Ron Paul needs to be stronger on the military issue

[tremendoustie]

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.

yes.

He gathered initial support, and is gathering more and more support by being principled. He's not just another neocon shill, and I don't want him to sound like one.

 

[Badger Paul]

"And we do need to reassure Israel that it won't be abandoned. "

With 300 nuclear warheads and diverse, technology-based economy, Israel, like South Korea or Japan or anyone else who benefitted from the U.S. defense umbrella at the expense of U.S. taxpayers, can start finally taking care of themselves.

 

[tremendoustie]

The us federal government should not be using US taxpayer dollars to subsidize foreign governments.

 

[JackieDan]

In my opinion ron is strong on this issue because theres nothing strong with still fighting unwinnable wars that has no end and will eventualy bankrupt the us..

 

[parocks]

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.

In the Ames Straw Poll, you didn't have to be a Republican. The Ames Straw Poll did count everybody.

 

[parocks]

Ron Paul loses a lot of Republicans on Foreign Policy. His foreign policy makes it difficult to persuade Republicans to vote for him, even when they want limited constitutional government.

 

[owlbug]

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.

I think he can discount the current wars and make clear that he will take action if needed and voted upon. If Iran starts a war with Israel then I can imagine many US citizens would consider going to Israel's aid.

It is naive to think that every country will play nice and I think a lot of people feel like RP has this view. His argument against being tough on Iran were the least well received arguments he made and there are a ton of voters who take his statements the wrong way. So many people are saying, "RP is unelectable, just look at his stance on Iran."

I know RP is right, but we need to help enough Americans understand he's right, too.

 

[EWM]

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.

I support Ron Paul and watch and listen a lot of his TV and radio appearances, but I rarely hear him talk about what he'd do militarily.

 

[dusman]

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.

I agree. Many of Americans are already under the mentality that this is a just war. How I've been dealing with this, is wait for national defense to become the concern when talking about Paul and remind them when he makes this shift with our troops back home.. at that very moment we will have the strongest national defense our country has ever had with over 1 million armed soldiers in active duty on our ground. We could then immediately send the 400k coming overseas straight to our border to finish out their enlistments.

Within one term, Ron Paul would not only have a solution to our debt issue, but also immigration. This he can do completely on his own, with no resistance available. Those two in itself could change the direction of our country.

So far that has come off pretty well, I think.

 

[EWM]

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.

He doesn't need to have bloodlust. He just needs to let citizens know that he won't hesitate to strike if necessary. Sometimes it IS necessary.

 

[EWM]

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.

Granted, Israel is well equipped. However, should the vast amount of surrounding enemy nations decide to join and strike, can Israel fight them all off alone? It's a question that needs to be addressed.

 

[EWM]

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.

So should we have not gotten involved in WW2?

 

[EWM]

In my opinion ron is strong on this issue because theres nothing strong with still fighting unwinnable wars that has no end and will eventualy bankrupt the us..

I totally agree, but what happens when we're faced with a REAL threat?

 

[Icymudpuppy]

So should we have not gotten involved in WW2?

We shouldn't have imposed embargoes on Japan.

Once attacked at Pearl Harbor we did have reason to declare war which we did in constitutional manner.

 

[EWM]

I agree. Many of Americans are already under the mentality that this is a just war. How I've been dealing with this, is wait for national defense to become the concern when talking about Paul and remind them when he makes this shift with our troops back home.. at that very moment we will have the strongest national defense our country has ever had with over 1 million armed soldiers in active duty on our ground. We could then immediately send the 400k coming overseas straight to our border to finish out their enlistments.

Within one term, Ron Paul would not only have a solution to our debt issue, but also immigration. This he can do completely on his own, with no resistance available. Those two in itself could change the direction of our country.

So far that has come off pretty well, I think.

That's what I would hope for. But he can seal the deal if he beefs up his campaign a bit more in the military department.

 

[EWM]

We shouldn't have imposed embargoes on Japan.

Once attacked at Pearl Harbor we did have reason to declare war which we did in constitutional manner.

I would say that if millions of people are being slaughtered and vicious dictators are expanding empires, that's reason enough.

 

[tremendoustie]

Ron Paul loses a lot of Republicans on Foreign Policy. His foreign policy makes it difficult to persuade Republicans to vote for him, even when they want limited constitutional government.

According to the Constitution, there shouldn't even be a standing army. Republicans who recognize that the us federal government is incompetant to run the country have somehow become deluded into believing that it is competant to run the world.

 

[tremendoustie]

I think he can discount the current wars and make clear that he will take action if needed and voted upon. If Iran starts a war with Israel then I can imagine many US citizens would consider going to Israel's aid.

then I suggest those us citizens get together and contribute time and money. I suggest they don't extort resources from their neighbors, who may consider the particular action immoral, or inadvisable.

 

[tremendoustie]

I would say that if millions of people are being slaughtered and vicious dictators are expanding empires, that's reason enough.

In that case I would help send forces to stop the abuse and rescue potential victims. I still wouldn't threaten others in order to force them to pay for it, however.

 

[owlbug]

then I suggest those us citizens get together and contribute time and money. I suggest they don't extort resources from their neighbors, who may consider the particular action immoral, or inadvisable.

I thought that was what congress was for, to carry out the will of the people. If congress can muster the votes to go to war then you'd still be against it?