They Like Ron Paul But.... Please Help Me Respond To This Issue On Defense

[libertygrl]

This is so aggravating! These people are so brainswashed by the media. I was visiting a forum and started a thread reaching out to Cain supporters and a few actually mentioned they like RP except.... there's always a "but" in there. This particualr person actually agrees with part of his foreign policy, but is afraid that he's weak on defense. It's weird because he seems to agree with his foreign policy, yet at the same time, appears to support our intervention into other countries.

Please help me to clear up their misconceptions. Here's one poster:

Being familiar with history there are a long list of failed nation building projects conducted primarily by the CIA. Papa Doc, and JR , Noriega, Batista, Marcos, Saddam, the Shah, Karzi. Somalia has been a shining success , as was Angola, Chile and Nicaragua. Egypt will fall to the hard liners as will Syria. The only success stories that come to mind are Germany, Japan and Grenada. But in those cases you had something more than savages to work with.

I personally do not care how any of them treat each other and if they stay within their own borders they can do as they please. They can all subjugate women and treat them as property. They can decide they do not like a particular group and eradicate them all , as long as they stay in their own country and do it.

The same Ayatollah is still in power today and they got what they wanted. Ahmadinejad is just a mouthpiece and the whole structure of their government is a facade. The people in Egypt will be whining in just a few years about how oppressed they are , as will the Libyans. I have no sympathy for them.

On this point Ron Paul is correct, mind our own business. My concern lies in whether or not he really understands how dangerous these people really are.I have had personal experience with them, and I know the hatred they have not only towards Americans but the west and non believers in general. The day may come when it will be necessary to shoot first and ask the questions later. To err on the side of the safety and security of the U.S. is not always the wrong thing to do. Would he take action before or after? Today the power of the weapons available are not what they were in 1941 when we were blindsided by the Japanese. I would guess somewhere around 3000 people were killed at Pearl Harbor and it took us 44 months to defeat them. Today Millions could be killed in a single strike.


I have always liked RP , and respect him. But his blaming the U.S. and claiming it is our fault that the world trade towers were brought down , the pentagon attacked and another aircraft lost is absurd. The way to prevent people from attacking you is for them to fear you and what will happen to them if they do. If and when we pursue action against any other nation it should be a scorched earth policy. They should know nothing will be left standing and none will survive. This is the proper use of military force and it must be projected as such. Reagan projected this position and attitude well. The positive results are well known.

I feel as many do RP would hesitate to use military force until after the fact. Many lives have been lost through frivolous , ineffective and unwarranted use of our military. Should the day come when undeniable use of force is warranted I want someone who is not hesitant to use it to it's full effect.
My personal opinion and that of many other members of the military service is that this has not been the case since WWII.

Dr. Paul should define this stance more towards a projection of power and strength , rather than the perception of reliance on diplomacy , apology and appeasement.

 

[vechorik]

For those who say Dr. Paul will do nothing, this has been working for me:

Ron Paul's War:

Dr. Paul supports using "letters of marque and reprisal."

These are, in effect, licenses to private parties to carry out acts of war. We used them against the Barbary pirates. Almost immediately after the attack on the World Trade Center, Dr. Paul introduced in the 107th Congress H.R. 2076, called the September 11 Marque and Reprisal Act of 2001, authorizing holders of the letters to go after bin Laden and other Al Qaeda leaders and seize them and their property. He also voted to give President Bush authority to use the military to go after Al Qaeda, but he has been pressing for letters of marque ever since.

Dr. Paul’s bill would have covered not only past attacks but any “planned future air piratical aggressions and depredations” against us. It would have given the president discretion to pay up to $40 billion in what were, in effect, bounties for the “capture, alive or dead, of Osama bin Laden or any other al Qaeda conspirator responsible for the act of air piracy upon the United States on September 11, 2001.”

Dr. Paul said that one thing he wanted as to avoid a trillion dollar expedition when there was a simpler, constitutional approach of bringing the war to our enemy.
----------------
Also, Dr. Paul is the only one that doesn't support aborting jewish babies in the holy land.

 

[LibertyEsq]

"So our government can be wrong on healthcare, but when the government is wrong on foreign policy that's "blaming America?" "

 

[RDM]

Direct them to this video.

 

[SchleckBros]

For those who say they won't support Ron Paul because of Iran this could be a mind changer:

http://www.salon.com/2011/12/04/george_orwell_on_the_evil_iranians/singleton/

 

[vechorik]

I also use the "History of US intervention in Iran" video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rk_BO40FElo

 

[vechorik]

If you find yourself saying repeating the media slight:
"I like Ron Paul except for his foreign policy"
then this video is for you:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?&v=ur4hKqTikqM#t=48s

 

[Krtek]

Ron Paul gets more military donations then all other republican candidates combined. The troops agree strongly with Ron Paul's foreign policy.

 

[tangent4ronpaul]

There is a reason no one attacks the Swiss. We could do likewise.

China protects it's population with shelters and thousands of miles of underground tunnels with trains/roads - if it looks like war, the bulk of the city population moves to the country.

Paul has also stated that he likes leaving some boomers at sea. The possibility of having your country turned into glass is a pretty strong deterrent against attack.

-t

 

[EBounding]

Part of the reason why it's aggravating trying to convince people about defense, is that Paul doesn't do it himself most of the time. He always says what we shouldn't be doing, but he doesn't talk much about what we SHOULD be doing instead.

He's supported the SDI, submarine technology, and the hypersonic weapons that reach anywhere within an hour. He doesn't talk much about this though and that's why people think he's weak.

 

[Jingles]

 

[ItsTime]

Ron Paul has already stated that if congress declares war, he will go to war with the full force of the US army, destroy the enemy and come home. No more nation building. The difference between Ron and the rest is that he will actually follow the constitution while the others think they are kings.

 

[1000-points-of-fright]

The next time someone says Paul is blaming America for 9/11 when he points out that government policies have consequences, tell them that they are blaming America when they criticize the results of Obama's policies.

 

[Tax the Fed]

reply by winging your copy of A Foreign Policy of Freedom at their head !

 

[AdamK]

APPEAL TO ALL AMERICANS ON BEHALF OF RON PAUL’S FOREIGN POLICY

If you don’t support Ron Paul because of his foreign policy I can understand because I was a traditional neoconservative type for much of my life. Upon digging into the facts, however, I now recognize that Ron Paul is on the right side of this issue.

The history of the Middle East and world in general, virtually all major surveys taken in Muslim streets, speeches delivered by Muslim leaders, and human nature confirm that meddling in the affairs of other countries and regions is the root cause of resistance, hatred, revenge, and terrorism.

Our meddling in the Middle East for more than 60 years by overthrowing governments (including democratic ones), invasions, occupations, setting up puppet governments and military bases came long before terrorism emerged as a reaction. There is no supporting evidence that organized radical Muslim terrorism results from hating us by nature, because of our religion, or lifestyle.

A universal characteristic of human nature is to be focused on creating a better life for ourselves and our children. Hatred, terrorism, and focus on what goes on in other countries come into play when our own way of life is violated or threatened by them. Until our heavy handed meddling in the Middle East we were rather liked and very much respected in the Middle East.

If a Muslim superpower meddled in our region for 60 years, invaded and occupied countries in North America, set up pro-Muslim puppet governments and military bases there would also be resistance, hatred, and no doubt some of us would also consider it justified to respond with the use of terrorism (even though terrorism should never be justified). Why, therefore, are we surprised that blowback emerges in reaction to our constant and consistent meddling in the Middle East during the course of 60 years?

We kept escalating the war in Vietnam to no avail but since leaving that country we now get along well. When under Soviet occupation the people of Eastern Europe despised and resisted the Russians on a daily basis. Now that the Soviets are out they are hardly given a 2nd thought in the people’s daily lives. Afghanistan practiced resistance and terrorism during the Soviet occupation of that country. Since Soviet departure and American entrance in that arena the hatred and terrorism has shifted to us. There is terrorism being committed by Muslims of Chechnya in an effort to free that country of Russian occupation.

Why then do we violate our Christian, national, and individual values to aggressively meddle in the affairs of others only to create more hatred and terrorism directed against us, while the vast majority of people around the world, and friendly leaders of other countries, warn against this course of action? Do not two of the most important commandments left by Jesus Christ not state “Love thy brother as you love yourself” and “Thou shell not kill?” Does not our Constitution, and did not our forefathers, warn against foreign entanglements and to respect the self-determination of all people whether we agree with them or not? Have we not been taught from early childhood to treat others as we would like to be treated ourselves?

History has proven over and over again that empires usually fall not from the strength of enemies but from their own over expansion. Many empires have tried to create a world in their own image by force and to date have all ultimately failed on each occasion.

If you can’t accept supporting Ron Paul’s foreign policy based on true Christian, national, and individual values that maintained the world’s respect for so many decades, then consider the fact that we simply cannot afford our current self-defeating warfare policy. Even if our meddling in the Middle East could create utopia for 30 million people in Afghanistan and 30 million people in Iraq, is it worth leading 312 million Americans into bankruptcy and full scale Depression during this process?

All evidence available thus far shows that our claims against Iran are basically as bogus as those used to justify the war in Iraq, except that the bombing of Iran would have far more serious negative consequences. Iran poses absolutely no threat to the United States. Even if Iran developed nuclear weapons it is unreasonable to believe that they would initiate a nuclear war against Israel as Iran would be toast within 24 hours. Contrary to the claims of so many Ahmadinejad never threatened to nuke Israel. And Iran has not started a war of aggression during its entire modern history, while we have started several, which included 3 acts of war committed against Iran alone.

This is not to say that Ahmadinejad does not represent a despicable dictatorship but we must consider how to deal with the situation with our own best interests and those of our children first. This also does not mean that Ron Paul does not believe in maintaining very strong defense. He absolutely does but that has little to do with constantly, and aggressively, meddling in the affairs of other nations.

Even after reading hundreds of documents that are readily available on the Internet, including those of our own government, which confirm all of the above, it took me a few years to accept the truth. Unfortunately, we don’t have a few more years to resolve these issues any longer thus I hope and pray that all Americans will take the time to examine the facts and accept the truth much more quickly than I did. This election will determine if we continue on the path to endless wars of self-destruction, bankruptcy, and full scale Depression within the next few years, or if we start the process of recovery under President Ron Paul.

Please feel free to pass on this appeal anywhere and everywhere possible in the interest of America’s future during this critical time in our history, and may God bless our nation.

 

[klamath]

This is so aggravating! These people are so brainswashed by the media. I was visiting a forum and started a thread reaching out to Cain supporters and a few actually mentioned they like RP except.... there's always a "but" in there. This particualr person actually agrees with part of his foreign policy, but is afraid that he's weak on defense. It's weird because he seems to agree with his foreign policy, yet at the same time, appears to support our intervention into other countries.

Please help me to clear up their misconceptions. Here's one poster:

Being familiar with history there are a long list of failed nation building projects conducted primarily by the CIA. Papa Doc, and JR , Noriega, Batista, Marcos, Saddam, the Shah, Karzi. Somalia has been a shining success , as was Angola, Chile and Nicaragua. Egypt will fall to the hard liners as will Syria. The only success stories that come to mind are Germany, Japan and Grenada. But in those cases you had something more than savages to work with.

I personally do not care how any of them treat each other and if they stay within their own borders they can do as they please. They can all subjugate women and treat them as property. They can decide they do not like a particular group and eradicate them all , as long as they stay in their own country and do it.

The same Ayatollah is still in power today and they got what they wanted. Ahmadinejad is just a mouthpiece and the whole structure of their government is a facade. The people in Egypt will be whining in just a few years about how oppressed they are , as will the Libyans. I have no sympathy for them.

On this point Ron Paul is correct, mind our own business. My concern lies in whether or not he really understands how dangerous these people really are.I have had personal experience with them, and I know the hatred they have not only towards Americans but the west and non believers in general. The day may come when it will be necessary to shoot first and ask the questions later. To err on the side of the safety and security of the U.S. is not always the wrong thing to do. Would he take action before or after? Today the power of the weapons available are not what they were in 1941 when we were blindsided by the Japanese. I would guess somewhere around 3000 people were killed at Pearl Harbor and it took us 44 months to defeat them. Today Millions could be killed in a single strike.


I have always liked RP , and respect him. But his blaming the U.S. and claiming it is our fault that the world trade towers were brought down , the pentagon attacked and another aircraft lost is absurd. The way to prevent people from attacking you is for them to fear you and what will happen to them if they do. If and when we pursue action against any other nation it should be a scorched earth policy. They should know nothing will be left standing and none will survive. This is the proper use of military force and it must be projected as such. Reagan projected this position and attitude well. The positive results are well known.

I feel as many do RP would hesitate to use military force until after the fact. Many lives have been lost through frivolous , ineffective and unwarranted use of our military. Should the day come when undeniable use of force is warranted I want someone who is not hesitant to use it to it's full effect.
My personal opinion and that of many other members of the military service is that this has not been the case since WWII.

Dr. Paul should define this stance more towards a projection of power and strength , rather than the perception of reliance on diplomacy , apology and appeasement.

how do you get someone to fear you if they are willing to stare down the ground in PA, the walls of the world trade centers, or the pentagon approaching at 500 MPH? There is no way to instill fear into some who so calmly face certain death.

 

[Akus]

Please help me to clear up their misconceptions. Here's one poster:

Being familiar with history there are a long list of failed nation building projects conducted primarily by the CIA. Papa Doc, and JR , Noriega, Batista, Marcos, Saddam, the Shah, Karzi. Somalia has been a shining success , as was Angola, Chile and Nicaragua. Egypt will fall to the hard liners as will Syria. The only success stories that come to mind are Germany, Japan and Grenada. But in those cases you had something more than savages to work with.

Japanese were hardly blue blooded and refined, just to make a note.

I personally do not care how any of them treat each other and if they stay within their own borders they can do as they please. They can all subjugate women and treat them as property. They can decide they do not like a particular group and eradicate them all , as long as they stay in their own country and do it.

The same Ayatollah is still in power today and they got what they wanted. Ahmadinejad is just a mouthpiece and the whole structure of their government is a facade. The people in Egypt will be whining in just a few years about how oppressed they are , as will the Libyans. I have no sympathy for them.

On this point Ron Paul is correct, mind our own business. My concern lies in whether or not he really understands how dangerous these people really are.I have had personal experience with them, and I know the hatred they have not only towards Americans but the west and non believers in general. The day may come when it will be necessary to shoot first and ask the questions later. To err on the side of the safety and security of the U.S. is not always the wrong thing to do. Would he take action before or after? Today the power of the weapons available are not what they were in 1941 when we were blindsided by the Japanese. I would guess somewhere around 3000 people were killed at Pearl Harbor and it took us 44 months to defeat them. Today Millions could be killed in a single strike.

The tired old Pearl Harbor analogy is tired and old and totally off its mark. It was done by different people of a different country on a military, not a civilian, target for totally different reasons. This is not even apples and oranges, this is apples and ... I don't know.... shoes. Muslims hate America, but they also hate non-Americans, sometimes, even other Muslims. What unites different groups of extremists that would have nothing to do with one another is constant incessant American interference. We bomb, we give money to one group of cutthroats, only to stop and give it to another group of equal cutthroats, only to stop again and have the third group of cutthroats destroy the first two and then bomb them ourselves. That angers people, and angry people see solutions with radicals, whose agenda a lie carefully mixed with the truth. Our total withdrawal and removal of any government contacts would separate once solid extremist groups and will make their attempts to hurt America that much more miscoordinated and futile.

I have always liked RP , and respect him. But his blaming the U.S. and claiming it is our fault that the world trade towers were brought down , the pentagon attacked and another aircraft lost is absurd.

Hey liberty girl, have this clown quote a direct Ron Paul quote where he specifically said it's America's fault. And also be sure to tell this "foreign policy expert" that many in CIA are on the same page with Ron Paul. Our actions almost always bring a negative blowback ten times worse then the initial problem.

The way to prevent people from attacking you is for them to fear you and what will happen to them if they do.

Or we can just make it so they wouldn't want to attack us, because, I don't know, we're far and it's hard and hey, it's really nice outside so they'll just play soccer or something.....

If and when we pursue action against any other nation it should be a scorched earth policy. They should know nothing will be left standing and none will survive. This is the proper use of military force and it must be projected as such. Reagan projected this position and attitude well. The positive results are well known.

There are other way to kick people's asses, way way more efficient and long lasting then blind impulsive violence. We can stop interfering in those countries' internal affairs. Stop deciding for them who should run their countries and if they should elect their leaders or not. Wasn't it George Washington who said that the sword is the last weapon to pick and the first to put down in the international relations?

I feel as many do RP would hesitate to use military force until after the fact. Many lives have been lost through frivolous , ineffective and unwarranted use of our military. Should the day come when undeniable use of force is warranted I want someone who is not hesitant to use it to it's full effect.
My personal opinion and that of many other members of the military service is that this has not been the case since WWII.

Dr. Paul should define this stance more towards a projection of power and strength , rather than the perception of reliance on diplomacy , apology and appeasement.

hey liberty girl, please ask this expert who he thinks will attack the United States the way Japan did in 1941 or Canada did in 1812?

one more thing

Try not to get pulled in too much in to this debate. The arguments that this Hermain Cain supporter presented and fallacious and can be easily torn down with but a couple of rebuttals. Direct him to books and have him read the reading assignment list Ron Paul gave to Rudy Guliani. Ron Paul preaches non interference and no entangling alliances. Let's practice that in our personal lives as well. If, after two or three (set your own number) counter arguments, he is still insistent that Ron Paul is a cowardly appeaser who blames America for everything, then let go. Further pursuit is the very entangling alliance Ron Paul warned against.

Remember, campaign for liberty, as much as it is aimed to get Ron Paul elected, is not ONLY and SOLIDLY about Ron Paul's victory. It is about personal transformation and inner peace.

Good luck.

 

[Number19]

The subject is too complex to quickly lay out a convincing response; so don't respond. Instead, ask leading questions to get that person to state his personal concerns; ie ask what he personally, on a daily basis as he goes about his business, fears. Ask how will a terrorist attack. Ask if he feels our nation is actually threatened, or only if individual security may be threatened for a very small number of citizens. Get that individual to come to his own conclusion that America is not threatened and security can be addressed by internal action not requiring foreign interventionism. If you can get this far, you might then explain that our foreign policy is all about politics and not security.

 

[sailingaway]

send them this: http://www.nysun.com/opinion/ron-paul-will-be-missed-at-forum-of-jewish/87591/

 

[libertygrl]

Wow, Wow, Wow! You guys are awesome as usual! So much to choose from here and so much that just MAKES COMMON SENSE! A BIG THANKS!