"Close ALL Foreign Bases" vs "Phase out X&Y Bases" vs "Phase out X Bases Now, Y Later"

[unknown]

I think he has said quickly as possible.

 

[PaulStandsTall]

That Big Dog themed ad should be made immediately lol

But I do think it would sway some of the antiwar, independent vote. However, the votes gained in the GOP could more than make up for it.

 

[Babylon]

Nobody is against WWII.
Period.
To the extent that there are memes floating around stating that Paul wouldn't have gone to war against Hitler, shows just how distorted this peacenik stuff has become.

It needs to be dealt with.
There's a place for presenting Paul as a kindly old grandfather.
But, there MUST be an image presented of Paul as someone willing to nuke Iran and wipe them off the face of the earth. (assuming, of course, that there was a legitimate constitutionally authorized reason to do so.)

We need to paint the HAWKS as pussies. And we need to paint Paul as a HAWK.

How can you paint a hawk as a pussy?

Easy.

Show that they don't have the cajones to go all the way and seek a full-fledged declaration of war.

Present the idea that the threat of a Declaration of War is far more intimidating than lobbing a few cruisemissles here and there now and again.

Iran and the others would be far less likely to piss us off if the leadership understood that all it would take would be one vote in Congress, and the US would be 100% committed to taking them out. Just one vote. With a cranky old man who would love nothing more than to sign an honest-to-god Declaration of War.

 

[The Gold Standard]

Some of the questions about removing the bases around the world..
1) The reason for having the bases around the world is to make sure the oil from the gulf reaches safely. Yes it is benefiting Exxon and other major US based oil companies, but is it not true these oil companies are part of the US economy and many share holders futures depends on that (401K and other retirement savings)?
2) What if China started having bases on these countries after we moved away from them? Will not be a threat to US economy?
3) Since US becoming economically weak, is it not making sense to intimidate countries like China with our military power with our presence?

1. How do you know that is the reason? I'm sure it is part of it, but that could be accomplished in better ways that don't bankrupt us. We can maintain a strong navy, which Ron Paul supports, without the need to station hundreds of thousands of troops in foreign lands and spend billions of dollars to keep them there. We could also encourage these countries to enter the world economy by trading with them and not threatening to bomb the piss out of them if they look at us the wrong way. That way they would have a vested interest in keeping the waterways open.

2. Who cares if China wants to spread themselves too thin? They will end up like the Soviet Union or like we are now. Of course, they have shown no desire to occupy foreign lands, so why would they start doing it now?

3. The reason the U.S. is economically weak is because the burden of our massive federal spending is suffocation the economy and directing what little available capital we have into the government. The stupidest thing we could do is bankrupt ourselves trying to "intimidate China" when they know if we got into a war with them we wouldn't have the resources to fight it.

 

[Crotale]

Remember the 'Big Dog' ad with the cool fast-paced graphics?

An ad in that style regard Paul's position on 'intervention' would be awesome.

A brief shot showing a bulked-up Rambo-esque graphic and copy that says Ron Paul is the only former military member in the race. (true?)

Then something along the lines of the following, with fast-paced Big-Dog graphics behind it.

"Ron Paul's Foreign Policy? Simple. If you mess with the U.S. it's Game Over. (explosion graphics.) If Paul goes to War, it will be done right. With a Declaration of War passed by Congress...
When the US declared War on Germany, we kicked the krauts' ass.
When the US declared War on Japan, we nearly wiped them out.
Fast, Furious, and by the book [show constitution].

Want to know what happens when the US doesn't declare War, and instead leaves it up to the Chicken-Hawks and Arms Dealers and Media to make the decisions? [slow mockingly childish music plays as graphics emphasizing the endless nature of Iraq, and Afhganistan (and maybe Vietnam as well).]

When it comes to War, only Paul knows how to do it right... [graphic of a united Congress marching forward.]

Without Paul? [graphic of congressmen and pundits and whatnot pointing fingers at each other... something to signify nobody taking responsibility.]

Strong Defense.
Support of the Troops.
You mess with the US, and Paul will kick your ass. [shot of Declaration of War being executed.]
"

Anyway, that's my two cent contribution to the Ron Paul Campaign of 2012.

This. It's about selling yourself, without selling out. The OP has it all wrong.

 

[Tod]

He shouldn't back off on one of his policy cornerstones. I'm confident that he won't.

If he said tomorrow, the hell with it lets bomb Iran he could probably outpoll mittens and grinch. Is that what you want?

Realistically, it will take a while to get bases closed down and troops home anyway; planning needs to take place regarding what to do with the troops, who goes where, who does what, so it really is MORE honest/realistic to say that the process takes time than it is to say that one day they are overseas, the next they are home.

With his plans for closing cabinet level departments, he realized that the same thing needs to take place to avoid a chaotic mess, and he has articulated it a little better.

 

[69360]

Realistically, it will take a while to get bases closed down and troops home anyway; planning needs to take place regarding what to do with the troops, who goes where, who does what, so it really is MORE honest/realistic to say that the process takes time than it is to say that one day they are overseas, the next they are home.

With his plans for closing cabinet level departments, he realized that the same thing needs to take place to avoid a chaotic mess, and he has articulated it a little better.

If it takes longer in practice, then it does. But to pander in talking points undermines his policy.

 

[Root]

It makes no sense to me that we've been closing bases here in the US to support bases abroad.

 

[sailingaway]

Base closing plans take time. Bringing troops home, less time.

 

[Brett85]

He shouldn't back off on one of his policy cornerstones. I'm confident that he won't.

If he said tomorrow, the hell with it lets bomb Iran he could probably outpoll mittens and grinch. Is that what you want?

I want Ron Paul to win. Obviously, that isn't going to happen if he simply wants to appeal to his hard core voters. I don't want him to come out and say that we should bomb Iran, but there's no reason why he can't phrase his message differently and try to reassure voters who are wary of dramatic change.

 

[HOLLYWOOD]

The reason he can afford to compromise on entitlements is because his plan would immediately close down our empire. Otherwise we will default on our debt before the phase out can be finished. This is why anyone who would support one of the other candidates thinking that we don't need such dramatic spending cuts is a buffoon. We have to cut trillions now or we will be bankrupt. Soon too, not 20 years down the road.

The other option is to convince Americans that we should keep our troops in Germany and Korea and Afghanistan while we eliminate Social Security and Medicare. I'm sure that will go over well.

Protecting those Hyundais, Kias, and Samsung TVs. Protecting the Audi's, Mercedes, BMWs, FIATs Airbus, let's forget the Sangria in Spain, and everything from Japan etc... didn't also BAILOUT FIAT and sold it to FIAT?

Screwy quagmire... but in the end, these establishment NEOCONs will keep the empire and turn the debt on the people and 99% of the country into Soylent Green nation while the 1% wall off their estates and Pagan Palaces districts.

If you use FEAR, it has to cleverly crafted, or the establishment will call you a loon or the voters just won't get it.

 

[Brett85]

Should slavery have been ended full-stop, or codified in the Constitution and then kind of ended over a period of 70 year.

1. It's ridiculous to compare foreign military bases to slavery.
2. I wasn't saying that our foreign bases should be phased out over 70 years. I was talking more like a four year period. Ron could come out with a plan that would close down 25% of our bases in year one, 25% in year two, 25% in year three, and 25% in year four. That would at least sound better to people than bringing all of our troops home the first day of Ron's presidency.

 

[thehungarian]

1. It's ridiculous to compare foreign military bases to slavery.
2. I wasn't saying that our foreign bases should be phased out over 70 years. I was talking more like a four year period. Ron could come out with a plan that would close down 25% of our bases in year one, 25% in year two, 25% in year three, and 25% in year four. That would at least sound better to people than bringing all of our troops home the first day of Ron's presidency.

Stop being reasonable. All or nothing, damnit.

 

[eduardo89]

That kind of attitude is why Ron can never reach out to a wider audience and actually become the GOP nominee. It's also why someone like Rand Paul has a great chance to become President someday.

The troops should all be brought home, but there's no reason why it can't be phased out over several years.

Exactly. There's no reason why over the first three years of his presidency he can't bring home 1/3 of troops each year. Remember, it takes time to mobilize a unit for complete withdrawal from bases they've been in since 1945! (Germany, Japan, Korea, UK). Also, we'd have to build, reopen and expand bases at home for the incoming troops.

I love his proposed budget, but he needs to show more concrete transition plans. What will happen to the troops once they come home? What jobs will they be given? Obviously a couple thousand will be on the border, but we'd be bringing hundreds of thousands home. You can't expect them to sit around doing nothing.

What about the departments he wants to shut down? What will he do with the employees? What about SS and Medicare? How does he plan on phasing them out without hurting seniors?

Those are all valid questions and I think seniors, federal workers and military families are concerned about them. he needs to show that they won't get hurt by his cuts and that this mess took 100 years to make, it'll be a slow process to rectify. You can't fix the country overnight like some people here clamor for, let's be realistic.

 

[Brett85]

It makes no sense to me that we've been closing bases here in the US to support bases abroad.

Exactly. Our members of Congress always look to domestic bases to close in order to save money, all the while adding even more bases abroad. We're essentially outsourcing our bases and American jobs overseas.

 

[klamath]

No.

End the empire. No shortcuts, no exemptions, no exceptions, no excuses.

Your way sure worked didn't it. Got to make sure election Failures so we can say the system doesn't work, rght I get it..

 

[Brett85]

Your way sure worked didn't it. Got to make sure election Failures so we can say the system doesn't work, rght I get it..

Yeah, and then they'll just go back to supporting their Libertarian Party candidates who get 1% of the vote each election. But hey, as long as the candidates are 100% pure, that's all that matters, right?

 

[klamath]

Yeah, and then they'll just go back to supporting their Libertarian Party candidates who get 1% of the vote each election. But hey, as long as the candidates are 100% pure, that's all that matters, right?

In this case I believe you are talking to someone that wants nothing more than to show that elections fail. Anarchy is the only way.

 

[RP4Peace]

Thanks for the clarification

1. How do you know that is the reason? I'm sure it is part of it, but that could be accomplished in better ways that don't bankrupt us. We can maintain a strong navy, which Ron Paul supports, without the need to station hundreds of thousands of troops in foreign lands and spend billions of dollars to keep them there. We could also encourage these countries to enter the world economy by trading with them and not threatening to bomb the piss out of them if they look at us the wrong way. That way they would have a vested interest in keeping the waterways open.

2. Who cares if China wants to spread themselves too thin? They will end up like the Soviet Union or like we are now. Of course, they have shown no desire to occupy foreign lands, so why would they start doing it now?

3. The reason the U.S. is economically weak is because the burden of our massive federal spending is suffocation the economy and directing what little available capital we have into the government. The stupidest thing we could do is bankrupt ourselves trying to "intimidate China" when they know if we got into a war with them we wouldn't have the resources to fight it.

1) You are right. It is one of the reasons.
2) Make sense. But that's how the sheeples gets threatened.. Like it or not, many sheeples are comfortable and proud to be an empire. Its like the bully mentality. Particularly our previous generation lived with that feeling all their years. Something drastically bad should happen to change that.
3) Make sense.

 

[WD-NY]

Remember the 'Big Dog' ad with the cool fast-paced graphics?

An ad in that style regard Paul's position on 'intervention' would be awesome.

A brief shot showing a bulked-up Rambo-esque graphic and copy that says Ron Paul is the only former military member in the race. (true?)

Then something along the lines of the following, with fast-paced Big-Dog graphics behind it.

"Ron Paul's Foreign Policy? Simple. If you mess with the U.S. it's Game Over. (explosion graphics.) If Paul goes to War, it will be done right. With a Declaration of War passed by Congress...
When the US declared War on Germany, we kicked the krauts' ass.
When the US declared War on Japan, we nearly wiped them out.
Fast, Furious, and by the book [show constitution].

Want to know what happens when the US doesn't declare War, and instead leaves it up to the Chicken-Hawks and Arms Dealers and Media to make the decisions? [slow mockingly childish music plays as graphics emphasizing the endless nature of Iraq, and Afhganistan (and maybe Vietnam as well).]

When it comes to War, only Paul knows how to do it right... [graphic of a united Congress marching forward.]

Without Paul? [graphic of congressmen and pundits and whatnot pointing fingers at each other... something to signify nobody taking responsibility.]

Strong Defense.
Support of the Troops.
You mess with the US, and Paul will kick your ass. [shot of Declaration of War being executed.]
"

Anyway, that's my two cent contribution to the Ron Paul Campaign of 2012.

This = ballsy+genius+risky (and at this point the only way we break out is by taking some big risks).

Bravo for making it easy to clearly picture how your ad would look and sound. That's not an easy thing to do. +rep