Ron Paul, The Next Jimmy Carter

[Seadeus]

It is only a matter of time before Rudy, Mitt or one of the others brands Ron Paul "The Next Jimmy Carter". On Freecentury.com they had this"

"9/11 was a terrible thing but absolutely pales in comparison to the use of nuclear weapons on civilians in 1945. I believe ALL life is valuable. An American life is not better than a Japanese, Iraqi, or any other life." This may appeal to democrats/liberals, but it will not appeal to Republicans/Conservatives/Christians.

I know Ron Paul is not a pacifist, however, those new to him may believe quotes like the above represent his positions. He should define a "speak softly, carry a big stick" foreign policy before he is tagged the "Next Jimmy Carter", or it may be too late.

Ron Paul is running in the Republican primaries, not the Democratic, and he needs to offer a more complete view of his foreign policy before he will expand his support among Republicans/Conservatives/Christians.

 

[GreenApples]

He has expressed his views on foreign policy. He is not an isolationist or pacifist.

He wants to go after those who attacked us on 9/11.

Wolf Blitzer asked him about this on CNN:

BLITZER: We're almost out of time, Congressman, but if you were President, what would you do about the Al-Qaeda threat? Forget about Iraq right now. The Al-Qaeda threat, Osama bin Laden, he's still on the loose, what would you do about that threat to the United States?

PAUL: Well, I'd go after him. I voted for the authority, I wish they had done it. We voted for the money, and yet we ignored it. So this is my complaint, that we didn't do what we were supposed to do, and we went and started a war that we shouldn't have. And here we have Osama bin Laden, in Pakistan, they have a nuclear weapon, they have a military dictatorship, they overthrew an elected government, and what do we do when they get nuclear weapons, not following the NPT treaty? We reward them. We give them money. So I'm saying, don't reward people who get nuclear weapons, and then they'll want to get them. That's why Saddam Hussein pretended he had one, because he thought if he had one maybe we'd leave him alone. So it's natural for people like Iran, the leadership in Iran, to want to get a nuclear weapon, because we respect people that have power, and we disrespect people that we think we can run over them and run roughshod over their countries, invade them preemptively, and change their regime. I think it's a bad foreign policy: it's not Republican, it's not conservative, and it's not Constitutional.

Also read up on him at http://www.ronpaullibrary.com/topic.php?id=10

 

[Bradley in DC]

Dr. Paul offered a clear, Constitutional plan to go after bin Laden and the terrorists without indiscriminate bombing of civilians.

http://www.house.gov/paul/press/press2001/pr101101.htm

 

[angelatc]

I went to a Ron Paul sign-making meet-up today, and learned about "Marques of Repraisals" in this context there. Wow - how much better off would we be today if we had done that?

 

[DrKevorkian]

I'm so torn. I agree with his statement so much. But i know that it won't win him many republican supporters. I guess he needs to do what he needs to win, but i'm still glad he's unafraid to speak the truth.

 

[Seadeus]

Foreign Policy

I'm not referring just to the 911 attacks. I referring to his approach to dealing with enemies and threats to the U.S. We know what he will do if we are attacked, but what is his approach for dealing with our enemies before an attack. I've heard him talk about trade, but trade is not enough. And he needs to talk about his policy in a debate so the other candidates supporters will hear him, not an interview on a channel must GOPers dont care for and will not see.

 

[beermotor]

I'm not referring just to the 911 attacks. I referring to his approach to dealing with enemies and threats to the U.S. We know what he will do if we are attacked, but what is his approach for dealing with our enemies before an attack. I've heard him talk about trade, but trade is not enough. And he needs to talk about his policy in a debate so the other candidates supporters will hear him, not an interview on a channel must GOPers dont care for and will not see.

you don't understand his point (I would say THE point)... there is no need to "deal with" "enemies" "before an attack" ... because there shouldn't BE any enemies to deal with. If you change the bad policy which provokes the attacks, there will be no more need to deal with "enemies" because there won't be any more enemies.

Unless of course you buy into the "they hate us for our freedom" rhetoric, which is a load of crap... and that is precisely RP's point.

Trade IS enough. That is, after all, the christian example, right? Be an example, and engage people in dialog, but you can't force someone at the point of a sword to believe. Right?

 

[Bradley in DC]

There are a few people committed to hostilities against us. For them, letters of marque and reprisal are in order.

There are a great many people who hold greivances against the US for policy decisions of our government. They are ripe for recruitment by the committed terrorists.

The oft-used analogy is that to get rid of the problems of the mosquitos (terrorists), the best course of action is to drain the swamp (breeding grounds).

Dr. Paul is the one with the best prescription for both killing the mosquitos and draining the swamp. No other candidate has a good a policy on either one.