Need help, friends agree w/ everything about Ron Paul- except Foreign Policy

H

Hobez

Member
Joined
Sep 10, 2011
Messages
36
I got a couple of friends who I'm trying to convince that Ron Paul is the best choice out of all the candidates. They like everything about what the guy stands for but when it comes down to Foreign Policy they are turned off. They don't like they so call Romney the 1% communist, rich guy; Cain theperv or pimp;Perry the idiot.

Saying we need to support Israel, and if we withdraw too quickly it will leave a void for other countries to come in, take over, and
create chaos. They agree we need to get out of the middle east affairs but what about the main ones South Korea(will a war break out between the North/South), Germany, and Itatly.

I tried counter arguments such as our founding fathers warned us flirting with foreign affairs. They come back as this is not the 1770's
this is today, and it's more intertwined than ever before. I said multiple of times we are a Republic not a Empire, and look at Rome the moment they transition from a Republic to a Empire. Rome descended into corruption, and eventually self destructed, and collapsed within.
Mainly because they devalued their currency to support their welfare, and military. America is repeating the same mistakes.

I tried to use counter argument of "Power of Absence" that moment we withdraw from the world, it will remind everyone why they depend on us, and why they need us. They will come back kissing, and shinning our shoes.

I even tried to make a other counter argument, do you see China or Russia going around setting up military bases everywhere. Instead
they are simply establishing stronger alliances with the ones who are against us. Such as Iran(maybe correct me if I'm wrong) or Pakistan for example. I was talking to a other Ron Paul supporter he even had the same problem his dad believed we should keep our so called
"Empire"

The best advice I could give him tell his dad to play Rome/Medieval: Total War video game, and think of America at the same time. See how building, and expanding a Empire will work like a double edge sword. The more you expand your empire, the harder it gets keeping everyone happy. While you have camp your military on the borders everywhere, and at the same time you weaken your core as you expand, and makes easier enemy troops can strike a devastating blow. On top of that if the cities within your core are not well defended or occupiedby troops they can easily go into a revolt. As you expand-forcing you to depend on taking more lands for more money, and resources you create more enemies. So it's like a catch 22.

Now compare how I described playing Rome Total war as in what is happening today in America. We are expanding our Empire, and over
spending ourselves that we have to steal from our own people to provide these cost. We know we cannot afford both welfare/military expansion so we print more money.Within the core of America's Empire is growing weaker with riots(OWS),revolts,being more
divided over ideology. Since we cannot pay off countries that we owe, we pretty much have to whore ourselves out to the world. Letting them up buy our land,real estate, businesses, and worst buying politicians.

It's sad but America is almost a reflection of the Fall of Rome. We have barbarians(illegal aliens)invading our country, our money pretty
much worthless,the general populace now is depending on the govt for help, and foreigners are now calling the shots. Do I need to go on. Does the American people have any say anymore?

The point is of this thread, I just cannot show my friends to understand the consequences of over extending ourselves, and supporting a so called America Empire that we cannot afford. Can anyone help me to make other people to support Ron Paul and overcoming the
"Foreign Policy" argument. Sorry for the long thread btw.
 
Last edited:
China will not let NK go to war with SK, because SK would win and would then share a border with China. The US keeps pressure on Japan not to build aircraft carriers and any other powerful war machines, so there is the very proof of the US involvement making the so called "protected" counties more vulnerable, and more dependent on the US forces.

There is 0 threat of Germany being attacked. The Cold War ended a long time ago, and they are allies with the entire EU, which is richer than the US.

Israel has hundreds of nukes, and would bomb the Iranian nuclear facilities, as they did with the Iraqi ones.

Once again, there is absolutely 0 threat to Italy. Part of the EU and has a very capable military.

France and the UK are developing and building advanced aircraft carriers and the UK has arguably the best trained forces in the world, the UK and France would fight off those commies in Russia quite easily, with the help of Spain, Poland, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, and all of the smaller EU states. You see how unlikely it is for Russia to attack now? Russia is quite happy getting rich by selling its oil to them.
 
Last edited:
A little on Israel I used to refute an argument someone made:

The question was: Can any Christian support Ron Paul's stated policy to withdraw all US aid from this beleaguered people of God? It is the main Biblical reason he cannot be supported, in my view.

My answer: Firstly, the reason Israel is beleaguered is because the US will not let them defend themselves the way they see fit. This is a stipulation that comes with the money we give them. We tell them how and when they can defend themselves. Israel can take care of and defend themselves and they want to. Secondly, we give Israel's enemies more financial aid than we give to Israel. How can that be helpful to Israel? Ron Paul wants to cut all foreign aid to all countries not just Israel. We continue trade with Israel and lax the tariffs into this country for a more free trade, this will help stimulate Israel's economy. Our federal monetary aid to Israel makes up only 1% of their annual GDP. Thirdly and finally, we are bankrupt as a nation and can no longer borrow money from other countries and take money through taxation from our people to give other countries money. Bankruptcy can never be solved by borrowing more money and spending. Ron Paul has said of foreign aid that in a lot of cases it is taking money from poor people in a rich country to give to rich people in a poor country. If a group of Christians feel the need to give monetary aid to Israel, I would suggest they get together and begin collecting charity for them. It is not morally correct for the US federal government to take taxes from everyones income to give to other countries. There are many humanitarian efforts from private organizations that can continue to provide monetary aid to countries by US citizens voluntarily donating to these causes, and in a nation with less taxation much more revenue would be freed up from peoples personal earnings who then could donate more freely to these causes. If I want to support the St. Jude Fund it is not moral for me to take money from my brother to give to them, neither is it moral for a government to do the same to its citizens.

Also:

2012-Q3-graph-top-tier-reps.jpg
 
Last edited:
Make these two points

- The more of our troops we lose, the more homes that our broken, which destroys the family and emboldens the demand for entitlements

- Running Deficits will kill the economy... raising taxes will kill the economy... so if we do so to go to war, it better be without a doubt for OUR defense, not even in our interest (like pursuing OIL), American lives should not be dispensed on anything but to defend lives, not to defend the oil industry, not to defend other nations, OUR defense
 
Yeah, Likely Republican Primary Voters don't like Ron Paul on foreign policy.

Consider changing the subject away from foreign policy.

If you have to, you can point out that the guy after Ron Paul can just start up the wars again.

Do we really need both the Democrats and the Republicans 100% war, 100% of the time.

We have severe money problems, and we need to make cuts whereever we can, and that includes military.

Say yes, it's a risk. The cost of making things a tiny bit less dangerous is astronomical. We just can't afford it. There are a lot of things that we like that we just can't afford any more.

I, personally, am not afraid of being attacked by other countries. I know that some are. I'm not. And I don't feel like 1/4th of my federal taxes (whatever the data is) should go to making someone else feel less scared.

I understand that the people who make the bombs, the people who sell the bombs to the government want to continue to make as many bombs as they can. But I don't want to buy bombs right now. I'd rather cut spending.
 
It's been my experience that arguing with people about this in the hopes that you will get them to agree with Paul is mostly fruitless. If you are really good, you may make one or two of them come on board, but the others will probably be turned away even more. You don't wat to argue them away.

Instead, use the Rand Paul tactic. Instead of arguing about disagreements, just say something like, "well even if you think our foreign policy now is best, don't you believe we should follow the constitution before we do things? At least with Ron Paul, you know he will consult the Congress before he does anything. The rest of these guys decides what will be politically expedient and then talk to their lawyers to find a way to do whatever they want outside the Constitution. Ron Paul would never do that!"


You have to remember that these people have been brought up to believe interventionism is a great thing. You're probably not going to convince them otherwise before the primaries. This tactic gets you out of the realm of arguing policy and into the realm of debating the process. Most people will agree with you that the process should be followed. Then you have them, since Ron Paul is the only one who has the character to follow the process no matter what!"
 
CaptUSA said:
It's been my experience that arguing with people about this in the hopes that you will get them to agree with Paul is mostly fruitless. If you are really good, you may make one or two of them come on board, but the others will probably be turned away even more. You don't wat to argue them away.

Instead, use the Rand Paul tactic. Instead of arguing about disagreements, just say something like, "well even if you think our foreign policy now is best, don't you believe we should follow the constitution before we do things? At least with Ron Paul, you know he will consult the Congress before he does anything. The rest of these guys decides what will be politically expedient and then talk to their lawyers to find a way to do whatever they want outside the Constitution. Ron Paul would never do that!"


You have to remember that these people have been brought up to believe interventionism is a great thing. You're probably not going to convince them otherwise before the primaries. This tactic gets you out of the realm of arguing policy and into the realm of debating the process. Most people will agree with you that the process should be followed. Then you have them, since Ron Paul is the only one who has the character to follow the process no matter what!"
Click to expand...

I've realized through my recent new found understanding of what God applies to the message of Life and Liberty, that you can quickly remind a Christian Conservative that supports the Middle East wars that God did not wish for it, and that it was considered blasphemous.
 
Israel, South Korea, Germany and Italy all have enough weaponry to destroy their respective enemies many times over. Do your friends understand that?
 
1) We can't afford it. China is no longer loaning us money. We have to print the money, which creates inflation. Watch the prices at the gaspump and the grocery store go up big time. That spells Wiemar Republic right here in the USA.

2) Iran can't even make enough gasoline for themselves. They have oil, but few refineries.

3) Israel has plenty of nukes to defend herself. She doesn't need our help. Even the Israeli prime minister told the congress so earlier this year.

My friends, you don't need to do nation building in Israel. We're already built. You don't need to export democracy to Israel. We've already got it. You don't need to send American troops to defend Israel. We defend ourselves.
Click to expand...

http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Governmen...eech_PM_Netanyahu_US_Congress_24-May-2011.htm

4) We can't afford it.

5) The Iranians hate the mullahs. Imagine if some blowhard like Pat Robertson was a dictator of this country. Well the Iranians hate it too. Especially the young people.

The only reason the Mullahs stay in power is due to fear. Whether it was us killing their elected leader and instituting the Shaw in 1953, our puppet dictator Saddam attacking them in the 1980's, or us threatening them now. As long as there is an outside threat, the Mullah's stay in power.

Get out of the middle east. Bring our troops home. Stop propping up dictators and bombing innocent civilians. The Iranians will eventually grow sick of the Mullahs and get rid of them.

6) China is their ally. We don't need to go to war with China.

7) We can't afford it. We're broke. <--- They cannot argue against this point at all. Keep reminding them this over and over and over.
 
Last edited:
Democrats were the party in power duringt the start of the Indian War while Andrew Jackson sent the Cherokee on the Trail of Tears. The first and second Mexican Wars. Half the Civil War and they were on the side that wanted to keep slavery in place. Bolivia. The Spanish=American War. WWI. Woodrow Wilson established the policy of meddling and using our forces to "make the world safe for democracy. Note. Ben Franklin said that "democracy is like two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for supper. Liberty is two wolves and a well armed lamb contesting the vote". Jefferson said "democracy is tyranny but of the majority where 51% of the people can vote away the rights of the other 49% may it never be". Also it was FDR who got us into WWII by arbitarily cutting off the oil and steel to Japan while they were in a bloody war against China. Japan saw that as a preemption. So would we if we were in a bloody war and a third country cut off our oil and steel. It was a Democrat who was the first and only party to nuke civilian populations in two different cities. Then it was a Democrat who got us into our first foreign war in Korea against a country that never attacked us or threatened us and where there was no legitimate value relative to our national security or protection of our liberties and this is also quite siginicant. It was our first undeclared war as per Article I, section 8, clause 11 of the Constitution. Truman instead circumvented Congress by claiming that our treaty wuth the UN gave him full authority. Then Vietnam the second time that happened. Then Bosnia, Serbia, Somalia, Kosovo, C lainton kept 30,000 troops in Columbia for 6 years ( google U'wa Tribe and Fusarin) and kept us in Iraq for 8 years bombing them over 400 times killing 1,000+ Iraqi's and another 500,000 with the sanctions (youtube Albright said it was wirth it). The Democrats are the original police the world party. They are the League of Nations and United Nations and one world government party. They are the stick our noses into the business of other countries party. NOT Republicans.....of old. The old style conservative modeled the foreigh policy of the founding fathers who modeled our foreign policy after Switzerland not Great Briton. The founders wrote letters to Switzerland calling them "our sister nation" because at the time of our Constitutional Convention Switzerland was entering their 400th year of peace since the Swiss Convention when they declared their neutrality. That policy of neutrality was based on the Christian Just War Principles meaning that the only just war is a war of self defense. It was baded in scripture which gives only four instances in the bible where a person could kill another and not be in violation of the Commandment that says "Thou shall not murder"
1) By accident
2) capital punishment
3) self defense
4) defense of your loved ones.

So they figured that if there was an invading army on the border of your country, if they penetrated your country's border they would certainly cause harm to you and your family so in that case it would be justified to take up arms and join the army because you would be defending your family and your own life. But all attempts at peace must first be exhausted. A formal and outward declaration must be given to the other country to give them an opportunity to turn back and stop their aggression. The response must always be in proportion to the threat. In other words after you fend off the invasion you wouldn't be justified to then invade their country and start killing their families. You shouldn't take pleasure in killing nor should you try to cause more pain and suffering than what is necessary to mitigate the threat. If your enemy is wounded you should tend to his wounds. If he is hungry you should feed him. If he is thirsty, give him water. If he is naked,, clothe him. If he is out in the elements, give him cover.
The Democrats never expressed very much respect for the Christian Just War Principles but the old style conservatives and the founders did. The new style of conservative is more like the Democrats/progressives.
Ron Paul respects and adheres to the Christian Just War Principles and they certainly comport with the letter and spirit of the Constitution.

We must always acknowledge that there have a;ways been and probably always will be radical Muslims who want to establish a global caliphate and kill un-submissive infidels. We must also acknowledge that there isn't a single Muslim lead country that isn't dysfunctional or successful in protecting the rights of man. It isn't hard to see that most if not all of their cultures are whacked out and their religion is also kind of crazy to many of us. But they are still humans who don't like invadding forces in their country any more than we would tolerate Iraqi or Syrian or Iranian and Saudi aircraft carrier battle groups off the coast of New Jersey or California or have them set up bases in Canada or Mexico.

The foreign policy we engage in now is against the strong advice of our founding fathers, is not allowed in the Constitution and most Americans disagree with it.
 
Seems to be a recurring theme.....The really sad part about this is RP doesn't even have to completely sell them on his foreign policy but to reassure them enough their strong support on the domestic side will tip them to RP votes. The campaign is badly letting the grassroots down on this because until they get a solid defense stategy put out no matter how much pleading and arguing the grassroots do, it is not going to change a voters mind. This issue is going to kill the campaign unless they get their act together.
 
klamath said:
Seems to be a recurring theme.....The really sad part about this is RP doesn't even have to completely sell them on his foreign policy but to reassure them enough their strong support on the domestic side will tip them to RP votes. The campaign is badly letting the grassroots down on this because until they get a solid defense strategy put out no matter how much pleading and arguing the grassroots do, it is not going to change a voters mind. This issue is going to kill the campaign unless they get their act together.
Click to expand...

Agree. My experience over the last year or so is that the conservatives/Republicans who have come to support Ron Paul recently (since the beginning of the Tea Party movement - Spring 2009) do so almost exclusively because of his domestic rather than his foreign policy. They support Ron Paul because they've come to realize that he's the only candidate who truly intends to follow the Constitution, the only one who really intends to begin dismantling the United States government (namely the welfare state and commercial regulations), and because he's the only one willing to actually push for significant spending reductions.

In fact, in the circle of people I've been subtly nudging in Paul's direction over the last couple years, many of them support Ron Paul in spite of his foreign policy positions simply because he's so good on domestic policy that they're willing to grudgingly accept his foreign policy non-interventionism as a "necessary trade-off."

That being the case, the more we can keep foreign policy on the back-burner, IMO, the better.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Brian4Liberty
Trump Wants America "Open For Business" Again — Will He Succeed?
Replies
1
Views
4K
TheTexan
TheTexan
PAF
President Trump: Stop Bombing Yemen and Exit the Middle East!
Replies
1
Views
314
TheTexan
TheTexan
Brian4Liberty
American Neocons Get Their Iran War as Congress Sleeps
Replies
0
Views
1K
Brian4Liberty
Brian4Liberty
CaptUSA
Rubio Ends All Foreign Aid (except for well, y'know)
2
Replies
20
Views
1K
acptulsa
acptulsa
Brian4Liberty
  • Featured
Ron Paul Institute Conference, Lake Jackson, March 2025
Replies
5
Views
305
Brian4Liberty
Brian4Liberty
Back
Top