What is Ron Paul's plan for the US Navy?

Exactly what is Ron Paul's plans for the US Navy? After all, he wants to withdraw all US forces to CONUS and close all overseas bases. I can only assume that Paul would downsize the Navy into a coastal protection force and scrap all of our aircraft carriers.

Any of you Paul supporters have the answer?

 

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CnH0dxdiRzc"]CIA Chief endorses Ron Paul. The man who hunted Bin Laden explains why. - Fox Business - YouTube[/ame]

 

Apparently not.

 

Did you miss my post?

 

No. Nothing about Ron Paul's plans for the US Navy.

 

CVNs can't be used to defend a coast?

 

Try watching the video I posted.

 

That's debatable. But let's stay on track. What are Ron Paul's plans for the US Navy?

 

I did. Very interesting. Nothing about what Ron Paul plans to do with the US Navy.

 

I might be wrong, but I would assume that maintaining the "freedom of the seas" entails the US Navy.

 

And how does he plan on doing that since he's stated several times that he plans to close all US bases on foreign soil?

 

If diplomacy fails, sending the Navy to a given locale as and when it is needed.

 

And just how is he going to do that without support, repair and refueling facilities strategically positioned around the world?

 

G'day jason ,Thinking about your question I can only answer that Ron Paul's brain and PLANNING have never occupied the same space and time .

How do you rate the Intellectual capabilities of any of the GOP candidates ?

Out of 0 being george Bush jr and 10 being Abraham Lincoln ,I reckon about minus 15 for the Newt and down to minus 20 for the rest.

It must worry you that they all make Obama look like a intellectual Giant.

I rate Obama as 0.00000000000001 BTW.

he can at least spell his name and tie his shoelaces,

Yes even you are smarter more politically astute then the current crop of the Political Duopoly.

Tell me they are joking with scraping the Aircraft carrier fleets as China starts its fleet.?

Are you doubting the next period of existance for the Great 'Super Power"no surely the only Military edge the US has going for it won't be scraped ?

Then again they are a bit loopey up on 'the hill 'Lately .You may have seen National treason what you going to do about it?

Capitalist Governments whould sell their own mothers for a set in "government"us communists on the other hand distain any Oppurtunist crap that they thrive on.

 

We can negotiate treaties with other nations such that the host nations agree to service our Navy as and when it is needed in such circumstances as may arise from time to time.

 

When has Paul said that? And is he willing to trust the security of our fleet to foreigners?

 

Making our military rely on other nations to operate effectively is about the hugest mistake you could ever make. How many enemies of ours today were our friends in the past.

 

Precisely. A prime example was the USS Cole incident.

 

He hasn't. I'm just speculating as to what his specific plans would be.

I would assume that we can trust our allies and the like to do right by us. We have countervailing duties and responsibilities towards one another and it is in our mutual interest to fulfill them to the best of our ability.

But I don't know what Paul's position on that is, exactly.

 

Hitler was Stalin's ally in world war 2 and look how that turned out.

 

First, I appreciate you being so forthright.

The fact is that the US Navy needs secure support facilities oversees in order to maintain a global capability. After all, we are talking about the most advanced nuclear navy in the world. It's not likely that our allies would be capable of matching the expertise of navy personnel.

 

Assuming that our intervention in foreign lands doesn't cause negative consequences for us militarily and economically is the hugest mistake you could make.

Most of the potential problems that people cite could be avoided entirely if we had an intelligent foreign policy.

 

I understand the economic negatives of intervention but what are the military negatives. I think when they are out there in live world experiences it makes them stronger and more experienced.

 

Or it's a prime example of blowback and foreign interventionism. It was, after all, Al-Qaeda who was likely responsible for the attack, and our presence there was the result of our ongoing and unnecessary occupation of the Middle East.

 

The Cole was attacked while it was in port in Yemen, at that time a key US ally. Port security was virtually nonexistent.

Do you agree with nRon Paul that all overseas US bases should be closed even if it places our navy in grave danger?