Mutually-Assured-Destruction is highly theoretical. I can't imagine a global leader that would actually initiate a wholesale slaughter on that scale. I would even say that the U.S. government would surrender to an opponent before participating in a nuclear holocaust.
I don't think we'll see destruction of major populous areas again, but a nuclear attack against the military infrastructure of a country certainly isn't out of the realm of possibility. The collateral damage from such an attack would still range in the hundreds of thousands, depending on the country.
I hadn't the faintest idea who Ron Paul was until I read this thread. I thought he was a drag artist.
My 'negative response' has nothing to do with some American crackpot demagogue, and everything to do with you bringing your weirdo foreign politics into my backyard.
Fight your silly pie wars in your own country, and leave us Europeans out of it, thank you very much.
I can just see you winning lots of friends amongst the citizens of Zurich this afternoon...
This is definitely a proper opinion. However one must accept the fact that the world economy is very US dependant so it is of European concern, or at least awareness on what/who gets voted into power. Regardless of whatever crackpot leader is winning the straw polls in the US, one thing I think the rest of the world should know is that Ron Paul is and has always been a supporter of the US leaving the rest of the world alone and dealing with their own home land issues before they go "spreading democracy and freedom" by occupying foreign counties.
__________________
"When you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all"
This user would like to thank Chemmie for this useful post:
...I think the rest of the world should know is that Ron Paul is and has always been a supporter of the US leaving the rest of the world alone and dealing with their own home land issues before they go "spreading democracy and freedom" by occupying foreign counties.
I hate to keep harping on about Bush and the 2000 election but all politicians say one thing and then do quite something else when in power. Remember George Bush's promise of a humble foreign policy?
ETA: that goes for Obama and closing down Guantanamo within a year too. It is so easy to idealistic when you don't have the reality of the job at hand. Just sayin.
The following 2 users would like to thank Mel07 for this useful post:
Ron Paul is and has always been a supporter of the US leaving the rest of the world alone and dealing with their own home land issues before they go "spreading democracy and freedom" by occupying foreign counties.
He isn't President of the United States, though, is he?
It's funny how these chaps change their tune once they get their feet under the desk of the Oval Office, isn't it?
He isn't President of the United States, though, is he?
It's funny how these chaps change their tune once they get their feet under the desk of the Oval Office, isn't it?
This is definitely true for all politicians I've ever wasted my time following, however he seems a bit different. He's held by his beliefs and statements for quite a few decades, foresaw and warned about a looming financial crisis, issues with military actions overseas before they began. Beyond that he doesn't use a speech writer (from what I've heard) and takes debates and statements genuinely from his beliefs. That being said, because of this, he doesn't always come off as the strong speeched 'american president' and because of that he always has fallen behind in popularity, because as it is in the US and in politics in general, it's not the beliefs or policies which makes one popular rather the alpha-charm of the individual.
__________________
"When you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all"
As for why a rally in Switzerland, I'd say even more evidence that RP doesn't have a hope in hell of winning. Otherwise, he'd be concentrating his efforts where they matter, in the US, like the serious candidates.
The rally is grassroots, instigated by people who care. Ron probably doesn't even know about it. I think that alone is remarkable.
He isn't President of the United States, though, is he?
It's funny how these chaps change their tune once they get their feet under the desk of the Oval Office, isn't it?
But thats why R.P is getting so much attention and has such a following. He has been practicing what he preaches now for over 30 years. And his record speaks for itself. No one can accuse him for being a "flip flopper" a la the 2000 election. He is also winning a lot of support from the left wing as well.
I NEVER would of thought that I would be supporting a right wing conservative from Texas. Ever. Even more so since G.W. But here I am, supporting Dr. Ron Paul.
The following 4 users would like to thank California Dreamer for this useful post:
His statement regarding submarines can be seen as equally fallacious. Unlike modern supercarriers, which have the capability to project power globally, submarines cannot project power locally. Part of a carrier's deterrent value is that it IS seen, and U.S. opponents must consider the impact the carrier could have if hostilities commenced. Submarines are most effective being unseen, and are traditionally used as an economic interdiction (sinking shipping, etc.)
I think you might have missed the submarine era. A single Swedish submarine could sink aircraft carriers with ease. So Ron Paul is correct in his statement.
I like Ron Paul but don't see what a rally in Zürich could achieve.
So you also agree that the USA needs only a small standing army. That was the point I was trying to make.
No, it is precisely because we have our naval capacity that these countries do not attempt military action. Were we to reduce our military capacity, it might lower the cost of a limited military action to the point it is considered more viable than a protracted economic scenario.
I'm not sure exactly how the USA could be crippled like that though, as it is self-sufficient enough to produce more or less everything it needs within the USA itself.
Unfortunately, due to the increasing costs of U.S. labor and regulation versus other countries, the manufacturing capacity of the U.S. has significantly diminished. The U.S. depends on importation of foreign manufactured goods from countries such as China, Japan and others for consumables we cannot produce locally. Also, the U.S. imports many of its resources from other countries, because many forms of regulation stringently curtail the capacity to produce these resources locally. In order for the price and supply of these goods and resources to be consistent and stable to the U.S. (and other countries), safe free-trade routes must be established and maintained.
Is there any reason why the USA should be the master of the seas? Why shouldn't individual regions police themself. Isn't this one of the reasons that there is so much hatred directed towards the US by for example, the Arabic world? The USA has no right to police waters 10,000kms away from itself.
The U.S. advocated Freedom of the Seas as one of President Woodrow Wilson's Fourteen Points, as early as WWI, where it was opposed by the three main naval powers of the time- the UK, France, and Germany. Now, freedom of the seas is a part of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (Article 87(1)). The specific policy of Freedom of the Seas is that NO nation is master of the seas. Many other nation's navies also enforce this concept, but none on the scale and scope of the U.S. Navy.
Somebody has to be the #1 naval power in the world- if not the U.S., who would you want it to be? Do you think China or Russia would do a better job? Or do you suppose they might pursue their own interests also, which might not be in alignment with those of the EU member states and the West? Do you want your country, or any EU country arming itself, at its own expense, to become "international policeman?"
Someone like Iran could certainly play silly buggers with the oil, but then who buys their oil and fuels their economy? The West, who would then put crippling sanctions on them, there would be very little point to them refusing to sell the one commodity they have.
There have been sanctions on Iran in one form or another since the Ayatollah deposed the Shah in 1979, and it hasn't changed the political stance of that country one bit. And, without the U.S. providing regional security, countries like Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Oman would have to spend more money to build up their naval forces to check Iranian ambitions to control the Middle East. These countries would find that money by raising the price of their oil on the world market. I look at the Migrol outside my window and see 1.74 CHF/Liter for petrol- imagine if the cost were 4, 5, or 6 times that much- what would that do to the Swiss Economy? The U.S. Economy? Or Iran could, in turn for providing regional "security," take the preeminent position in OPEC and steer that cartel in a very anti-western direction, opting to sell oil to India, Pakistan, or China versus the West.
Why don't you guys show up tonight and we can discuss this face to face rather than hiding behind anonymous pseudonyms picking apart people without offering solutions?
Why don't you guys show up tonight and we can discuss this face to face rather than hiding behind anonymous pseudonyms picking apart people without offering solutions?
Discuss what? A bunch of Americans making a nuisance of themselves in the streets of Zurich?
The solution is plain: have your silly rally in your own country.
The following 2 users would like to thank Dougal's Breakfast for this useful post:
Why don't you guys show up tonight and we can discuss this face to face rather than hiding behind anonymous pseudonyms picking apart people without offering solutions?
You are not helping yourself here with the attitude dude. And I find it intriguing you are throwing yourself into US politics, and behind RP of all people, with such a thin skin.
I'm happy to discuss this stuff with or without the pseudonym but won't be turning up at a RP rally to do it.
And I do offer a solution which is not to vote for RP if you want to actually have your vote counted in the election, whatever the strawpolls are saying.
Good luck with it though. Looking forward to seeing what sort of ruckus you stir up on the streets of Switzerland.
The following 2 users would like to thank Mel07 for this useful post:
I think you might have missed the submarine era. A single Swedish submarine could sink aircraft carriers with ease. So Ron Paul is correct in his statement.
I could sink an aircraft carrier, if I were allowed aboard with several pounds of explosives and the will to do it. So we should forego the costs of submarines AND carriers, and just arm our soldiers with backpacks full of C-4 or Semtex, right?
A submarine could sink an aircraft carrier, if:
1. it used nuclear munitions to destroy a carrier and its escort group. As I have said, the use of nuclear weapons is highly unlikely by developed nations. The effects and consequences are much too high.
2. it was able to penetrate close enough to initiate a torpedo attack or an SSM attack. There are many problems with this approach. The submarine has to be able to penetrate a multi-layered defense system consisting of SOSUS warning devices, U.S. submarines, carrier-based and land-based ASW aircraft, specific ASW surface ships in the carrier group. After evading or destroying all this, the submarine still must attack and effectively strike a carrier in a manner to cripple or destroy it. This might entail having to perform multiple attacks to destroy so large a target as a carrier, each attack becoming subsequently more challenging than the previous as the submarine has lost both its elements of stealth and surprise. The torpedo or SSM must also, once launched, actually survive and strike the carrier. In the history of the U.S. carrier force, only 3 carriers have been lost to submarines, ever.
The following 2 users would like to thank Jobsrobertsharpii for this useful post:
I don't see any problem discussing the U.S. presidential race here, it's perfectly in line with "International affairs/politics"- I even have a soft spot for old Ron. But a Ron Paul rally in Switzerland just cracks me up . And I guess a Ron Paul rally in Zurich isn't really international anymore .
The following 2 users would like to thank Mud for this useful post:
. And I guess a Ron Paul rally in Zurich isn't really international anymore 
Linear Mode
