Thread: Ron Paul..."And I Went" Goes Viral

Originally Posted by Iamyourfather

No, but the fact that the more hawkish candidates didn't serve is relevant

Just given raw numbers no surprise there since the majority of Americans have not served. It's just simple math there.

Originally Posted by Herkdriver

There's a vast difference between registering for a non-existent draft that all U.S. males turning 18 have to do...to having a contractual obligation with Uncle Sam as an Air Force reservist. I'm not complaining about it, it's what I signed on for...but as someone who is no longer affiliated with the services I know EXACTLY what that current reservist is going through as the war drums against Iran are starting up.

I am sure you do know what they are going through (at least what you went through), and I personally thank you for serving, but to tell me I don't understand is very condesending at best. Maybe I am different since a significant part of my family served since WWII and some still serve, I don't know, but I personally would never use force as a first choice, and I don't know of many in politics who would.

Originally Posted by Face

I am sure you do know what they are going through (at least what you went through), and I personally thank you for serving, but to tell me I don't understand is very condesending at best. Maybe I am different since a significant part of my family served since WWII and some still serve, I don't know, but I personally would never use force as a first choice, and I don't know of many in politics who would.

It's not a question of being condescending, the issue is...is military service an advantage to civilian political leadership?

Not necessarily, but Ron Paul brought up a valid point...he was drafted, and he didn't shirk his responsibility. Some may qualify that by saying, he went in as a Medical Doctor which is not the same as a draftee who goes in the infantry...

Regardless, Ron Paul did not avoid the responsibility by avoiding the draft...even with two small children to think about.

I signed on as a reservist after 10 years in active duty...I knew full well I could be activated at any time...that was my choice.

I believe that understanding that our all voluntary armed forces are ready willing and able to serve when called upon adds credence to making better choices when to utilize them...out of respect for the burden they are volunteering to take on.

In my opinion, in that context, military service gives a leader an advantage to press harder for diplomatic solutions out of a deep and sincere respect for those who will willingly place themselves in harm's way, and carry out the orders of said civilian leadership...if the decision to use force is made.

Military experience isn't essential, but I think it adds a unique perspective...

As far as my "condescending" tone, I don't know what you do for a living but I would assume you know more about that profession than someone who doesn't do that for a living. You would have a unique perspective of knowing that job better than someone who doesn't do it for living...who has never experienced it....Am I correct?

My Dad served in WWII, but does that qualify me to know the true experience of serving in that conflict?
Of course not...there is no transfer by osmosis of life experience. I served in combat service support in both OEF, and OIF...I never saw combat...never shot at bad guys, but I believe I have a shared experience with those who were also part of those operations. I guess if that comes across as "condescending" it's not my intent.

Originally Posted by Face

Just given raw numbers no surprise there since the majority of Americans have not served. It's just simple math there.

Sure.. I suppose he is just pointing out the irony of people who've not served being in such a rush to send young Americans into harm's way. The statistical probability does not wash this away.

Originally Posted by Archer0915

I never said that but how many were killed in his exact situation?

The question should be, How many did he save? Not everyone needs to be infantry, he did what he was trained to do through college. Why should he have just gone into something else?

Originally Posted by MnBillyBoy

So what happens if he finishes 3rd again ?

My guess is he runs as an independent.

Originally Posted by Wildjoker5

The question should be, How many did he save? Not everyone needs to be infantry, he did what he was trained to do through college. Why should he have just gone into something else?

Don't change this around. I said he was facing a job that was perhaps a bit safer than Newt would have faced.

But if he wants to get into it then if he did not volunteerism to go into the firefights then he has no room to criticize.

I still am glad he went and served the nation unlike many of the post draft people who went in for themselves. They serve themselves.

The title of this thread reminded me of this Forrest Gump scene.....

Forrest Gump: When I got tired, I slept. When I got hungry, I ate. When I had to go, you know, I went.
Elderly Southern Woman on Park Bench: And so, you just ran?
Forrest Gump: Yeah.

p.s. Ron Paul (the young Ron Paul in the OP picture) appears to have had an ipod.......way ahead of his time....

Originally Posted by TheLastBoyScout

My guess is he runs as an independent.

I don't really think so. If he does, his son would have a lot to explain when he starts "banging the drum" he wants to run for the same office his father is now.

Running as an independent would ensure a 2nd term for Pres. Obama.

Ron Paul has a big enough following to effect what will no doubt be a tightly contested election.

I would hope for the good of the Nation he doesn't run as an independent...

Even a pseudo-Democrat like Mitt Romney is better than 4 more years of Obamacare and food stamps...

IMHO of course.