What do you think Ron Paul will do with our military if he gets elected?

Question

Scares me to think about it, seeing as the military is one of the biggest employers here in the US right now...

Answer 1

Ron Paul is going nowhere, friend...

Answer 2

Maybe put a hiring freeze on new recruits (or at least raise the requirements). Start bringing back our weapons and troops, start defending the border and oceans. Use that saved money to help either reduce taxes or eliminate them. Use that saved money for people already in social programs, while increasing requirements for new aid applicants (no illegals will get aid of any sort, unless dying).

Increase respect in the world, and still have the strongest , most technologically advanced military. No one will touch us, all our energy and power will be defending our home turf, and our borders, not some other 3rd world country where they don't want us anyway.

I'm sure we could leave some bases open in places that agree to have bases, like Japan, Germany, and S Korea.

Increase and make a new, efficient intelligence agency, have more transparency in the government, and what your tax dollars do in it.

I don't know if this is what he would do, but this is what I would do, and I'm voting for Ron Paul.

I'd like to know what other top candidates would do. They probably wouldn't change a thing, so when the shi+ really hit's the fan, they can just blame Bush, and say see... told you that man from a few years back was utterly evil. I'd much rather have someone that tried to really bring about change.

Answer 3

According to GDP levels dedicated to defense, research shows that defense contracts, the workers and Engineers maintain the same level of employment whether we are in or out of war. Regardless of the War, there have been an over extensive amount of contracts set until 2022 with most of the defense corporations due to the new technologies the government is trying to switch over to.

To argue that War is good for a sector of the economy is morally corupt and unfounded as well.

Ron Paul would scale the War effort back immediately but understands the process is not immediate. In conjunction with the Senate and Congress the effor in reality would be the same as anyone else doing it. The is no difference because it will be ended. The Dems are going to win and the only chance Republicans have is Ron Paul because he is the only one with an anti-War stance and this is the main issue. Put any other Republican against the Dems and the Dems will win by default due to the other Republicans pro-War stance. That is the election right there. 70% of the American people are against the War so campaigning on that will lose the Republican's chance, unless they put Ron Paul up.

Plus, this should really boil down to economics, and that is what Ron Paul is trying to do. This War is bankrupting us in all sectors - Defense would not be able to prop-up the economy as a whole - this is illogical.

It's time to stop over-extending ourselves and come back home to fix things here while being fiscally responsible.

Answer 4

I'm safein assuming that Ron paul would improve our military strength, but not exactly in the way we might expect. Paul and kucinitch are an honest team and honesty is what's been lacking in the equation since the early times of our govt. politics. You are getting it right and I'd be proud to know you.

Answer 5

Every president since Truman has used military spending as a way to stimulate the economy, to get money into circulation, and to send pork to the districts of powerful congressmen and senators. Since WWII the US has been on a continuous war footing. We have fallen in love with expensive, elaborate weapons systems that we didn't need, couldn't use, and were obsolete the day they were installed.

We are losing in Iraq because we don't have enough people there to stabilize the country. This is because we went to an all-volunteer military and let our troop strength fall so we could spend more on expensive gadgets and equipment. Over the years our military budget increased and increased, even while the military itself was getting smaller and less effective.

If Paul got elected he probably wouldn't go along with this plan. He wouldn't play the game most Republicans and even Democrats play, trying to outdo each other in proposals for military budget increases. He'd have experts look at the problem and make recommendations based on what we need to protect ourselves in the world, rather than how much we can spend to mollify this senator or that campaign contributor. And he wouldn't use his status as 'war president' to justify torture, suspension of the Constitution, and fascism.

And it's partly because of this that he doesn't have a chance to get elected.

Answer 6

Put them on the border and in charge of deportations!
There is also a war going on there.

Answer 7

Probably drastically reduce funding for it and remove all US military bases on foreign soil.

Answer 8

he'll probably do what George Washington would do...

...he'd probably draw down the size during peace time.

we're not the police. We're our own country.

Answer 9

Probably disassemble it since he'd abolish the tax collecting sytem that keeps it going. He does love a free-market system however so he'll probably privatize it to the highest bidder (Blackwater anyone)?

Answer 10

Probably take them into battle himself, because he thinks he's a constitutional literalist, and he'll take that "commander-in-chief" stuff more seriously than any before him, even Top Gun Bush.

Which means we'd better have a really smart Vice President on his ticket. Better yet, let's elect a sane President. We've certainly had enough of the other kind the last 40 years (Nixon, Reagan, both Bushes).