Where are Paul's advisers?

[eugenekop]

I still think that what could bring it all home for Dr Paul is him outlining what he WILL do to keep us safe from whatever threatmight come down the line. A Constitutional foreign policy includes war as well as peace. I for one want a mighty badass war machine that can wipe ANY enemy off the face of the earth if necessary. So does every other American.....I think. We want a badass as our president. Maybe a badass statesman, negotiator, peace maker, diplomate but still a badass no other country dares mess with.

How is that different from "wiping Israel from the map" comment? It sounds like you have no problem with civilians getting killed.

 

[BKom]

People want to see that their president will be strong in the face of a real threat. It's a great character trait to see the world through your opponents' eyes. It's also very useful as it humanizes a perceived enemy. But there are some bad state actors and individual actors in this world, and the president has to be willing to face them head on. Ron gives the impression that he's paralyzed by merely bringing up the question in debates. It's not his answers that are the problem, it's how he delivers them, and it always has been.

Gingrich and Santorum say some of the most awful, hateful things in the world, and yet they get support because they've crafted their answers to sound appealing. I only wish Ron would take the time to work on his answers too. Because his answers also have the virtue of being correct.

 

[Captain Shays]

Okay, call it a war on terrorists. Honestly you have to have your head in the sand to realize that we aren't in a "war" (however you wish to define it) with these extremists. We are without a doubt fighting a distinct group of people. Now how to fight them, how to do it constitutionally, how to win, and understanding what caused this war (blowback) should all be valid discussion points. But the fact that there is a group out there that really wants to kill Americans should not be up for debate, it is fact. Now also thinking if we just implemented a non-interventionalist fp that this group will suddenly become peaceful towards us is a bit pie in the sky as well, but it is possible.

Either way, the American public doesn't think Ron Paul will sufficiently defend the country.

You're right Bro. We should all acknowledge, including our next president, president Paul that there have always been radical Muslims who want to kill infidels and establish a global caliphate. It's just FACT. But, as Ron Paul knows, it's really a small group of them comparitively speaking though it's a huge number by the reports that I have read. Out of 1.4 billion of the Muslims on the planet, somewhere between 10%-14% sympathize with bin Laden. Now that needs to be tweeked a little because those reports don't indicate how much of our meddling in the affairs of Muslim countries or our interventionist foreign policy or the bases the USA set up in Ryiad after the Gulf war or our unquestionied support for Israel has to do with their sympathy for bin Laden. It's just safe to acknowledge that the reason for terrorism is two part. One part Kuran and one part interventionism. But, just to say that it's interventionism fails to explain the terrorist attacks around the world that have nothing to do with our actions or our support for Israel. It's strictly Muslim insanity. That said, it's very clear that our actions are one of the main reasons for new recruits into terrorist organizations in certain parts of the world. There is just no doubt about that and Ron Paul hits homes runs every time on that but he strikes out when it comes to acknowledging the obvious. That there are and always were and probably always will be Muslims who just hate infidels and want to kill us. On the other hand, all the other candidates strike out every time when it comes to acknowledging that our actions have blow back and result in dead innocent people.
It boils down to Ron Paul not stopping at all the things he "won't" do like meddling in other countries affairs, policing the world, unnecessary wars etc and going on to explain what he WILL do to keep us safe from the terrorists, communists, subversives or whoever wants to do us harm.

Ron Paul is a HUGE supporters of a missile defense system. Why doesn't he EVER say that? He also supports a militia style defense but I do understand why he doesn't say that lol. But it doesn't mean whacked out guys living behind barbed wire fenses waiting for the end times prophesies to come true or nut cases trying to over throw the government. Switzerland who our founding fathers modeled our foreign policy after has a militia style defense meaning EVERY able bodied man and woman in the country is armed, trained and ready to defend the country at a moments notice. It means instead of policing the world we establish an extensive civil defense system that would enable most of our citizens to survive ANY kind of attack including a nuclear, biological or chemical. What we've been taught about "nuclear winter" and "end of it all" relative to nuclear war is NOT TRUE. The fact is most of us will survive the initial attack. Its just a matter of how well we're prepared that will determine our survival in the weeks after the attack. For those who don't know, we sold out this type of defense in the SALT I Treaty with the Soviets when they tried to insure Mutually Assured Destruction. (MAD). But the game is different now. Some rogue country or terrorist could initiate an attack and we are for the most part totally defenseless.
We also have 36,000 shipping containers that enter our country EVERY DAY without being inspected the size of a tractor trailer truck. ANYTHING could come in on those including armies, guns, and other weapons. The "experts" say we just don't have the man power to inspect every one of them. But we do have 35,000 troops in South Korea protecting them. I say bring them home to inspect those shipping containers.
Obama said we should have citizens trained to protect the contry. Many people likened them to the brown shirts in Germany. I applauded him but it was restrained applause because he refused to arm them. But the fact is, we have miles and miles or electrical grid that can easily be distrupted leaving millions of people without power for extended periods of time if some terrorist or subversive group was so inclined and knowing that I know I can tell you that it's not that difficult. We also have centralized water distribution networks that are totally unprotected that could be easily contaminated. Our government would need to become totalitarian to protect us from every threat but there are millions of patriots out there who are more than willing to be watchers on the wall and give their lives in necessary to protect their own community, family and country.
This leads to the issue of centralization vs decentralization. As we become more and more centralized in everything from government, to trucking to water and electrical production and distribution we also become more authoritarian and totalitarian and facist. Ron Paul like Jefferson is a HUGE proponent of decentralization. He needs to talk about that more because its good for liberty, more efficient, less expensive and provides better services.

 

[Babylon]

Paul's getting wrecked on foreign policy tonight. These are all old questions. Are Paul's advisers, or anyone for that matter letting him know he needs to strengthen his answers? It just seems that if they know these questions are coming, why not have clear answers prepared? Even with the audience being as fucked up as they are, I believe they would have booed less had Paul responded clearly with strong and condensed answers.

They need to fix this FAST!

I watched a few videos of the Iowa Caucuses.
Specifically, the speakers for Ron Paul.

It reminded me of a few things.

First, persuasive public speaking is a gift, and very very rare.

Second, everyone (noting by the Ron Paul speakers at the Caucuses) thinks they can do it. They can't.

Third, the talent of rhetoric is typically found only amongst Lawyers (specifically, trial lawyers) and Preachers. Ron is neither. The fact that an OB/GYN is able to say anything interesting at all for more than 30 seconds is shocking in and of itself.

In the spirit of Samuel Johnson's quote, "Sir, an OB/GYN debating lawyers is like a dog's walking on his hind legs. It is not done well; but you are surprised to find it done at all."

 

[Captain Shays]

How is that different from "wiping Israel from the map" comment? It sounds like you have no problem with civilians getting killed.

Well because I said "if necessary". Ron Paul believes in the Christian Just War Principles right? So do I. The ONLY just war is a war of self defense. But once you're in that sort of war you have EVERY right to kill in order to protect your country. And if you read my comment carefully I also said "wipe any enemy off the face of the planet". I didn't say wipe any country or religion or civilization off the face of the earth.
That friend is a major difference but still appeals to the war hungry crowd nonetheless. I don't think they are as war hungry as we portray them any more than we are as pacifist as they portray us to be. What I am saying is that ALL of us just want to be protected by our government from ANY threat that comes down the pike.

 

[Captain Shays]

Absolutely. And I don't think that's too much to ask for. We need someone who is respected and even feared to some extent. You don't have to be a war monger to be strong militarily. Unfortunately, Paul doesn't have that badass personality.

He did when he was younger. He was a real fire cracker!!!

 

[eugenekop]

Well because I said "if necessary". Ron Paul believes in the Christian Just War Principles right? So do I. The ONLY just war is a war of self defense. But once you're in that sort of war you have EVERY right to kill in order to protect your country. And if you read my comment carefully I also said "wipe any enemy off the face of the planet". I didn't say wipe any country or religion or civilization off the face of the earth.
That friend is a major difference but still appeals to the war hungry crowd nonetheless. I don't think they are as war hungry as we portray them any more than we are as pacifist as they portray us to be. What I am saying is that ALL of us just want to be protected by our government from ANY threat that comes down the pike.

EVERY right to kill whom? The terrorists or the civilians in the villages who happen to live in the vicinity of the terrorist?