Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
Latest activity
Classifieds
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Log in
Register
What's New?
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More Options
Advertise with us
Contact Us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
The Range
Law & Order
Ron Paul vs Romney on Gun Rights
Search titles only
By:
Reply to Thread
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Dale00" data-source="post: 1701830" data-attributes="member: 688"><p>You don't think we need an on-the-ground military presence in South Korea to dissuade the unstable North Koreans from attacking? </p><p></p><p>In general it is better to prevent wars than fight them. Prevention is best accomplished through strength and an important aspect of strength is having significant military resources in a region. </p><p></p><p>Your idea of forcing the host country to pay a reasonable rate for our military presence makes possible sense. But my understanding is that Ron Paul flatly wants to bring them all home. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>You don't think the Iranians will give nukes to terrorists? It would be fairly easy to slip them into land-sea cargo container ships to get them here. Ahmadinejad is unstable by most reports.</p><p></p><p>Another scenario - what about Iranian use of nukes to destroy major oil fields in the region? Or their closing the Straights of Hormuz to oil transport?</p><p></p><p>The question of who pays is very important given the poor state of our economy. Are you suggesting that Ron Paul is only posturing about bringing our forces home in order to scare our allies into paying a fair amount?</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Dale00, post: 1701830, member: 688"] You don't think we need an on-the-ground military presence in South Korea to dissuade the unstable North Koreans from attacking? In general it is better to prevent wars than fight them. Prevention is best accomplished through strength and an important aspect of strength is having significant military resources in a region. Your idea of forcing the host country to pay a reasonable rate for our military presence makes possible sense. But my understanding is that Ron Paul flatly wants to bring them all home. You don't think the Iranians will give nukes to terrorists? It would be fairly easy to slip them into land-sea cargo container ships to get them here. Ahmadinejad is unstable by most reports. Another scenario - what about Iranian use of nukes to destroy major oil fields in the region? Or their closing the Straights of Hormuz to oil transport? The question of who pays is very important given the poor state of our economy. Are you suggesting that Ron Paul is only posturing about bringing our forces home in order to scare our allies into paying a fair amount? [/QUOTE]
Insert Quotes…
Verification
Post Reply
Forums
The Range
Law & Order
Ron Paul vs Romney on Gun Rights
Search titles only
By:
Top
Bottom