Why my dad will not vote for Ron Paul.

[Daniel 9 5]

My dad's main problem with Ron Paul, is that he thinks RP will let wars(between other nations) go on and on until the world is conquered and then it will be USA vs. the world in a war.

Can anyone clarify this for me or perhaps point me in the proper direction as to find out where RP stands on this hypothetical scenario?

I am all for peace, and i'm fully aware of our "leaders" duplicity in bringing the USA into wars throughout our history. However, sometimes evil must simply be stopped. If some megalamaniacal dictator started going through the world killing and enslaving people, is there a point that President Paul will say "enough!" and militarily intervene on behalf of the people being killed and enslaved? Or will RP say "it's got nothing to do with our national defense?

Also, does anyone know where I can find a RP shirt that says "Legalize Freedom" or "Legalize the Constitution"?

Thanks

[specsaregood]

If some megalamaniacal dictator started going through the world killing and enslaving people, is there a point that President Paul will say "enough!" and militarily intervene on behalf of the people being killed and enslaved? Or will RP say "it's got nothing to do with our national defense?


Easy answer. When the congress passes a Declaration of War, has identified an enemy and goal. Ya know, the constitutional way.

He isn't a no- war guy, he is a no-undeclared, unconstitutional war guy.

[ItsTime]

Who will be conquering the world? Iran? How? It would take a super power like China to start a war that could even conquer France, never mind the world.

His idea that someone will conquer the world is fringe and not even plausible. But in that case, Congress has the power to say "enough" not Ron Paul since he is a president not a dictator.

[Jeremy]

Does he think the real world is like the board game Risk? You beat a country in war and then you control everyone?

[Thomas]

Does he think the real world is like the board game Risk? You beat a country in war and then you control everyone?

lmaooo

[dannno]

Every nation that has tried to create a world empire has spread itself too thin, never even come CLOSE to being able to unite various groups of people, and have destroyed all of their wealth and most of their resources in the process.

Your dad's scenario is just not plausible. And he probably plays too much of the game "Risk".

This is just a game, it's not how the world really works:

http://www.boardgamebeast.com/images/risk-board-game-strategies-21294771.jpg

[ItsTime]

What is even worse is that we are the ones doing the conquering and it is usually that country that ends up failing....

[dannno]

Does he think the real world is like the board game Risk? You beat a country in war and then you control everyone?

lol, you beat me to it.

[specsaregood]

What is even worse is that we are the ones doing the conquering and it is usually that country that ends up failing....

Yeah, that occurred to me as well. The scenario described in the OP sounds like the US is the country trying to takeover the world. Hell, we already have the dictator that can go to war without any congressional approval.

[Warrior_of_Freedom]

Who's going to conquer the world? Iran? LOL!

[Warrior_of_Freedom]

Yeah, that occurred to me as well. The scenario described in the OP sounds like the US is the country trying to takeover the world. Hell, we already have the dictator that can go to war without any congressional approval.

Maybe we should just take over the world! Then there won't be any more wars! /sarcasm

[thehighwaymanq]

I see his point.

Ron brought up the example of Soviet Union at the debates and I thought that was great. That's the biggest thread and we did not resort to war.

[MJU1983]

My dad's main problem with Ron Paul, is that he thinks RP will let wars(between other nations) go on and on until the world is conquered and then it will be USA vs. the world in a war.

Can anyone clarify this for me or perhaps point me in the proper direction as to find out where RP stands on this hypothetical scenario?

I am all for peace, and i'm fully aware of our "leaders" duplicity in bringing the USA into wars throughout our history. However, sometimes evil must simply be stopped. If some megalamaniacal dictator started going through the world killing and enslaving people, is there a point that President Paul will say "enough!" and militarily intervene on behalf of the people being killed and enslaved? Or will RP say "it's got nothing to do with our national defense?

Also, does anyone know where I can find a RP shirt that says "Legalize Freedom" or "Legalize the Constitution"?

Thanks

I wouldn't waste time on your dad and instead focus your efforts on others.

If he really has views like that...it took many years of indoctrination, believing and accepting what the lying sociopaths in Washington DC tell him as the truth.

Points that matter:
1- Ron Paul is a Veteran.
2- Ron Paul was endorsed by Reagan because of foreign policy/ national defense:

"Ron Paul is one of the outstanding leaders fighting for a stronger national defense. As a former Air Force officer, he knows well the needs of our armed forces, and he always puts them first. We need to keep him fighting for our country." - Ronald Reagan

3- Ron Paul is receiving more than 2x the campaign donations from military men and women as every other GOP candidate COMBINED. http://www.ronpaul2012.com/2011/07/20/ron-paul-campaign-raises-most-donations-from-military/

[musicmax]

If some megalamaniacal dictator started going through the world killing and enslaving people, is there a point that President Paul will say "enough!" and militarily intervene on behalf of the people being killed and enslaved? Or will RP say "it's got nothing to do with our national defense?

Ask him if the US should have intervened in the Soviet Union when Stalin was killing his own people by the millions. Ask him if the US intervened in Rwanda. Then ask him how he's going to pay for such interventions.

No nation can "go through the world". Look at Rome. Look at the USSR. Look at what happened to Hitler when he tried to invade the USSR.

[musicmax]

until the world is conquered and then it will be USA vs. the world in a war.

Does he think that if Country A conquers Country B that Country B's citizens will automatically join Country A's army and unite against the US? Perhaps I missed the chapter of World War II where the French started fighting alongside the Nazis.

[jmdrake]

My dad's main problem with Ron Paul, is that he thinks RP will let wars(between other nations) go on and on until the world is conquered and then it will be USA vs. the world in a war.

Can anyone clarify this for me or perhaps point me in the proper direction as to find out where RP stands on this hypothetical scenario?

I am all for peace, and i'm fully aware of our "leaders" duplicity in bringing the USA into wars throughout our history. However, sometimes evil must simply be stopped. If some megalamaniacal dictator started going through the world killing and enslaving people, is there a point that President Paul will say "enough!" and militarily intervene on behalf of the people being killed and enslaved? Or will RP say "it's got nothing to do with our national defense?

Also, does anyone know where I can find a RP shirt that says "Legalize Freedom" or "Legalize the Constitution"?

Thanks

1st Welcome to the forum.

2nd Ask you dad if he truly believes that getting involved in wars is the only way to end them? Ask your dad if he thinks we should have intervened militarily in Northern Ireland for example?

3rd Ask your dad what happened to the predictions that if we pulled out of Vietnam all of Southeast Asia would become communist.

[newbitech]

Why couldn't congress just declare war on the rampaging marauders? I think that if Congress handed President Paul a declaration of war, he would not hesitate to bring the full force of the country's military might down upon that enemy and resolve the reason for war quicker than any commander in the history of the world.

The idea of war is not to have them go on forever and ever and ever and constantly be involved in disputes around the world. War should be the last resort of self defense for a nation who has exhausted all options. Once the REASON for the declaration of war is spelled out, then the primary objective is to resolve that reason and achieve the victory of successfully stopping whatever aggression started the conflict.

Dr. Paul has repeated asked Congress throughout his tenure to DECLARE WAR before engaging troops. Basically, give a reason to go to war! Of course, we are given all kinds of reasons why our forces are committed all over the world, but not since I have been alive have the people responsible actually bothered to put pen to paper and OWN the reason. That is, these folks claiming all the reason in the world to send people to fight and die in the desert absolutely REFUSE to be held ACCOUNTABLE if their REASON is WRONG!

I am against this, so should anyone who has any interest in supporting our troops, their families, and their actions on our behalf, around the world.

Declare it! OWN IT!

[Daniel 9 5]

What is even worse is that we are the ones doing the conquering and it is usually that country that ends up failing....

Yes, I am fully aware of this.


And to the rest of you that want to make a funny, yes he is heavily indoctrinated by Fox and the neo-cons, just as I and no doubt many of you were. He also is a man that cries a bit when we get to talking about 1776 and all that, and I promise you that he is not the only one with this mindset, he likes everything else about RP. The goal is to get our country back...not make light of people that don't "get it".

[jmdrake]

Yes, I am fully aware of this.


And to the rest of you that want to make a funny, yes he is heavily indoctrinated by Fox and the neo-cons, just as I and no doubt many of you were. He also is a man that cries a bit when we get to talking about 1776 and all that, and I promise you that he is not the only one with this mindset, he likes everything else about RP. The goal is to get our country back...not make light of people that don't "get it".

Hey, I feel you. I recently got my mom to pledge to vote for Ron Paul and she voted for Obama last time. (She actually liked Ron Paul's foreign policy all along. It's the economics I had to sell).

Okay, help us out here. The OP question is too general. On all of the wars that we are currently fighting (Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya etc) is there any war he thinks we shouldn't be fighting? Let's take the war in Libya. Right now we are fighting on the side of Al Qaeda. Does he agree with that? Does he think we should be on the side of the tyrant Khaddafi? Or does he think we should just have stayed out? If you can get him to see the wisdom of staying out of that war, maybe he can see the wisdom of staying out of other wars.

[dannno]

And to the rest of you that want to make a funny....The goal is to get our country back...not make light of people that don't "get it".

To be fair, you're on an internet forum and traditionally the goal is to mix in jokes with useful information.

[Romulus]

Guys, parents don't like to be schooled by their kids. It makes them feel stupid, as they are supposed to be all wise and knowing. This is why we all have such problems with our parents. The same goes with family. We need to reach beyond to friends, neighbors, etc.

[Daniel 9 5]

Hey, I feel you. I recently got my mom to pledge to vote for Ron Paul and she voted for Obama last time. (She actually liked Ron Paul's foreign policy all along. It's the economics I had to sell).

Okay, help us out here. The OP question is too general. On all of the wars that we are currently fighting (Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya etc) is there any war he thinks we shouldn't be fighting? Let's take the war in Libya. Right now we are fighting on the side of Al Qaeda. Does he agree with that? Does he think we should be on the side of the tyrant Khaddafi? Or does he think we should just have stayed out? If you can get him to see the wisdom of staying out of that war, maybe he can see the wisdom of staying out of other wars.


He believes Khaddafi is a tyrant and that he needs to go, I think his only problem with the Libyan war is that congress didn't declare war. He believes the whole war on terror is legit. Afghanistan-he says if we don't grow the opium then the terrorists will. For the most part he is still believing is the false, left-right paradigm that has been shoved down our throats for generations and to this day still defends pretty much everything Bush the younger did while in office. At this time in history it is my belief that a vote for anyone not named Ron Paul, is a vote for your own enslavement as all other candidates are beholden to foriegn interests, and my dad just can't seem to accept that.

[Rothbardian Girl]

Daniel, my dad has been making inroads lately, but he is pretty much the same way as your dad. I would focus my efforts elsewhere. You may want to try to get your dad to read some of RP's books since they are eloquent and sort of build up the evidence as to why our foreign and domestic policies are so flawed.

Sorry I couldn't help more, but I definitely understand the talking-to-a-brick-wall kind of feeling.

[Cowlesy]

1st Welcome to the forum.

2nd Ask you dad if he truly believes that getting involved in wars is the only way to end them? Ask your dad if he thinks we should have intervened militarily in Northern Ireland for example?

3rd Ask your dad what happened to the predictions that if we pulled out of Vietnam all of Southeast Asia would become communist.

+rep

[Steve-in-NY]

* Follow the Constitution by asking Congress to declare war before one is waged.

* Only send our military into conflict with a clear mission and all the tools they need to complete the job – and then bring them home.

http://www.ronpaul2012.com/the-issues/national-defense/

Hope that helps.

[TexasJake]

I recently had the same talk with my folks and the way I explained it is that all we have to do is filter the issues with the constitution and the answer will become apparent. If we want to go to war for any reason, we need to use the constitutional method and let the congress declare war.

[Daniel 9 5]

Thanks for all the replies folks, lots of good points there and it's a bit comforting that i'm not alone in my frustration.

[bolil]

China has a devastating civil war coming long before they can even pose a ficticious threat to the United States. Imho.

[BlackTerrel]

Does he think the real world is like the board game Risk? You beat a country in war and then you control everyone?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fzLtF_PxbYw

[BUSHLIED]

The problem is that your dad's position is not unrealistic...one only has to look at Hitler's domination of Europe to see that the English and the French appeased Hitler and Hitler didn't listen to them. He took more and more land...so your dad had a point of reference. The problem is that, what scenario are plausible? Ask your father what country with an army, navy, and air force would be able to start invading and taking over countries?? Your dad seems to have Ron's positions completely wrong. I would start by educating him on Ron's positions first...walk him through it all...and then move on...I haven't been able to completely turn someone around to Ron when they support a candidate already...the key is to reach NEW people.

[Sjmfury]

The US Military is and Will Continue to be the STRONGEST FORCE on the Planet.
We have all but 2 things going against us.
#1 The Russians have more Subs (And Better Subs soon)
#2 The Chinese Have Massive Numbers

The US Military will continue to LEAD the way in War, we are good at it, very good at it I may add.

[crusader911]

My dad's main problem with Ron Paul, is that he thinks RP will let wars(between other nations) go on and on until the world is conquered and then it will be USA vs. the world in a war.

Can anyone clarify this for me or perhaps point me in the proper direction as to find out where RP stands on this hypothetical scenario?

I am all for peace, and i'm fully aware of our "leaders" duplicity in bringing the USA into wars throughout our history. However, sometimes evil must simply be stopped. If some megalamaniacal dictator started going through the world killing and enslaving people, is there a point that President Paul will say "enough!" and militarily intervene on behalf of the people being killed and enslaved? Or will RP say "it's got nothing to do with our national defense?

Also, does anyone know where I can find a RP shirt that says "Legalize Freedom" or "Legalize the Constitution"?

Thanks

Please let me know your thoughts after reading the following :


(1) Why did Al-Qaeda attack the US ?


http://forum.isi.org/eve/forums?a=tpc&s=5270060552&f=9310035552&m=4280031492&r=3441026226#3441026226



(2) Could the US government have prevented the attacks on 9/11/01 on a drastically reduced yearly military budget of $100 billion a year ?

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?305092-Could-the-attacks-on-9-11-01-have-been-prevented&p=3421133#post3421133



(3) A militarily weak US government could have saved trillions of hard earned taxpayer dollars

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?306566-A-militarily-weak-US-government-could-have-saved-us-trillions-of-taxpayer-dollars&p=3438793#post3438793



(4) Would a militarily weak US government have been a blessing to the world ? :

http://forum.isi.org/eve/forums?a=tpc&s=5270060552&f=9310035552&m=4280031492&r=4301034126#4301034126


(5) How to save $800 billion a year from the military budget and balance the budget in the sixth year :

http://forum.isi.org/eve/forums?a=tpc&s=5270060552&f=9310035552&m=4280031492&r=4461034126#4461034126

[crusader911]

My dad's main problem with Ron Paul, is that he thinks RP will let wars(between other nations) go on and on until the world is conquered and then it will be USA vs. the world in a war.

Can anyone clarify this for me or perhaps point me in the proper direction as to find out where RP stands on this hypothetical scenario?

I am all for peace, and i'm fully aware of our "leaders" duplicity in bringing the USA into wars throughout our history. However, sometimes evil must simply be stopped. If some megalamaniacal dictator started going through the world killing and enslaving people, is there a point that President Paul will say "enough!" and militarily intervene on behalf of the people being killed and enslaved? Or will RP say "it's got nothing to do with our national defense?

Also, does anyone know where I can find a RP shirt that says "Legalize Freedom" or "Legalize the Constitution"?

Thanks

Without the US government's military interventions, the world will be just as how it was before the US came into existence

and that is countries would go to war with one another but no country will have a world wide monopoly on power due to the fact that insurgencies will always exist to overthrow a foreign dictatorship.

I hope your dad realizes that it is the US government's short sighted foreign policies that resulted in WW2, the Cold War and the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.

Please read my previous post for clarification, thanks

[Ronpauljones]

The US Military is and Will Continue to be the STRONGEST FORCE on the Planet.
We have all but 2 things going against us.
#1 The Russians have more Subs (And Better Subs soon)
#2 The Chinese Have Massive Numbers

The US Military will continue to LEAD the way in War, we are good at it, very good at it I may add.

Yeah the U.S. leading has lead to some awesome results around the world :rolleyes:

[Anti Federalist]

He believes Khaddafi is a tyrant and that he needs to go, I think his only problem with the Libyan war is that congress didn't declare war. He believes the whole war on terror is legit. Afghanistan-he says if we don't grow the opium then the terrorists will.

Jesus.

There is nothing I can say to that, that would not come off sounding harsh.

Might be best just to move on, family can be some of the hardest people to sway.

Familiarity breeds contempt.

[bolil]

If we did not waste our resources and warriors (and what Nietzche called our "Quantum of Reason", on illegal wars and grand politics we would be ready for the next big show when it came. Those who bemoan the size of China's army must keep in mind that when it happens, we will find India on our side... and then the numbers are equal. However, they (Chinese) possess a distinct advantage in manufacturing capabilities. It bears remembering, any WW2 buff knows,the primary reason the Allies beat the Axis was our ability exponentially outproduce them. This script has now been flipped... Ahhhh, the machinations of the idle mind. They and us have nukes... next big show will likely end in a cratered and smouldering earth. Orwell's 1984 gives a superb explanation of modern warfare.

As far as the Russians are concerned, I have faith that the Germans will clean their clocks... again. Whatever happens lets hope the French are on the other side lol.

[dan2thecross]

Easy answer. When the congress passes a Declaration of War, has identified an enemy and goal. Ya know, the constitutional way.

He isn't a no- war guy, he is a no-undeclared, unconstitutional war guy.

This is a pretty solid answer.

[CaptainAmerica]

My dad's main problem with Ron Paul, is that he thinks RP will let wars(between other nations) go on and on until the world is conquered and then it will be USA vs. the world in a war.

Can anyone clarify this for me or perhaps point me in the proper direction as to find out where RP stands on this hypothetical scenario?

I am all for peace, and i'm fully aware of our "leaders" duplicity in bringing the USA into wars throughout our history. However, sometimes evil must simply be stopped. If some megalamaniacal dictator started going through the world killing and enslaving people, is there a point that President Paul will say "enough!" and militarily intervene on behalf of the people being killed and enslaved? Or will RP say "it's got nothing to do with our national defense?

Also, does anyone know where I can find a RP shirt that says "Legalize Freedom" or "Legalize the Constitution"?

Thanks Ask your dad if he would go around his neighborhood with a shotgun intervening with other peoples marital problems(such as shouting). Would his actions make him safer ? Of course its always easier to call the cops to intervene which would still be intervention.....in this case your dad would advocate sending someone elses kids overseas to entangle /bully and make someone elses business their own.

[ForLiberty2012]

We can't financially afford to intervene militarily in every conflict/country in the world. There will always be suppressive dictators, and will always be wars fought throughout the world, with or without our intervention. When we do get involved, we end up causing more hatred than good. One can look back to 1953 when our CIA covertly installed the Shah in Iran because we "feared" their democracy would become aligned with the Soviet Union and to gain control of their oil. We ended up installing a suppressive government, but we got an ally and we got our oil. This suppressive government created hatred by the Iranians against Americans and they ended up overthrowing this government. Then we got in co-hoots with Iraq, gave them WMDs and that's when the Iraq-Iran war began. Then Iraq invaded Kuwait and we went against Iraq and set up military bases in Saudia Arabia. At this time, the whole middle east is pissed at us and the people of Saudia Arabia wanted us out of their holy land. This planted the seed for 9/11... The majority of hijackers were from Saudia Arabia. Now since Osama was in Afghanistan we go there and set up military bases.... etc, etc, etc. This is the concept Ron Paul and many historians/scholars/CIA agents consider "blowback" which is a very real thing. The root cause of all the hatred we created was because of our military intervention overseas, installing suppressive dictators, and occupying their land which they consider holy. We would be pissed if they did this to us.

It is Intervention that has caused us harm.... not the fact that there are bad people in the world and they hate us because we are Christians and free.

[talkingpointes]

My dad IS going to support and vote for Paul but feels the same way. There is absolutely no way to change thoughts like these in my experience. Ever wondered why they call Ron Paul and others Isolationist? Some people seriously see the world as being "evil" and the United States as the great police man of the world. There is no logic there it's pure emotion. My father agrees with no wars, but some how some way can come up with a 100 reasons we need to be engaged in them. It's seriously a super frustrating topic once brought up. He usually sounds like this; "I know Libya is a bad idea but Ghadaffi was a dictator and bombed his own people", I respond with "700,000 Iraqis didn't disappear at the hands of Saddam" and try to make the point that wars are always based upon false intelligence and generally follow "GOD" gold, oil, drugs. Good luck man. My advice would be to get him from another point.

[nasaal]

responding with the lower percentage of opium coming from Afghanistan before we got there would be fine.

[jmdrake]

He believes Khaddafi is a tyrant and that he needs to go, I think his only problem with the Libyan war is that congress didn't declare war. He believes the whole war on terror is legit. Afghanistan-he says if we don't grow the opium then the terrorists will. For the most part he is still believing is the false, left-right paradigm that has been shoved down our throats for generations and to this day still defends pretty much everything Bush the younger did while in office. At this time in history it is my belief that a vote for anyone not named Ron Paul, is a vote for your own enslavement as all other candidates are beholden to foriegn interests, and my dad just can't seem to accept that.

Please send your dad these link.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8391632/Libya-the-West-and-al-Qaeda-on-the-same-side.html

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/MH30Ak01.html

http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/09/bush_officials_advice_to_qaddafi_regime_could_rais e_legal_issues.php

Then ask him this simple question. "If the war on terror is legit, then why are you ok with us fighting on the side of terrorists in Libya? Sure Qaddafi is a tyrant, but isn't Al Qaeda a greater threat to America, especially considering that Bush normalized relations with Qaddafi? Are you suggesting that Obama is better on foreign policy than Bush?"

[antfreire]

[QUOTE=Jeremy;3476678]Does he think the real world is like the board game Risk? You beat a country in war and then you control everyone

Was it not like that in Europe in 1940?

[Liberty74]

Just let your dad know that you understand his "feelings" but they are not based in reality. Only the Congress can declare war. When and if that is done by Congress, it becomes RP's job to become commander in chief of that war. Hence, your dad's feelings should be erased.

If not, ask him why he supports illegal wars. Ask him why he is not for the rule of law?

I have debates at work with various people on the political spectrum. One co worker is a neocon Gingrich supporter who believes we should use war and control the world blah blah blah. Needless to say, after posing questions (provokes them to think) he is slowly turning to the direction against imperialism. The last time we declared war was in 1941. Use that stat and watch your dad's facial reaction. Many people are floored because they honestly believe all other wars have been declared since then and therefore justified.

If all else fails, throw him RP's book A Foreign Policy of Freedom. :p

[Okie RP fan]

We may also support allies through trade.

Not intervening in situations that do not automatically harm us, warrant no reason to station troops or go fight in more wars. We spend money, resources, and lives doing so.

[SlideShowGraphix.com]

if you think its hard to conquer a random country like Afghanistan, Iraq or Vietnam, try to conquer America with hundreds of millions of patriotic gun toting Americans.

[Icymudpuppy]

Does he think the real world is like the board game Risk? You beat a country in war and then you control everyone

Was it not like that in Europe in 1940?

No, it wasn't. Germany did not start drafting frenchmen and polish into their army. To a certain extant, some of the occupied nation's industrial capacity is usurped by the occupiers, but since the people are not enthusiastic about supporting the occupiers, the production is a fraction of what it would be under domestic rule.

[Enforcer]

I wonder if the OP of this thread has gotten his dad to sit down and read this with him and click on the links. If so, I'd like to know what feedback the OP got. And if he hasn't asked his Dad to read this with him I' want to know why.

[R3V0LUT10N1776]

All I can say is don't give up on your Dad, and use some of these arguments because alot of them are pure gold. Three years ago my father was a raging neo-con and now his vehicles are plastered with Ron Paul and he even believes alot of the conspiracy elements that I do. People can change, just keep pounding the truth 'til he can't deny it anymore.

[affa]

My father's a die-hard Dem who I can get to admit Obama is wrong on almost every topic, but still will likely vote for him. Go figure.