Is Ron Paul correct about achieving peace by pulling out military presence?

Question

In the debates Ron used Vietnam as an example.

Looks like Ron Paul's theory of peace from non-intervention/military presence actually works. Unfortunately only the British chooses to excercise this common sense.

http://thinkprogress.org/2007/11/16/british-withdrawal-calmer/

I'd bet the president and the media will take credit for the significant drop in violence in Basra and tie it into a success of his war. when actually it is the British withdrawal caused the significant drop..Lol.

Answer 1

I think that Ron Paul is correct. Our intervention in Iraq has created more insurgents, and the chaos has continued. George Washington and other Founding Fathers warned us against foreign entanglements and we have failed to heed their warning.

Answer 2

Dr. Ron Paul really knows his stuff. He knows exactly what's going on, what to do, and how to do it. He is a man of integrity. Trustworthy and honest. He is real and running for president. He is pro-liberty. Do the American thing, vote for Ron Paul. Edit: Honesty- That's what we thought at first. But it turns out there are no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and that they have nothing to do with 9/11. It is time to bring our troops back home, don't you think so?

Answer 3

Pulling out of Viet Nam only served to prevent American violence. The weeks that ensued were the most bloody in the history of the region and resulted in the very thing we spent 17+years and tens of thousands of U.S. KIAs trying to prevent.

Ron Paul believes that there is NOTHING worth fighting for and hence there is no valid reason to maintain a military. It's one of two reasons I can't, in good conscience, support Mr. Paul. The other is that he's from Texas. Both Bush's & LBJ were all from Texas. I've had enough! Haven't you???

Answer 4

No. We were nice and peaceful at the beginning of WW2, but that didn't work out too well for us. Also, we occupied both Japan and Germany, even though it strictly violated Paul's policy of not going where out enemies don't want us. That worked out better for us.

Oh, and the UK was able to leave the part of Iraq for which it was mainly responsible because the Iraqi Army was capable of assuming responsibility for that area. The UK still has military elements in other parts of Iraq.

Answer 5

no if we pull out it will embolden our enemies they have even said a US pullout would prove we're weak. plus the reason there has been a drop in violence is because of the troop surge more of our guys kill there guys so therefore they are smaller in number and can't do as much. and to defeat the logic of nonmilitary presence our surge has far offset the British withdrawl by thousands so according to your logic violence should have shot right up. yet it has declined 55% since this summer.

Answer 6

There really is no such thing as peace when the military is there. No violence does not equal peace. The Iraqis will never work out anything until we are gone

Answer 7

well i recall that military withdrawal and diplomatic angagement were the primary recommendations of the iraq study group.

hmm...were the members of that study group a bunch of stupid liberals or what?

Answer 8

Absolutely not, only thing it will do is embolded those that wish harm to this country... better us bringing the fight to their turf than them bringing it here.

If you think these fascists respect diplomacy... you need to wake up.

Answer 9

dude, you are living in a lib dream propaganda paradise!

Answer 10

no