Comment of the Year, by Sergeant Lewis (Concerning Paul's stance on Iran/foreign wars)

reply to post by Praetorius


Source

The military wants its personnel to participate in our democratic process -- within limits. DOD encourages active duty military members to vote, and has established several programs to help active duty personnel to register and cast absentee ballots. What career military officer or senior NCO has never had to pull a stint as unit "voting officer," or "voting NCO?" But, when it comes to actively campaigning for a specific political candidate or partisan objective, the military draws the line.

It goes on with cans and cannots and painful legal definitions.

Basically if you associate with any organization, which includes websites blogs, publications, which solicites votes in any way, you cannot represent the armed forces in any way shape or form.

reply to post by TinfoilTP

It goes on with cans and cannots and painful legal definitions.

They ALWAYS do, my friend...does it ever seem like they tend to make things infinitely more complicated than necessary...

Basically if you associate with any organization, which includes websites blogs, publications, which solicites votes in any way, you cannot represent the armed forces in any way shape or form.

Thanks for the clarity, when I'm entirely too wired to sleep I may read through it Much obliged, though.

On a sidenote - I believe the Disinformation crew just put out a new blog posting this week advising that tin (or aluminum) foil actually aids in signal transference and does NOT act as an effective shield against mental intrusion, so BE CAREFUL when producing your protective headgear out there, everyone. Remember, as Admiral Ackbar said - "It's a trap!".

reply to post by kn0wh0w

he says he's serving his country yet the wars do not, why continue fighting?
i really don't get it?

if you have trouble sleeping over the things you witness and are doing over there, why continue?

this man has it figured out completely yet doesn't act upon his knowledge.

if you really feel this way, quit the army.

I can think of many many reasons.

#1. It is called AWOL and it results in prison time if you leave! They have you under contract.
#2. He said he tries to keep his men safe. He has responsibilities there. He probably also tries to minimize collateral damage and feels like if he left, more innocent people might be harmed.
#3. He probably wants to defend this country in the proper manner. He probably serves, and prays for a day when he will only serve the will of the people, instead of the whim of the corporations.
#4. It is a job, a career, and he likely has a family and bills at home. He can't just walk away and lose benefits and pay in this economy.
#5. When he joined many years ago, things were likely different. The military has changed to become almost unrecognizeable since the Great Wars. He might have been proud to carry on a family tradition from the days when serving one's country really meant something.

My grandfather served in Korea, and when he returned home, he stepped off the plane, shed his uniform, and never talked about it again. After he died, we found out he had been a Ranger, and he had won some awards, and he had been blown out of truck, lost most of a platoon, and saved some of his compatriots. He never felt proud about a single thing he had done there. He hated the military, refused to use his benefits, and refused to speak of it.

When our fighting men are saying stuff like the OP here, we know the country has lost its way. This has been going on for 50+ years.

We need Ron Paul to correct it.

This guy sounds awesome! Part of the machine, yet his brain can still function on the basis of his own soul.

Very nice to hear a sergeant tell it like it is. "Stick our noses in other people's business." LOVE IT
I don't know about anyone else, but I'm tired of hearing the same old rhetoric about how US troops are abroad defending our freedoms and defending liberty. Just stop. No one 5000 miles away is trying to take away OUR liberty. Perhaps some in Washington are, but this idea that the US needs to take care of what other nation's youth should be doing is wrong. It's a waste of American life and money.

BRING THEM ALL HOME (so they can collect unemployment )

Seems like that ol boy had something to say in reply. Since we are presenting opposing views here, lets look at both.

Hey Sgt. Lewis,
Yes, I would call you a Paul-tard to your face and you're service and tougimpresses hardly enough to impress me. I'm a double amputee and a former Sergeant in the United States Marine Corps (2nd MarDiv, 26th MEU) so don't assume what I would and wouldn't do. You know what ARMY stands for don't you? Ain't Ready for the Marines Yet. Don't act all tough because you did some poggie tour behind a desk.

I should probably adress this to JB, since it's pretty obvious who wrote it!

Now, if we can move beyond the measuring of our genatalia, any tough guy on the Internet is rabid and blind, especially if you fail to recognize Paul naive and non-existent foreign policy to begin with. Your ignorant isolationist views are more dangerous than any realism in foreign policy, JB.
@Dupree - You obviously have no clue what realism is. You're trying to equate the role of the United States over 200 years ago with the world today - that's dangerous.
@Livertarian - So, your point is that we should just trust that Iran, a State dedicated to the destruction of the United States and its allies, will build the bomb and not use it? You obviously have a lack of understanding on nuclear non-proliferation.

Truly, thank you Paul-tards for sticking out your rabid blind ignorance and showing why no one cares about Ron Paul, except YOU!!!

Get a life kiddo.BY Brian Barton on 08/16/2011 at 12:41

edit on 16-8-2011 by Nephalim because: (no reason given)

reply to post by Nephalim


People don't understand Paul's view.

He isn't "pro-Iran Nuke," he just says that he understands why they would want one. Israel has 300 or more, Pakistan and India both have them, and Iran needs a defense.

Paul's main view is that we should be using diplomacy, not trade sanctions and threats. Reagan used diplomacy with the USSR and it worked! The Berlin wall came down, and eventually the Iron Curtain came down.

Paul is right on point, but it seems people are only half-listening. He isn't advocating on Iran's behalf, he is saying that our current policy is stupid, because we are refusing to even try diplomacy.

Paul also points out that his policy on Iran is equivalent to George Bush's! It isn't some radical fringe stance, it is just a common sense stance.

Paul also points out that Iran can't even provide gas and energy to their population, they are still at least a decade from a Nuke. We can attack at will, why even bother threatening and sanctioning. Instead, we could offer to sell them gasoline, and partner with them on their energy plans, and build diplomatic bridges into the country.

Lets not forget either, Iran was a Democracy before the US intervened in the 1950's! This Shah leadership is a US installation. We created this monster, and now we don't want to take responsibility for it.

Paul is right at usual. Open diplomacy, build trade agreements, lighten up on the threats, and if we ever must use force, we have the means to take them out at any time. We are like a giant bully screaming at a puppy that wants a hot dog. There is no need for threats, we are far too powerful of a country to resort to these underhanded tactics.

Originally posted by TinfoilTP
Lol,
Any anonymous underaged pimplefaced mommy nippletugger could have wrote that. Or any intelligent well educated person could have pulled a gag on his supporters by writing it.

It's just a comments section. Sign up fake name and disposable hotmail address, bam you can claim to be anyone your heart desires.

The fact that people are lapping this up is funny because it is so desperately pathetic.

I highly doubt an active duty level headed Sgt. who keeps his men alive would throw his career down the waste shoot to go on political rages over the internet.

edit on 16-8-2011 by TinfoilTP because: (no reason given)

a couple years ago i always heard these guys, so called us servicemen on the bbc radio.

they loved to get somebody on to diss their country from the military perspective.

i always thought it was fake and just plain bs.

it boarded on treason to me and couldn't believe my ears.

i call bs on this too.

Originally posted by Praetorius
reply to post by TinfoilTP

 

They are not disrespectful to any politicians. The point you are trying to make that they are somehow extra special nice to Ron Paul does not hold water

I believe I just said that the troops (those donating) support Ron Paul in larger percentage than the other candidates, not that they're "extra special nice" to him or disrespectful to any of the other candidates?

I wasn't aware it was off-limits for military to ID themselves as such while supporting a candidate...I suppose it makes sense that they can't say the military in general or a specific branch supports any certain candidate.

You may not be explaining it fully - and I'll apologize for my ignorance here - but just with the way your wording it, it doesn't sound like it would be a violation since he's not doing it in the name of the armed forces, just identifying himself as one (?).

Thanks and be well.

EDIT - regardless of what I've been discussing and asking, you are correct that this comment itself is worthless beyond being a nice anecdote, granted. I'm mainly curious as to the involved military campaign finance restrictions as it seems a little more strict than I'd expect offhand.

edit on 8/16/2011 by Praetorius because: (no reason given)

don't take my word for it but i think the military throws their weight behind the POTUS. who ever it is.

they can't take sides on anyone and especially campaign for someone.

hell, what are we? zimbabwe? 3rd world politics?

reply to post by getreadyalready


I know it. There's a pretty solid consensus here on ats that Pauls the way to go. It wouldnt hurt my feelings if the guy won at all. However, I'm not going hear one view and disregard another because its suits ATS, Ron Raul or anyone else. Things don't work that way bud, you know that. One sidedness hurts our country. I think thats been made abundantly clear lately.

reply to post by fooks

don't take my word for it but i think the military throws their weight behind the POTUS. who ever it is.

they can't take sides on anyone and especially campaign for someone.

hell, what are we? zimbabwe? 3rd world politics?

Hi fooks...

If your first line is right, I'm just sad - and that would tend to disagree with the FEC donation records. I'd assume the troops would not like to support a commander-in-chief who leads them awry.

As to your 2nd line, based on what I've heard here, you may be right unless they're on private time. I guess that's subjective depending on the circumstances.

Zimbabwe, and 3rd-world politics? Well...if a horse is a horse, of course of course...kidding - but it's kind of the same thing we're doing to our currency, and I can't speak too much of our politics being all that much better than a majority of the world's, honestly...

reply to post by Nephalim


I don't mind you posting the opposing view in any way. It gave me a chance to clarify Paul's position!

Just like I don't mind any of Kro32's threads, because each and every thread provides an opportunity to talk about Paul, and educate people on his real stances and agendas.

Post up all the opposition you want, there are plenty of facts on Paul's side! He has 30 years in Congress with an impeccable record. Any misconceptions that are out there, need to be cleaned up before the primaries really get started!

reply to post by getreadyalready
Hey there, friend...that sounds awfully close to what I lost points via another mod over, mentioning a specific member...

Since that doesn't bother me, though, mucho appreciation for presenting ever challenge as an opportunity to educate. I know some are concerned about his views on certain issues - mainly entitlements - I'd hope detractors can eventually realize that those things will be passing away under our current spending limitations, and that the gov't must live according to its means just as the rest of us do.

Hopefully, there will also be a recognition that perhaps we can all take care of our own responsibilities better than the feds can on our behalf if we just take the time and effort to realize that we might be better at managing our own money and futures than are some isolated wizards in DC who have a losing track record on such matters.

Be well!

Originally posted by getreadyalready
reply to post by Nephalim

 

I don't mind you posting the opposing view in any way. It gave me a chance to clarify Paul's position!

Just like I don't mind any of Kro32's threads, because each and every thread provides an opportunity to talk about Paul, and educate people on his real stances and agendas.

Post up all the opposition you want, there are plenty of facts on Paul's side! He has 30 years in Congress with an impeccable record. Any misconceptions that are out there, need to be cleaned up before the primaries really get started!

I don't have any opposition to post on Paul really. My post was simply presenting the other view. I find it interesting that right now two soldiers in our military have such divided views. Its not odd, just totally different, Polar even.

As for where i stand with my vote, its hard to say. For me right now its either Paul or Perry. I dont see a loss in either case in my mind because both represent my views. A vote, few people outside of Texas have to make under our circumstances. Do you elect the Texas representative or the Texas Governor for President?

On one hand you have Paul who is pro-constitution, sound money and wise before war.

On the other hand you have Perry who believes in sound money, a strong military and refutes Big Government.

I think if we get Paul in, he is going to have as much of a problem as Obama has though honestly, you have 1 President against the entirety of congress on every single thing you want to do= nothing gets done.

You get Perry in, sure you may piss off a few Paul supporters, but you'll likey only have to deal with the democrats and he does still have the option to have Paul as a running mate.

As a Texan, I agree with both of them. So maybe you can understand where Im coming from as opposed to considering me a sure vote for one or the other.

reply to post by Nephalim

nothing gets done.

That would be an improvement! .

Literally. Think about it, if they had done nothing at all last month, the Debt Ceiling would not have been raised, the tax loopholes would have expired, and the credit rating would have dropped either way.

If they had deadlocked, we would have been better off.

In 2010, we joked about electing a candidate whose sole platform was to promise to do absolutely nothing, and stand in the way of anyone else that tried to do anything!! If the Congress was entirely stopped from screwing things up further, it would be an improvement for the country.

jokes aside for a second.

Not in Ron Pauls case it wouldnt.

Look at what he wants to cut. If he does nothing- again nothing gets done.

The guy doesnt want the department of education, the department of agriculture, the department of energy.. he wants to Audit the fed reserve and desolve it, he wants to pull the troops... he wants a gold standard, he cant sit back and do nothing. And once he tries to get those programs/wars pulled, special interests are going to have a field day. Surely you guys can see that comin' from a mile away. Look at what happened with the FAA, nothing got done there- people were pissed. This isn't even looking at entitlements. I mean this guy and his boy are talking massive sweeping changes and thats probably what scares the hell out of the press and the rest of the Government.

Originally posted by Nephalim

jokes aside for a second.

Not in Ron Pauls case it wouldnt.

Look at what he wants to cut. If he does nothing- again nothing gets done.

The guy doesnt want the department of education, the department of agriculture, he wants to Audit the fed reserve and desolve it, he wants to pull the troops... he wants a gold standard, he cant sit back and do nothing. And once he tries to get those programs/wars pulled, special interests are going to have a field day. Surely you guys can see that comin' from a mile away. This isn't even looking at entitlements. I mean this guy and his boy are talking massive sweeping changes and thats probably what scares the hell out of the press and the rest of the Government.

edit on 16-8-2011 by Nephalim because: (no reason given)

As far as the Dept of education: Where does America rate in the world for education???????????????(epic fail.)
As faras the dept of monsanto er..("agriculture") they've been bought by big agri.(ALSO: epic fail!!)

"massive sweeping change" is some how "scary"but:

"Fundamentally Changing America";( yes we can?) was okay??????



really Mcfly?

reply to post by 46ACE


1. Well that personal truth and view depends on things like- did you go to college, have kids in college or currently run a farm/ranch? Not to mention that ag products are the last thing we actually do consider a national staple ie actual domestic product and export?

2. Im sure the people who voted for Obama were expecting something and got something else. Thats pretty obvious. I dont recall him mentioning any of the things Paul has though aside from the troops coming home, and we see how that is going now right? They wont let the guy do it, even though people everywhere are like I think ten years of war is enough already. I may be missing something there, in which case Im sure you'll bring to my attention.

Lets not resort to being smartasses, there's no call for that, it only lessons our points.

People really should stop calling Ron Paul an isolationist. He wants to continue trade and diplomacy! Sheesh! But just to help those out who can't seem to look up the definition, I'll just post a great video (with a pretty girl to keep you focused)

reply to post by Habit4ming

When was the last time you walked past dead children that were killed by U.S. weapons? I'm glad you can sleep at night, because many times I cannot. I have children myself you self righteous SOB. If someone killed my children you can bet I would do everything in my power to seek revenge.

Exactly! We always hear about how "terrorists" killed some more US soldiers, but how are they the terrorists? In many cases US soldiers kill their family members or friends, and by trying to get payback they're terrorists?

If the mainstream media is using that logic, then they might as well turn it around and call our own soldiers terrorists, because the invasion of Afghanistan was almost no different, they killed many of our citizens, so we attacked them for payback.

Why do people think most of them are trying to kill US soldiers anyway? Imagine if tonight, China invaded the US, set up military bases all over the place, one nearby your neighborhood, and you start hearing about people you know getting killed, and over the course of several years many people that you were close with have been killed. Then sometimes people are being kicked out of their homes, but to make up for all of these things, the Chinese government gratiously brings you some food occasionally.

It's not the best analogy in the world and I left some things out, but my point is if another country invades your country and starts killing people you know and making you live in a constant state of fear and uneasiness, you're not going to sit back and not do anything about it.

America needs to stop fighting wars. Just stop altogether, every single one of them. That'll not only cut spending dramatically, but it will save lives in our country as well as many more lives in other countries.

War is stupid, and I think anybody who supports war is stupid also. Is that extreme or ignorant on my part? I don't care, I think humanity needs to start trying to resolve our issues without training a bunch of our species to kill each other, and then sending them into another territory to kill other humans that are also trained to kill each other, simply because of a decision made by a member of the species that society sees as important.

It's weird when you think about it that way and it really shows how strange and primitive the idea of war is, but maybe that's just me who sees it that way. I think conflicts don't need to be resolved by which politicians arsenal of disposable men can kill the most of the others disposable men, we are living in a seemingly civilized time period but we still act like a bunch of Neanderthals.

Ending all wars is just another step of many that we need to take to turn this quickly deteoriating society into a utopia.

Ron Paul takes a real common sense approach to not just this but many other issues. He tells it like it is, and he doesn't just repeat talking points to get applause and support, and he doesn't change his stance on issues to conform to society in order to get himself elected. He is quite possibly the most honest politician that America has seen in decades, and he follows and understands the Constitution to the letter.

How a single person can hear Ron Paul discuss his views on issues and not support him for the most part baffles me. I mean there are a few issues that we don't see eye to eye on, primarily taxing the rich, but he at least uses his common sense approach to explain his views and treats the Constitution like it was meant to be treated: with respect.

Originally posted by TinfoilTP
I highly doubt an active duty level headed Sgt. who keeps his men alive would throw his career down the waste shoot to go on political rages over the internet.

edit on 16-8-2011 by TinfoilTP because: (no reason given)

Any Sergeant would read your comment and say, "What career?". Yeah, I'm sure some Sgt. is just not going to say anything on a comment section at the Hill just so they don't lose their ability to collect food stamps for their family AND have the low paying job that comes with it.