Boots on the Ground in SC - FP is the Issue that is Holding Us Back

[ohgodno]

Be patient.

***tries to be patient***

 

[AuH20]

The peace came after we packed our shit and headed home, which is what we should have done at every stage of the conflict.

With the endgame being a meaningless "peace" which resulted in more deaths.

 

[kylejack]

With the endgame being a meaningless "peace" which resulted in more deaths.

Not nearly as many as the millions that died due to us propping up a brutal dictator. Killing innocent civilians to defend a tyrant is indefensible. That blood is on our hands. Sure, people died after we left, but that's on the people that did it, not us.

We were not defending freedom or the people of South Vietnam. We were defending capitalism as a principle, and a brutal tyrant as an aside.

 

[jolynna]

I guess I am the only one who thinks Dr. Paul explains his FP positions clearly. How many times does he have to repeat the Jeffersonian non-interventionist neutral position of Peace, Trade, Friendship, and no entangling alliances? Ergo, close all foreign bases, bring the troops home, end the wars, get out of NATO, UN, WTO, NAFTA, CAFTA, GATT, etc., unilateral free-trade, end all sanctions. Pretty clear to me.

Just because he doesn't speak the language of the warmongers, hawks, bloodlusters and the war-profiteers doesn't mean he isn't articulating the position well. I do think he lacks emphasis especially concerning the erosion and danger to liberty that war, militarism, and imperialism wrought. He should also stress more the destruction of the family that war causes and civil society. War is antithesis to Civilization. If anything I think Paul can be too soft-hawkish sometimes. Of course I am probably in the minority on that position.

I think he is explaining his position just fine too.

Everyone who votes ISN'T a war-hawk. This CNN poll shows that a majority of Americans opposed our intervention in Iraq. http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm
OUr soldiers that been in Iraq and Afghanistan say it isn't worth it: http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2011/10/05/survey-veterans-say-afghanistan-iraq-wars-not-worth-it/

The stacked audience at the Fox South Carolina debate are not the only people out there. The interviews with Karl Rove that Fox viewers are exposed to over and over and over again hardly gives faithful Fox Network viewers a balanced view of world events.

Maybe being the only NON-bomb-Iran candidate makes Ron Paul the most sane candidate. Obama was elected because he promised to get us out of Iran and Afghanistan as soon as he got in office. Some have become disenchanted with Obama because he didn't keep that promise.

I LOVE Ron Paul for BOTH his domestic AND his foreign policies.

Many DO worry about "what if Iran gets nukes" but, Pakistan and North Korea--hardly hotbeds of stability--have nukes. And we aren't bombing or invading them. Plus if we take on Iran, we also take on Iran's alliances with China and Russia. Would taking on Iran and China and Russia keep America SAFE?

If we bomb a nuclear facility in Iran, what about all of the pollution from the nuclear facility getting into airstreams or the water? Some of those airstreams go over into Europe. Would polluting the middle east and Europe with nuclear fallout make this world and America safer?

With our economy in jeopardy is wasting more money in the middle east, taking away promised benefits (Ron Paul IS the ONLY candidate who has promised NOT to cut promised social security or medicare--he's giving young people under 25 the opportunity to opt out) keeping America safe?

Israel is RIGHT THERE with a huge MODERN military. They are good allies, who have shown NO hesitation about handling Iran's nuclear situation. Maybe we need to stand back and LET THEM.

I just won't apologize for Ron Paul's common sense to satisfy those who got caught up chanting at the last debate for Gingerich's and Santorum's war slogans like Jerry Springer's audiences do.

Running through the same wrong mazes, time after time after time, is going to make the U.S. a whole lot poorer, less free and LESS SAFE.

--Strictly my opinion.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

Yes, but I never supported the subsequent occupation and nation building effort that we had and still have there. I believe we should've left Afghanistan 6 months after went in there, because we had already displaced the Taliban and had Al-Quada on the run. The letters of marque and reprisal are a good idea as well, but I don't think it's a strong enough response to an attack that killed over 3,000 of our people.

I respect your opinion, but just keep in mind that you are in disagreement with Ron Paul on that issue, so don't try to speak for him.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

I didn't say that we should knock down a building with 3,000 people in it. I was criticizing that idea. But that's what a "proportionate" response would actually be, because it's exactly the same thing that happened to us.

But, I think you can support liberty and still support defending our country.

Proportional doesn't mean "the same." That's what I meant when I said you had a warped view. Proportional means you only do what's necessary. I know you have the intellect to figure this out. Reason is all that's necessary. If the people who attacked you aren't a country, then go for the people who did it, specifically. That is justified and proportional. Look it up in a dictionary if you are still confused.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

I've never really heard Ron discuss this issue, so I don't really know how anybody can say with certainly which side he would be on. It's obvious that he doesn't believe in pre-emptive war, and I believe everybody here is opposed to pre-emptive war. But he hasn't really talked about what tactics we should use during a war.

Has it ever occurred to you that maybe that's the reason he's not saying what you want him to say? Think about it.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

We can debate this all day and night. It is pretty simple, if Ron doesn't change his FP message than he is certain to fail. I listen to his debates, and his FP makes no sense unless you are very well versed. It just isn't easy to follow. He rambles, and his message isn't conherent. Last debate he went on about "military vs defense", which makes sense to us, made no sense to anyone else. Even the moderator was confused. We can continue to blame the voter, but blaming the voter does not get you elected. We have to help the voter, educate the voter, and convince the voter. It really is in Ron's court. He botches literally every FP question because he doesn't phrase it in a manner that the average voter can digest. The average voter is certainly not a war hungry neocon. They just want to rebuild the nation's economy, and be safe. The average voter does not think Ron will keep us safe. We (Ron especially) need to stop blaming them and educate them.

He needs to have clear answers: bring troops home and reallocate/open bases here in the US, protect our borders, and defend our nation through declared war if attacked or if there is an imminent threat. He needs to quit focusing on the hypothetical BS. Just say, if we are attacked (or if there is an imminent threat) that he will go to war and fight it to win it. He needs to say he is going to close foreign bases that offer limited strategic bases and move those troops to bases here. He needs to talk about protecting the borders and other "defense" related things. I don't care what the question is. Spin it back to the pillars of his foreign policy.

The thing that sucks, is Paul has by far the best foreign policy of the group, but he frames it so poorly that it makes him look like he has the worst; even to people that could easily be ideologically aligned with him. It is a ton of lost votes. I can't even count the number of people I know that believe Paul is going to let us get nuked.

He has been saying all of these things. Where have you been?

 

[GunnyFreedom]

Is that an actual Paul quote?

No, but it should be.

 

[tbone717]

Well, I have to say after tonight it looks like the language did change to a degree. There wasn't much FP tonight, but what Paul did put out there he did succinctly. I appreciated the comment about having bases in Korea, Japan and Germany. I would have loved to have him end that statement with "we even have a base in Portugal - how the heck is that benefit our national defense?"

 

[kylejack]

Well, I have to say after tonight it looks like the language did change to a degree. There wasn't much FP tonight, but what Paul did put out there he did succinctly. I appreciated the comment about having bases in Korea, Japan and Germany. I would have loved to have him end that statement with "we even have a base in Greenland - how the heck is that benefit our national defense?"

Well, Fox loves to talk FP. Most major FP conflicts for Paul have come in Fox News debates, this cycle and last.

 

[coffeewithchess]

Has it ever occurred to you that maybe that's the reason he's not saying what you want him to say? Think about it.

There was one interview, where he said, "Congress would declare war, we would specifically know our enemy, and we would go and win it decisively and come back." Something along those lines...

 

[tbone717]

Well, Fox loves to talk FP. Most major FP conflicts for Paul have come in Fox News debates, this cycle and last.

True. and btw I edited the post you quoted to say Portugal. The Greenland base is where we have our missile defense stuff, probably because of its geographic position. Bases like that I don't have as much of an issue with. I consider that more like renting space from a country for a few pieces of equipment.

 

[raystone]

That is not Ron Paul's position and he will not say it.

You're wrong. He has said he will go war, commit, win it and come home. And his constitutional no foreign aid policy means not rebuilding the country we just bombed.

If he hasn't said what you want to hear by now, then maybe that is a clue that he doesn't agree with what you say.

You've replied in this same fashion to several similar posts from others. These replies of yours are an immature, snotty, and arrogant presumption to type.

 

[Brett85]

You're wrong. He has said he will go war, commit, win it and come home. And his constitutional no foreign aid policy means not rebuilding the country we just bombed.



You've replied in this same fashion to several similar posts from others. These replies of yours are an immature, snotty, and arrogant presumption to type.

Yep.

 

[Brett85]

I respect your opinion, but just keep in mind that you are in disagreement with Ron Paul on that issue, so don't try to speak for him.

No, I have the EXACT same position on that issue that Ron Paul has. Ron Paul VOTED for the authorization that started the war in Afghanistan. He turned against the war when it turned into a nation building mission, as did I.

 

[low preference guy]

You've replied in this same fashion to several similar posts from others. These replies of yours are an immature, snotty, and arrogant presumption to type.

i agree.

 

[Johncjackson]

With a lot of the war-monger voters, the communication and finessing of the message is not the issue. It is genuine disagreement. There are many voters, especially in the Republican Party, who will not vote for anyone who supports civil liberties, opposes torture, and refuses to bomb on a whim.

This is not something the campaign doesn't "get." Being right is not popular and there have been many movements on issues that were unpopular but eventually became taken for granted as the acceptable view.

There's nothing a liberty candidate can really say to appeal to a mass of idiots without completely undermining the whole point of the campaign.

 

[Johncjackson]

War being Just and the issue of Constitutionality are 2 separate issues, BTW. A declaration of war would not make a war worthy of support. It just would remove the objection on Constitutional ( not moral) grounds.

Ron Paul saying that if he really HAD to go to war, that a Declaration, short mission with defined outcomes would be preferable, does not mean that would be good or that he would WANT to.

He's already tailoring his message to the pro war crowd more than he should. There's nowhere else to go. And I think the Afghanistan vote mention is a little bit of a backtrack and attempt to appeal to that crowd because in reality that mission did not fit the criteria he normally applies.

 

[Lord Xar]

I think Paul could decimate Newt by just saying this at the debate.

"I agree, Newt is a good debater. But a good debater will not win against Obama. Newt is everything Obama is. Big government spender, beholden to the lobbyists. Supported the Bailouts. Infact, Newt suggested in 2006 that the internet must be controlled and that the 1st amendment should be debated in regards to the internet. No, Newt will not win against Obama. His politicies, in effect, are just like Obamas. There is not contrast. If you want a nicely packaged product you elect Newt and the Obama's of the world. If you want solutions, you elect me."

or something like that. You need to let the viewers/voters see the contrast of what they are really voting for, and what is important. Once you make that connection, many I feel, will come to their senses.