Santorum v Paul- Iran war debate coming

[Tyler_Durden]

This!!!!!!!

"To ensure regime survival, Iran's security strategy is based first on deterring an attack."

The document goes on to make this key statement, "Iran's nuclear program and its willingness to keep open the possibility of developing nuclear weapons is a central part of its deterrent strategy."


http://milwaukeestory.com/index.php...cerned-primarily-with-deterring-an-attack-344

I've Drudged it. I'vs Circulated it. I've Spread it. The MSM and GOP references a vague 13pg IAEA Report as the basis for the iron grip and saber rattling, but NOBODY talks about this Report!!

 

[Kevin Smyth]

Ron Paul needs to rattle off short bullet point responses...

- Netanyahu agrees with me (mentioning Netanyahu's speech)

- Head of the Bin Laden Unit Michael Scheuer agrees with me.

- Mossad agreeing with him.

- The troops donate to him more than all other GOP candidates combined adding they don't want to be sent to war carelessly.

I agree with you 100%, bullet points are the only thing most Americans can understand because they have such short attention spans, Paul has to use his speaking time wisely and get right to the point.

 

[eugenekop]

But RP doesn't believe Iran should be wiped off the face of the earth. He doesn't believe innocents should die. That's just not who Ron is, fortunately.

 

[Matthanuf06]

No. You need to think like the American electorate. Ron Paul isn't a prof at some university. He was running for POTUS. People don't give a rats behind whether Amahdinejad has "power" or no power. People care if Ron will defend the United States of America with all its might. That is what people care about. If we focus on the million reasons why Iran is not a threat or may not be a threat, then we are a guaranteed loser. The focus needs to be on what Ron will do if they are a threat. What a "threat" is can be up for interpretation, he can stay vague there. But he needs to say it over and over again, if Iran is a threat to the USA or lays the tiniest of fingers on the USA, that he will blow them to the moon and back. That is what the electorate needs to hear. An academic speech on what a "threat" is will win us no votes at this point.

 

[Echoes]

Ron should pound home how the iraq war bankrupted us, lasted 10 yrs and was fought over WMD lies. Most americans believe this to be the case. Iran would be the sequal to iraq.

 

[Feeding the Abscess]

No. You need to think like the American electorate. Ron Paul isn't a prof at some university. He was running for POTUS. People don't give a rats behind whether Amahdinejad has "power" or no power. People care if Ron will defend the United States of America with all its might. That is what people care about. If we focus on the million reasons why Iran is not a threat or may not be a threat, then we are a guaranteed loser. The focus needs to be on what Ron will do if they are a threat. What a "threat" is can be up for interpretation, he can stay vague there. But he needs to say it over and over again, if Iran is a threat to the USA or lays the tiniest of fingers on the USA, that he will blow them to the moon and back. That is what the electorate needs to hear. An academic speech on what a "threat" is will win us no votes at this point.

Ron is running for president to reverse course, and as such, runs on ideas. He doesn't want power; he wants us to be free.

 

[Txrose4ever]

The heart of the question is - would you protect the country. We know the answer is YES — the narrative in the media is he won't. He HAS to come away from that question with the perception that he will protect the country from harm—while stressing he will never fight a war of agression.

Also, while bringing up the two members of Mossad is valid, my problem is: most people don't know who/what the Mossad is… so an answer should not center on that - as a supporting fact, yes, but not the central theme.

So, the answer to the Iran question should focus on the determination of whether Iran poses an imminent threat to US security–and if so, protect the US Constitutionally.

I agree. The bottom line is that the public needs to feel he is not afraid to be aggressive when legitimately needed and that he WILL protect America.

 

[Matthanuf06]

You can't fight a war, especially fighting in a way of "get in, win it, and get out", without having some collateral damage. It is beyond hypocritical. Surgically striking and taking out leadership without nation building can create a power vacuum that is extremely dangerous to innocents as well. Heavy bombing to take out military instalations and leadership creates the power vacuum as well as actual collateral damage. The fact is, any war is going to hurt innocents of a country you are fighting against. Either way, Ron will lose votes if his position is "If we get attacked/imminent threat we will pansy our way into a war because we don't want to hurt people". That just isn't what the American electorate wants.

 

[jmdrake]

There's nothing to debate. We have Santorum on record saying that Iran doesn't want a bomb to attack Israel but that Iran wants a bomb to defend themselves. That's pretty much Ron Paul's position except that Ron isn't convinced that Iran is necessarily working on a bomb and Ron doesn't what to threaten Iran. So using Santorum's logic if Ron Paul was president Iran would quit working for a bomb because they wouldn't need to defend themselves.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showth...ke-to-bomb-israel-they-want-it-for-protection.

 

[trey4sports]

Ron better eat his wheaties cuz Santorum will be all over Ron.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

It's important that he doesn't appear weak - but maintains an agressive war is out of the question.

Dr. Paul must stress that if an attack on the US is imminent he will get a declaration of war, fight it, win it, and eliminate the threat, Constitutionally.

If the question is something like "what do you do if they HAVE a nuke?" - the answer shouldn't stay away from the perception out there of Dr. Paul: "do nothing…" it should focus on things like - working with the CIA and military to determine if they're an imminent threat to US security… if so, then - congress > declaration of war > win.

It's all about framing the response, but staying on-message of no agressive wars.

He should keep doing what he's doing. He has said, many times, that he would fight a Constitutional war where danger to our national security was imminent. However, he shouldn't entertain specific scenarios of Iran actually getting a nuke and instead keep on fighting that whole perception by telling people there is no way they could be a threat to us and that there is no evidence they even have a weapon.

Many people here don't like it and think he should entertain those ideas, but the truth needs to be told.

 

[Echoes]

Ron better eat his wheaties cuz Santorum will be all over Ron.

Gingrich and Huntsman, too. Romney maybe to a lesser extent, but they're all gonna gang-jump him.

 

[Matthanuf06]

What does that even mean? If you look around one of the top 2 concerns about Ron is his foreign policy; more specifically how he'd defend this nation. Ron can't "reverse course" in terms of the POTUS not having the role of Commander in Chief. He needs to have "ideas" on how he would defend the nation as Commander in Chief. He needs to articulate those ideas to the American public. He can and does have different ideas than the current warmongers, but he needs to change the current perception that he doesn't care about our national defense.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

email that to the campaign.

Do you think they don't already know?

 

[Kevin Smyth]

If they bring up Amahdinejad hatred for Israel, Ron needs to tell the world that this guy is only President and have no real power over the military.

That doesn't make any sense because the Ayatollah Khamenei who is the actual ruler of Iran also hates Israel. No, what Paul has to do is to point out that Iran knows Israel has 300-400 nuclear weapons and they are well aware that Israel would nuke them if they attacked Israel with a nuclear weapon. The typical Republican Fox News viewer does not know that Israel has nuclear weapons, I repeat, Republican neocon media does not allow their audience to know that Israel has nuclear weapons because knowledge of this fact would make the audience not view Israel as the victim being bullied by powerful Muslims. Nor does neocon media allow their audience to know anything else about the strength of Israel in comparison to their Muslim enemies, for example: Hamas and Hezbollah have no tanks and no Air Force but you'll never hear neocon media emphasize this. Ron Paul must use the TV debates to force Republicans to hear details about the Middle East that they've never been introduced to by neocon media thus strengthening his justifications for non-interventionism and proving his validity as the best/most informed candidate on foreign affairs/foreign policy.

 

[roderik]

Ron is so ready for this. If Santorum really makes the mistake to try and score with knowledge...Ron will slaughter him.
76 years of stacked wisdom? Rick you'd better sit down and listen.

 

[Svenskar_för_Ron_Paul]

http://www.apelsin.nu/classics/?url=bomb_iraq

Change Iraq to Iran, and Bush to Santorum.

Fits in perfectly imo

 

[speciallyblend]

Ron is so ready for this. If Santorum really makes the mistake to try and score with knowledge...Ron will slaughter him.
76 years of stacked wisdom? Rick you'd better sit down and listen.

thread winner^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

 

[Matthanuf06]

There is a difference between a movement and a campaign. Paul has a serious chance at winning, if he treats it as a campaign. That doesn't have mean he has to give up on the movement.

Saying he will "fight constitutional wars" and downplaying the Iranian threat is not a good campaign move. It just won't win any votes. He can and should frame the same answer in a way that projects strength and defense.

There is a huge difference in psyche between these two statements

1. "I'll fight wars constitutionally, getting congressional approval, when there is an imminent threat to the nation. Currently, Iran is not a threat because of X,Y,Z."
2. "If Iran posed an imminent danger to the United States I'll go to Congress with a declaration of War, and use the strength of this nation to make sure Iran would never pose another threat to the country".

Both statements say essentially the same thing, but the impacts to voters is tremendously different. Downplay the lack of Iranian threat, and play up the response if they become a threat. Don't answer what a threat is (and here I agree with the don't respond to "specific scenarios").

This isn't class. People believe Iran is a threat even when they aren't. People wont' respond to Paul lecturing on why Iran isn't currently a threat, but they'll respond to him saying he'll fight them when they do become a threat (which fortunately will most likely be never).

 

[PaulConventionWV]

You can't fight a war, especially fighting in a way of "get in, win it, and get out", without having some collateral damage. It is beyond hypocritical. Surgically striking and taking out leadership without nation building can create a power vacuum that is extremely dangerous to innocents as well. Heavy bombing to take out military instalations and leadership creates the power vacuum as well as actual collateral damage. The fact is, any war is going to hurt innocents of a country you are fighting against. Either way, Ron will lose votes if his position is "If we get attacked/imminent threat we will pansy our way into a war because we don't want to hurt people". That just isn't what the American electorate wants.

What are you suggesting? That he adopt an interventionist policy?