Originally Posted by
BrianB34 
I disagree with Curlz and Dr. Paul on the point that they will not attack us here if we remove our presence from their lands. Please don't read this as being combative. It's in my nature. I'm one for spirited debate. But, even Dr. Paul has stated on numerous occasions that 11 of the 19 9/11 attackers were Saudis. A lot of the insurgents in Iraq are Saudis. How do you reconcile that with the fact that our military no longer has any presence in Saudi Arabia?
I am certainly in agreement with you GunnyFreedom on them already being here, and it's not a question of "If" but a question of "When". Why my personal weapons cache is well maintained.
I agree that we should have pulled out as soon as Saddam was captured. But, there were a lot things we should have done, but didn't.
And, the spin may work on declaring victory. It worked for Saddam in the first gulf conflict.
I'll go back and read Dr. Paul's stances on energy. Short term and long term solutions.
There is very, very little that I disagree with Dr. Paul on. I do not believe that he thinks if we pull all of our troops home, that there will be no further attacks, period. He has been talking about blowback from 1953 hitting us even today, and has stated time and again that the Middle East has a very long memory.
However, let's stipulate for the discussion that he does believe that if we bring all the troops home, the attacks will stop. What, then, is the end effect of the policy? The attacks may come, but then our troops are in the best possible place and condition of readiness to defend us.
I, for one, believe that the next round of terrorist attacks in the US will come from battle-hardened radical Islamic militants bent on bringing the Iraq insurgence to mainland USA. The best possible posture for our Armed Forces to combat that threat, will be if they are all here at our domestic bases, well rested, well trained, and with equipment at 100%.
So regardless of whether he would bring the troops home to defend us here, or he just wants to bring the troops home because he believes that the enemy will stop attacking us, the net effect of either motive will be to have our troops home, rested, and ready for the attacks here in the US which are sure to come.
If, like all the other Presidential candidates want, we remain overseas with 90% of our military, they will be too far away, very tired, and with broken equipment when the attacks start. We will have to bring them back here in "Panic Mode" which will be universally seen as a defeat for us.
Strategically, I believe our best course of action today, would be to bring all the troops home from around the world, lock down the borders, and train them to defeat an imported insurgency here on mainstreet America. Then when the inevitable attack comes, it will be swiftly and decisively defeated. Yes, that will mean the suspention of Posse Comitatus (which Bush has already suspended, by the way) but rather than permanently remove Posse Comitatus in case of "national emergency" as Bush has done, I believe President Paul would only temporarily suspend it, constitutionally, in order to defeat foreign combatants here in the US. And *not* to use the Military as a police-force against US Citizens, which is the crux of the current Bush plan.
I, too, am well stocked with ammo, and have maintained 98% efficiency against man-sized targets at 500 yards on iron sights through practice, practice, practice. I am even more motivated to do so, as I believe within 3 years we will be in a shooting war with Islamic terror within our own borders no matter who gets elected. The difference being with Dr Paul (no matter what his actual motivation is) will have the troops right where we need them, when we need them: here at home.
When the shooting starts inside the USA, I want Ft Bragg full, not empty. I want our Army and Marines HERE, not in Germany and Korea.
My only concern here, is we will need some kind of IFF to help the Military discern civilian combatants (on their side) from foreign combatants (against them).
Now, I also have concern in another direction. Specifically in regards to McCain, Giuliani, and Clinton. I believe that if any of those three get elected, we will become a fascist police state under martial law, inside of 3 years, as bad as it was under the height of fascist Germany. The draconian laws that have been put in place already under the Bush Administration are just waiting to be used, and those are the guys who would use the heck out of them. I also believe that with anti-war sentiment at 75% now, the only republican who can defeat a Democrat in the General, is Dr. Paul.
