IRAN, IRAN!: How to deal with the Iran issue with conservative GOP voters

  • Thread starter Thread starter 1836
  • Start date Start date
1

1836

Guest
When a Republican tells you "Ron Paul is wrong on Iran," we have some serious ammunition to defuse the situation, and hopefully remove that barrier from someone supporting him. If we can get primary voters to remove at least some of their objections to his foreign policy, it is far more likely that they will support him.

If a Republican asks you about Ron Paul on Iran....

Foreign Policy Points
- Iran is not presently a direct threat to the United States (the bold words are vital)
- Israel can defend herself (300 nuclear weapons) if we allow her to do so, which we should, and President Paul would not interfere in their doing so; Ron Paul supports Israeli sovereignty and their right to exist more strongly than any other candidate (another way to say this is "we should unshackle Israel")
- Pre-emptive war with Iran would lead to a greater quagmire in the region that would cost countless American lives and endless amounts of American treasure, and therefore it must be avoided at all cost
- If Iran becomes a threat, and the American people through their representatives in Congress decide to go to war, President Paul will ensure that Congress declares war as the Constitution requires of us, ensuring checks and balances
- If Iran truly becomes an imminent threat or if the country is attacked, President Paul will take swift and immediate action to defend the country as the Constitution authorizes him to do

Related Points
- President Paul will ensure that Iran's economy is neutralized by providing a clear path for energy independence here at home, getting rid of the EPA and allowing American energy to be produced, reducing our dependence on oil from the Middle East
- President Paul will never listen to international organizations that would seek to prevent the United States from protecting itself; he would ensure that our national defense is an American decision, not influenced by the feelings of Europeans or anyone else
- By ending foreign aid to all countries, that means that Islamic countries which threaten Israel would be defunded and therefore, Israel would be in a better position relative to their neighbors (Muslim countries around Israel receive 3 times more foreign aid than Israel does)
- As a military veteran of the Vietnam War, Ron Paul understands the sacrifices of our young men and women in uniform and will always do everything as Commander in Chief to respect their service and honor it; he will respect each soldier's life by only using our military when necessary

Things NOT to Say
Each of these things might be useful in an intellectual debate with an open-minded individual, or in an academic context where someone is willing to consider all sides of the issue. But if you are speaking with a primary voter, you are just trying to win them over or at least defray their opposition to Ron Paul because of foreign policy. Do not stray into the following points, lest you want to create more problems than you solve.
- Terrorism is caused by U.S. intervention in foreign countries
- Iran is doing what is in their national interest, because they feel threatened
- We should not tell other countries what to do, including Iran
- There are innocent civilians in Iran who would die as a result of war
- A non-interventionist foreign policy will convince Iran to respect instead of hate us
- "Military-industrial complex" etc.
- Conspiracy theories of any kind

Attitude is Everything
Kindness and respect for others goes a long way.
- Win people over with your genuine respect for them as thinking individuals
- How you treat someone will give them a greater impression of Ron Paul than watching Ron Paul. If his supporters argue with anger and disrespect, then people will graft those attributes onto Ron Paul in their minds
- Speak as concisely as you can. Do not get into long-winded minutiae. Stick to your message.
- Be positive. Don't act like you are in despair over Ron Paul's unfair treatment, etc. etc.
- Never, ever call anyone "ignorant," "stupid," "misled," or condescend in any way. Be respectful of everyone, even the jerks. Take the high road.
- Do not disparage other candidates or get into arguments about other candidates' positions. Your main goal to positively represent the positions of Ron Paul.
- Even if you do not convince someone, thank them for listening and considering your points. You never know if someone will change their mind, and if they were to, they might not tell you about it. People are prideful, so keep that in mind. You are planting a seed if nothing else, and seeds can blossom into realizations and "aha" moments later on. I know this, because it is how I came to support Ron Paul's foreign policy (after years as a hawk myself)


Remember, when you talk to someone about Ron Paul, you're representing him. We owe it to ourselves to keep an eye on our own behavior and message when we speak to those who disagree. If we are respectful, we can win people over.
 
Last edited:
It's not going to be as hard as it seems. The recent CBS poll says 12% of registered republicans see Iran as no threat. More importantly 55% of registered republicans think the issue can be solved with diplomacy. Despite how bleak it might seem watching all the hawks last night, the majority of republicans don't think the same as them.
 
Don't forget, roughly 70% of the population in Iran are between the ages of 15-60 or so. This means a big part of the population are rather young and it is known that they are very fond of the west. If we were to ever bomb or invade, that would quickly change. We must be mindful of this...
 
Absolutely. The Iran situation will work itself out internally as the younger generation there rises to power. They don't hate us like msm will lead people to believe.
 
It's not going to be as hard as it seems. The recent CBS poll says 12% of registered republicans see Iran as no threat. More importantly 55% of registered republicans think the issue can be solved with diplomacy. Despite how bleak it might seem watching all the hawks last night, the majority of republicans don't think the same as them.

Yep... people are coming around.
 
The media plays the fear card. Heck, most think Arminijad is the leader of Iran, since he is the poster boy of fear. Maybe if they knew that Arminijad is 14th DOWN from being a leader. Arminijad is the Maxine Watters of Iran. Does Maxine Waters represent all Americans? no Does Arminijad represent all Iranians? No

Maybe educate them on Arminijad
 
Use Iraq as precedence.
Same scenario except Iran has Russia behind her...consequences may be more devastating (for the USA).
 
Use North Korea as a precedence too. It has nukes, we haven't attacked them, they neither. All is fine.
 
I like Ron Paul's own argument, and I'm interested in knowing what category it belongs in:

You guys said the exact same things in the run up to Iraq, and you were wrong.
 
I like Ron Paul's own argument, and I'm interested in knowing what category it belongs in:

You guys said the exact same things in the run up to Iraq, and you were wrong.

The problem with that is that it is unnecessarily inflammatory. We don't want to "rub it in their face." When Ron Paul says that, unfortunately he usually says "war propaganda." To many primary voters, that sounds a little wacky.

Now, if you supported Iraq, you might say "I was personally misled by the information before the Iraq war, because at the time I did not understand a Constitutional foreign policy," something like that.

But the reason why I kept it simple is to... keep it simple. Not every Ron Paul supporter is going to be able to adroitly debate their way through all the nuances of a primary voter's thoughts, coherent or not. And since you have to be able to do all of that while keeping a cool head and winning people over as a primary goal, then it really is better to drill down to the basics of your message and stick to that as best you can.
 
When I talk to people about Iran, I use facts. The issue with the IAEA not releasing the full report to the public, you can find that at iaea.org, and hearing all different messages supposedly quoting their report all within the same few days. How about the fact that back in 2009 Iran granted full supervision and Iran is still just as compliant. They are still granting supervision and audits upon request. I read the Tehran times to keep up with the issues from their perspective. Their president claimed he would consider forgiving the U.S.'s past mistakes if the invasion simply does not happen. The U.S. and Israeli representatives walked out in the middle of his speech at the UN conference earlier this year when he was discussing peace and his concern over the Palestinians. How about the fact that there is no proof their nuclear technology has advanced much over the last 10 years? There is no proof it has advanced at all relating to building nuclear warheads. How about showing the people this war has been provoked by Israel for over a decade now and this is not OUR war.

What about the cost? I don't just mean the trillion+ dollars. Between Iraq and Afghanistan, we lost 12 in 2001, 48 in 2002, 531 in 2003, 900 in 2004, 942 in 2005, 918, in 2006, 1019 in 2007, 465 in 2008, 461 in 2009, 554 in 2010, 424 and rising in 2011. 395 were only 18-19 years old, 2,829 of them were only 20-24, 1,498 were only 25-29, 1,181 were only 30-39, 318 were only 40-49, and 48 were only 50-59. That equals 6,274 LOVED HUMAN BEINGS in 10 years, that averages over 627 a year and averages a death at least every 14 hours (over the course of 4 of the most deadly years, it was 3+ a day). Iran is bigger and has been preparing their men for this war for as long as Israel has been making threats. The toll would be much higher with this war and the worst part is we don't have to do it. Why should our men give their lives over Israel's war. The president of Iran will take any invasion as a terrorist threat, (who wouldn't?) but, he has also said he would be open to discussion of making peace with the U.S. Iran has something we want (hint: crude oil) and we have something Iran wants (hint: technology), we could make this work and develop a strong ally. Even China and Russia are against more sanctions on Iran and claim there is no nuclear threat and the program is in fact peaceful.

He has reached out to the people before: http://edition.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/11/29/ahmadinejad.letter/
People seem to think this is something new when it's absolutely not, proving Iran has not provoked war in all this time seems to help.

So, sacrificing young people and spending money we don't have to fight a war on behalf of Israel in a sovereign country that has not proven to be a threat to the U.S. and in turn could create WW3?

When I talk to people, I give them the facts of why the war with Iran is unreasonable and that always reaches people. Their strong opinions of why Iran is a threat can always be turned around with educated responses and proof on the matter.
 
YouTube Method

Has the added benefit of education/enlightening people. Send either:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fy3KDYE5KQE
History of Iran- (a must see for any Ron Paul Supporter) WW3 Russia



or

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XEQviZPyeXk
Extended Interview with Michael Scheuer



If people are still unconvinced after watching one of these/both then move on and don't waste their time (or more importantly yours), as they are not open-minded.
 
HAha omg, i was just about to post that 1st video. And yea, that vid is just downright AWESOME. It speaks volumes about what we have done for so long with the meddling and the blow back. That one needs to be passed to all the Cain supporters and go viral.
 
Has the added benefit of education/enlightening people. Send either:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fy3KDYE5KQE
History of Iran- (a must see for any Ron Paul Supporter) WW3 Russia


...
If people are still unconvinced after watching one of these/both then move on and don't waste their time (or more importantly yours), as they are not open-minded.


Not that there's anything wrong with that video, but it is contrary to the OP's point about successfully selling Ron Paul to Republicans...

If a Republican asks you about Ron Paul on Iran....

Things NOT to Say
Each of these things might be useful in an intellectual debate with an open-minded individual, or in an academic context where someone is willing to consider all sides of the issue. But if you are speaking with a primary voter, you are just trying to win them over or at least defray their opposition to Ron Paul because of foreign policy. Do not stray into the following points, lest you want to create more problems than you solve.
- Terrorism is caused by U.S. intervention in foreign countries
- Iran is doing what is in their national interest, because they feel threatened
- We should not tell other countries what to do, including Iran
 
Not that there's anything wrong with that video, but it is contrary to the OP's point about successfully selling Ron Paul to Republicans...

I guess if you'd like to err on the side of caution... that's a fair point. I should add that to those YouTubes a caveat that if you're dealing with somebody open-minded then that would fulfill the dual purpose of education and converting them. I'm assuming Independents should be open-minded and most Republicans too.

Otherwise I would just say that we don't have the money to go intervene in any countries. We. Are. Broke. Bush ran on a policy of non-interventionalism and not getting involved in needless wars. Our country would be more safe with withdrawing foreign aid and not getting involved in other nations. The military agrees with him - that's why Ron Paul has the highest amount of donations from active military personnel than all the Republican nominees combined, and more than Obama too. It's time to take care of ourselves first.
 
People tell me "Ron Paul has no plan" "Ron Paul will do nothing"

I found this and really like it:
----------------

Ron Paul's War: Dr. Paul supports using "letters of marque and reprisal."

These are, in effect, licenses to private parties to carry out acts of war. We used them against the Barbary pirates. Almost immediately after the attack on the World Trade Center, Dr. Paul introduced in the 107th Congress H.R. 2076, called the September 11 Marque and Reprisal Act of 2001, authorizing holders of the letters to go after bin Laden and other Al Qaeda leaders and seize them and their property. He also voted to give President Bush authority to use the military to go after Al Qaeda, but he has been pressing for letters of marque ever since.

Dr. Paul’s bill would have covered not only past attacks but any “planned future air piratical aggressions and depredations” against us. It would have given the president discretion to pay up to $40 billion in what were, in effect, bounties for the “capture, alive or dead, of Osama bin Laden or any other al Qaeda conspirator responsible for the act of air piracy upon the United States on September 11, 2001.”

Dr. Paul said that one thing he wanted as to avoid a trillion dollar expedition when there was a simpler, constitutional approach of bringing the war to our enemy.
 
Back
Top