A Soldier's Point of View.

[hocaltar]

Hello all,

First let me say that I have known about Dr. Paul for about 5-6 years through www.lewrockwell.com. As a matter of fact when I was sitting around with my team in Iraq talking about who will be the next POTUS I mentioned that I hoped Ron Paul would run. This was in early 2006 long before he even announced his candidacy; so, I have been on the bandwagon a long time.

One of the biggest turn-offs for people that know about Dr. Paul is that he is anti-war. It is extremely important IMO that we correct this perception. Dr. Paul is anti-nation building. If you want to see the military not only donating to Dr. Paul, but openly supporting him, refer to him as anti-nation building. Not too many people in the military signed up to be policemen, myself included. We believe in a strong national defense like Dr. Paul; however, we do not believe in attacking people that pose no threat to us (even if they do hate us).

Something else, it needs to be made more clear that Ron Paul doesn't support legalizing crack, meth and heroin. He supports the states making those decisions not 535 people out in D.C. Emphasize that he wants to see the power returned to the people at the state level, becuase we are Americans and Americans are smart enough to make those decisions for themselves.

Finally, emphasize his integrity. He won't do it himself, he is almost too humble. Emphasize the "most principled voting record in the history of the U.S. Congress." Integrity, honesty and principles are what are attracting the crowds in 2008. People have had enough of the spin.

Good luck and may God bless.

 

[AlexMerced]

the anti-nation building angle is super awesome insight, I love it

 

[jake]

if war is required, declare war, get in there, WIN IT, and GET OUT

that summarizes his position on war nicely.

Iraq was: not required
not declared
not won
and still going

 

[leipo]

These are all valid critiques. Thanks for posting this.

 

[superlou]

hocaltar,
Thanks for the post. We supporters need to be careful how we portray Paul's message. Seeing the anti-war label in the USA today ad let me down a bit. I suppose the anti-war message may attract some people but probably not the Republican core that we need in the primaries.

 

[llepard]

Hello all,

First let me say that I have known about Dr. Paul for about 5-6 years through www.lewrockwell.com. As a matter of fact when I was sitting around with my team in Iraq talking about who will be the next POTUS I mentioned that I hoped Ron Paul would run. This was in early 2006 long before he even announced his candidacy; so, I have been on the bandwagon a long time.

One of the biggest turn-offs for people that know about Dr. Paul is that he is anti-war. It is extremely important IMO that we correct this perception. Dr. Paul is anti-nation building. If you want to see the military not only donating to Dr. Paul, but openly supporting him, refer to him as anti-nation building. Not too many people in the military signed up to be policemen, myself included. We believe in a strong national defense like Dr. Paul; however, we do not believe in attacking people that pose no threat to us (even if they do hate us).

Something else, it needs to be made more clear that Ron Paul doesn't support legalizing crack, meth and heroin. He supports the states making those decisions not 535 people out in D.C. Emphasize that he wants to see the power returned to the people at the state level, becuase we are Americans and Americans are smart enough to make those decisions for themselves.

Finally, emphasize his integrity. He won't do it himself, he is almost too humble. Emphasize the "most principled voting record in the history of the U.S. Congress." Integrity, honesty and principles are what are attracting the crowds in 2008. People have had enough of the spin.

Good luck and may God bless.

Thanks for the post and for your service.

Notice in the USA Today Advertisement that we emphasized strong national defense. Anti "pre-emptive" war.

My understanding is that Dr. Paul is not a pacifist per se. He just believes that war should be used for SELF DEFENSE, not as an aggressive action.

He has sited and believes very much in the Christian doctrine of "just war". As do I.


LWL

 

[steph3n]

I agree on all points

 

[acstichter]

Last weekend we spoke to a couple new recruits to the military who were working as youth police volunteers (not sure what they were called). This one young gentleman was from a long line of military men and was very proud to be joining the US military and he was also very glad to hear about Ron Paul. He was most upset that the military is being used as policeman like the OP stated. He was hesitant at first of our pitch. He asked "What is his stance on foreign policy or Defense" (something like that) and I said "Ron Paul is for a STRONG DEFENSE" I went into some detail about his positions and this young man was very supportive. He told all his fellow police volunteers at the fair and a number came over to our booth to chat. ( We were at a Republican booth on a registration drive, making good vibes between the new Ron Paul people and the old Republican Party )

 

[libertarian4321]

Hello all,

First let me say that I have known about Dr. Paul for about 5-6 years through www.lewrockwell.com. As a matter of fact when I was sitting around with my team in Iraq talking about who will be the next POTUS I mentioned that I hoped Ron Paul would run. This was in early 2006 long before he even announced his candidacy; so, I have been on the bandwagon a long time.

One of the biggest turn-offs for people that know about Dr. Paul is that he is anti-war. It is extremely important IMO that we correct this perception. Dr. Paul is anti-nation building. If you want to see the military not only donating to Dr. Paul, but openly supporting him, refer to him as anti-nation building. Not too many people in the military signed up to be policemen, myself included. We believe in a strong national defense like Dr. Paul; however, we do not believe in attacking people that pose no threat to us (even if they do hate us).

Something else, it needs to be made more clear that Ron Paul doesn't support legalizing crack, meth and heroin. He supports the states making those decisions not 535 people out in D.C. Emphasize that he wants to see the power returned to the people at the state level, becuase we are Americans and Americans are smart enough to make those decisions for themselves.

Finally, emphasize his integrity. He won't do it himself, he is almost too humble. Emphasize the "most principled voting record in the history of the U.S. Congress." Integrity, honesty and principles are what are attracting the crowds in 2008. People have had enough of the spin.

Good luck and may God bless.

Ron Paul supported the Afghanistan war, despite having reservations about how we didn't declare war.

I'd say Ron Paul isn't anti-war (he supports it when necessary), he's anti- STUPID WAR (as am I- after 26+ years in the Army, I don't mind defending the USA, but have no desire to police the world).

 

[hawkeyenick]

if war is required, declare war, get in there, WIN IT, and GET OUT

that summarizes his position on war nicely.

Iraq was: not required
not declared
not won
and still going

The war on terror WAS declared though, and Iraq is part of that

 

[derdy]

The war on terror WAS declared though, and Iraq is part of that

eh... I don't think you can declare war unless you define your enemy.

(a) IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

Emphasis mine. Basically, they didn't declare war per se, they delegated their power to declare war under the Constitution to the Executive branch.

 

[skinzterpswizfan]

bump

 

[terryhamel]

Ron Paul rightly states you can't declare a war against a tactic. That is why the war on terror is a fraud. A terrorist organization does not have allegiance to one geographic region, so you can't declare war against it. You can however, go after the people responsible another way which would be far more effective - "mark and reprisal", which is essentially bounty hunting for specific people responsible. It widens the net of hunters, both foreign and domestic, keeps the operation silent and stealthy, and minimizes cost in money and lives. Ron Paul introduced this solution to Congress, but they turned their back on it, opting for the more costly, non-effective approach being used today.

You can hear a little bit about this topic from any number of speeches or interviews, including the Seattle rally, which I recorded and added subtitles for.

http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=EF98E607FBBAD2C0