Sick of the Iran, FP excuse from non-supporters - solution.

[Bman]

Can someone ask Ron, on camera, what he would do if Iran attacked the U.S. and can someone coach Ron to answer "send them to hell!".

OK, done venting.

 

[Havax]

Bret Baier tried to do that like 3 times in a row with Ron in a debate and Ron dodged that hypothetical. In other interviews he's explained he would take us to war if congress declared it and we are under a direct thread (Jan Mickelson radio interview).



Neocons don't want to "wait to be attacked" to respond. They want to preemptively attack them to prevent an attack on us. So him answering the questions as you proposed won't win over any new voters.

 

[HeyArchie]

What a stupid question. Of course Ron would defend the country if it was attacked or if there was an imminent threat. The fact that Iran may one day have a nuclear weapon is not a reason to go to war. If there was intelligence that they were going to attack us or if they did, Congress would obviously declare war and we would take care of it. I don't understand these silly hypotheticals. Ron is non-interventionist, not stupid.

 

[ryanmkeisling]

 

[Bman]

What a stupid question. Of course Ron would defend the country if it was attacked or if there was an imminent threat. The fact that Iran may one day have a nuclear weapon is not a reason to go to war. If there was intelligence that they were going to attack us or if they did, Congress would obviously declare war and we would take care of it. I don't understand these silly hypotheticals. Ron is non-interventionist, not stupid.

Call them hypotheticals silly all you want. They're killing us.

 

[EBounding]

I disagree with this and I'm a recovering neo-con.

Doing these hypotheticals gives legitimacy to the war propaganda. It's also not very statesmanlike and kind of dangerous. What would we do if during a Russian "debate" Putin said he would bury the US if they threatened Russia? It would not be good. I'm glad he dodges the question because Iran is not a threat!

When it comes to foreign policy, I would prefer Paul to just explain what he would like Congress to spend money on for the military and national defense. Obviously, it's still going to be a lot since we're only going back to 2006 levels. So what does he want that money spent on? I think it would reassure a lot of people. But just saying he won't cut a penny from defense isn't going to work because they think he just wants to buy peace doves and telephones to talk to Castro.

 

[jmdrake]

If you really want Ron Paul's answer to the "When would you use military force" question see:



But the way you've framed the question feeds into the lie that Iran actually represents a threat. It doesn't. To understand why it doesn't see:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?308140-How-Ron-Paul-could-smack-down-Iran-critics

 

[LanceK37]

Call them hypotheticals silly all you want. They're killing us.

The reason there are so many of these hypotheticals is because there's a lot of macho posturing in the GOP, these are the same people who think that if a Democrat had been President on 9-11 he would have "taken it like a bitch and not fought back".

 

[HeyArchie]

Call them hypotheticals silly all you want. They're killing us.

It is just a way to try to discredit Ron and because he has trouble getting his point across clearly, he comes off as soft on foreign policy. He just needs to keep pushing these points:

- He doesn't want Iran to get a nuclear weapon, but does not think that sanctions or war are the ways to go about handling the situation. If not because it is just bad policy, then at least because we cannot afford it at this point.
- He wants to bring the troops home to build up a strong national defense. We are spread too thin, wasting money in places we don't need to be (it does not enhance our national defense).
- He will go to war with a declaration from Congress and fight and win it quickly.
- He understands that there are radical Islamists and that they are a threat, but the way it is handled is not right. Us being over there only exacerbates the situation. I don't think he should EVER go into why they hate us and why they attacked us on 9/11. Most of us agree it is because we were over there killing them, but that is not something the GOP is ready for.

If he can get these points across succinctly and we still don't gain traction, Americans are just fucking stupid and we never had a chance in the first place.

 

[Bman]

Difference is I'm not delusional. I don't want Ron to change his FP, but either he finds a better way to answer or have fun at the Ron Paul counter convention and cheer 4 more years of a jackass being in the White House.

 

[LanceK37]

I disagree with this and I'm a recovering neo-con.

Doing these hypotheticals gives legitimacy to the war propaganda. It's also not very statesmanlike and kind of dangerous. What would we do if during a Russian "debate" Putin said he would bury the US if they threatened Russia? It would not be good. I'm glad he dodges the question because Iran is not a threat!

When it comes to foreign policy, I would prefer Paul to just explain what he would like Congress to spend money on for the military and national defense. Obviously, it's still going to be a lot since we're only going back to 2006 levels. So what does he want that money spent on? I think it would reassure a lot of people. But just saying he won't cut a penny from defense isn't going to work because they think he just wants to buy peace doves and telephones to talk to Castro.

The propaganda is reality for the Republicans who consume it. The world of the Fox News viewer is an upside down world where Iran is threatening to attack us and we are defending ourselves. The reason they want Paul to answer questions like this is that they think their view of Iran as aggressor is real.

 

[cdc482]

Ron would never give an answer like that. Only a despicable person could ever say something like that about another human being.

 

[LanceK37]

Listen to neocon Dennis Miller's show sometime and you'll understand what we are up against, when you realize that the neocons consider Syria "radical Islamists" even though Assad's regime doesn't persecute Christians (10% of Syria's population is Christian) you discover that "radical Islamist" is another term that has no concrete meaning whatsoever and essentially stands for "any Muslim nation we feel like conquering"

 

[jmdrake]

Difference is I'm not delusional. I don't want Ron to change his FP, but either he finds a better way to answer or have fun at the Ron Paul counter convention and cheer 4 more years of a jackass being in the White House.

And you think other people are? Here's the problem.

1) A flip/flop by Ron, real or imagined, will undermine the one area where he is genuinely liked and that is his consistency. Have you already forgotten the accusations that he "flip flopped" on the OBL raid? And sadly at least one RPF reader bought that crap.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showth...d-in-Pakistan-—-But-Here’s-th&highlight=laden

2) Random comments on an internet forum will not get Ron to change his presentation style anyway so threads like these are a waste of time for all involved.

3) He's already given a clear statement of the type of hypothetical situation where he would use force. Instead of demanding yet another one use the one I just freaking gave you.

4) Even Rick Santorum knows that Iran isn't really a threat. He's just lying about it in debates and media appearances. It's time to call this bastards out on their lies.

 

[Bman]

Ron would never give an answer like that. Only a despicable person could ever say something like that about another human being.

Then come up with a better one because Ron's answer sucks to 80% of Republicans.

 

[HeyArchie]

Then come up with a better one because Ron's answer sucks to 80% of Republicans.

See my post with the list of points he needs to get across.

He should also stop saying things like how he understands why Iran would want a nuke. I appreciate the honesty, I do. And I agree with him, but the electorate's political IQ is 2.

 

[Bman]

I know being critical of something won't win me popularity points. If no one sees how we're getting killed on this then we're not in to win it. I'm not saying my answer is the right one, but a right one hasn't been given by anyone and it shows when it counts.

To focus else where at this point IMHO is a mistake.

 

[LanceK37]

See my post with the list of points he needs to get across.

He should also stop saying things like how he understands why Iran would want a nuke. I appreciate the honesty, I do. And I agree with him, but the electorate's political IQ is 2.

It is too late for any of this, Republicans are already convinced that Ahmadinejad is the Devil and Iran is the new Nazi Germany.

 

[jmdrake]

Then come up with a better one because Ron's answer sucks to 80% of Republicans.

I gave you one:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=yKse3W0Yt_k

And another:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=jRW30b_51KY

And another:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?308140-How-Ron-Paul-could-smack-down-Iran-critics

 

[Captain Shays]

Listen to neocon Dennis Miller's show sometime and you'll understand what we are up against, when you realize that the neocons consider Syria "radical Islamists" even though Assad's regime doesn't persecute Christians (10% of Syria's population is Christian) you discover that "radical Islamist" is another term that has no concrete meaning whatsoever and essentially stands for "any Muslim nation we feel like conquering"

The terms "radical Islamist" and "Islamo-facist" were both inventions of the CFR. In fact I heard Frank Gaffney actually take credit for it on Bill O'Reilly when O'Reilly tried to take credit for it. Gaffney made it clear that he was the one who came up with it. Both terms are meaningless and deceptive. Considering that a facist by definition is one who marries corporate entities to government if anyone is a facist it's Gaffney.