For All Those Who Worry About Ron Paul's Foreign Policy

[billv]

This is something that can be used when others say Ron Paul is a pacifist, that he is too weak, he'll wait too long for Iran to get a nuclear weapon. I wrote this on my blog just a minute ago:


I have seen many who have objected to Congressman Paul's foreign policy because they fear he would wait too long to go to war. However, a serious point is overlooked in this belief. Ron Paul has repeatedly said it is the duty of Congress, as outlined in the Constitution, to declare war. Ron Paul has no Constitutional power to go to war on his own, preemptively or reactively. I firmly believe that if Congress were to declare a preemptive war or a reactive war, Ron Paul, given his adherence to the Constition, would by all means fight the war to the best of his abilities. He once said about Iraq that if we're going to go to war, let's declare war, fight it, and win it. He said this despite the fact he was against it. Why? Because he respects, honors, and upholds the Constitution. Unfortunately, since the Constitution has been thrown out the door as is convenient so many times, we, as a nation, have forgotten what Constitutional government is. Ron Paul would bring Constitutional government back to the White House. Please remember, if you question Dr. Paul on his foreign policy, that he would fight any war Congress formally declares.

 

[buffalokid777]

This is something that can be used when others say Ron Paul is a pacifist, that he is too weak, he'll wait too long for Iran to get a nuclear weapon. I wrote this on my blog just a minute ago:


I have seen many who have objected to Congressman Paul's foreign policy because they fear he would wait too long to go to war. However, a serious point is overlooked in this belief. Ron Paul has repeatedly said it is the duty of Congress, as outlined in the Constitution, to declare war. Ron Paul has no Constitutional power to go to war on his own, preemptively or reactively. I firmly believe that if Congress were to declare a preemptive war or a reactive war, Ron Paul, given his adherence to the Constition, would by all means fight the war to the best of his abilities. He once said about Iraq that if we're going to go to war, let's declare war, fight it, and win it. He said this despite the fact he was against it. Why? Because he respects, honors, and upholds the Constitution. Unfortunately, since the Constitution has been thrown out the door as is convenient so many times, we, as a nation, have forgotten what Constitutional government is. Ron Paul would bring Constitutional government back to the White House. Please remember, if you question Dr. Paul on his foreign policy, that he would fight any war Congress formally declares.

Tell me Billy???

Do you work for Rudy McRomney????

I think Ron Paul has made his position clear.......

Wars are for when we've been ATTACKED! Not for Pre Emptive purposes....

We seem to forget after the Neocons....that we have a department of DEFENSE.....

I have never seen a budget item for the department of OFFENSE.....Though if the Neocons had their way we would have one.....

If congress declared war and Ron Paul was president...well we would prolly go to war, and he would do his best to fight it....But I have no doubt he would be smart enough to do everything in his power to stop a war when we hadn't been attacked....

I think Ron Paul has made it clear, pre emptive war is the realm of Rogue States and Dictators....

 

[beermotor]

Yeah - the "IRAN MUST NOT HAVE A NUKE" crowd completely ignores history and the facts, because these arguments have been used before re: USSR, France, UK, China, India and Pakistan. To say nothing of the fact that Pakistan is not exactly the most stable country in the world, and they've already got weapons.

The arguments are specious and foolish.

 

[SAVEamerica]

never mind I posted this in the wrong thread

 

[mesler]

Tell me Billy???

Do you work for Rudy McRomney????

I think Ron Paul has made his position clear.......

Wars are for when we've been ATTACKED! Not for Pre Emptive purposes....

We seem to forget after the Neocons....that we have a department of DEFENSE.....

I have never seen a budget item for the department of OFFENSE.....Though if the Neocons had their way we would have one.....

If congress declared war and Ron Paul was president...well we would prolly go to war, and he would do his best to fight it....But I have no doubt he would be smart enough to do everything in his power to stop a war when we hadn't been attacked....

I think Ron Paul has made it clear, pre emptive war is the realm of Rogue States and Dictators....

The OP has a very valid point, and it should be heeded.

The point he was making was that RP would have gone to war with Iraq IF Congress did its' job and debated it, voted on it as a matter of national defense, and it was the will of the people.

 

[beermotor]

Of course, if Congress did its damn job, there'd be no need to go to war, because they'd see there was no reason to do so . . .

 

[LibertyEagle]

I think buffalo makes a good point too. Ron has talked about his plan to find Osama in post-debate interviews and in speeches, but he hasn't in the debates. Therefore, most people have only heard him say we should get out of Iraq, but haven't heard him say what he would do instead. Unfortunately, if people have not done their homework, they might think he's weak on national defense. Of course, the opposite is true. So, we have to be ready to counter their claims when we see them.

The way it stands now, these people are getting constant propagandic bombarding from the neocons on FOX news.

 

[Delivered4000]

You also need to mention that he did indeed vote FOR going after Osama bin Laden, but AGAINST the Iraq war.

 

[IrrigatedPancake]

He personally is against preemptive wars, but as President, he would be constitutionally obligated to carry out such a war if Congress decided to declare it.

 

[angelatc]

I think Billy has an excellent point. If Congress declared war, then I believe that Ron Paul react as if we aere at war.

It's pretty simple - if you want to know what Ron Paul would do, then read the Constitution and see what he is supposed to do.

 

[lucky]

Ron Paul has never said we would go to war only if we were attacked that I know of. He has said several times that war is necessary only if it is in our National interests to do so. That does leave some latitude though as who determines what is in our National interests? Many could argue that Middle East Oil is in our national interests. Also I did hear him say if we had to help our friends. I believe also that helping our friends in time of need is the right thing as we did I think with England in WWII.

As for it being a Constitutional thing. It is for Congress to declare war. In the past history from what I remember it was the President went to Congress and asked for a declaration of war. Congress debated it and argued and voted to do so or not. Only then did the President have the ability to go to a war footing and fight. It is part of the checks and balances that the Constitution has to reign in one branch of Government.