Foreign Policy: Why my dad will not vote for Ron Paul.

[Daniel 9 5]

My dad's main problem with Ron Paul, is that he thinks RP will let wars(between other nations) go on and on until the world is conquered and then it will be USA vs. the world in a war.

Can anyone clarify this for me or perhaps point me in the proper direction as to find out where RP stands on this hypothetical scenario?

I am all for peace, and i'm fully aware of our "leaders" duplicity in bringing the USA into wars throughout our history. However, sometimes evil must simply be stopped. If some megalamaniacal dictator started going through the world killing and enslaving people, is there a point that President Paul will say "enough!" and militarily intervene on behalf of the people being killed and enslaved? Or will RP say "it's got nothing to do with our national defense?

Also, does anyone know where I can find a RP shirt that says "Legalize Freedom" or "Legalize the Constitution"?

Thanks

 

[specsaregood]

If some megalamaniacal dictator started going through the world killing and enslaving people, is there a point that President Paul will say "enough!" and militarily intervene on behalf of the people being killed and enslaved? Or will RP say "it's got nothing to do with our national defense?

Easy answer. When the congress passes a Declaration of War, has identified an enemy and goal. Ya know, the constitutional way.

He isn't a no- war guy, he is a no-undeclared, unconstitutional war guy.

 

[ItsTime]

Who will be conquering the world? Iran? How? It would take a super power like China to start a war that could even conquer France, never mind the world.

His idea that someone will conquer the world is fringe and not even plausible. But in that case, Congress has the power to say "enough" not Ron Paul since he is a president not a dictator.

 

[Jeremy]

Does he think the real world is like the board game Risk? You beat a country in war and then you control everyone?

 

[Thomas]

Does he think the real world is like the board game Risk? You beat a country in war and then you control everyone?

lmaooo

 

[dannno]

Every nation that has tried to create a world empire has spread itself too thin, never even come CLOSE to being able to unite various groups of people, and have destroyed all of their wealth and most of their resources in the process.

Your dad's scenario is just not plausible. And he probably plays too much of the game "Risk".

This is just a game, it's not how the world really works:

 

[ItsTime]

What is even worse is that we are the ones doing the conquering and it is usually that country that ends up failing....

 

[dannno]

Does he think the real world is like the board game Risk? You beat a country in war and then you control everyone?

lol, you beat me to it.

 

[specsaregood]

What is even worse is that we are the ones doing the conquering and it is usually that country that ends up failing....

Yeah, that occurred to me as well. The scenario described in the OP sounds like the US is the country trying to takeover the world. Hell, we already have the dictator that can go to war without any congressional approval.

 

[Warrior_of_Freedom]

Who's going to conquer the world? Iran? LOL!

 

[Warrior_of_Freedom]

Yeah, that occurred to me as well. The scenario described in the OP sounds like the US is the country trying to takeover the world. Hell, we already have the dictator that can go to war without any congressional approval.

Maybe we should just take over the world! Then there won't be any more wars! /sarcasm

 

[thehighwaymanq]

I see his point.

Ron brought up the example of Soviet Union at the debates and I thought that was great. That's the biggest thread and we did not resort to war.

 

[MJU1983]

My dad's main problem with Ron Paul, is that he thinks RP will let wars(between other nations) go on and on until the world is conquered and then it will be USA vs. the world in a war.

Can anyone clarify this for me or perhaps point me in the proper direction as to find out where RP stands on this hypothetical scenario?

I am all for peace, and i'm fully aware of our "leaders" duplicity in bringing the USA into wars throughout our history. However, sometimes evil must simply be stopped. If some megalamaniacal dictator started going through the world killing and enslaving people, is there a point that President Paul will say "enough!" and militarily intervene on behalf of the people being killed and enslaved? Or will RP say "it's got nothing to do with our national defense?

Also, does anyone know where I can find a RP shirt that says "Legalize Freedom" or "Legalize the Constitution"?

Thanks

I wouldn't waste time on your dad and instead focus your efforts on others.

If he really has views like that...it took many years of indoctrination, believing and accepting what the lying sociopaths in Washington DC tell him as the truth.

Points that matter:
1- Ron Paul is a Veteran.
2- Ron Paul was endorsed by Reagan because of foreign policy/ national defense:

"Ron Paul is one of the outstanding leaders fighting for a stronger national defense. As a former Air Force officer, he knows well the needs of our armed forces, and he always puts them first. We need to keep him fighting for our country." - Ronald Reagan

3- Ron Paul is receiving more than 2x the campaign donations from military men and women as every other GOP candidate COMBINED. http://www.ronpaul2012.com/2011/07/20/ron-paul-campaign-raises-most-donations-from-military/

 

[musicmax]

If some megalamaniacal dictator started going through the world killing and enslaving people, is there a point that President Paul will say "enough!" and militarily intervene on behalf of the people being killed and enslaved? Or will RP say "it's got nothing to do with our national defense?

Ask him if the US should have intervened in the Soviet Union when Stalin was killing his own people by the millions. Ask him if the US intervened in Rwanda. Then ask him how he's going to pay for such interventions.

No nation can "go through the world". Look at Rome. Look at the USSR. Look at what happened to Hitler when he tried to invade the USSR.

 

[musicmax]

until the world is conquered and then it will be USA vs. the world in a war.

Does he think that if Country A conquers Country B that Country B's citizens will automatically join Country A's army and unite against the US? Perhaps I missed the chapter of World War II where the French started fighting alongside the Nazis.

 

[jmdrake]

My dad's main problem with Ron Paul, is that he thinks RP will let wars(between other nations) go on and on until the world is conquered and then it will be USA vs. the world in a war.

Can anyone clarify this for me or perhaps point me in the proper direction as to find out where RP stands on this hypothetical scenario?

I am all for peace, and i'm fully aware of our "leaders" duplicity in bringing the USA into wars throughout our history. However, sometimes evil must simply be stopped. If some megalamaniacal dictator started going through the world killing and enslaving people, is there a point that President Paul will say "enough!" and militarily intervene on behalf of the people being killed and enslaved? Or will RP say "it's got nothing to do with our national defense?

Also, does anyone know where I can find a RP shirt that says "Legalize Freedom" or "Legalize the Constitution"?

Thanks

1st Welcome to the forum.

2nd Ask you dad if he truly believes that getting involved in wars is the only way to end them? Ask your dad if he thinks we should have intervened militarily in Northern Ireland for example?

3rd Ask your dad what happened to the predictions that if we pulled out of Vietnam all of Southeast Asia would become communist.

 

[newbitech]

Why couldn't congress just declare war on the rampaging marauders? I think that if Congress handed President Paul a declaration of war, he would not hesitate to bring the full force of the country's military might down upon that enemy and resolve the reason for war quicker than any commander in the history of the world.

The idea of war is not to have them go on forever and ever and ever and constantly be involved in disputes around the world. War should be the last resort of self defense for a nation who has exhausted all options. Once the REASON for the declaration of war is spelled out, then the primary objective is to resolve that reason and achieve the victory of successfully stopping whatever aggression started the conflict.

Dr. Paul has repeated asked Congress throughout his tenure to DECLARE WAR before engaging troops. Basically, give a reason to go to war! Of course, we are given all kinds of reasons why our forces are committed all over the world, but not since I have been alive have the people responsible actually bothered to put pen to paper and OWN the reason. That is, these folks claiming all the reason in the world to send people to fight and die in the desert absolutely REFUSE to be held ACCOUNTABLE if their REASON is WRONG!

I am against this, so should anyone who has any interest in supporting our troops, their families, and their actions on our behalf, around the world.

Declare it! OWN IT!

 

[Daniel 9 5]

What is even worse is that we are the ones doing the conquering and it is usually that country that ends up failing....

Yes, I am fully aware of this.


And to the rest of you that want to make a funny, yes he is heavily indoctrinated by Fox and the neo-cons, just as I and no doubt many of you were. He also is a man that cries a bit when we get to talking about 1776 and all that, and I promise you that he is not the only one with this mindset, he likes everything else about RP. The goal is to get our country back...not make light of people that don't "get it".

 

[jmdrake]

Yes, I am fully aware of this.


And to the rest of you that want to make a funny, yes he is heavily indoctrinated by Fox and the neo-cons, just as I and no doubt many of you were. He also is a man that cries a bit when we get to talking about 1776 and all that, and I promise you that he is not the only one with this mindset, he likes everything else about RP. The goal is to get our country back...not make light of people that don't "get it".

Hey, I feel you. I recently got my mom to pledge to vote for Ron Paul and she voted for Obama last time. (She actually liked Ron Paul's foreign policy all along. It's the economics I had to sell).

Okay, help us out here. The OP question is too general. On all of the wars that we are currently fighting (Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya etc) is there any war he thinks we shouldn't be fighting? Let's take the war in Libya. Right now we are fighting on the side of Al Qaeda. Does he agree with that? Does he think we should be on the side of the tyrant Khaddafi? Or does he think we should just have stayed out? If you can get him to see the wisdom of staying out of that war, maybe he can see the wisdom of staying out of other wars.

 

[dannno]

And to the rest of you that want to make a funny....The goal is to get our country back...not make light of people that don't "get it".

To be fair, you're on an internet forum and traditionally the goal is to mix in jokes with useful information.