Ron Paul needs to clarify his position on National Security

[PimpBlimp]

We are not gaining much ground because a lot of people are still convinced there is an army of 1 billion Muslim terrorists ready to invade our country.

Ron needs to reassure them that he won't leave the country defenseless or cut the military down to 20%. Sadly this is what a lot of people think about him.

A lot of conservatives (in the south at least) feel like they don't have a candidate to represent them. So they are willing to take the 'lesser evil'. They always overlook Ron because they think he is weak on national defense. We could take a HUGE conservative base by getting Ron Paul to talk about how he would secure the nation.



We need to prove to them that Ron has the best plan for national defense.

Some points I quickly came up with:

Secure the southern border
Deny visas from countries linked with terrorism
Secure Ports
Bring bases home to the US where they can protect our nation.

I encourage you all to come up with some good points too...


Maybe we could contact HQ with this important issue?

 

[jake]

Ron Paul is the strongest candidate for Vets
Improving military hospitals within the USA
Strong national defense = well funded, well trained military

 

[PimpBlimp]

Oh yeah

Ron Paul is for legalizing foreign bounty hunting
http://www.politico.com/blogs/thecrypt/0707/Ron_Paul_brings_back_a_whacky_post_911_bill.html

I won over some people with that

 

[Live Free or Die]

Oh yeah

Ron Paul is for legalizing foreign bounty hunting
http://www.politico.com/blogs/thecrypt/0707/Ron_Paul_brings_back_a_whacky_post_911_bill.html

I won over some people with that

Humorist Dave Barry once said something about that in an interview with, I believe, Reason Magazine. He called it something like "the Department of two guys named Victor." LOL.

 

[Live Free or Die]

Found it, from 1994:

http://www.reason.com/news/show/32270.html

All I Think Is That It's Stupid
Dave Barry on laughing at Very Big Government

Reason: One of the planks in your presidential campaign is the Department of Two Guys Named Victor.

Barry:: This is one of those times I wasn't kidding. At the time, we were mad at Moammar Gadhafi, which resulted in us bombing all over Libya and killing a bunch of people, but not him. Then Ronald Reagan gets up and says we're not trying to kill him, we're just dropping bombs. You can kill all the Libyans you want, but legally you can't try to kill the leader.
The other one was Manuel Noriega. Here we have a problem with just one person, and we send all these troops down to deal with it. All these people get killed and hurt, but not Noriega.
So instead of messing around with armies, get a couple of guys named Victor. The president meets with them and has breakfast, or he goes to dinner with them at the restaurant of their choice, and suggests that he's having a problem. Then the next thing you know, you read in the paper that Saddam Hussein has suffered an unfortunate shaving accident resulting in the loss of his head. We don't involve a lot of 22-year-old kids in this dispute between George Bush and Saddam Hussein.

 

[PimpBlimp]

Bump

 

[acroso]

We need to gut the military to cut spending.

 

[Alabama Supporter]

This is very important. So far, his marketing has not addressed this. Perception is reality, and it is time HQ breaks the perception of him being weak on defense.

 

[nodope0695]

Agreed...He's named some heavy hitters as his economic advisers, now he needs some big name foriegn and militry advisers.

 

[liberteebell]

I just started reading his book, "A Foreign Policy of Freedom" and he talks about a very strong national defense. Things like our military bases should be on OUR soil, if we didn't spend so much money propping up dictators and supporting other countries, we could spend MORE on our own defense. In fact, it all sounds VERY Reganesque.

There is a perception among many that he's a pacifist which I know is not true, but he doesn't do a good job of expressing how we need to protect ourselves and how he plans to put a strong national defense in place.

 

[PimpBlimp]

We need to gut the military to cut spending.

Not necessarily.

Bringing the foreign bases to OUR country would save several hundred billion and help the US economy.

 

[newnews]

And why would the people all think the muslims want to kill us?

and they call truthers kooks

 

[DFF]

I agree 100% with the opening post and I'll take it a step further: I'd reassure the American people that as President he would not close down every single U.S. base overseas and would only close down those bases, which after careful consideration with top military advisers, could be deemed as 'safe' to close.

The reality is, if Paul wishes to become President, he absolutely has to be willing to work with the CIA/FBI/Military -- and this means compromising to a degree -- because if he doesn't, there's no way in Hell he's getting into office.

Without compromising, 'they' would deem him a national security threat; and he'd get JFK'd the second he got the Republican or Third Party nomination.

 

[liberteebell]

Not necessarily.

Bringing the foreign bases to OUR country would save several hundred billion and help the US economy.

Agree. I often ask people if they think it's sane to be subjecting our bases at home to BRAC even as we build bases overseas. I live in a military town so the BRAC commission is not very popular here.

The best offense is a strong defense.

 

[liberteebell]

And why would the people all think the muslims want to kill us?

and they call truthers kooks

+1 LOL!

 

[dblee]

omg AGREED!!!! this should be priority #1 of the campaign.

I cannot believe how many people I hear about saying "I like Ron Paul's domestic policy, but I can't get behind his foreign policy."

As if somehow we'd be giving up or exposing ourselves to attack and embarassment.

The way I like to put it about the war in Iraq is: "We've already won! Now lets keep it that way."

 

[DFF]

As if somehow we'd be giving up or exposing ourselves to attack and embarassment

If we want to remain a global superpower, that is, have a strong economy and a powerhouse military, we need some bases overseas. I'm fine with getting out of Iraq and shutting down some bases. But I'm absolutely not ok with shutting down every U.S. base overseas. No way, no how. An aside; if Paul did relent somewhat on his Foreign Policy, his media exposure would skyrocket.

 

[PimpBlimp]

bump

 

[Derek Johnson]

1. Illegal entry ends immediately, all borders and ports.
2. Human intelligence in every country, native speakers, recognizance only
3. Continued R&D with military technology, this is historically proven for 6000 years, this will never change
4. Mandatory 3 year military service for ALL males 18-21 years of age, no exceptions, no exemption, nobody gets a pass....PERIOD.
5. ORIGINAL INTENT of Article I section 8, and please read the Federal papers for the wisdom of the founders in keeping the "war making" powers strictly from the president.

 

[idiom]

He should keep Guam and Diego Garcia. Everything else should be shut down. He should promise to boost funding and incentives to Special Forces and Sub-marine forces. He should close down a lot of the ballistic missile stuff.