Santorum v Paul- Iran war debate coming

[nyrgoal99]

Could be Saturday

this is going to be massive

 

[hammy]

Could be Saturday

this is going to be massive

I can't wait till frothy chokes on all his WMD lies.

 

[The One]

Sure hope RP is able to articulate his position well.

 

[jsem]

Lincoln/Douglas debate on Iran between Santorum and Paul.

RP would completely dismantle every single argument of Santorum.

 

[-:Undertaker:-]

Whenever Paul raises his voice (as sad as it is, thats what scores points) on the topic, he'll score easy.

 

[hazek]

And when this debate comes I bet my every penny Ron will again get tricked into sounding like a pacifist against a perceived threat of Iran instead of distancing himself from the specific scenario and address it philosophically through the rule of law and the constitution. Gosh I wish I could have a private 30min chat with that man.

 

[ohgodno]

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.

 

[Koz]

I hope so, the last debate didn't go so well in my opinion. He needs to have a plethora of answers ready. Gingrich is going to hit him hard too.

 

[rockandrollsouls]

I think Ron will tear into Santorum.

What he needs to do is make him EAT his words...

Santorum: "We need to defend Israel etc etc."
Paul: "Rick, I think it's odd you'd speak for the Israeli people. Prime minister Natenyahu of Israel has said, himself, that they do not want nor do they need American assistance. He has stated Israel can stand on her own. We are more eager to fight a war for Israel than Israel is to fight a war for Israel."

Santorum: "Terrorists, terrorists, terrorists, fear mongering, etc."
Paul: "Head of the CIA Bin Laden unit has actually endorsed me and agrees my policies are the best for countering and containing terrorism"

Santorum: "Iran nuclear weapons, Iran hates Jews, lie some more."
Paul: "Iran has the largest Jewish population among arabic nations. They do not hate Jews. Furthermore, were there any security threat I would provide congress with the necessary information to declare war. Were war declared, I would be sure I was entering with a clear objective against the proper individuals, take them out efficiently and effectively, and end it as soon as possible. Our men and women should not be exposed to prolonged periods of war, as this will weaken our defense."

If Santorum continues to argue after this, Ron just needs to say "I've presented you with the facts, and I find it disrespectful you are attempting to gain the highest office in America with fear mongering and lies. That, sir, is the definition of terrorism."

I just hope the campaign is briefing Ron in this manner.

On another note, Ron also needs to make it known he's the only candidate that was vehemently against the NDAA and SOPA

 

[Freedom of Speech]

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.

 

[rockandrollsouls]

^^^ That

And, that he was the only one that actually supported Israel's actions to take out nuclear reactors!

 

[Havax]

Ron should call this prick a freedom-hater to his face right on the debate stage.

 

[seapilot]

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.

email that to the campaign.

 

[chickensguys]

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.

But Iran has bad guys there.
INVADE INVADE INVADE
*Inside the mind of a NEO-CON*

 

[ohgodno]

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.

 

[thehungarian]

Don't forget that in Newt's post-Iowa caucus speech he basically promised to go after Ron Paul in the next debate. Hope he's ready.

 

[Begood]

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.

 

[Feeding the Abscess]

And when this debate comes I bet my every penny Ron will again get tricked into sounding like a pacifist against a perceived threat of Iran instead of distancing himself from the specific scenario and address it philosophically through the rule of law and the constitution. Gosh I wish I could have a private 30min chat with that man.

Ron's a dove and a peacenik, just get over it already. Said it himself in an interview on Nevada TV: he couldn't be convinced to pick up a rifle and shoot someone, so he went into the military as a doctor to heal and help people instead. Said in a Houston paper editorial interview that he would like to see fewer nukes around the world, and also isn't a fan of conventional weapons.

Promote what we have.

 

[eugenekop]

Ron is who Ron is. And I think there is almost no scenario that justifies an attack on Iran, as long as they don't physically invade the United States. So Ron will never say America should attack Iran because he doesn't believe this is the right course of action no matter what. And I agree with him on that.

 

[Matthanuf06]

Ron is so close. If he wins this, it could put him over the top. What he needs to do is act like a politician, not like a professor. He needs to get his talking points, and frame his answers. Do not get tricked into answering specific scenarios that can make him look bad. Americans want a STRONG foreign policy, but not an aggressive one. People realize Paul won't be aggressive, but they do not need the strength. He needs to emphasize, that if there is a threat against the United States that he will act with brute strength. If the public believes that Paul will "wipe Iran off the face of the earth" if they actually become a threat, then his chance at becoming the next POTUS increases exponentially. If people continue to believe Paul won't act until a WMD is set off in the states, then he has no chance. He needs to frame his answers to look tough and strong.