Ron Paul needs to clarify his position on National Security

[PimpBlimp]

We are not gaining much ground because a lot of people are still convinced there is an army of 1 billion Muslim terrorists ready to invade our country.

Ron needs to reassure them that he won't leave the country defenseless or cut the military down to 20%. Sadly this is what a lot of people think about him.

A lot of conservatives (in the south at least) feel like they don't have a candidate to represent them. So they are willing to take the 'lesser evil'. They always overlook Ron because they think he is weak on national defense. We could take a HUGE conservative base by getting Ron Paul to talk about how he would secure the nation.



We need to prove to them that Ron has the best plan for national defense.

Some points I quickly came up with:

Secure the southern border
Deny visas from countries linked with terrorism
Secure Ports
Bring bases home to the US where they can protect our nation.

I encourage you all to come up with some good points too...


Maybe we could contact HQ with this important issue?

[jake]

Ron Paul is the strongest candidate for Vets
Improving military hospitals within the USA
Strong national defense = well funded, well trained military

[PimpBlimp]

Oh yeah

Ron Paul is for legalizing foreign bounty hunting
http://www.politico.com/blogs/thecrypt/0707/Ron_Paul_brings_back_a_whacky_post_911_bill.html

I won over some people with that :D

[Live Free or Die]

Oh yeah

Ron Paul is for legalizing foreign bounty hunting
http://www.politico.com/blogs/thecrypt/0707/Ron_Paul_brings_back_a_whacky_post_911_bill.html

I won over some people with that :D


Humorist Dave Barry once said something about that in an interview with, I believe, Reason Magazine. He called it something like "the Department of two guys named Victor." LOL.

[Live Free or Die]

Found it, from 1994:

http://www.reason.com/news/show/32270.html

All I Think Is That It's Stupid
Dave Barry on laughing at Very Big Government



Reason: One of the planks in your presidential campaign is the Department of Two Guys Named Victor.

Barry:: This is one of those times I wasn't kidding. At the time, we were mad at Moammar Gadhafi, which resulted in us bombing all over Libya and killing a bunch of people, but not him. Then Ronald Reagan gets up and says we're not trying to kill him, we're just dropping bombs. You can kill all the Libyans you want, but legally you can't try to kill the leader.
The other one was Manuel Noriega. Here we have a problem with just one person, and we send all these troops down to deal with it. All these people get killed and hurt, but not Noriega.
So instead of messing around with armies, get a couple of guys named Victor. The president meets with them and has breakfast, or he goes to dinner with them at the restaurant of their choice, and suggests that he's having a problem. Then the next thing you know, you read in the paper that Saddam Hussein has suffered an unfortunate shaving accident resulting in the loss of his head. We don't involve a lot of 22-year-old kids in this dispute between George Bush and Saddam Hussein.

[PimpBlimp]

Bump

[acroso]

We need to gut the military to cut spending.

[Alabama Supporter]

This is very important. So far, his marketing has not addressed this. Perception is reality, and it is time HQ breaks the perception of him being weak on defense.

[nodope0695]

Agreed...He's named some heavy hitters as his economic advisers, now he needs some big name foriegn and militry advisers.

[liberteebell]

I just started reading his book, "A Foreign Policy of Freedom" and he talks about a very strong national defense. Things like our military bases should be on OUR soil, if we didn't spend so much money propping up dictators and supporting other countries, we could spend MORE on our own defense. In fact, it all sounds VERY Reganesque.

There is a perception among many that he's a pacifist which I know is not true, but he doesn't do a good job of expressing how we need to protect ourselves and how he plans to put a strong national defense in place.

[PimpBlimp]

We need to gut the military to cut spending.

Not necessarily.

Bringing the foreign bases to OUR country would save several hundred billion and help the US economy.

[newnews]

And why would the people all think the muslims want to kill us?

and they call truthers kooks

[DFF]

I agree 100% with the opening post and I'll take it a step further: I'd reassure the American people that as President he would not close down every single U.S. base overseas and would only close down those bases, which after careful consideration with top military advisers, could be deemed as 'safe' to close.

The reality is, if Paul wishes to become President, he absolutely has to be willing to work with the CIA/FBI/Military -- and this means compromising to a degree -- because if he doesn't, there's no way in Hell he's getting into office.

Without compromising, 'they' would deem him a national security threat; and he'd get JFK'd the second he got the Republican or Third Party nomination.

[liberteebell]

Not necessarily.

Bringing the foreign bases to OUR country would save several hundred billion and help the US economy.

Agree. I often ask people if they think it's sane to be subjecting our bases at home to BRAC even as we build bases overseas. I live in a military town so the BRAC commission is not very popular here.

The best offense is a strong defense.

[liberteebell]

And why would the people all think the muslims want to kill us?

and they call truthers kooks

+1 LOL!

[dblee]

omg AGREED!!!! this should be priority #1 of the campaign.

I cannot believe how many people I hear about saying "I like Ron Paul's domestic policy, but I can't get behind his foreign policy."

As if somehow we'd be giving up or exposing ourselves to attack and embarassment.

The way I like to put it about the war in Iraq is: "We've already won! Now lets keep it that way."

[DFF]

As if somehow we'd be giving up or exposing ourselves to attack and embarassment

If we want to remain a global superpower, that is, have a strong economy and a powerhouse military, we need some bases overseas. I'm fine with getting out of Iraq and shutting down some bases. But I'm absolutely not ok with shutting down every U.S. base overseas. No way, no how. An aside; if Paul did relent somewhat on his Foreign Policy, his media exposure would skyrocket.

[PimpBlimp]

bump

[Derek Johnson]

1. Illegal entry ends immediately, all borders and ports.
2. Human intelligence in every country, native speakers, recognizance only
3. Continued R&D with military technology, this is historically proven for 6000 years, this will never change
4. Mandatory 3 year military service for ALL males 18-21 years of age, no exceptions, no exemption, nobody gets a pass....PERIOD.
5. ORIGINAL INTENT of Article I section 8, and please read the Federal papers for the wisdom of the founders in keeping the "war making" powers strictly from the president.

[idiom]

He should keep Guam and Diego Garcia. Everything else should be shut down. He should promise to boost funding and incentives to Special Forces and Sub-marine forces. He should close down a lot of the ballistic missile stuff.

[UnitedWeStand]

I so agree that he needs to address this issue asap.


I think that his original intent of running was to influence the debate and educate the public and presidential candidates. He has done that. He needs to discuss that he will hold diplomatic meetings with the countries he intends to leave, and leave in an orderly and responsible manner. Perhaps say that he has read and trusts the intelligence reports for those countries. And also that he will review the intelligence before commencing an orderly withdrawal.

This is the most important thing he can do right now to become a more viable candidate. I do not want him to flip-flop or go against his principles at all. But the truth is that he will have to address all of these issues in turn after becoming president. He needs to let my Dad know, as a 65 year old intelligent neoconned voter, that he will do this in an intelligent, well thought out way.

[jarofclay]

I so agree that he needs to address this issue asap.


I think that his original intent of running was to influence the debate and educate the public and presidential candidates. He has done that. He needs to discuss that he will hold diplomatic meetings with the countries he intends to leave, and leave in an orderly and responsible manner. Perhaps say that he has read and trusts the intelligence reports for those countries. And also that he will review the intelligence before commencing an orderly withdrawal.

This is the most important thing he can do right now to become a more viable candidate. I do not want him to flip-flop or go against his principles at all. But the truth is that he will have to address all of these issues in turn after becoming president. He needs to let my Dad know, as a 65 year old intelligent neoconned voter, that he will do this in an intelligent, well thought out way.


Ron Paul has been faithfully whistling the same tune of Constitutional limited government and no entangling alliances with other countries for 30 years. I have no doubt in my mind that he will not warp himself into a more "viable" voter for Americans who have their head up their .......

He is a viable candidate right now. We just need to educate people.

[peacemonger]

Everyone thinks Ron Paul is a yellow bellied pacifist (i.e. a chicken). This is his fault and the fault of the campaign. They have done a terrible job at explaining his position on the War and national defense issues. It is sad really. This is the number one reason why he is not getting the mainstream republicans on board.

When is the last time we have heard him mention the Marque and Reprisal Act of 2001? I haven't heard him talk about it in months. He talks a lot about the reasons why he wouldn't go to war (UN resolutions, without a Declaration, preemptive war, protecting oil interests, meddling in internal affairs, nation building, etc.) But he has very rarely discussed the reasons why we should go to war when it is necessary. The people are afraid of terrorists. He needs to make them feel like they are safe if he is in charge. It is not too late. If he clarified this issue tomorrow, we could take every single state on Super Tuesday.

He needs to say that although he doesn't like the current warfare state, if America was threatened and the Congress Declared War, he would prosecute the War more ferociously and with more force than the world had ever seen. He needs to lay it on the line that if America goes to war, his administration would absolutely destroy the enemy from 30,000ft+ and not one of our soldiers would ever be harmed. He needs to tell the American people that he hates war, but if he had to fight one, he would want it to be over quickly and when the damage is done, we would not use the money from our tax payers to rebuild the nations of our foreign enemies. He needs to say that he would propose letters of marque and reprisal to get the American and foreign bounty hunters to search for our enemies and capture them or kill them. He needs to tell the American people that George Bush's 25 million dollar reward for capturing Osama Bin Laden is a joke which proves the administration is not serious about catching him. If the reward were 12 billion dollars, we would have Bin Laden captured by Monday morning and save a Trillion dollars in war spending. We could build up our military forces at home and get back to the Reagan idea of "Walk softly, but carry a big stick." The American people would love this kind of talk. He just has to say stuff like this in the upcoming California debate.

We would get all the votes and the money raising would be so much easier. Basically he has said some of these kinds of things in the past. He really needs to just lay it on the line.

Personally, I am a peacemonger. But I am also a veteran and a blackbelt in Tae Kwon Do. Being a peacemonger does not mean being a wimp and Ron Paul has the reputation among the republican horde for being a pacifist wimp who can not be trust with our nation's defense. He could easily fix this image problem if he wanted to.

[PimpBlimp]

Ron Paul has been faithfully whistling the same tune of Constitutional limited government and no entangling alliances with other countries for 30 years. I have no doubt in my mind that he will not warp himself into a more "viable" voter for Americans who have their head up their .......

He is a viable candidate right now. We just need to educate people.

My point exactly. Ron Paul's current plan will keep our nation together and safe better than any of those other globalist bastards.

He just needs to articulate it so that the average American can understand.

[qh4dotcom]

I believe people should be more concerned about the criminals running around their neighborhood than terrorists who are six thousand miles away and who would be refused a U.S visa.

Terrorists killed 3,000 people on 9/11. Criminals have killed and injured hundreds of thousands since then.

You have a better chance of winning the lottery than dying in a terrorist attack. If you live in a small town no terrorist has ever heard of, then your chances are virtually zero.

Can you imagine how much safer we would be if instead of spending a trillion dollars on a war we would spend a trillion dollars hiring law enforcement officers and securing the borders?

[Xyrus2]

If we want to remain a global superpower, that is, have a strong economy and a powerhouse military, we need some bases overseas. I'm fine with getting out of Iraq and shutting down some bases. But I'm absolutely not ok with shutting down every U.S. base overseas. No way, no how. An aside; if Paul did relent somewhat on his Foreign Policy, his media exposure would skyrocket.

The bases serve no purpose other than a hole which we throw money down. We are approaching a time where economic power is the dominant force in the world, not military. After all, how far will a military go without oil or parts.

We are in decline because the majority of our budget is being dumped into the military. Look at the EU. Look at China. Their growth rate is exceeding ours. It won't be long until WE become the backwater nation with nothing more than a big stick to wave around.

The cold war is over. We have to adapt to the way the world works now, which is something that we have been horrible at doing. Our arrogance is really hurting us on the global stage.

We still have the largest nuclear stockpile in the world, and that's not even counting all the warheads we have loaded on submarines. No country in the world would be stupid enough to invade us. Doing so would be suicidal. So why do we need 600 bases all over the world? That's British imperialism. And it's killing us.

Or are you comfortable with about $3000+ off the taxes you pay going towards this behemoth empire of ours?

Bring our military home and we could maintain them at strength for half as much. Plus we would be reinvesting cash here instead of overseas.

Adapt, or become irrelevant.

~X~

[PimpBlimp]

I believe people should be more concerned about the criminals running around their neighborhood than terrorists who are six thousand miles away and who would be refused a U.S visa.

Terrorists killed 3,000 people on 9/11. Criminals have killed and injured hundreds of thousands since then.

You have a better chance of winning the lottery than dying in a terrorist attack. If you live in a small town no terrorist has ever heard of, then your chances are virtually zero.

Can you imagine how much safer we would be if instead of spending a trillion dollars on a war we would spend a trillion dollars hiring law enforcement officers and securing the borders?

Tell that to the people who are brainwashed into fearing terrorism. We can thank Fox News for that one.

There is little hope to change these peoples minds before the election so we have to appeal to them.

[FTL]

Can you imagine how much safer we would be if instead of spending a trillion dollars on a war we would spend a trillion dollars hiring law enforcement officers and securing the borders?

I'll pass on a million more corrupt cops. No thanks.

[UnitedWeStand]

Ron Paul has been faithfully whistling the same tune of Constitutional limited government and no entangling alliances with other countries for 30 years. I have no doubt in my mind that he will not warp himself into a more "viable" voter for Americans who have their head up their .......

He is a viable candidate right now. We just need to educate people.

I , of course, know he is a viable candidate. But I also know many older republicans, including media people who love his domestic policies or think he has "great ideas" but don't agree with his foreign policy--that is because he has not yet elaborated beyond we will "just leave". When he is president he will have to take diplomatic steps out of our entanglements..I just wish he would elaborate so that it would be easier to convince republicans to support him.

[PimpBlimp]

bump

[Smiley Gladhands]

I agree completely. "We're fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them over here," is making people feel safer. Ron needs to come up with some catchy phrases or at least release a "Common Sense Foreign Policy Plan" which points out the ways in which we are NOT being protected from terrists. Fewer student visas to Saudis? That seems like common sense. Examining the economic costs of war, in order to most effectively manage it, and protect our country? Common sense. Etc. Etc.

He needs to reassure that he won't just withdraw from the Middle East and hope for the best. He needs to reassure that there are common sense ways to protect ourselves from terrist attacks without relying on preemptive invasions of countries that might seek WMDs.

[atthegates]

he needs to get across the point that what we're doing now is only weakening our national defense. he also needs to say that he would respond aggressively if the nation were attacked/threatened. basically, he needs to change this mindset that many republicans have of him as a kucinich-type/never-go-to-war pacifist.

[qh4dotcom]

I agree completely. "We're fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them over here," is making people feel safer. Ron needs to come up with some catchy phrases or at least release a "Common Sense Foreign Policy Plan" which points out the ways in which we are NOT being protected from terrists. Fewer student visas to Saudis? That seems like common sense. Examining the economic costs of war, in order to most effectively manage it, and protect our country? Common sense. Etc. Etc.

He needs to reassure that he won't just withdraw from the Middle East and hope for the best. He needs to reassure that there are common sense ways to protect ourselves from terrist attacks without relying on preemptive invasions of countries that might seek WMDs.

The CIA, FBI, and TSA are doing a good job about preventing future terrorist attacks....as far as I know Ron Paul is not against cutting them down.

If you want to prevent a future terrorist attack, the best solution is to simply NOT give a U.S visa to a terrorist and to secure the borders. The process of granting a visa should become much more stringent. Applicants should be interviewed more times. U.S consulars should become lie detection experts.