Ron Paul absolutely MUST clarify his position on national defense.

[abruzz0]

The neo-cons should just come out and say it already: nuke all 1.2 billion Muslims. That's what gets them off at night when nothing else can. It's what they truly want, and the only thing that would satisfy them. They're total psychopaths.

 

[tbone717]

I agree that the campaign needs to run a well produced TV ad. Paul is not outside of the mainstream on this issue, however I have always felt that his explanation of his policy is lacking. As someone said earlier in the thread, instead of "We need to stop the militarism" just say, "Foreign bases are outdated, costly and ineffective for defense. "

 

[Butchie]

Some people, Ron Paul included, seem to suffer under the delusion that diplomacy is finding out if two peoples have common ground and meeting there. But if you don't care about the other's position at all, if you don't care if an entire nation is afraid, or if that entire nation has good reason to be afraid, that isn't a quest for common ground.

That's what diplomacy is...



We are not after an excuse for war, here. Once upon a time the United States of America kicked the world's ass by inventing things the world needed and selling them to the world. Some of us would like to get back to that point. But in order to do that, we have to make Americans once again red-blooded enough not to hide under their beds from salmonella so that private enterprise can be entrepreneurial again without begging the government for fifteen dozen permits, and we have to make Americans red-blooded enough not to hide under their beds from people halfway around the world who couldn't deliver a nuke to us via UPS.

And you're not helping.

Can I ask what in the world are you talking about? Your statement is full of silly statements that have nothing to do with anything I said. My stance is we just plain don't need to be in Iran or the Middle East at all for that matter, whether or not they feel safe or Israel feels safe, or Libya feels safe, or Iraq, etc, etc, is not my problem nor is it America's and it certainly is not something that will sway warmongering Republicans to your cause. I'd say for some reason you're working under the assumption I'm some kind of NeoCon.

 

[raystone]

uhh...those women in that picture look like transvestites to me.....just sayin'.

Where are you hanging out to see Ron Paul supportin' transvestites ?

 

[Deborah K]

Where are you hanging out to see Ron Paul supportin' transvestites ?

I have eyes. Those 'ladies' look men in drag, well except one.

 

[dagnybell]

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.

I agree with everything you've said above - you need to be working for the campaign!!

 

[Clem Kadiddlehopper]

"I disagree though about offering up scenarios of war."

There would be nothing wrong with Ron Paul referencing Pearl Harbor as an example scenario where a fierce military response would be consistent with his respect for the Constitution and the Christian theory of just war. He could assure the audience that he would be fully supportive of war in such instances and would spare no effort to insure a swift, decisive and successful outcome. He could then contrast that event with the current futility of waging war with an ambiguous enemy, using a capricious strategy to pursue an undefinable victory. He could further assure his audience that he would always resist such a reckless expense of American lives and American treasure.

 

[ryanmkeisling]

Ron Paul's foreign policy is one of peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations. Jingoism does not serve this policy at any juncture.

He has been crystal clear in his views that free markets and peace accomplish more for national defense than war and jingoism, anyone not understanding this is willingly not listening to him.

This^

The neo-cons should just come out and say it already: nuke all 1.2 billion Muslims. That's what gets them off at night when nothing else can. It's what they truly want, and the only thing that would satisfy them. They're total psychopaths.

and this^ + rep to both of you.

 

[Paulitics 2011]

Electability?

Those in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.