Ron Paul needs to be stronger on the military issue

[EWM]

Paul's stance on foreigns affairs makes sense, but he doesn't talk strongly enough about what he would do should military action be necessary. It's great to say we should mind our own business and not aggravate other nations, but there will be times when we need to take action, whether we or our close allies are seriously in danger.

All I want to hear from Paul is something like, "We will bring our troops home, close many military bases, and not get involved in everyone's affair. However, should we or our allies be attacked, we will strike with quick and intense force to end the threat swiftly."

This is the biggest issue Paul has a problem with. If he just showed a little military strength, he would attract so many more voters.

 

[LibertyEsq]

All I want to hear from Paul is something like, "We will bring our troops home, close many military bases, and not get involved in everyone's affair. However, should we or our allies be attacked, we will strike with quick and intense force to end the threat swiftly."

This is the biggest issue Paul has a problem with. If he just showed a little military strength, he would attract so many more voters.

I thought Paul didn't want us to have "Allies" in the military sense

 

[Agorism]

No to standing armies, torture, and militarism.

 

[itsnobody]

Ron Paul just needs to appear very strong on national defense...

 

[EWM]

Ron Paul just needs to appear very strong on national defense...

That's very true. I don't think we should be without allies though. And we do need to reassure Israel that it won't be abandoned.

 

[Pro-Life Libertarian]

No to standing armies, torture, and militarism.

Standing armies?

No, we need standing armies.

 

[IPSecure]

There need to be hard hitting rebuttals...

- How many of our troops died unnecessarily?

- If you actually cared about the troops, you would not send them off to be killed in wars started by lies.

- How many of our troops are committing suicide, and why is that?

 

[archlinux]

That's very true. I don't think we should be without allies though. And we do need to reassure Israel that it won't be abandoned.

Israel has around 300 nukes, it can take care of itself.

IMHO he appears strong on national defense by stressing the "just war" principle of Christianity.

 

[itsnobody]

That's very true. I don't think we should be without allies though. And we do need to reassure Israel that it won't be abandoned.

If Ron Paul just appeared to be very very very strong on national defense I'm sure we could easily win the GOP Nomination. I wonder what Ron Paul's plan is to appear stronger on national defense.

Right now anyone can easily make him out to seem weak on national defense....so we have to do something quickly

 

[EWM]

Israel has around 300 nukes, it can take care of itself.

IMHO he appears strong on national defense by stressing the "just war" principle of Christianity.

It's not enough. Just as he can explain what he would do in a financial crisis, he needs to explain what he would do in a military crisis.

 

[EWM]

Israel has around 300 nukes, it can take care of itself.

IMHO he appears strong on national defense by stressing the "just war" principle of Christianity.

It's not enough. Just as he can explain what he would do in a financial crisis, he needs to explain what he would do in a military crisis.

 

[EWM]

If Ron Paul just appeared to be very very very strong on national defense I'm sure we could easily win the GOP Nomination. I wonder what Ron Paul's plan is to appear stronger on national defense.

Right now anyone can easily make him out to seem weak on national defense....so we have to do something quickly

All he has to do is speak up about it. It's the one issue he doesn't get into. Withdrawing and minding our own business isn't gonna cut it, nor should it.

 

[Agorism]

States and militias could have standing armies to a degree.

 

[Feeding the Abscess]

He's stated many times before that if there is an actual, imminent attack facing the country, the Congress should declare war and win the war.

No amount of capitulation will please the bloodthirsty merchants of death in the GOP voting block, it seems.

 

[tremendoustie]

Paul's stance on foreigns affairs makes sense, but he doesn't talk strongly enough about what he would do should military action be necessary. It's great to say we should mind our own business and not aggravate other nations, but there will be times when we need to take action, whether we or our close allies are seriously in danger.

All I want to hear from Paul is something like, "We will bring our troops home, close many military bases, and not get involved in everyone's affair. However, should we or our allies be attacked, we will strike with quick and intense force to end the threat swiftly."

This is the biggest issue Paul has a problem with. If he just showed a little military strength, he would attract so many more voters.

"Wherever the standard of freedom and Independence has been or shall be unfurled, there will her heart, her benedictions and her prayers be. But she [America] goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own. She will commend the general cause by the countenance of her voice, and the benignant sympathy of her example. She well knows that by once enlisting under other banners than her own, were they even the banners of foreign independence, she would involve herself beyond the power of extrication, in all the wars of interest and intrigue, of individual avarice, envy, and ambition, which assume the colors and usurp the standard of freedom. The fundamental maxims of her policy would insensibly change from liberty to force. The frontlet on her brows would no longer beam with the ineffable splendor of freedom and independence; but in its stead would soon be substituted an imperial diadem, flashing in false and tarnished lustre the murky radiance of dominion and power. She might become the dictatress of the world; she would be no longer the ruler of her own spirit. . . . Her glory is not dominion, but liberty. Her march is the march of the mind."

- John Quincy Adams

"Equal and exact justice to all men, of whatever state or persuasion, religious or political; peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none"

- Thomas Jefferson


I'm glad Ron doesn't feed republican bloodlust. It's sickening, frankly, especially when I consider that so many who seem so fond of war call themselves Christians.

 

[trey4sports]

dude, Israel has more weaponry than any other country in the world with the exception of the United States. There is NO country that poses a real threat to Israel. yes there may be countries in the middle east that hate Israel, but 300 nukes present any possible foe with the threat of mutually assured destruction if they were to strike Israel.

 

[owlbug]

A lot of people think RP is crazy regarding his stance on Iran. He needs to remind people that if Iran got beligerent congress would vote to go to war and he would lead the country into military action with a singular mind to put a quick end to it. Christian just war theory... all these candidates who are calling out Iran, are they prepared to declare war on Iran now, and if not how do they propose to dictate to Iran when China is in Iran's corner.

 

[tremendoustie]

A lot of people think RP is crazy regarding his stance on Iran. He needs to remind people that if Iran got beligerent congress would vote to go to war and he would lead the country into military action with a singular mind to put a quick end to it. Christian just war theory... all these candidates who are calling out Iran, are they prepared to declare war on Iran now, and if not how do they propose to dictate to Iran when China is in Iran's corner.

What does "belligerent" mean? Does it mean not responding obsequiously to all US federal government demands? Or does it mean actually invading/attacking the united states?

And actually, I think most people think the current foreign policy of endless war is crazy. That's why Ron just about tied for first at Ames, in the REPUBLICAN party. That's not counting independents or disaffected democrats.

 

[LibertyEagle]

Paul's stance on foreigns affairs makes sense, but he doesn't talk strongly enough about what he would do should military action be necessary. It's great to say we should mind our own business and not aggravate other nations, but there will be times when we need to take action, whether we or our close allies are seriously in danger.

All I want to hear from Paul is something like, "We will bring our troops home, close many military bases, and not get involved in everyone's affair. However, should we or our allies be attacked, we will strike with quick and intense force to end the threat swiftly."

This is the biggest issue Paul has a problem with. If he just showed a little military strength, he would attract so many more voters.

Overall, I agree with you and I also, think he badly needs to do this. Many people are scared that he wouldn't defend our country. He would of course, but he needs to make this very clear.

My only concern about what you said is with regard to our "allies". I do not believe Dr. Paul thinks we should be fighting anyone else's wars. If you read George Washington's Farewell Address, he warns that we should not entangle our alliances with other nations or we will be drawn into their wars and become enemies of their enemies. At the very least, going to war should be debated in Congress and if we go to war it should not be done lightly and should be accompanied by a formal declaration of war. Then, if we go in, we go in decisively and win the war.

 

[Fredom101]

Ron Paul just needs to appear very strong on national defense...

I disagree. This is what neocons do and it turns into national offense quickly. RP needs to stand firm on the principles on non-interventionism, or he's status quo like the rest of them.