Cake
Member
- Joined
- Aug 16, 2011
- Messages
- 28
Look, the main criticism Ron Paul is facing among the GOP is his foreign policy. We all know it's being disingenuously called "isolationism" and we all know that "non-intervention" is it's true name. If Paul is going to overcome this issue, he is going to have to take a different approach than only talking about avoiding antagonistic policies in foreign affairs.
I was thrilled when he recently made clear that he is for cutting military spending, and simultaneously increasing defense spending. That's Paul's realm, because it means talking economics. It means making clear that responsible spending can get more with less, and while so much money is going to war profiteers, Paul would redirect that money to the troops and cut out the middle-man. He has to proceed to drive this home. It's not going to make us weaker; it's going to make us stronger.
In addition, he needs to show some tough talk. Paul needs to think about the types of situations he would feel military force were necessary. It is imperative that he is not viewed as simply proposing a drawback of the military that will leave us vulnerable to attack and him unwilling to prevent or respond to an imminent threat.
My understanding is that if a group, organization, or state poses an immediate threat, Paul would increase security, prepare for prevention and notify Congress within 72 hours if military force were used or required. Paul would then present his case to Congress, and they would have to perform their constitutional duty and decide whether war should be declared. And perhaps most importantly to those misperceiving Paul's foreign policy, that if an ass-kicking is found necessary, Paul would open up a can of it, and he would not be putting bandaids on and nursing the "enemy" back to health afterwards. If this isn't made clear, Paul's foreign policy is going to continue to be misunderstood.
Finally, there is a 'sub-issue' that is implicated, and perhaps many consider it a primary issue. It is the Israeli conflict in the Middle-East. Many are concerned that Paul would not rise to defend Israel if they were under threat from Iran, for instance. Paul should continue to hint, or perhaps be blatant that he is proposing that we get out of Israel's way, and not add fuel to the fire. It's important that people realize that Israel has established itself as a very capable military force, and the state is more than competent enough to handle it's own foreign affairs.
These are the issues I view as the most important to address right now. Paul should stay on point when it comes to social and economic liberty, but absolutely must push back harder against the accusations that he is "weak" on defense, and the disingenuous references to "isolationism". Now is the time to command the dialogue. The moment is now, let nothing stand in our way.
Be dangerous... to the status quo.
I was thrilled when he recently made clear that he is for cutting military spending, and simultaneously increasing defense spending. That's Paul's realm, because it means talking economics. It means making clear that responsible spending can get more with less, and while so much money is going to war profiteers, Paul would redirect that money to the troops and cut out the middle-man. He has to proceed to drive this home. It's not going to make us weaker; it's going to make us stronger.
In addition, he needs to show some tough talk. Paul needs to think about the types of situations he would feel military force were necessary. It is imperative that he is not viewed as simply proposing a drawback of the military that will leave us vulnerable to attack and him unwilling to prevent or respond to an imminent threat.
My understanding is that if a group, organization, or state poses an immediate threat, Paul would increase security, prepare for prevention and notify Congress within 72 hours if military force were used or required. Paul would then present his case to Congress, and they would have to perform their constitutional duty and decide whether war should be declared. And perhaps most importantly to those misperceiving Paul's foreign policy, that if an ass-kicking is found necessary, Paul would open up a can of it, and he would not be putting bandaids on and nursing the "enemy" back to health afterwards. If this isn't made clear, Paul's foreign policy is going to continue to be misunderstood.
Finally, there is a 'sub-issue' that is implicated, and perhaps many consider it a primary issue. It is the Israeli conflict in the Middle-East. Many are concerned that Paul would not rise to defend Israel if they were under threat from Iran, for instance. Paul should continue to hint, or perhaps be blatant that he is proposing that we get out of Israel's way, and not add fuel to the fire. It's important that people realize that Israel has established itself as a very capable military force, and the state is more than competent enough to handle it's own foreign affairs.
These are the issues I view as the most important to address right now. Paul should stay on point when it comes to social and economic liberty, but absolutely must push back harder against the accusations that he is "weak" on defense, and the disingenuous references to "isolationism". Now is the time to command the dialogue. The moment is now, let nothing stand in our way.
Be dangerous... to the status quo.
