Dr. Paul's Foreign Policy is #1 issue for Republicans

[centure7]

It is not war it is defence. The majority of the people want out of the afgan war. What is the nuts and bolts defence posture that RP envisions for the US. I have started other threads on this. The americans have for sixty years been told we need foreign bases to defend ourselves if attacked, RP says he is closing them all. What is the actual military structure to take care of the loss of foreign bases. He was asked in an interview what he would do if the suez canal was closed and he said he would evaluate it and if he thought it was necessary to our national defence he would go to congress and get a declaration of war. Great! But how would he get american firepower there without foreign bases? He has railed against the MIC so hard republicans believe he is going to eliminate all defence systems built by the defence industry.

I see what you're saying. So, Ron Paul should come out with a defense plan just like he came out with an economics plan. The weakness of his economics plan is it wasn't spear-headed by any prominent economist like it should have been. For his military plan, he should get military consultants to spear-head the plan and share credit. I didn't realize Republicans believe the laughable idea that a $500 billion defense would be weak under Paul.

 

[klamath]

Why do you spell 'defense' the British way?

Just curious. Fact is, Republicans are going to have to choose. They can nominate our antiwar man, or they can continue to argue in favor of being in Iraq where the yellowcake uranium wasn't, and in Afghanistan where bin Laden wasn't, and lose. Period.

And the nation with more, and bigger, aircraft carriers than all other nations combined, and a dozen varieties of Landing Craft _________ (tanks, troops, trucks, what have you got?), and at least half a dozen different massive transport planes which can all land on runways of less than a mile in length, can and will deliver kickass to wherever it wants to deliver it. With or without bases.

Hanging out on too many British sites
And what of these is he going to eliminate? Sure we have those now but the impression RP has left is he is going to eliminate these.

 

[klamath]

I see what you're saying. So, Ron Paul should come out with a defense plan just like he came out with an economics plan. The weakness of his economics plan is it wasn't spear-headed by any prominent economist like it should have been. For his military plan, he should get military consultants to spear-head the plan and share credit. I didn't realize Republicans believe the laughable idea that a $500 billion defense would be weak under Paul.

Exactly. All republican voters don't eat sleep and drink RP but they hear sound bites that appear to make him weak on defense.

 

[jasonxe]

good insight with what we're dealing with.

 

[CJLauderdale4]

The one debate where Ron mentioned how we are focusing more on the border between Afghanistan and Pakistan than the border with Mexico, and that he would put troops on the Mexican border to handle the drug lord skirmishes was perfect.

It's not hawking - it's re-aligning the security priorities.

 

[libertygrl]

spot on. Not only terrorism, but it seems a quite a number of people fear "creeping sharia law" as well and believe it would grow under his administration. From what I'm seeing, these people are often Cain supporters because of the very anti-muslim positions he has taken.

OMG. That is a BIG issue with conservatives. They keep citing Sharia Law to me. They show me examples of where this is happening and I don't doubt that there are some groups that have been attempting this on our own country. But we still do have a constitution don't we? (barely but I mean, it's still there)

 

[BlackTerrel]

I have talked to NUMEROUS people that agree with Dr. Paul on everything except his foreign policy.

I think to get over the 10% hump, he needs to really push and explain his foreign policy.

MANY people are afraid of the Islamic Terrorists and fear that Dr. Paul will weaken our security. This needs to be addressed by his campaign.

People need to understand they are connected. The number one issue why I support Ron Paul is the economy not foreign policy - BUT what people have to realize is that spending a trillion dollars to wage war overseas has a huge negative impact on the economy. It's bankrupting us.

 

[jmdrake]

spot on. Not only terrorism, but it seems a quite a number of people fear "creeping sharia law" as well and believe it would grow under his administration. From what I'm seeing, these people are often Cain supporters because of the very anti-muslim positions he has taken.

It's funny but the only reason there is Sharia law in Iraq now is because we overthrew Saddam Hussein. The same is true for Libya. Most right wing douchebags on talk radio recognize that what happened in Libya has made us less safe. If Ron can draw the connection between Libya and Iraq he wins without compromise. He must educate the voting public how fearing Sharia shows lack of faith in God.

 

[GeorgiaAvenger]

Some might not like this, but here is how he becomes more likeable:

He openly talks about military strategy, how to improve the military, how to watch the threats of the world.

I think he should shred the pacifist label and come out with a general mentality, with both leading to the same conclusion.

 

[roversaurus]

How about this scenario....

If Congress declares war I will prosecute that war to my fullest abilities. Win it and bring our soldiers home. I will not run off nation building half way around the world spending American tax money and endangering American lives. And I will NOT go to war without a Constitutionally required declaration of war.

A follow up question might be, "But when would you seek a declaration of war?"
Answer: "If America is attacked or seriously threatened. I don't want to go in to a series of hypotheticals the rest of the world does listen to what candidates for president say."

 

[acptulsa]

And what of these is he going to eliminate? Sure we have those now but the impression RP has left is he is going to eliminate these.

Eliminate? He never gave me the impression he was going to eliminate. Maybe some of those night vision goggles that keep getting bought on some Washington state senator's earmarks that don't work worth a damn, or a supperannuated class or two, but completely eliminate a useful type? Noooo.....

Toob or it didn't happen. Just because he's not about offense doesn't mean he's not all about defense.

 

[anaconda]

Agree with OP. Seems like all the major mainstream guys use the same meme. Ron needs to be portrayed as a bad muther f*cker who will kick a$$ and take names.

I've been saying this for aeons. He needs to stop saying we can't be occupying foreign countries "because we're broke." He needs to say that we are spread out too much and that we have gaps and weaknesses in our defenses and that he is appalled at how porous our defenses are. Then he needs to articulate a military plan for defense of the North American continent that he develops in consultation with military experts that are sympathetic to his views. He headed a little in that direction with the recent TV add but it wasn't nearly enough. He is almost out of time for this. He needs to reinvent himself by tomorrow as the most bad ass defense candidate. He should make it his highest priority topic for many weeks. Just go really overboard with it.

 

[klamath]

Eliminate? He never gave me the impression he was going to eliminate. Maybe some of those night vision goggles that keep getting bought on some Washington state senator's earmarks that don't work worth a damn, or a supperannuated class or two, but completely eliminate a useful type? Noooo.....

Toob or it didn't happen. Just because he's not about offense doesn't mean he's not all about defense.

It is not you he is trying to sell to, as you are part of his ten percent base it is the voters that don't spend nearly as much time researching. The Key phrase RP repeatedly uses is "Military industrial complete". That was used for years by people that WANTED to cut defense, no if buts or maybes. It sends the message that he hates the weapons systems makers and wants them cut out of the budget.
RP cannot get by with just a "I am for a strong defense". He is the only presidential candidate in 70 years that states he is scrapping 70 years of American defense strategy. That is scary. He has to show how it would work with a detailed defense plan backed up by national defense experts.

It does not help that many of his supporters imposed their own views as RP's when they say the standing Army is not authorized by the constitution and should abolished and left for a ragtag group of militia. Any military buff knews the history of how badly the militias performed in most battles.

 

[klamath]

I've been saying this for aeons. He needs to stop saying we can't be occupying foreign countries "because we're broke." He needs to say that we are spread out too much and that we have gaps and weaknesses in our defenses and that he is appalled at how porous our defenses are. Then he needs to articulate a military plan for defense of the North American continent that he develops in consultation with military experts that are sympathetic to his views. He headed a little in that direction with the recent TV add but it wasn't nearly enough. He is almost out of time for this. He needs to reinvent himself by tomorrow as the most bad ass defense candidate. He should make it his highest priority topic for many weeks. Just go really overboard with it.

Somebody that get's it.

 

[klamath]

Eliminate? He never gave me the impression he was going to eliminate. Maybe some of those night vision goggles that keep getting bought on some Washington state senator's earmarks that don't work worth a damn, or a supperannuated class or two, but completely eliminate a useful type? Noooo.....

Toob or it didn't happen. Just because he's not about offense doesn't mean he's not all about defense.

I don't know what Night vision goggles you are refering to but NVD's are a life and death issue for troop survivial. I know for one that if I had been forced to fly night unaided formation flights in Iraq I probably wouldn't be here. NVD's are the life blood of American defense superiority. Have you worked with or without them in a combat situation?

 

[Badger Paul]

"He needs to stop saying we can't be occupying foreign countries "because we're broke."

But we are and it is the truth. The military isn't a jobs program nor should it be a font of porkbarrel spending so 99% percent of the country has to subsidize some poor-ass district somewhere because their Congressman happens to sit on the House Armed Services Committee.

You cannot cut the size of government unless you can cut it across the board and if you don't wish to do so because you think defense spending is "non-negotiable" then quit talking about "reducing the size government" then, because you have no desire to do so.

 

[roversaurus]

It's a Constitutional matter.
If Congress declares war President Paul will execute that war. Win it. And come home. He will not stay for 10 years trying to fix an internal civil war and build up their nation. We go to war to destroy nations. Not build them.

 

[InTradePro]

I have talked to NUMEROUS people that agree with Dr. Paul on everything except his foreign policy.

I think to get over the 10% hump, he needs to really push and explain his foreign policy.

MANY people are afraid of the Islamic Terrorists and fear that Dr. Paul will weaken our security. This needs to be addressed by his campaign.

It's not the #1 issue. What you mean is it's the #1 negative issue in regards to Dr Paul.

Btw, the #1 issue is the economy. Foreign policy is only 5% importance for GOP voters generally.

 

[sailingaway]

This interview today helps, in my opinion:



It won't help with everyone, but it gives a bit of his side in a nonconfrontational manner. He isn't being painted as a 'bad guy' for thinking it, for once.

 

[klamath]

It's not the #1 issue. What you mean is it's the #1 negative issue in regards to Dr Paul.

Btw, the #1 issue is the economy. Foreign policy is only 5% importance for GOP voters generally.

It IS the number one Issue why Republicans WON"T vote for RP and the OP made that abundently clear in the text of his post.