Ron Paul absolutely MUST clarify his position on national defense.

[Clem Kadiddlehopper]

We've all come to understand where RP stands on war, but to the casual observer he's sounding like a pacifist that is too opposed to violence to be trusted with the Presidency. More importantly. he's being portrayed as such by the media and his opponents. During the debate, he should have stressed that national defense is indisputably afforded by the Constitution and that he is indisputably the Constitutional candidate. I realize that he has limited time in these debates and that he was responding to specific concerns about Iran. However, RP needs to offer potential supporters a scenario that would prompt him to ask Congress for a formal declaration of war. He needs to assure them that he is well aware that war IS sometimes unavoidable and that, given proper justification and authorization, he would be fully empowered to unleash our military with overwhelming force and that he would not hesitate to do so in any part of the world. You can argue that he has already done this, but the cloud of doubt persists and it will follow this campaign through every state, starting with Iowa.

If he doesn't take the time to make this crystal clear to potential voters, he truly will have a ceiling of support. I believe he needs to issue a press release immediately regarding this matter. I would even suggest that he release a YouTube message about this so it can be looped by the media or linked and forwarded as needed by the grassroots, bloggers, etc. This policy position is undermining everything else we're doing.

 

[Publicani]

Good idea.
He should make a general statement of foreign policy and strategy, not get involved into who said what and when. And from this general framework he should go on attack of his blood thirsty opponents.

 

[Shellshock1918]

I keep hoping that he'll bring up the Weinberger Doctrine. That was the conservative criteria that had to be met before going to war.

 

[revgen]

He made it clear yesterday that we should only go to war by a declaration though congress.

 

[69360]

He did last night. He's fine. Only the ultra-right faux media is even making a big deal. Voters already know where he stands and the majority even within the GOP don't support another war.

 

[newbitech]

We've all come to understand where RP stands on war, but to the casual observer he's sounding like a pacifist that is too opposed to violence to be trusted with the Presidency. More importantly. he's being portrayed as such by the media and his opponents. During the debate, he should have stressed that national defense is indisputably afforded by the Constitution and that he is indisputably the Constitutional candidate. I realize that he has limited time in these debates and that he was responding to specific concerns about Iran. However, RP needs to offer potential supporters a scenario that would prompt him to ask Congress for a formal declaration of war. He needs to assure them that he is well aware that war IS sometimes unavoidable and that, given proper justification and authorization, he would be fully empowered to unleash our military with overwhelming force and that he would not hesitate to do so in any part of the world. You can argue that he has already done this, but the cloud of doubt persists and it will follow this campaign through every state, starting with Iowa.

If he doesn't take the time to make this crystal clear to potential voters, he truly will have a ceiling of support. I believe he needs to issue a press release immediately regarding this matter. I would even suggest that he release a YouTube message about this so it can be looped by the media or linked and forwarded as needed by the grassroots, bloggers, etc. This policy position is undermining everything else we're doing.

I just disagree with this on so many levels.

First off would you mind clarifying what YOU mean in the quote? "like a pacifist that is too opposed to violence to be trusted with the Presidency"

As far as national defense and the Constitution, he has said that, and if I am not mistaken, he said that last night too.

Please tell me why does anyone need to offer scenarios to go to war? Especially Ron Paul when he is running as the peace candidate and gets much of his support for that very position? And besides, he has said that if America is attacked, he will defend the country. That is the only scenario for war. Period.

Why do you feel like Ron Paul needs to sound like he is so willing to go to war and stomp on other countries? It is pretty clear that the United States has the most powerful war machine the world has ever known. Do you really feel that people need to be reassured of this? I don't. In fact I think it is quite the opposite.

We need discernment in the White House, not naked aggression.

That cloud of doubt that persist will be erased when people let go of their fears of an outside power destroying America. Those fears are amplified and trumped up. What people should be afraid of is the internal collapse that is occurring largely as a result of reckless foreign policy.

I think his position is crystal clear. NO MORE WARS OF AGGRESSION. The United States is not under attack. However, the United States is LOSING the war that is going on in the minds of people across the globe, including right here in the "homeland". We need a leader who can restore a little bit of sanity without having to coddle chickenhawk cowards who would jump at a chance to blow people up from 6000 miles away by sending other people's kids, but are completely unwilling to do it themselves.

No the policy is what is separating Ron Paul from the status quo. THIS IS WHAT WE ARE DOING!

 

[randomname]

He did say something like "if we go to war, we should declare it and get it over with" but it gets lost in the message due to the delivery... I bet most viewers missed what he REALLY meant with that. Even I almost missed it if it werent because I recognized the soundbyte and knew what he meant by that.

 

[EBounding]

I'm glad Ron didn't compromise anything yesterday. I was started getting worried though when he started out by saying "Anyone here can beat Obama".

But in addition to what he said yesterday about Iran and our defense, he needs to frame his argument from a position of strength. Like this:

1) Instead of "It's understandable why Iran would want a nuclear weapon", just say "Iran is a weak country. We do not need to fear them."

Fighting Iran is like walking several miles just to smash open a bee hive. Saying something like that puts him in a position of strength. Right now, he's being portrayed as someone who wants to compromise our national defense to the "great, powerful, and radical" Iran. Radical? Yeah (through the government's own doing, but that's another story). Great and powerful? Hardly.

2) Instead of "We need to stop the militarism" just say, "Occupation and foreign bases are outdated, costly and ineffective for defense. "

By saying this, he provides an alternative to the argument. When conservatives hear "stop the militarism" they think "good lord, he wants to end the military!". Investing in advanced military technology such as submarines, hypersonic weapons, and missile defense systems are much more effective for defense. He's said this several times in interviews, but never mentions it in debates.

I disagree though about offering up scenarios of war. That just accepts the premise that there is a threat worth going to war over. It's also not very statesmanlike. Can you imagine if Russia or China started coming up with different scenarios where they would go to war with the US. Not good.

 

[Elwar]

Perhaps he could clarify it with a bomb...


A TEA PARY MONEYBOMB!

Go here to see it in action: http://www.ronpaul2012.com

 

[nasaal]

I'm not sure how much more clear he can be. Last night alone he stated how we needed congress to declare war, and under him we would go to war and win it as quickly as possible and bring the troops home. If you don't agree with it then that is another topic altogether. But I think he made it very clear.

 

[klamath]

I keep hoping that he'll bring up the Weinberger Doctrine. That was the conservative criteria that had to be met before going to war.

So True. The pillor of Reagan sucessful foreign policy.
The Weinberger doctrine:

The United States should not commit forces to combat unless the vital national interests of the United States or its allies are involved.
U.S. troops should only be committed wholeheartedly and with the clear intention of winning. Otherwise, troops should not be committed.
U.S. combat troops should be committed only with clearly defined political and military objectives and with the capacity to accomplish those objectives.
The relationship between the objectives and the size and composition of the forces committed should be continually reassessed and adjusted if necessary.
U.S. troops should not be committed to battle without a "reasonable assurance" of the support of U.S. public opinion and Congress.
The commitment of U.S. troops should be considered only as a last resort.

Two unconnected events led to Weinberger's speech. One was his wanting to respond to the suicide bombing of the U.S. Marine barracks at Beirut airport on October 23, 1983, in which 241 United States marines and soldiers died. U.S. forces were in Lebanon as part of an ill-fated U.S. peace enforcement mission undertaken, despite the reportedly vigorous opposition of the U.S. Secretary of Defense and the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, who argued that its purpose was never clearly defined and that the chaotic, violent situation in Lebanon could not be brought under control by any outside force. They further argued that any U.S. military contingent entered into the Lebanon conflict would become a convenient and prominent target for the various factions in the civil war.[citation needed] The second event was the invasion of Grenada on October 25, 1983. U.S and allied forces invaded Grenada after a pro-Soviet military coup ousted the constitutional government.

An older event, but one which probably had a stronger influence on US foreign policy, Presidential powers, and the commitment of US military forces which may have precipitated articulation of the Weinberger Doctrine, was the legacy of the Vietnam War. From 1975 and the fall of South Vietnam to communist forces, U.S. foreign policy had avoided the use of military force, without any officially stated policy for how to employ those powers.

 

[Brett85]

This is what I've said as well, and have been attacked mercilessly for it.

 

[Matthew5]

Honestly, why bother? If a person hasn't gotten it by now, then they're either too

A: Ignorant
B: Stubborn
C: Close-minded/Biased
D: Stupid

I can't tell you how crystal clear Dr. Paul has made it. Strong national defense, not intervening in country's affairs, and only ensuring that Congress can declare wars, that's simple. And when they do declare war, you fight them to the absolute best of your ability and end it as soon as possible. No more of this "nation-building" BS or subsidizing other nation's security.

I talked to one of the aforementioned people above after the debate last night and he was babbling on and on about how a Ron Paul presidency would mean WW3 and we'd all die. He said we needed to flatten Iran to the ground because we're at a war with Islam and they hate us for our freedoms. He then said we needed to protect our national sovereignty but at the same time, give billions in aid and give more militaristic welfare to our allies (Germany, England, Israel). Ron Paul cannot make his foreign policy ANY clearer to these war mongers. Their hatred for this straw-man is so deep, nothing will satisfy them until everyone is either living in a dictatorship or we're all dead.

I think it's important to know when to cut your losses. Now when I engage people like this, I merely say, "Well, looks like you and Ron Paul won't agree on foreign policy. But let me ask you something. Are you willing to go to sign up for the military and fight these wars you're asking for?" The answer is always an excuse..."Ok, well, neither am I. So I just listen to what our soldiers and veterans want. And you know what they're saying in a big way? That Ron Paul is right." I then proceed to tell them about the donations and so on and so forth.

Sorry, but Dr. Paul has already made it crystal clear and no additional efforts are needed, IMHO.

 

[Elwar]

Perhaps he should just clarify it with this:

 

[Clem Kadiddlehopper]

I just disagree with this on so many levels.

First off would you mind clarifying what YOU mean in the quote? "like a pacifist that is too opposed to violence to be trusted with the Presidency"

As far as national defense and the Constitution, he has said that, and if I am not mistaken, he said that last night too.

Please tell me why does anyone need to offer scenarios to go to war? Especially Ron Paul when he is running as the peace candidate and gets much of his support for that very position? And besides, he has said that if America is attacked, he will defend the country. That is the only scenario for war. Period.

Why do you feel like Ron Paul needs to sound like he is so willing to go to war and stomp on other countries? It is pretty clear that the United States has the most powerful war machine the world has ever known. Do you really feel that people need to be reassured of this? I don't. In fact I think it is quite the opposite.

We need discernment in the White House, not naked aggression.

That cloud of doubt that persist will be erased when people let go of their fears of an outside power destroying America. Those fears are amplified and trumped up. What people should be afraid of is the internal collapse that is occurring largely as a result of reckless foreign policy.

I think his position is crystal clear. NO MORE WARS OF AGGRESSION. The United States is not under attack. However, the United States is LOSING the war that is going on in the minds of people across the globe, including right here in the "homeland". We need a leader who can restore a little bit of sanity without having to coddle chickenhawk cowards who would jump at a chance to blow people up from 6000 miles away by sending other people's kids, but are completely unwilling to do it themselves.

No the policy is what is separating Ron Paul from the status quo. THIS IS WHAT WE ARE DOING!

I was here for the last campaign, like so many others here. I remember how we were so confident that we were winning the debate and that, despite all the criticism, our message was resonating with the voters. We were confident that they fully understood RP's positions and that we would take Iowa by storm.

And what was the result? We placed 5th in the 2008 Iowa primary. We followed that with a 5th place in New Hampshire. In other words, we had not accomplished what we thought we had.

I'm not trying to be a wet blanket. I think we owe a lot of our current success to learning from past mistakes. We cannot just "assume" that the voters get it.

Ron Paul is nailing it on the economy, but he is cancelling out that edge with his perceived weakness on national security. There is no shame in acknowledging this. The other candidates are going out of their way to clarify certain positions. Ron Paul needs to be willing to do the same.

 

[newbitech]

I was here for the last campaign, like so many others here. I remember how we were so confident that we were winning the debate and that, despite all the criticism, our message was resonating with the voters. We were confident that they fully understood RP's positions and that we would take Iowa by storm.

And what was the result? We placed 5th in the 2008 Iowa primary. We followed that with a 5th place in New Hampshire. In other words, we had not accomplished what we thought we had.

I'm not trying to be a wet blanket. I think we owe a lot of our current success to learning from past mistakes. We cannot just "assume" that the voters get it.

Ron Paul is nailing it on the economy, but he is cancelling out that edge with his perceived weakness on national security. There is no shame in acknowledging this. The other candidates are going out of their way to clarify certain positions. Ron Paul needs to be willing to do the same.

I don't disagree with you as far as learning from past mistakes. I just don't think now is a good time to back down from standing for peace just to answer some what if question that plays into people's fears. His position is clear. The only thing that is not clear at this point is if voters will vote for more war, or if voters are ready for peace.

 

[EBounding]

Ron's message on foreign policy is spreading, but it is spreading too slowly. For me, it took four years to actually listen to him. And the only reason I bothered listening to him was because all the other candidates were so awful. He doesn't need to change his message at all either. He just needs to frame it from a position of strength and say what he will do for defense in addition to what he won't do.

 

[No Free Beer]

I disagree,

He clearly stated last night, if we want to go to war, do it the constitutional way with a DOW.

Neocon's will never learn.

Think about it, Ron cited the CIA, Israeli Intelligence Chief, and said we need a DOW...yet they still scorn him. You will never be able to sway hypocrites...

 

[Cinderella]

people are responding very well to Rons comment about Iran being just like Iraq...that hits a core with alot of people, families, mothers, sisters, grandparents.....

 

[Pete Kay]

Well, hopefully Ron Paul will create an ad that will clarify his position on national defense. A well produced 1 minute ad will push the message more clearly into people's minds. So let's donate big today so he can do that.