What would President Paul do if...

[brumans]

If Ron Paul got elected and finished up bringing our troops home from the middle east (Iraq, Afghanistan, etc) and surrounding areas and then we got attacked again by islamic terrorists, what would he do? Would he go BACK into the middle east and fight or just do nothing?

[Brinck Slattery]

probably depends on who the terrorists are, who sponsored/trained them, and exactly what they did.

[steph3n]

how about go after the terrorist and finish them instead of going after stray dogs all over the world?

[DaronWestbrooke]

We wouldn't be attacked again. Why do you think they are attacking us? We are in their homes. If someone came in your house, you would defend yourself. If they didn't come in your house, you would have no reason to go after them. This what if doesn't fit reality.

[Kregener]

There will be a LOT less of a likelihood of us being hit by Islamics when we are no longer meddling in their countries, propping up the dictators they grovel under.

[rs3515]

If Ron Paul got elected and finished up bringing our troops home from the middle east (Iraq, Afghanistan, etc) and surrounding areas and then we got attacked again by islamic terrorists, what would he do? Would he go BACK into the middle east and fight or just do nothing?

Dr. Paul is not opposed to war or fighting for our safety or freedoms. He would go to Congress to get a Declaration of War. The Declaration of War would clearly state our intended targets, what we expect to accomplish, how long it will take and the budget necessary to do it. All of this could happen extremely rapidly if necessary.

We'd fight them wherever it was needed. As he said before, he supported going in to the Afghanistan/Pakistan border to root out the terrorists. What he didn't support was an undeclared war with no end in Iraq.

[aravoth]

If Ron Paul got elected and finished up bringing our troops home from the middle east (Iraq, Afghanistan, etc) and surrounding areas and then we got attacked again by islamic terrorists, what would he do? Would he go BACK into the middle east and fight or just do nothing?

He would go after the terrorists without putting the lives of innocents at risk. I belive he wanted to issue letters of marque and reprisal after sep. 11th. Which is faster, cheaper, safer, and more efficent than Fighting an Idea that spans all borders in the middle east.

Remember, it was not a country that attacked us on 9/11. It was a group of radicals, mostly from Suadi Arabia, and some from other areas. Radical Islam, is not a nation, it is an Idea, something a standing army cannot defeat. Bringing those who attack you to justice is fine in my book, but the collateral damage is more than we can bare. Bringing the military home, and have them defend this country, like they are meant to, would significantly lower the risk of an attack. much more than "fighting them over there" would.

[Sematary]

If Ron Paul got elected and finished up bringing our troops home from the middle east (Iraq, Afghanistan, etc) and surrounding areas and then we got attacked again by islamic terrorists, what would he do? Would he go BACK into the middle east and fight or just do nothing?

If it was a situation similar to 9/11 then he would issue a letter of marque and have the bastards hunted down and brought to justice. If it was a nation attacking us then we would respond with force.

[The Only Woj]

I think the terrorist population that is actively seeking to attack us on our soil would be dramatically reduced. Organizations like Al Qaeda would turn inwards and fight against Middle Eastern states (especially those ruled by dictators).

[rs3515]

We wouldn't be attacked again. Why do you think they are attacking us?

As much as I might agree with all of you, I think we owe to the person to answer the question directly. It might very well be someone is asking them this very question. In fact, I know a lot of people who want to know how Dr. Paul might handle this.

We can state all we want that it's not going to happen again, but that is not going to appease someone who has real fear and concern about this. Please answer in a way similar to what I just posted.

[steph3n]

I think the terrorist population that is actively seeking to attack us on our soil would be dramatically reduced. Organizations like Al Qaeda would turn inwards and fight against Middle Eastern states (especially those ruled by dictators).

or just the other sect of Islam, just like they have done for many years....

[Drknows]

What if the terrorists came from canada? Would we invade canada? Probably not, (i bet the current administration would invade mexico)

Im pretty sure he would seek them out using intelligence. i dont think he would send 150,000 troops to catch some thugs.

[wgadget]

Dr. Paul is not opposed to war or fighting for our safety or freedoms. He would go to Congress to get a Declaration of War. The Declaration of War would clearly state our intended targets, what we expect to accomplish, how long it will take and the budget necessary to do it. All of this could happen extremely rapidly if necessary.

We'd fight them wherever it was needed. As he said before, he supported going in to the Afghanistan/Pakistan border to root out the terrorists. What he didn't support was an undeclared war with no end in Iraq.

This is precisely why I refuse to attend any "anti-war" sign wavings. Dr. Paul is NOT anti-war.

[KewlRonduderules]

If Ron Paul got elected and finished up bringing our troops home from the middle east (Iraq, Afghanistan, etc) and surrounding areas and then we got attacked again by islamic terrorists, what would he do? Would he go BACK into the middle east and fight or just do nothing?

I tell you what he'd do. He probably would have some sort of intelligence group or special elite forces look for the culprits.

Second, he would diminish the power of AIPAC in Congress and force the hand where Israelis will be forced to accept a Palestinian state with favorable conditions. If they refuse, he will simply cut off aid all together.

Believe it or not, a lot of Islamic Jihad stuff is because of the israeli/palestinian conflict and our unconditional support of Israel. It's not racist, anti-Semitic, or prejudice- it is reality.

And a lot of it is because of oil. He would end the oil hegemony we have around the world and figure out some other way to back the dollar, i.e., gold.

[steph3n]

Actually, the only way to combat the various country lobbyist groups, two of the most powerful being Israel and Saudi arabia, is by being 100% transparent, exposing what they do and their agenda.
look up the "Sampson option" if you want a little insight.
no doubt others would do the same in the future, we as a nation need to standup to blackmail and demands no matter the cost.

[Drknows]

I tell you what he'd do. He probably would have some sort of intelligence group or special elite forces look for the culprits.

Second, he would diminish the power of AIPAC in Congress and force the hand where Israelis will be forced to accept a Palestinian state with favorable conditions. If they refuse, he will simply cut off aid all together.

Believe it or not, a lot of Islamic Jihad stuff is because of the israeli/palestinian conflict and our unconditional support of Israel. It's not racist, anti-Semitic, or prejudice- it is reality.

And a lot of it is because of oil.

He would stop sending aid regardless. HE already said we need to stay out of foreign BS. There would be no carrots and sticks.

[rs3515]

What if the terrorists came from canada? Would we invade canada? Probably not, (i bet the current administration would invade mexico)

Im pretty sure he would seek them out using intelligence. i dont think he would send 150,000 troops to catch some thugs.

There's a difference between 'invasion' and 'covert operations'. Both exist as part of the military's function. If say Canada was funding terrorism (a funny thought in an of itself anywhere outside of Quebec), my guess is there would be a decision to use intelligence or make tactical strikes ... with approval from Congress of course.

Never would there be 150,000 troops ... the equivalent of using a sledgehammer to crack a nut.

[KewlRonduderules]

Actually, the only way to combat the various country lobbyist groups, two of the most powerful being Israel and Saudi arabia, is by being 100% transparent, exposing what they do and their agenda.
look up the "Sampson option" if you want a little insight.
no doubt others would do the same in the future, we as a nation need to standup to blackmail and demands no matter the cost.


Actually, this is correct. I read various books on lobbies and many of them have suggested the same.

[wfd40]

The worst fall-out from Iraq will unfortunately be the following:

The creation of a new generation of individuals who hate the US enough to give their own life to injure/harm its citizens.

Seriously, ask yourself how you would feel/react if some nation/army effectively killed every member of your family, destroyed the town/city you lived in and destroyed every ounce of innocence you had left despite living under the regime of Sadam

[Adamsa]

The worst fall-out from Iraq will unfortunately be the following:

The creation of a new generation of individuals who hate the US enough to give their own life to injure/harm its citizens.

Seriously, ask yourself how you would feel/react if some nation/army effectively killed every member of your family, destroyed the town/city you lived in and destroyed every ounce of innocence you had left despite living under the regime of Sadam

If they left though they'd be dealing with the enemies in their own land, no chance they'd make it to America.

[rs3515]

Actually, this is correct. I read various books on lobbies and many of them have suggested the same.

As much as I can appreciate the 'Sampson option', I think we need to be looking at such questions in the here and now.

People who are voting *now* have a serious concern about their safety and whether or not terrorists from the Middle East will attack again. Whether or not an RP supporter feels their view is valid is beyond the point ... because they have such a viewpoint, it automatically makes it valid.

What we need to do is address this by putting ourselves in their shoes, not from some idealistic end-goal. Ron Paul is for non-intervention in the foreign affairs of other countries. However, if a case arises where we are threatened and force is necessary, he will use it. The difference is he will seek the full backing of Congress, and have a clear plan for getting it done quickly and efficiently. Period, end of story.

[Adamsa]

As much as I can appreciate the 'Sampson option', I think we need to be looking at such questions in the here and now.

People who are voting *now* have a serious concern about their safety and whether or not terrorists from the Middle East will attack again. Whether or not an RP supporter feels their view is valid is beyond the point ... because they have such a viewpoint, it automatically makes it valid.

What we need to do is address this by putting ourselves in their shoes, not from some idealistic end-goal. Ron Paul is for non-intervention in the foreign affairs of other countries. However, if a case arises where we are threatened and force is necessary, he will use it. The difference is he will seek the full backing of Congress, and have a clear plan for getting it done quickly and efficiently. Period, end of story.

+ he'd actually go after the people who were behind it.

[sunghoko]

With a clearly defined enemy and objectives, congress would approve of such actions. I bet there will cries of impeachment though from the i-told-you-so people.

[Ridiculous]

We wouldn't be attacked again. Why do you think they are attacking us? We are in their homes. If someone came in your house, you would defend yourself. If they didn't come in your house, you would have no reason to go after them. This what if doesn't fit reality.

On, a side note, what is with your Che icon? Are you actually a Che fan?

[KewlRonduderules]

What we need to do is address this by putting ourselves in their shoes, not from some idealistic end-goal. Ron Paul is for non-intervention in the foreign affairs of other countries. However, if a case arises where we are threatened and force is necessary, he will use it. The difference is he will seek the full backing of Congress, and have a clear plan for getting it done quickly and efficiently. Period, end of story.

It depends if it is a state that is threatening us or a terrorist group is threatening us. I am sure he would work to negotiate with the adversarial state even though there is a threat. Were we not threatened by the USSR? As for terrorist groups, well that is a different story. There have been threats coming from all kinds of terrorist groups since the dawn of man. Can this really be prevented? However, if on the other hand, there was a great risk say of nuclear activity in this country by a terrorist group- I am sure he would have special ops deal with it and as you said "...getting it done quickly and efficiently".

[kylejack]

On, a side note, what is with your Che icon? Are you actually a Che fan?
The symbolism police are ever-vigilant, I see.

[terlinguatx]

...

[BillyDkid]

This is precisely why I refuse to attend any "anti-war" sign wavings. Dr. Paul is NOT anti-war.Of course he is anti-war just as any sane person is anti-war. Dr. Paul believes that war should be a last resort and a last option and any war must be a just war. Being anti-war is not the same as being a pacifist. I am anti-war and would not hesitate for a moment to fight for my country and my family. The only legitimate use for war is in self defense or, possibly, in defense of our allies.

[rs3515]

It depends if it is a state that is threatening us or a terrorist group is threatening us.

The original question was specifically about getting attacked again by Islamic terrorists. I took this to mean another attack similar to 9/11, and was answering as such.

I do think it's important to really try to understand the questions people are asking about Dr. Paul rather than trying to give contingencies and 'what-ifs' based on many different scenarios. Too many thoughts just end up confusing the answer and making the person feel overwhelmed.

[Andrew76]

As much as I can appreciate the 'Sampson option', I think we need to be looking at such questions in the here and now.

People who are voting *now* have a serious concern about their safety and whether or not terrorists from the Middle East will attack again. Whether or not an RP supporter feels their view is valid is beyond the point ... because they have such a viewpoint, it automatically makes it valid.

What we need to do is address this by putting ourselves in their shoes, not from some idealistic end-goal. Ron Paul is for non-intervention in the foreign affairs of other countries. However, if a case arises where we are threatened and force is necessary, he will use it. The difference is he will seek the full backing of Congress, and have a clear plan for getting it done quickly and efficiently. Period, end of story.

Yes. I'd add that by pulling back our military from all around the world, we'd not only save money, but we'd be operating from a moral highground. If we are attacked again, he'd go to congress, get the declaration and the action we'd take would be clear cut, deliberate and above all, FINAL. War is terrible. But to prolong it the way we have, with half efforts at this and that along with nation building is what is truly unnecessary and making the U.S. seem weak. We need to send the message that, if you attack us, you will pay. People want us out of their countries, that's all fine and understandable. We'll pull all of our monetary support as well, aside from the benefits of internatiol commerce. But if a country attacks us, or a group attacks us, Ron Paul's position on this is clear. We have a moral obligation to protect ourselves by any means necessary. If we are attacked, we will respond and we will have every right to do so. I'm repeating what everyone's said here, but again, his problem is not with war in general, but with this war in particular - along with Grenada, Vietnam, Korea, etc. All wars which were unnecessary. We are at war with a country that did not attack us. Period. The extent to which people believe that it's correct for us to be at war with Iraq, is the extent to which the Bush regime's smoke and mirrors, direct manipulation of the truth, has succeeded.

[rs3515]

Of course he is anti-war just as any sane person is anti-war.

Here's the issue though ... whether we like it or not, certain phrases become tainted over time. "Anti-war" in the minds of conservatives means pacifist. Watch any show on Fox for five minutes and this becomes imminently clear.

We need to be conscious of the words we choose and the connotations they have with others.

[KewlRonduderules]

The original question was specifically about getting attacked again by Islamic terrorists. I took this to mean another attack similar to 9/11, and was answering as such.

I do think it's important to really try to understand the questions people are asking about Dr. Paul rather than trying to give contingencies and 'what-ifs' based on many different scenarios. Too many thoughts just end up confusing the answer and making the person feel overwhelmed.

I just responding to your post because you responded to mine. And your thread had the word 'threat' so I took it to mean just that. However, an attack would go much further.

But overall, agree with your post.

[Ridiculous]

The symbolism police are ever-vigilant, I see.

I just find it odd if someone is both a Che fan and a Paul supporter. It is pretty contradictory. I mean Paul is about as far away from Che as you can get.

[jgmaynard]

IMNSHO, if it were Al Queda or a similar group, he'd go to Congress to get a letter of Marquee and Reprisal. Let Ross Perot hire people to hunt them down. :)

If it were a nation, he'd go to Congress to get a declaration of war as required in Article 1, section 8 of the U.S. Constitution.

JM

[jgmaynard]

I just find it odd if someone is both a Che fan and a Paul supporter. It is pretty contradictory. I mean Paul is about as far away from Che as you can get.

Now, I don't know much about Che - but from what I understand, they have something VERY much in common - As far as I know, I believe that Che at least believed that he was returning power to the people (whether he did or not is another story), just as Ron will buck of the military-industrial complex that is stealing bread from our working folks and return money and power to the average person.

Don't get me wrong - I'm not a Che fan, but Ron will take power from the elite and return it to the people, and (right or wrong) that's what I believe most Che fans believe that he did.

Just my $0.02 ($0.01234754747643 after taxes).

JM

[Kregener]

http://i152.photobucket.com/albums/s167/Kregener/deanesmay-chetheterrorist2.jpg

[DaronWestbrooke]

I just find it odd if someone is both a Che fan and a Paul supporter. It is pretty contradictory. I mean Paul is about as far away from Che as you can get.

Actually not, it is about rEVOLt against the corruption that is the military industrial complex. Paul may not be a marxist, but the enemy is the same- the powers that be. If you want to run a rEVOLution, you don't play business as usual, you rEVOLt, and you must learn from those who have rEVOLted in the past. Look at the quotes on my tag line. They are all quotes by Che that fit our rEVOLution perfectly.

Or to quote another famous man- we aren't that different, you and I.

[DaronWestbrooke]

Now, I don't know much about Che - but from what I understand, they have something VERY much in common - As far as I know, I believe that Che at least believed that he was returning power to the people (whether he did or not is another story), just as Ron will buck of the military-industrial complex that is stealing bread from our working folks and return money and power to the average person.

Don't get me wrong - I'm not a Che fan, but Ron will take power from the elite and return it to the people, and (right or wrong) that's what I believe most Che fans believe that he did.

Just my $0.02 ($0.01234754747643 after taxes).

JM

EXACTLY! I couldn not have said it better myself. Fight the Power! Tear Down the System!

[Ridiculous]

Actually not, it is about rEVOLt against the corruption that is the military industrial complex. Paul may not be a marxist, but the enemy is the same- the powers that be. If you want to run a rEVOLution, you don't play business as usual, you rEVOLt, and you must learn from those who have rEVOLted in the past. Look at the quotes on my tag line. They are all quotes by Che that fit our rEVOLution perfectly.

Or to quote another famous man- we aren't that different, you and I.

I could come up with some great quotes from Stalin or Hitler,but that doesn't make them good men.

Not every revolution is a good one. Sometimes two opposing sides can both be wrong.

Do you support Castro? I mean Che was his right hand man, the Cuba that exists today is thanks to Che.... Do you like the Cuban government?

Your hero would have nuked the US!:

"Guevara played a key role in bringing to Cuba the Soviet nuclear-armed ballistic missiles that precipitated the Cuban Missile Crisis in October 1962. During an interview with the British newspaper Daily Worker some weeks later, he stated that, if the missiles had been under Cuban control, they would have fired them against major U.S. cities."

[jgmaynard]

I know this is not what you were trying to imply, Ridiculous, but Batista wasn't exactly a sweet guy either or good to the Cuban people. Personally, I don't like either of them.

JM

[Ridiculous]

I know this is not what you were trying to imply, Ridiculous, but Batista wasn't exactly a sweet guy either or good to the Cuban people. Personally, I don't like either of them.

JM

That is why I made it a point to say sometimes two opposing sides can both be wrong. Hell look at most of the Republicans and the Democrats.

If DaronWestbrooke's hero had his way, Daron and the rest of us might not be posting on this board because our parents (and some of our older members) would have been nuked.

[Ridiculous]

I guess I shut him up. Sorry I sort of jacked the thread and changed its topic.

[kylejack]

I guess I shut him up.

Maybe he doesn't really care all that much what you think of his avatar? Just a thought.