7 votes

Question about Dr. Paul wanting military to come home.

I have a friend, her husband is a Vietnam vet. He says he can't vote for Dr. Paul because he does not agree with the military coming home as they would not have jobs and would be devastated not working.
I don't know what to say to convince him otherwise.
Any suggestions much appreciated.

Thanks in advance!

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Peace emerges to save war...

Since many of the commentators below have already offered the original poster many good suggestions, I challenge my fellow DPers to take this subject outside of the box and to deepen this dialogue.

My colleague, a wise man, has spent a lifetime working on this problem. Recently, he has drafted the following excerpts. He requests anonymity at this time, and since the quotes are out of the context of a much greater volume of work, I offer it only for the purpose to further this discussion.

...Perhaps the unimaginable nightmare of World War III can now be seen in a new light, as a war fought by all of the world’s armies against the advance of life’s worst and most formidable enemy in the history of planet Earth, namely, the advance of, a “planetary compounded environmental effect” which is the monstrous summation of all or our pollution sources, drastically changed ecosystems, over exploited food stocks, depletion of soil, water and mineral resources... (a long list of environmental calamities continues here) ...All of which is orchestrating an ongoing major mass extinction event; the sixth in the history of the world.

One can only gasp at the magnitude and determination of the advancing enemy in contrast to the casual attitude with which we treat these crises in the absence of knowing what to do besides more of the same. Denial is such a poor surrogate for having the courage to try something rational, noble and creative.

...(But, these new ideas are) showing us an alternative aesthetic pathway where:

“Peace emerges to save war, so that a new kind of war can help to create a different world that can emerge in peace with itself.”

I would be pleased to read your feedback. Please comment.

Dr Paul has never stated, he was

going to force them out of the military. He just believes they need to come back to defend America, spend their 'military paychecks' here at home, instead of nations abroad. How does spending their money here hurt the economy???
It would strengthen our economy with billions of dollars being spent in America, instead of Iraq, Germany, Japan, Phillipines, ect devaluing the dollar. If money continues to leave America, the Fed has to print more, thus devaluing it's value, causing prices to inflate in the market making his SS buy less. It should be a 'real simple' explanation for a Ron Paul supporter!

Several points I saw in

Several points I saw in comments.

Bastiat's That Which is Seen and That Which is Unseen is a great start to look at it from an economic stand point.

While need troops to defend ourselves here and our own borders is a great argument for defense purposes.

I personally lean towards the economics so it basically is money spent hiring those troops will be returned to taxpayers thus freeing up capital to create more jobs. As Ron put it, after WW2 we brought 10 million people home and slashed the budget by 60% and that finally brought us out of the depression and everything worked out fine.

Commerce with all nations, alliance with none, should be our motto. - T. Jefferson rЭVO˩ution

"Everyone wants to live at the expense of the state. They forget that the state wants to live at the expense of everyone.” - BASTIAT

Different Era

Coming home from Vietnam was hell for soldiers, the people at the time blamed them so they were outcasts and had trauma and could not get jobs...Different now, we dont blame soldiers at all, we are still behind them, we honor them when we can, I just WISH I was coming home to a welcome like they will get..jobs will be plentifull. Rather have one of these guy/gals working for/with me than a lot of the people still here.

We pay for the "privilege" of defending other peoples.

We would save billions simply by using the shuttered bases here in the states. No one would be mustered out early. Civilian employees leave by attrition every year. Confidence in the US due to a reduced or nonexistent balance-of-payments deficit would spur business growth here.

I understand that it's good

I understand that it's good to take things slow with people when talking about these things but sometimes you just have to be frank. Fighting wars, killing people, blowing things up, and taxing the American people to do it just so soldiers can have jobs is flat out EVIL. Maybe you can think of a cordial way to tell this to your friend but I would definitely show him his ignorance.

And you can always throw in the fact that Ron Paul gets more donations from active duty military than all other candidates combined. The troops want to come home.

It's a volunteer military, they have enlistments

Coming home doesn't mean getting thrown out of the military, it means being in your own country training and being ready to defend it if necessary.
Aggressive war is not a jobs program.

A few things: 1) As others

A few things:

1) As others have mentioned, his argument is partly based on the broken window fallacy. Look at WWII, where we had millions come home, and our economy boomed
2) Ron Paul isn't advocating firing soldiers. I don't even think his plan calls for cutting the number of personnel substantially. Those who come home would protect this country.

Talk about DU (Depleted Uranium)

This is something most people have not heard of. You will probably want to look this up on the internet. Do a search for "Depleted Uranium Munitions War". The MSM and establishment is OBVIOUSLY working to make sure these stories are NEVER told. This is horrific. Your husband and any person in the military is exposed to this stuff. Its killing them slowly and very painfully. Not even the descendents of terror deserve this. Noone on earth deserves this sort of living hell.

Here are some links to get you started:

http://www.rense.com/general70/du.htm

http://www.ccnr.org/du_hague.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rtRs3EHbKyY&feature=player_em...

http://www.rense.com/general70/deathmde.htm
http://www.rense.com/general17/south.htm
http://www.rense.com/general93/roth.htm
http://www.rense.com/general63/mme.htm
http://www.rense.com/general64/du.htm
http://www.rense.com/general33/depl.htm
http://www.rense.com/general63/dub.htm
http://www.rense.com/general87/down.htm

Does your friend's husband believe our southern border is

sufficiently well guarded?

That's the border our troops should be protecting, not one on the other side of the world. Not to mention that more of the money would circulate in our economy, as opposed to being spent overseas.

Most of our military will not be out of a job, period....

Most of Guardsmen, and Reserve have a job waiting for them when they get home, and that is by law, unless the company has gone under, but most of our military will have jobs. Tell him to do some research, and stop listening to the media, our media in the U.S. want continuous war, that is what pays for our media to stay in business. Yes, I am ex-military, and most of our men, and women in the middle east would rather be home with their families instead of the middle east worrying whether they are going to be blown up at night while sleeping for the big Government/Corporate warfare/welfare. Most of our military would rather spend their paychecks at home with their families instead of some God forsaken land in the Middle East.

Keynesian nonsense

Read up on "The Seen and Unseen" and the "broken window fallacy."

The fact that the soldiers have jobs blowing stuff up is not good for the economy. Quite the opposite. They consume enormous amounts of fuel that we must pay for, and there are all the expensive war machines to pay for. We would be better off paying the soldiers to stay here at home and do nothing - even better off letting them get real jobs.

Look at what happened after WWII. The country had been in a depression for 16 years. The soldiers came home and were discharged. Federal spending was cut by two thirds. The economy quickly recovered, and the people enjoyed decades of unprecedented prosperity.

Ĵīɣȩ Ɖåđşŏń

"Fully half the quotations found on the internet are either mis-attributed, or outright fabrications." - Abraham Lincoln

Four million came home after WWII. They got to work.

Government spending was also slashed so taxes were low. Business could earn the money they needed to survive and grow, instead of sending it to the government. I had six uncles who served, they were just glad to be home.

Free includes debt-free!

I've come across this

I've come across this argument several times. My general response is along the following lines:

Why would they not be working? Bringing our soldiers home is not the same thing as firing them from their jobs. We will still need a military. The only difference is that our soldiers will be physically here in the United States instead of spread out in 900 bases all over the world. Each of our overseas bases requires resources. Most of our bases inject significant amounts of money into the local economies surrounding them. Why don't the local economies in the U.S. surrounding our many empty military bases deserve the available work and earnings from supporting the needs of large domestic military bases? Every one of our worldwide bases drains financial resources out of the U.S. into the supporting local foreign economies while if they were in the U.S. the money would flow into our local communities, especially at a time like this when we really need it. Bringing our soldiers home and repopulating empty military bases in the U.S. will create even more U.S. jobs in supporting roles for those bases and for the soldiers.

...