Good Reply to accusations that Ron would be soft on terror

[billv]

In my opinion, the best answer to allegations that Ron Paul would be soft on the war on terror because he believes in non-intervention is that it doesn't matter. That it doesn't matter if he personally believes in non-intervention or not. It is Congress that has the power to declare war, not the President. Unfortunately, many have forgotten that because of the unilateral action of past Presidents to take us to war without a declaration of war from Congress. Ron Paul's non-interventionist position would only serve to insulate us from the threat of the President sending us to war.

The case could also be made, well what if Congressman Paul doesn't want to go to war, wouldn't he keep us from going even in the case of an authorization. I doubt it for the simple fact that he opposed the war in Iraq but essentiall said that if we are going to go, let's declare it in Congress, fight it to win it, and get out of there. He still has private reservations about the wisdom of it but he knows his role Constitutionally. The President must defer himself to the will of Congress in this matter. That is how I believe he would handle foreign policy.

How about some feedback on this? I'd like to strengthen it some if it needs it.

 

[Gee]

You could also point out that he is flat out harder on terror than the other canidates, who don't seem to support going after bin Laden. They seem to think staying in Iraq is being "hard on terror" when the only terrorists in Iraq are the ones we've created by being there.

 

[enter`name`here]

I don't see how you can be any weaker on terrorism then by forgetting about the people responsible for 9/11, and instead invading a country that had nothing to do with orchestrating 9/11.

 

[WhiteWhaleHolyGrail]

In my opinion, the best answer to allegations that Ron Paul would be soft on the war on terror because he believes in non-intervention is that it doesn't matter. That it doesn't matter if he personally believes in non-intervention or not. It is Congress that has the power to declare war, not the President. Unfortunately, many have forgotten that because of the unilateral action of past Presidents to take us to war without a declaration of war from Congress. Ron Paul's non-interventionist position would only serve to insulate us from the threat of the President sending us to war.

The case could also be made, well what if Congressman Paul doesn't want to go to war, wouldn't he keep us from going even in the case of an authorization. I doubt it for the simple fact that he opposed the war in Iraq but essentiall said that if we are going to go, let's declare it in Congress, fight it to win it, and get out of there. He still has private reservations about the wisdom of it but he knows his role Constitutionally. The President must defer himself to the will of Congress in this matter. That is how I believe he would handle foreign policy.

How about some feedback on this? I'd like to strengthen it some if it needs it.

Good point. Dr. Paul could tell the American people he will not bring the country into war without a Congressional war declaration.

 

[SeanEdwards]

I'd point out that he is the only candidate that is serious about controlling the nation's borders. Trying to fight a war on "terror" without controlling entrance to the country is freakin stupid.

 

[NMCB3]

Unless its a state sponsored attack its a moot point. You can`t declare war on a tactic, i.e. terrorism. The whole "war on terror" makes no sense. Terrorists are criminals that use terrorism to accomplish their goals. You can`t declare war on an idea.

 

[billv]

I've been reading more documents on Congressman Paul's Congressional website. He makes a lot of sense and the more I read, the more I doubt he'd be soft on defense.

 

[mrapathy]

Unless its a state sponsored attack its a moot point. You can`t declare war on a tactic, i.e. terrorism. The whole "war on terror" makes no sense. Terrorists are criminals that use terrorism to accomplish their goals. You can`t declare war on an idea.

thats a excellent point though. a war on idea. is a good quote on idea's.

from the Movie V for Vendetta dont recall where else

We are told to remember the idea, not the man, because a man can fail. He can be caught, he can be killed and forgotten, but 400 years later, an idea can still change the world. I've witnessed first hand the power of ideas, I've seen people kill in the name of them, and die defending them

will the US really extinguish an Idea.

it would be nice to see the troops redeployed to get Osama and secure the borders.

Terror \Ter"ror\, n. [L. terror, akin to terrere to frighten,
for tersere; akin to Gr. ? to flee away, dread, Skr. tras to
tremble, to be afraid, Russ. triasti to shake: cf. F.
terreur. Cf. Deter.]
1. Extreme fear; fear that agitates body and mind; violent
dread; fright.
[1913 Webster]

Terror seized the rebel host. --Milton.
[1913 Webster]

2. That which excites dread; a cause of extreme fear.
[1913 Webster]

Those enormous terrors of the Nile. --Prior.
[1913 Webster]

Rulers are not a terror to good works. --Rom. xiii.
3.
[1913 Webster]

There is no terror, Cassius, in your threats.
--Shak.
[1913 Webster]

Note: Terror is used in the formation of compounds which are
generally self-explaining: as, terror-fraught,
terror-giving, terror-smitten, terror-stricken,
terror-struck, and the like.
[1913 Webster]

that brings us to the politics of fear. left at the mercy of Terrorist or Authoritarian if not Totalitarian Tyrants to protect us.

"Freedom is not defined by safety. Freedom is defined by the ability of citizens to live without government interference. Government cannot create a world without risks, nor would we really wish to live in such a fictional place. Only a totalitarian society would even claim absolute safety as a worthy ideal, because it would require total state control over its citizens’ lives. Liberty has meaning only if we still believe in it when terrible things happen and a false government security blanket beckons." ~Ron Paul, Security and Liberty 04/25/2007

lookup switzerland style of defense. the 2nd amendment of the bill of rights was designed to be similar but its long been subverted.
citizens in this country divided by military,law enforcement,politician. Authoritarians with privileges and immunities we all do not enjoy which subverts constitution some and some states constitution directly without drawing much care. Iowa a good example though no 2A equivalent in Iowa Constitution.

many have grown complacent,apathetic,malleable in mind and out of shape in body. society that with aid of new technology.
could be enslaved in Totalitarianism. Incrementalism works so does public relations/propaganda. years of Authoritarianism

can find a good James Madison quote warning on that. slow increment or slide rather than a fast violent overthrow.

Nazi's didnt invade Switzerland during WW2 despite being important crossroad in Europe.

most countries with Militia type army have proven very hard to defeat its why they are feared by Tyrants seeking unchallenged power.

James Madison said it best on the most natural defense of a nation and freedom.
though believe people with guns should be heavily engrained with firearm safety when young.
what good are schools if they dont teach something as basic as dont hurt your fellow American.
nice ideal but is situations where that deserves neutral resistance or self defense.
certainly should not be forced upon everyone.

 

[angelatc]

Seeing the troops redeployed to find Osama might actually get cheers.

I wouldn't mind asking him more about this myself. What about WWII? I know very little - history isn't a strong point of mine. But from what I gather, Japan bombed us first (duh), but we had done lots of political type things to drive them to that point.

So we retaliated.

Would RP have dropped the bomb?

If we had not been attacked by Japan, would we indeed be speaking German these days?

 

[billv]

To quote Ron: "Let's declare war, let's fight it and win it."

He argued we didn't send enough troops into Afghanistan and that is probably part of the reason we are having problems there still.

 

[denvervoipguru]

Remind people that He's a Combat Veteran

It's important to remind newbies of this because to some, Ron Paul comes' off as a bit "timid" or "weak"...maybe due in part to his age and partly to his stature.

By the way, I think his suits need to be fitted little better, they seem to be too big on him sometimes which is not flattering...

Anyway...

Just need to include this fact in our answers regarding his position on war, etc.

 

[Carl_S]

In my opinion, the best answer to allegations that Ron Paul would be soft on the war on terror because he believes in non-intervention is that it doesn't matter. That it doesn't matter if he personally believes in non-intervention or not. It is Congress that has the power to declare war, not the President. Unfortunately, many have forgotten that because of the unilateral action of past Presidents to take us to war without a declaration of war from Congress. Ron Paul's non-interventionist position would only serve to insulate us from the threat of the President sending us to war.

The case could also be made, well what if Congressman Paul doesn't want to go to war, wouldn't he keep us from going even in the case of an authorization. I doubt it for the simple fact that he opposed the war in Iraq but essentiall said that if we are going to go, let's declare it in Congress, fight it to win it, and get out of there. He still has private reservations about the wisdom of it but he knows his role Constitutionally. The President must defer himself to the will of Congress in this matter. That is how I believe he would handle foreign policy.

How about some feedback on this? I'd like to strengthen it some if it needs it.

One problem with your argument is that, as the President, Ron Paul would be Commander and Chief of the military -- in essence, the top general.

Should the time come, people need to know that Ron Paul can act decisively and manage a military campaign or full-on War.

Ron Paul is up to the task and here are some points to prove it:

• Ron Paul spent 5 years in the military - he is not a pacifist
• He has argued before Congress that the U.S. should more actively pursue Bin Laden. Will we Bring Bin Laden to Justice?
  
• He has proposed effective policies to go after terrorists: Effective and Practical Counter-Terrorism Measures
  
• He wants a strong military, one that focuses on protecting Americans first: U.S. Armed Forces Should Protect American Soil
  
• Non-intervention does not mean isolation. He wants sound foreign policy, and a strong military: War and Foreign Policy

You might also want to separate the War in Iraq from the War on Terror. They are two different topics. Most Americans are now against the Iraq war, so it's easy to discuss how Ron Paul has argued against the war from the beginning -- and he was right.

The War on Terror is still an important issue to Americans, however. This can be discussed in the context of how Islamic Fundamentalism is fueled by foreign intervention. You must understand this root cause in order to defeat an enemy that has no standing army. Ron Paul has written volumes on this subject, see: Suicide Terrorism

Your argument is of course quite valid. However, in my opinion, we need to hit this issue head-on; Ron Paul is not weak.

More ammunition can be found in the Ron Paul Library: Ron Paul Library

 

[johngr]

You might also ask how many OTMs (other than Mexicans) have slipped past the unguarded border, and why those geniouses have left it wide and why they seem to care more about the border between Syria and Iraq. You could point out that the HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS of dollars spent on an unnecessary military adventure could have been used for border security instead with the benefit (among others) of making the country much more secure against terrorist acts. If they can't get into the US, it's alot harder to pull off a terrorist mission there.

 

[Duckman]

I think the key is to convince people the WOT is being fought incorrectly

Ron Paul has a very different message than other candidates, which is that the "War on Terror" is not being fought in an achievable way.

The current approach of the Bush Administration (and neo-cons in general) to this War on Terror can be summed up as the following:

1) We are in a War on Terror, which must continue until all terrorists are destroyed.
2) In order to destroy those terrorists who are abroad, governments which we believe are harboring terrorists must be toppled, even if they have not directly attacked us.
3) In order to destroy those terrorists who may be in the US, we must consider tracking terrorists to be so important that it is worth some loss of our basic liberties (habeas corpus, privacy, etc.) to track them down.

While this might SOUND like a good strategy to some, it is not. The main flaw is in the idea that all terrorists can be destroyed, and that we must remain in this war until that happens.

Every time we bomb an Arab county or use our espionage powers to install an unpopular government, we just create more hate. Those people may not think precisely the way we do, but I can assure you they don't appreciate their nations being bombed, controlled by percieved puppet governments, or sanctions imposed by external nations which destroy their economies. Combine this with the fact that we have linked or equated their religion with terrorism (which is a legitimate linkage IMO), and they have no reason whatsoever to change their attitudes towards us. As far as they are concerned, we hate their religion, we bomb them, and we interfere with their governments and economies. We may also be stealing their oil to boot. Is it any wonder why we are in this mess?

Beyond that, this principle of "pre-emptive" war looks to the rest of the world like the US deciding they can attack any nation they want for any reason they want, all they have to do is claim it's a part of the "War on Terror." That can't be helping matters.

And beyond even that, we see a slow creep towards the loss of fundamental liberties at home because rooting out the terrorists has been deemed to supercede all other moral obligations of the government, including the obligation to treat the citizens with the maximum amount of personal liberty according to American constitutional values.

And beyond even that, we will BANKRUPT our nation in a few years as this endless War on Terror continues to be fought in the way it is being fought - by HUGE foreign military expenditures which are paid for by printing more dollar bills at the fed. The Iraq War isn't part of the regular budget... why would any future interventionist conflict be?

All this with no end in sight, because the War on Terror, in its current form, cannot be won. It just can't... the very policies we push to win this war will just perpetuate it.

The stalemate in Iraq is similar, I believe, to the stalemate in the overall War on Terror that we risk falling into unless radical change is made.

The radical change which we need is the prescription with Dr. Paul advocates:

1) Stop pre-emptive war (which will hopefully restore trust in America across the world and help defuse some of the hate)
2) Stop using our covert powers to prop up governments whose unpopularity can be blamed on us (again, to reduce the blowback and hate)
3) End the empire - it's expensive and causes us to become entagled where we should not be.

Will this stop the terrorists from wanting to come here? Not immediately. We still need to be vigilant that we are a target. But the only long-term solution to our problem with middle-eastern terrorism is to reduce the hate, and the rhetoric, and stop the cycle of violence by taking the high road and being a shining beacon on a hill rather than the percieved headquarters of some global empire out to control the whole world.

 

[Carbine556]

a few answers

I wouldn't mind asking him more about this myself. What about WWII? I know very little - history isn't a strong point of mine. But from what I gather, Japan bombed us first (duh), but we had done lots of political type things to drive them to that point.

Correct.

Would RP have dropped the bomb?

I would like to think so. Given the circumstances and the inherent bloodbath that would have ensued from an invasion on mainland Japan, which would have had an estimated one million casualties, dropping the bomb was the best alternative. This is my personal viewpoint, and I accept and respect other's differences of opinion. I tend to place a higher value on the lives of Americans than the military or civilian populace of an enemy nation during a time of declared war.

If we had not been attacked by Japan, would we indeed be speaking German these days?

No. Germany's intentions were never to expand westward. Germany declared war on France and England in response to these two countries declaring war on Germany. And Germany declared war on us through another set of politcal moves by Japan so they wouldn't bear the brunt of the American military alone.

 

[RPR-omaha]

Alot of people will never be convinced Ron Paul is not soft of terrorism. I have been looking at anti-Ron forums and it is amazing how many people think that Islam causes people to be crazy and violent. There arguements main fuel is bigotry. The problem w/ Ron Paul for them is that he doesn't take into account Muslims are all crazy.

 

[angrydragon]

Large number of Americans favor violent attacks against civilians

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/05/23/polls/index.html

A rather substantial 24% of Americans thought that such attacks are justified "often" or "sometimes," while another 27% thought they were justified in rare cases. By stark contrast, only 11% of Iranians think such attacks are justified "often" or "sometimes," with a mere further 5% agreeing they can be justified in rare cases. Similar results were found with the series of other questions regarding violence deliberately aimed at civilians -- including women, children and the elderly. Americans believed such attacks could be justifiable to a substantially higher degree than Iranians.

As Kenneth Ballen noted in The Christian Science Monitor in February of this year, Americans express greater support for "attacks against civilians than any major Muslim country except for Nigeria." Make of that what you will -- and its meaning is debatable -- but those are just facts.

The myth of Muslim support for terror

http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0223/p09s01-coop.html

 

[Captain Shays]

Seeing the troops redeployed to find Osama might actually get cheers.

I wouldn't mind asking him more about this myself. What about WWII? I know very little - history isn't a strong point of mine. But from what I gather, Japan bombed us first (duh), but we had done lots of political type things to drive them to that point.

So we retaliated.

Would RP have dropped the bomb?

If we had not been attacked by Japan, would we indeed be speaking German these days?

I don't want to get this thread side tracked but the attack on Pearl Harbor was in retaliation to a preemptive first strike by FDR by blockading Japan's oil and steel shippments when they were embroiled in a war with China.
If we were in a war and a country that wasn't involved in the conflict cut off our steel and oil, wouldn't we consider that a preemptive attack? While FDR was publically promising the American people, and Congress that he did not intend to violate our long standing policy of neutrality, behind closed doors he was looking for a way to get the USA into WWII despite the 72% of Americans who were opposed to it. FDR was a globalist, and a militiarist, and a corporatist AND a communist. He had his plans of a one world government and nothing was going to stop him from laying down some tracks for the train that would take us there.

Ron Paul is the switchman.

 

[kimosabi]

I think the most important question regarding Terrorism, is who are the real Terrorists?

Maybe we should also think about who had previous involvement, trained and funded these supposed Terrorists before they apparently attacked America?

The other thing that everyone really needs to think really hard about, is who has benefited the most from the War on Terrorism so far?

Follow the money and you will get the answer...

 

[Eric B]

excellent points duckman, I'm going to use them to convert my neo-conned friends