginary or real] to support and encourage free democratic republics world wide, it has come time [IMO] we should narrow our foreign policy to protecting free trade sans interfering with the politics of other countries except those that we have valid treaties and responsibilities. And in that case those should be revisited.

    I can't see Obama and company has a clue but then they are the smart people and what do I know.

    -- Posted by Old John on Mon, Feb 24, 2014, at 11:51 PM
  • I think that this is definitely a step in the right direction. However, as Ron Paul stated, there are a lot of politics involved. CONgress doesn't have to pass any of Hagel's recommendations.

    -- Posted by Rick Vandeven on Tue, Feb 25, 2014, at 5:11 AM
  • I see the old war mongrel Cheney disagrees on reducing size of army. Can always expect these old military fighters to emerge.

    We do need to stop being worlds enforcers of good.

    -- Posted by Dexterite1 on Tue, Feb 25, 2014, at 5:53 AM
  • We need to tend to our own knittin'; of course some make a good living off of war/defense and it will be hard to diminish this influence.

    -- Posted by ssnkemp on Tue, Feb 25, 2014, at 6:38 AM
  • CONgress doesn't have ... -- Posted by Simon Jester

    HYPOcrite.

    -- Posted by notrump on Tue, Feb 25, 2014, at 8:17 AM
  • We do need to stop being worlds enforcers of good. -- Posted by Dexterite1 on Tue, Feb 25, 2014, at 5:53 AM

    Who implemented the "surge" in Afghanistan? Who has had more US troop deaths and civilian deaths in Afghanistan as president?

    Obama - the Nobel Peace Price winner.

    Pick on Cheney all you want. You voted for Obama-the-warrior twice.

    -- Posted by not_sorry on Tue, Feb 25, 2014, at 8:55 AM
  • "Don't forget that I discovered that over ninety percent of all national deficits from 1921 to 1939 were caused by payments for past, present, and future wars." [Franklin Delano Roosevelt]

    Curious that this progressive who expanded government to galactic proportions would blame war for two decades of deficits. But war commands the entire field of view; the public is driven from pillar to post with the fear of the unknown or phantom aggressor; personal and economic liberty shrinks in the face of the never-ending anticipation of or prosecution of war; fortunes are made by those willing to profit from war.

    -- Posted by Givemeliberty on Tue, Feb 25, 2014, at 9:38 AM
  • Spot on Nil. There is plenty of cronyism to be considered also

    http://m.dailykos.com/story/2013/04/29/1205670/-GOP-pushes-for-more-tanks-Pentag...

    -- Posted by Rick Vandeven on Tue, Feb 25, 2014, at 11:52 AM
  • How many years did Obama serve? I don't recall... Did president Bush serve?

    -- Posted by not_sorry on Tue, Feb 25, 2014, at 12:26 PM
  • "Don't forget that I discovered that over ninety percent of all national deficits from 1921 to 1939 were caused by payments for past, present, and future wars." [Franklin Delano Roosevelt]

    And since then, the deficits have been driven by his social programmes. That's progress, I suppose, to a "progressive", but fighting wars is a constitutional duty of the government, whereas paying other peoples' bills is not.

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Feb 25, 2014, at 2:29 PM
  • I don't blame Cheney or Clinton for avoiding service during the Vietnam War. They were smart to avoid being KIAed for no good reason.

    -- Posted by FreedomFadingFast on Tue, Feb 25, 2014, at 4:10 PM
  • The F-35 is one of the poster children of government's inability to manage. I hate to say it but the wars of the future will use geeks setting at computers.

    -- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Tue, Feb 25, 2014, at 4:50 PM
  • The F-35 is one of the poster children of government's inability to manage. I hate to say it but the wars of the future will use geeks setting at computers.

    -- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Tue, Feb 25, 2014, at 4:50 PM

    Problem is, those geeks won't be pumping tens of billions of dollars into the coffers of the military industrial complex. Our politicians will not bite the hand that feeds them.

    -- Posted by FreedomFadingFast on Tue, Feb 25, 2014, at 6:16 PM
  • FFF

    I would say that would be the main reason it is still going.

    -- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Tue, Feb 25, 2014, at 8:57 PM
  • Military Industrial Complex getting richer and richer. Needless death and destruction pays handsomely.

    http://www.newsmax.com/US/Chuck-Hagel-budget-military-weapons/2014/02/25/id/5545...

    -- Posted by FreedomFadingFast on Wed, Feb 26, 2014, at 7:56 PM
  • Spaniard

    We the people can't seem to get through to them. I think the money has a lot to do with it.

    -- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Thu, Feb 27, 2014, at 9:38 PM
  • Dam you Freedom, I had friends killed in Korea. You disgrace their memory. Dam you.

    -- Posted by Dexterite1 on Fri, Feb 28, 2014, at 7:40 AM
  • I have always supported the military and always will.

    -- Posted by Dexterite1 on Fri, Feb 28, 2014, at 9:16 PM
  • Dex

    It wasn't me that sent your friends to die in a war we had no business being involved in. Dam me if it makes you feel better about yourself.

    Whether you choose to believe it or not, I also support the military. What I don't support is our government starting and/or getting involved wars we have no business being in and sending our military personnel to die in them.

    -- Posted by FreedomFadingFast on Fri, Feb 28, 2014, at 10:21 PM
  • FFF,

    Lucky for Dexter he is a Democrat or he would have had his post removed by now by the self appointed censor.

    -- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Fri, Feb 28, 2014, at 10:46 PM
  • Obama speak loud and carry little stick.

    -- Posted by Old John on Fri, Feb 28, 2014, at 11:51 PM

Respond to this thread