View Full Version : Ron Paul and the War On Terrorism, understanding RP logic.

02-08-2008, 10:41 AM
Please comment...

Though Ron Paul doesn't classify the War on Terrorism as a war between sovereign nations or as a justification for the erosion of personal liberties he is likely the strongest anti-terrorism candidate.

Ron Paul supports violent retribution against terrorists. He supports accurately analyzing and evaluating any clear and present danger to the nation.

In retribution and defense he would use and/or hire military forces to eliminate potential threats and kill malicious militants. This method of not using all out invasion and occupation not only kills offenders, but also reduces the recruiting methods of terrorist organizations.

It is likely that the reduction in recruitments alone, Ron Paul would eliminate more terrorists than the entire war on Iraq has. The cooperation of foreign governments would be increased as the US would not be seen as a potential threat to their sovereignty, but rather as a nation acting in self, and indeed even mutual defense.

This method is less expensive but more complicated. However it is more efficient and does not rally entire populations of the world in hope that the US will suffer another disaster.

The military teaches us this logic, you must not only bomb the enemy tanks but also the factories so they can't make more tanks. Our current NeoCon policy bombs the terrorists....and turns nations into terrorist factories.

Ron Paul offers the only practical approach to preventing the further empowerment of our enemies while attacking the culprits directly.

You may hear it often, the military are not police, they are not investigators, detectives...or designed to manage civilian populations. We are using an anvil to remove a tumor which is better removed with a surgical blade.

Edit: Ron Paul raised more money from active military personnel than all other candidates, Democrat and Republican combined. No surprise.

02-08-2008, 03:12 PM
Interestingly enough, the only Republicans I know who are staunchly pro-Iraq and ready to go to Iran are - not kidding - directly employed by the military/industrial complex. I think there's something in the water coolers, personally.

For the rest of us, the question isn't so much whether to leave Iraq, but when. Most conservatives at this point take the view that we should leave, but on our terms. I think it helps to drive home RP's debate points about how Osama himself loves our foreign policy, or to show the CNN article about his video which states explicitly that the purpose of Al Queda has been to bankrupt the US. I've opened some eyes that way: nobody knows about this stuff.

I also think this deserves more attention:

The issue of Marque and Reprisal was raised before Congress after the September 11, 2001 attacks[3], and again on July 21, 2007 by congressman Ron Paul. The attacks were defined as acts of "air piracy," and the Marque and Reprisal Act of 2001 was introduced, which would have granted the president the authority to use Letters of Marque and Reprisal against the specific terrorists, instead of warring against a foreign state. The terrorists were compared to pirates in that they are difficult to fight by traditional military means.

Then read this bit:

So, it seems to me that this is where he's going. Put a huge bounty on the man's head (at this point anything under a trillion dollars is actually a deal for us!), then sign a Letter of Marque for anyone willing to go after the bounty.

The money obviously isn't enough (although right now it's only a paltry $25 million (http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/topten/fugitives/laden.htm)), so the idea is this: whoever gets a letter of marque also gets an official blessing from the US for their actions (I assume to a point). At least, based on what a privateer is, I think that would be the idea.

At this point people who have been eating the same line for 7 years have smoke going out of their ears and are screaming about how crazy it is to go with a 200 year old plan that other nations have agreed not to use.
But part of the revolution is this: stop, forget what you've been told, listen to what's being said as opposed to what other people say was said, evaluate it, and realize that it actually does something to address the problem.

But Iraq is, as the Dr. put it, a gigantic distraction from the issue at hand.

Gadsden Flag
02-09-2008, 02:10 PM
I'd like to point something out which I hope former Romney supporters who are curious about Paul will read.

I actually voted for Bush in 2004 and was very much pro Iraq war at the time we began. I have to say that I would have been much more apt to listen to anti-war arguments had they been made in a calm and civil manner, instead of in the form of ad hominem attacks on the President and harsh statements critisizing the character of anyone who supported the war. I have observed that these methods of 'shocking' and 'shaming' people into changing their beliefs is very ineffective. The real message and reason gets lost in the personal attacks and in the end accomplishes the opposite result by making the person adhere to their original position.

Unfortunately, I worry a lot about potential supporters discarding Ron Paul because they come to these forums and see constant bashing of other candidates and viewpoiints. Imagine a pro-war Romney supporter browsing through one of our debate threads and seeing the caustic attitude toward Mitt and his supporters. I just hope that they stay around long enough to hear RP's actual views instead of getting distracted by his more vocal, bile-spewing fans.

Now, since RP's views on foreign policy are so contrary to what is assumed by the moderators in Republican debates, as well on most short TV interviews, it is very difficult for him to establish his position. He only gets 30 or 45 seconds at a time, and so he has a hard time justifying his position and making a case to people who still support the war. In debates, I feel that outsiders to the campaign will almost never really understand why RP says what he says. To get a feel for where he's coming from, you need to read or watch some of his speeches in the house of representatives. I recommend a speech from 2003 (I think) called 'Neo-conned'. That is actually what made me a Paul supporter. I honestly thought that a neo-con was just another insult that the liberal media had made up for catagorizing people like myself who supported the war. It's actually a lot different than that.

All the best.

Gadsden Flag
02-09-2008, 02:13 PM
[QUOTE=fisharmor;1220183Put a huge bounty on the man's head (at this point anything under a trillion dollars is actually a deal for us!), then sign a Letter of Marque for anyone willing to go after the bounty.

You know, I hadn't really thought about that. If they put a bounty of $60 billion dollars, it would be a tiny fraction of the actual cost of the Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts, while making whomever turned Bin Laden in the richest person in the world(4b more than Bill Gates.