Ron Paul & Terrorism

[shadowhooch]

Okay,
Ron Paul needs to take his anti Iraq War and non intervention policy one step further to allow all of these frightened Republicans to understand him.

Though his policies will help in the long run. In the short term, there are still terrorist organizations here and around the world. Ron Paul needs to clearly, specifically, and succinctly state what actions he will take to get Bin Laden and prevent other terrorist attacks.

I've finally convinced my dad that the Iraq war was a mistake and had nothing to do with terrorism. But he needs to know what offensive tactics we will take to hunt down those that attack us and those that are planning to attack us. Has Ron Paul ever layed that out?

My dad was impressed with Obama's plan (even though he is a devout Republican).

I think many are hesitant to get on Ron Paul's bandwagon because he doesn't specifically address the terrorist issue. That is really the only leg the other Republican candidates are standing on. If Ron Paul can ease people's minds about terrorism (whether it be covert strikes, CIA intelligence, bounties, whatever), the other candidates will be left dead in the water.

What are Ron Paul's short term tactics for handling terrorists and uncovering/preventing terrorist threats?

[1000-points-of-fright]

Thank you! I've been saying that for months now and all I get on this forum is "No! Non-interventionism. If we leave them alone immediately they will leave us alone immediately! La-la-la-la-la!"

[beermotor]

Letters of Marque and Reprisal can solve part of that problem. Putting the military within our own fucking borders will solve the rest of it. What your dad, and others, need to understand is, these people will stop wanting/trying to kill Americans, here or worldwide, if we STOP our foolish policies. It's that simple. It is cause and effect. The people who disagree with that are the ones who, logically, want genocide. Just ask them, do they think every muslim should be killed? It's not practical. Not only that, it's stupid, and evil.

[shadowhooch]

Thank you! I've been saying that for months now and all I get on this forum is "No! Non-interventionism. If we leave them alone immediately they will leave us alone immediately! La-la-la-la-la!"

I emailed the Ron Paul campaign about this too. I don't know if they respond to questions like this. But I need this ammo to convince the doubters and those on the fence. This is something that needs to be addressed by Ron Paul.

[inibo]

But he needs to know what offensive tactics we will take to hunt down those that attack us and those that are planning to attack us. Has Ron Paul ever layed that out?


Letters of Marque and Reprisal. US Constitution: Article I, Section 8, Paragraph 10 and 11. (http://www.law.emory.edu/law-library/research/ready-reference/us-federal-law-and-documents/historical-documents-constitution-of-the-united-states/article-i-the-legislative-branch.html#c7656)

He introduced it in Congress in 2001: "Marque and Reprisal Act of 2001"
http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2001/cr101001.htm

And reintroduced it this year: "Marque and Reprisal Act of 2007"
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h110-3216

[CodeMonkey]

First, he has been a big proponent of using Letters of Marque and Reprisal, which would allow the commission of private individuals to take out non-state entities.

He was in favor of invading Afghanistan to fight Al Qaida.

He would of course keep the CIA and presumably actually listen to what they tell him.

He would address specific threats rather than participating in blanket knee jerk reactions. If some guys were found with plans to take liquid explosives on a plane, he would punish those people, but he wouldn't ban all liquids on all planes.

He doesn't have any grand scheme of combating world terrorism that I know of, and we don't need one.

[shadowhooch]

Letters of Marque and Reprisal can solve part of that problem.

The average American has no clue what this really means. I don't even fully understand it. What is it? Offering a reward and hiring bounty hunters to get Bin Laden? What if it doesn't get a result and Bin Laden is active 4 years down the road?
Will we allow covert CIA actions or military strikes if we learn where Bin Laden is? What efforts will we be using to keep watch on these groups? All these questions need answers.

Also, Marque and Reprisal doesn't address how to prevent current terrorist attacks and plots. Face it, Islamic Radicals are going to hate us FOR A VERY LONG TIME. We have helped build their arch enemy (Israel) up to where they are today.

And don't misconstrue poeples fears by saying that wanting to prevent terrorism means you are generalizing a race. We know it is a small group of radicals and not all Muslims. So how do we target them specifically? This needs to be explained in detail.

I understand Ron Paul. But the general answers are not good enough for the average American. They need specifics. They are afraid and there is no changing that (hence Guiliani's popularity). And it is important that Ron Paul makes it clear or else people will always doubt his policy.

[Tsoman]

I think it's simple


What fights terrorism: anti-terrorism forces; the police; observant citizens; not being hated around the world

What does the opposite: our foreign policy; open borders; over-deployed military; George Bush; imperialism

[1000-points-of-fright]

What your dad, and others, need to understand is, these people will stop wanting/trying to kill Americans, here or worldwide, if we STOP our foolish policies. It's that simple. It is cause and effect. The people who disagree with that are the ones who, logically, want genocide. Just ask them, do they think every muslim should be killed? It's not practical. Not only that, it's stupid, and evil.

Do you really believe that EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM will stop wanting to kill Americans immediately? Do you think that there won't still be a certain percentage (which will still be a lot) that are complete religious zealots who buy into the holy war and are not just trying to get us out of the middle east? If so, you're being completely unrealistic and naive.


First, he has been a big proponent of using Letters of Marque and Reprisal, which would allow the commission of private individuals to take out non-state entities.

He doesn't have any grand scheme of combating world terrorism that I know of, and we don't need one.

Letters of Marque and Reprisal are all very well and good but the average American is not going to have as complete faith in some rambo-wannabe mercenary (no matter how professional) over the US military. They want to know that the military is actively doing something to protect us and will not just react to an attack.

He needs to have a grand scheme or at least something that is aggressive. Even if it's just beefing up Intelligence resources.

If he just treats terrorism as a law enforcement issue, like Clinton did, he's gonna get hammered.

[atilla]

I've finally convinced my dad that the Iraq war was a mistake and had nothing to do with terrorism. But he needs to know what offensive tactics we will take to hunt down those that attack us and those that are planning to attack us. Has Ron Paul ever layed that out?



the terrorists are all controlled by the cia and mossad. once ron paul is elected he can send in the army to clean out the cia and arrest them all and he can cut off the funding to israel to stop the mossad. ultimately he may still need to take some direct action against the mossad but we'll see. he can't come out now and say this as they would try to assasinate him, but rest assured the special ops folks of the army are behind ron paul and will help him to gain control over the rogue elements in the government. if george w attempts a coup and refuses to turn over power to ron paul, the marine guard at the white house may support him but ron paul has the complete support of the 3rd U.S. Infantry Regiment (The Old Guard), and they have pledged to help him gain control over the white house and the capital building.

[shrugged0106]

simple.

What "Targets" are Americans most concerned with?

answer: those that are on our soil and that put thier loved ones in danger.

Ask, where would you put anti-terrorism efforst to protect those targets?

logical answer" Our borders


end of story.

[shadowhooch]

the terrorists are all controlled by the cia and mossad. once ron paul is elected he can send in the army to clean out the cia and arrest them all and he can cut off the funding to israel to stop the mossad. ultimately he may still need to take some direct action against the mossad but we'll see. he can't come out now and say this as they would try to assasinate him, but rest assured the special ops folks of the army are behind ron paul and will help him to gain control over the rogue elements in the government. if george w attempts a coup and refuses to turn over power to ron paul, the marine guard at the white house may support him but ron paul has the complete support of the 3rd U.S. Infantry Regiment (The Old Guard), and they have pledged to help him gain control over the white house and the capital building.

No offense, but that kind of talk is going to scare off 99% of all Americans. We want to get Ron Paul elected.;)

[Ron Paul Fan]

How to you fight a war on terrorism exactly? It's not a defined enemy so unless you go around invading countries and kill everyone you believe to be a terrorist, the war on terror will never end!!!!!! Getting our troops and bases off their holy lands is a start. Is it that hard to believe that these people just want to be left alone? The 9/11 attacks were the result of our involvement over there and if you knew about Ron Paul you'd know that. He wants to toughen immigration to make it harder for terrorits to get into the country and track visa holders. The 9/11 hijackers were here on expired visas. Defend the U.S. borders strongly, but don't invade their countries' borders and expect them not to retaliate.

[beermotor]

Do you really believe that EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM will stop wanting to kill Americans immediately? Do you think that there won't still be a certain percentage (which will still be a lot) that are complete religious zealots who buy into the holy war and are not just trying to get us out of the middle east? If so, you're being completely unrealistic and naive.




Sorry bro, it is you who is being naive. Of course there will still be some tiny fraction of assholes out there. But they would be a lot smaller if our policies were different. THAT IS THE POINT. Iraq is nothing but a HUGE RECRUITING TOOL for Bin Laden. That's it. Oh yeah, and a money pit for Halliburton/ExxonMobil.

Listen, your line of argument is frequently used by those to justify expansionist/aggressive war. That shit won't fly man, because guess what - it never, ever works. Look where it got Hitler? And he had a much larger machine going, and only managed to exterminate about 6-8M of the people he hated.

I approach it like this. What's the EndGame? What's the goal of the scenario? What you are talking about is war for war's sake, only, because it cannot ever accomplish the goal you have set for it (to stop terrorism). You must look at root causes and address those.

THAT is why Christ said "turn the other cheek." It's a metaphor. Think about it.



Letters of Marque and Reprisal are all very well and good but the average American is not going to have as complete faith in some rambo-wannabe mercenary (no matter how professional) over the US military. They want to know that the military is actively doing something to protect us and will not just react to an attack.

He needs to have a grand scheme or at least something that is aggressive. Even if it's just beefing up Intelligence resources.

If he just treats terrorism as a law enforcement issue, like Clinton did, he's gonna get hammered.

All you have to do is say, well, our military sure isn't doing much of a good job right now, is it? MAYBE IT IS THE WRONG TOOL FOR THE JOB?

That's the point man. You gotta drive that home. The only way to stop this is to be DEFENSIVE. Trade with all, ally with none, have real STRENGTH at HOME, and not abroad stepping on toes, and things will work themselves out in time. I promise.

[shadowhooch]

things will work themselves out in time. I promise.

I understand what you are saying beermoter. But agree with it or not, this line above is a sure fire way to NOT get elected. It makes you appear weak and uncaring to respond to terrorist threats. You need definitive action while the long term non intervention policy takes effect. The American people will never accept, "Bin Laden attacked us. We'll put a bounty on his head an someone will step up and get him."

NO, neither I nor 1000 points of fright are saying you need to invade countries. And we both realize why terrorists attack us. But changing radical minds is a slow, not an instantaneous, process.

Ron Paul needs to state the specifics to deter terrorism:
Enforce VISAs (explain how)
Streamline CIA communications so action can be taken when a terrorist plot is suspected (explain how)
If Marque and Reprisal is slow to work on Bin Laden, what is our next step? A specialized covert strike force using CIA information that targets specific terrorist leaders and plots should be a possibility.

Stuff like that is what people want and need to hear from Ron Paul.

[1000-points-of-fright]

Sorry bro, it is you who is being naive. Of course there will still be some tiny fraction of assholes out there. But they would be a lot smaller if our policies were different. THAT IS THE POINT. Iraq is nothing but a HUGE RECRUITING TOOL for Bin Laden. That's it. Oh yeah, and a money pit for Halliburton/ExxonMobil.

Listen, your line of argument is frequently used by those to justify expansionist/aggressive war. That shit won't fly man, because guess what - it never, ever works. Look where it got Hitler? And he had a much larger machine going, and only managed to exterminate about 6-8M of the people he hated.

I approach it like this. What's the EndGame? What's the goal of the scenario? What you are talking about is war for war's sake, only, because it cannot ever accomplish the goal you have set for it (to stop terrorism). You must look at root causes and address those.

THAT is why Christ said "turn the other cheek." It's a metaphor. Think about it.



All you have to do is say, well, our military sure isn't doing much of a good job right now, is it? MAYBE IT IS THE WRONG TOOL FOR THE JOB?

That's the point man. You gotta drive that home. The only way to stop this is to be DEFENSIVE. Trade with all, ally with none, have real STRENGTH at HOME, and not abroad stepping on toes, and things will work themselves out in time. I promise.

Where did I ever advocate war for war's sake? I'm really sick of this attitude that if someone asks for specific details on Ron Paul's plans for gathering intelligence and STOPPING ATTACKS BEFORE THEY HAPPEN, that they're automatically a stupid warmongering neocon who represents everything wrong with the world and how dare he question the almighty Paul.

Besides, even you agree that "there will still be some tiny fraction of assholes out there. But they would be a lot smaller if our policies were different. " They're not any less determined or dangerous because we're being nice. They may disappear 20 yrs from now, but not any time soon.

Yes, the only way to stop this is to be defensive. Awesome, you're so smart. What are you gonna do to be defensive? For most people, no pre-emptive strikes means... Hey those guys over there are planning on attacking us, but they haven't actually done it. Ok, now they're coming closer with a couple of bombs, but they haven't planted them yet. They've planted the bombs but they haven't detonated them yet. Ok, they just exploded, now we can do something.

Besides, I'm already voting for Paul. What I think doesn't matter. It's the other scared Americans that need convincing and they want to know that he has a plan to stop them from being blown up. Even if it is just 6 guys trying it every 10 yrs. They want NO attempts. Don't you realize that this entire thread is about trying to get the sheeple to vote for him. They need some assurances, not just "if we love them they'll love us."

And try not to be so condescending. That means "to talk down to" by the way.