Ron Paul needs to be stronger on the military issue

[EWM]

Paul's stance on foreigns affairs makes sense, but he doesn't talk strongly enough about what he would do should military action be necessary. It's great to say we should mind our own business and not aggravate other nations, but there will be times when we need to take action, whether we or our close allies are seriously in danger.

All I want to hear from Paul is something like, "We will bring our troops home, close many military bases, and not get involved in everyone's affair. However, should we or our allies be attacked, we will strike with quick and intense force to end the threat swiftly."

This is the biggest issue Paul has a problem with. If he just showed a little military strength, he would attract so many more voters.

[LibertyEsq]

All I want to hear from Paul is something like, "We will bring our troops home, close many military bases, and not get involved in everyone's affair. However, should we or our allies be attacked, we will strike with quick and intense force to end the threat swiftly."

This is the biggest issue Paul has a problem with. If he just showed a little military strength, he would attract so many more voters.

I thought Paul didn't want us to have "Allies" in the military sense

[Agorism]

No to standing armies, torture, and militarism.

[itsnobody]

Ron Paul just needs to appear very strong on national defense...

[EWM]

Ron Paul just needs to appear very strong on national defense...

That's very true. I don't think we should be without allies though. And we do need to reassure Israel that it won't be abandoned.

[Pro-Life Libertarian]

No to standing armies, torture, and militarism.

Standing armies?

No, we need standing armies.

[IPSecure]

There need to be hard hitting rebuttals...

- How many of our troops died unnecessarily?

- If you actually cared about the troops, you would not send them off to be killed in wars started by lies.

- How many of our troops are committing suicide, and why is that?

[archlinux]

That's very true. I don't think we should be without allies though. And we do need to reassure Israel that it won't be abandoned.

Israel has around 300 nukes, it can take care of itself.

IMHO he appears strong on national defense by stressing the "just war" principle of Christianity.

[itsnobody]

That's very true. I don't think we should be without allies though. And we do need to reassure Israel that it won't be abandoned.

If Ron Paul just appeared to be very very very strong on national defense I'm sure we could easily win the GOP Nomination. I wonder what Ron Paul's plan is to appear stronger on national defense.

Right now anyone can easily make him out to seem weak on national defense....so we have to do something quickly

[EWM]

Israel has around 300 nukes, it can take care of itself.

IMHO he appears strong on national defense by stressing the "just war" principle of Christianity.

It's not enough. Just as he can explain what he would do in a financial crisis, he needs to explain what he would do in a military crisis.

[EWM]

Israel has around 300 nukes, it can take care of itself.

IMHO he appears strong on national defense by stressing the "just war" principle of Christianity.

It's not enough. Just as he can explain what he would do in a financial crisis, he needs to explain what he would do in a military crisis.

[EWM]

If Ron Paul just appeared to be very very very strong on national defense I'm sure we could easily win the GOP Nomination. I wonder what Ron Paul's plan is to appear stronger on national defense.

Right now anyone can easily make him out to seem weak on national defense....so we have to do something quickly

All he has to do is speak up about it. It's the one issue he doesn't get into. Withdrawing and minding our own business isn't gonna cut it, nor should it.

[Agorism]

States and militias could have standing armies to a degree.

[Feeding the Abscess]

He's stated many times before that if there is an actual, imminent attack facing the country, the Congress should declare war and win the war.

No amount of capitulation will please the bloodthirsty merchants of death in the GOP voting block, it seems.

[tremendoustie]

Paul's stance on foreigns affairs makes sense, but he doesn't talk strongly enough about what he would do should military action be necessary. It's great to say we should mind our own business and not aggravate other nations, but there will be times when we need to take action, whether we or our close allies are seriously in danger.

All I want to hear from Paul is something like, "We will bring our troops home, close many military bases, and not get involved in everyone's affair. However, should we or our allies be attacked, we will strike with quick and intense force to end the threat swiftly."

This is the biggest issue Paul has a problem with. If he just showed a little military strength, he would attract so many more voters.

"Wherever the standard of freedom and Independence has been or shall be unfurled, there will her heart, her benedictions and her prayers be. But she [America] goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own. She will commend the general cause by the countenance of her voice, and the benignant sympathy of her example. She well knows that by once enlisting under other banners than her own, were they even the banners of foreign independence, she would involve herself beyond the power of extrication, in all the wars of interest and intrigue, of individual avarice, envy, and ambition, which assume the colors and usurp the standard of freedom. The fundamental maxims of her policy would insensibly change from liberty to force. The frontlet on her brows would no longer beam with the ineffable splendor of freedom and independence; but in its stead would soon be substituted an imperial diadem, flashing in false and tarnished lustre the murky radiance of dominion and power. She might become the dictatress of the world; she would be no longer the ruler of her own spirit. . . . Her glory is not dominion, but liberty. Her march is the march of the mind."

- John Quincy Adams

"Equal and exact justice to all men, of whatever state or persuasion, religious or political; peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none"

- Thomas Jefferson


I'm glad Ron doesn't feed republican bloodlust. It's sickening, frankly, especially when I consider that so many who seem so fond of war call themselves Christians.

[trey4sports]

dude, Israel has more weaponry than any other country in the world with the exception of the United States. There is NO country that poses a real threat to Israel. yes there may be countries in the middle east that hate Israel, but 300 nukes present any possible foe with the threat of mutually assured destruction if they were to strike Israel.

[owlbug]

A lot of people think RP is crazy regarding his stance on Iran. He needs to remind people that if Iran got beligerent congress would vote to go to war and he would lead the country into military action with a singular mind to put a quick end to it. Christian just war theory... all these candidates who are calling out Iran, are they prepared to declare war on Iran now, and if not how do they propose to dictate to Iran when China is in Iran's corner.

[tremendoustie]

A lot of people think RP is crazy regarding his stance on Iran. He needs to remind people that if Iran got beligerent congress would vote to go to war and he would lead the country into military action with a singular mind to put a quick end to it. Christian just war theory... all these candidates who are calling out Iran, are they prepared to declare war on Iran now, and if not how do they propose to dictate to Iran when China is in Iran's corner.

What does "belligerent" mean? Does it mean not responding obsequiously to all US federal government demands? Or does it mean actually invading/attacking the united states?

And actually, I think most people think the current foreign policy of endless war is crazy. That's why Ron just about tied for first at Ames, in the REPUBLICAN party. That's not counting independents or disaffected democrats.

[LibertyEagle]

Paul's stance on foreigns affairs makes sense, but he doesn't talk strongly enough about what he would do should military action be necessary. It's great to say we should mind our own business and not aggravate other nations, but there will be times when we need to take action, whether we or our close allies are seriously in danger.

All I want to hear from Paul is something like, "We will bring our troops home, close many military bases, and not get involved in everyone's affair. However, should we or our allies be attacked, we will strike with quick and intense force to end the threat swiftly."

This is the biggest issue Paul has a problem with. If he just showed a little military strength, he would attract so many more voters.

Overall, I agree with you and I also, think he badly needs to do this. Many people are scared that he wouldn't defend our country. He would of course, but he needs to make this very clear.

My only concern about what you said is with regard to our "allies". I do not believe Dr. Paul thinks we should be fighting anyone else's wars. If you read George Washington's Farewell Address, he warns that we should not entangle our alliances with other nations or we will be drawn into their wars and become enemies of their enemies. At the very least, going to war should be debated in Congress and if we go to war it should not be done lightly and should be accompanied by a formal declaration of war. Then, if we go in, we go in decisively and win the war.

[Fredom101]

Ron Paul just needs to appear very strong on national defense...

I disagree. This is what neocons do and it turns into national offense quickly. RP needs to stand firm on the principles on non-interventionism, or he's status quo like the rest of them.

[tremendoustie]

I disagree. This is what neocons do and it turns into national offense quickly. RP needs to stand firm on the principles on non-interventionism, or he's status quo like the rest of them.

yes.

He gathered initial support, and is gathering more and more support by being principled. He's not just another neocon shill, and I don't want him to sound like one.

[Badger Paul]

"And we do need to reassure Israel that it won't be abandoned. "

With 300 nuclear warheads and diverse, technology-based economy, Israel, like South Korea or Japan or anyone else who benefitted from the U.S. defense umbrella at the expense of U.S. taxpayers, can start finally taking care of themselves.

[tremendoustie]

The us federal government should not be using US taxpayer dollars to subsidize foreign governments.

[JackieDan]

In my opinion ron is strong on this issue because theres nothing strong with still fighting unwinnable wars that has no end and will eventualy bankrupt the us..

[parocks]

What does "belligerent" mean? Does it mean not responding obsequiously to all US federal government demands? Or does it mean actually invading/attacking the united states?

And actually, I think most people think the current foreign policy of endless war is crazy. That's why Ron just about tied for first at Ames, in the REPUBLICAN party. That's not counting independents or disaffected democrats.

In the Ames Straw Poll, you didn't have to be a Republican. The Ames Straw Poll did count everybody.

[parocks]

Ron Paul loses a lot of Republicans on Foreign Policy. His foreign policy makes it difficult to persuade Republicans to vote for him, even when they want limited constitutional government.

[owlbug]

What does "belligerent" mean? Does it mean not responding obsequiously to all US federal government demands? Or does it mean actually invading/attacking the united states?

And actually, I think most people think the current foreign policy of endless war is crazy. That's why Ron just about tied for first at Ames, in the REPUBLICAN party. That's not counting independents or disaffected democrats.
I think he can discount the current wars and make clear that he will take action if needed and voted upon. If Iran starts a war with Israel then I can imagine many US citizens would consider going to Israel's aid.

It is naive to think that every country will play nice and I think a lot of people feel like RP has this view. His argument against being tough on Iran were the least well received arguments he made and there are a ton of voters who take his statements the wrong way. So many people are saying, "RP is unelectable, just look at his stance on Iran."

I know RP is right, but we need to help enough Americans understand he's right, too.

[EWM]

He's stated many times before that if there is an actual, imminent attack facing the country, the Congress should declare war and win the war.

No amount of capitulation will please the bloodthirsty merchants of death in the GOP voting block, it seems.

I support Ron Paul and watch and listen a lot of his TV and radio appearances, but I rarely hear him talk about what he'd do militarily.

[dusman]

It's not enough. Just as he can explain what he would do in a financial crisis, he needs to explain what he would do in a military crisis.

I agree. Many of Americans are already under the mentality that this is a just war. How I've been dealing with this, is wait for national defense to become the concern when talking about Paul and remind them when he makes this shift with our troops back home.. at that very moment we will have the strongest national defense our country has ever had with over 1 million armed soldiers in active duty on our ground. We could then immediately send the 400k coming overseas straight to our border to finish out their enlistments.

Within one term, Ron Paul would not only have a solution to our debt issue, but also immigration. This he can do completely on his own, with no resistance available. Those two in itself could change the direction of our country.

So far that has come off pretty well, I think.

[EWM]

I'm glad Ron doesn't feed republican bloodlust. It's sickening, frankly, especially when I consider that so many who seem so fond of war call themselves Christians.

He doesn't need to have bloodlust. He just needs to let citizens know that he won't hesitate to strike if necessary. Sometimes it IS necessary.

[EWM]

dude, Israel has more weaponry than any other country in the world with the exception of the United States. There is NO country that poses a real threat to Israel. yes there may be countries in the middle east that hate Israel, but 300 nukes present any possible foe with the threat of mutually assured destruction if they were to strike Israel.

Granted, Israel is well equipped. However, should the vast amount of surrounding enemy nations decide to join and strike, can Israel fight them all off alone? It's a question that needs to be addressed.

[EWM]

Overall, I agree with you and I also, think he badly needs to do this. Many people are scared that he wouldn't defend our country. He would of course, but he needs to make this very clear.

My only concern about what you said is with regard to our "allies". I do not believe Dr. Paul thinks we should be fighting anyone else's wars. If you read George Washington's Farewell Address, he warns that we should not entangle our alliances with other nations or we will be drawn into their wars and become enemies of their enemies. At the very least, going to war should be debated in Congress and if we go to war it should not be done lightly and should be accompanied by a formal declaration of war. Then, if we go in, we go in decisively and win the war.

So should we have not gotten involved in WW2?

[EWM]

In my opinion ron is strong on this issue because theres nothing strong with still fighting unwinnable wars that has no end and will eventualy bankrupt the us..

I totally agree, but what happens when we're faced with a REAL threat?

[Icymudpuppy]

So should we have not gotten involved in WW2?


We shouldn't have imposed embargoes on Japan.

Once attacked at Pearl Harbor we did have reason to declare war which we did in constitutional manner.

[EWM]

I agree. Many of Americans are already under the mentality that this is a just war. How I've been dealing with this, is wait for national defense to become the concern when talking about Paul and remind them when he makes this shift with our troops back home.. at that very moment we will have the strongest national defense our country has ever had with over 1 million armed soldiers in active duty on our ground. We could then immediately send the 400k coming overseas straight to our border to finish out their enlistments.

Within one term, Ron Paul would not only have a solution to our debt issue, but also immigration. This he can do completely on his own, with no resistance available. Those two in itself could change the direction of our country.

So far that has come off pretty well, I think.

That's what I would hope for. But he can seal the deal if he beefs up his campaign a bit more in the military department.

[EWM]

We shouldn't have imposed embargoes on Japan.

Once attacked at Pearl Harbor we did have reason to declare war which we did in constitutional manner.

I would say that if millions of people are being slaughtered and vicious dictators are expanding empires, that's reason enough.

[tremendoustie]

Ron Paul loses a lot of Republicans on Foreign Policy. His foreign policy makes it difficult to persuade Republicans to vote for him, even when they want limited constitutional government.

According to the Constitution, there shouldn't even be a standing army. Republicans who recognize that the us federal government is incompetant to run the country have somehow become deluded into believing that it is competant to run the world.

[tremendoustie]

I think he can discount the current wars and make clear that he will take action if needed and voted upon. If Iran starts a war with Israel then I can imagine many US citizens would consider going to Israel's aid.

then I suggest those us citizens get together and contribute time and money. I suggest they don't extort resources from their neighbors, who may consider the particular action immoral, or inadvisable.

[tremendoustie]

I would say that if millions of people are being slaughtered and vicious dictators are expanding empires, that's reason enough.

In that case I would help send forces to stop the abuse and rescue potential victims. I still wouldn't threaten others in order to force them to pay for it, however.

[owlbug]

then I suggest those us citizens get together and contribute time and money. I suggest they don't extort resources from their neighbors, who may consider the particular action immoral, or inadvisable.
I thought that was what congress was for, to carry out the will of the people. If congress can muster the votes to go to war then you'd still be against it?

[JackieDan]

I totally agree, but what happens when we're faced with a REAL threat?

Ron Paul has talked about only go to war with a declaration. That means if America is faced with a threat, he goes to congress and takes this issue up with the people. This is how things should be dealt with. Ron Paul believes in a strong national defense but that doesn't mean that the U.S. is stronger by having troops around the world and act as if they are the policeman. His foreign policy is based on peace and therefore any threat would be minimal by not meddling in the affairs of others.

However, in an imminent threat you can go without congress and you rely on the information from intelligence within the military, but that doesn't mean you go to war. That's essentially what the military is for - to protect when threat is imminent and prepare for readiness in case of a planned attack. Today, the military is heavily weakened by its size and that's one of the reasons why America never win wars. Military buildup is not necessarily a tool for success. All military powers collapse because of their uncontrollable size.

[A Son of Liberty]

The problem is that the definition of national defense has been completely corrupted in this country. "National defense" has come to mean pursuing and eliminating any and all threats, great and small, across the entire planet, with an eye toward not allowing so much as a hair on the head of one single American ever come within a mile of harm. It's an absurd, impossible goal that is dangerous, ruinously expensive, and ultimately completely destructive of true liberty.

But as long as enough people accept this definition, Ron Paul will be "weak on national defense".

[tremendoustie]

I thought that was what congress was for, to carry out the will of the people. If congress can muster the votes to go to war then you'd still be against it?

There is no single "will of the people" - there are 300 million people in this country. I don't support the notion that the majority has a right to forcibly use the lives and property of the minority, as if they own them. Really, this is the core idea of socialism. Immoral acts don't magically become moral because the group perpetrating them is large.

People have a right to run their own lives and property as they choose, so long as they don't harm others.

To me, this is the only moral way to organize society, and also the most practical. I know it won't happen overnight, and in the mean time I do wish the federal government would at least stay within the bounds of the constitution.

[EWM]

Ron Paul has talked about only go to war with a declaration. That means if America is faced with a threat, he goes to congress and takes this issue up with the people. This is how things should be dealt with. Ron Paul believes in a strong national defense but that doesn't mean that the U.S. is stronger by having troops around the world and act as if they are the policeman. His foreign policy is based on peace and therefore any threat would be minimal by not meddling in the affairs of others.

However, in an imminent threat you can go without congress and you rely on the information from intelligence within the military, but that doesn't mean you go to war. That's essentially what the military is for - to protect when threat is imminent and prepare for readiness in case of a planned attack. Today, the military is heavily weakened by its size and that's one of the reasons why America never win wars. Military buildup is not necessarily a tool for success. All military powers collapse because of their uncontrollable size.

I hear ya. But people do need to hear some military strategy from candidates. If he wants people to stop calling him a wimp, he's gotta talk about it. When so many people have that one issue against him, he's gotta let people know where he stands, with specific details.

[furface]

The intent of this thread should be obvious, i.e. the talk about protecting our "allies." Just my take, but if Israel becomes in imminent danger of losing its ability to ethnically cleanse Palestinians, I'm guessing Ron Paul would do absolutely nothing.

[owlbug]

There is no single "will of the people" - there are 300 million people in this country. I don't support the notion that the majority has a right to forcibly use the lives and property of the minority, as if they own them. Really, this is the core idea of socialism. Immoral acts don't magically become moral because the group perpetrating them is large.

People have a right to run their own lives and property as they choose, so long as they don't harm others.

To me, this is the only moral way to organize society, and also the most practical. I know it won't happen overnight, and in the mean time I do wish the federal government would at least stay within the bounds of the constitution.

First of all, the only way I can see going to war without congress is if the US is attacked.

Secondly, we have a representative form of government. If the people we elect to represent us vote to go to war, I may not agree with it but I think it would be the right thing to do. Politicians wouldn't be quick to do it because there are real political consequences to voting yay or nay. If the constitution isn't good enough for you, you probably should consider moving to another nation or joining a commune. There are restrictions one must accept when living in society.