A letter from my Uncle - who is afraid of Ron Paul.

[runamuck]

I wrote my Uncle (a Bachmann) supporter, asking him his thoughts on Ron Paul. The e-mail I got back was quite disturbing, but typical of an uneducated voter. Help me respond!

"Dr. Paul is a wonderful man in so many ways, and I agree with ALOT of his conservative ideas and the way he has voted alot of the time. But when he puts things on his own website saying WE are to blame and responsible for the slaughter of about 3,000 innocent Americans on 9/11 ,amongst many other wacked out things like it wasn't neccessary for us to kill Bin Laden and saying the whacko in Iran has the right to pursue nuclear weapons it,(are you kidding me??) unfortunately, makes him unelectable and almost scary to me. Maybe this is what makes him that "crazy ole nut"? I don't know, but that could be one of the reasons why it doesn't seem like anybody takes him serious. He is VERY left-leaning and tone deaf when it comes to foreign policy. I still can't find anything in the Constitution that says we aren't allowed to defend ourselves!! When our forefathers set up our country, the ultimate protection of the American people was one of the most important things our leaders were to do. No, I don't hate Dr.Paul in any way, or want a bullet in his head, but unfortunately he doesn't get it ,and still a wasted vote in my humble opinion. Now, on the other hand, for all you "Paulies", how about his awesome son Rand.? Now, for me, that' could very well be the Paul to be!! He is a brilliant young man , and seems like a genuine Ronald Reagan type conservative. Love you P.S. This could have been much longer but I didn't want to bore you toooo much!!"

[LibertyEsq]

no offense to your uncle but it sounds like Rick Santorum is telling him what to write.

[z9000]

deleted

[cero]

stoped reading after the "he puts things on his website"
you got a lot of work to do man.

I would suggest asking him what his reason is for why 9/11 occurred. then take it from there.

[RonPaulFever]

This is the unfortunate result of the last few decades of public schooling and controlled media. Educate him.

[runamuck]

I'm right there with you guys! I personally am to the point where I can't even stand to talk to my Uncle - but I would like to write him back with a detailed breakdown and smack down everything he's said.

[kojirodensetsu]

Show him this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PoYGAxF-zWE

It might clarify some things about Ron Paul to him.

[runamuck]

Show him this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PoYGAxF-zWE

It might clarify some things about Ron Paul to him.

He won't watch videos online. The only way I can probably get through to him is in writing.

[eleganz]

Why is your uncle afraid of Iran getting one nuke that won't do anything when he should be questioning why there are 36,000 pounds of weapons grade uranium and plutonium unaccounted for by the federal government.


Under special nuclear cooperation agreements, the United States sent 38,580 pounds of enriched uranium and plutonium to more than two-dozen foreign agencies and is unable to account for 36,000 pounds of the material. The Government Accountability Office report says these 27 cooperation agreements, set up to facilitate cross border research, have no accountability and the U.S. has no way to enforce control.

http://articles.businessinsider.com/2011-09-15/politics/30158991_1_nrc-global-threat-reduction-initiative-grade-uranium-and-plutonium

Why is your uncle saying Ron Paul blames America directly for the 3000 deaths when he specifically said he didn't say those things, he is just explaining why THEY are saying those things. Also look for the department of defense explaining how our foreign policy is a major factor to the declaration of holy war.


American direct intervention in the Muslim World has paradoxically elevated the stature
of and support for radical Islamists, while diminishing support for the United States to
single-digits in some Arab societies.
• Muslims do not “hate our freedom,” but rather, they hate our policies. The
overwhelming majority voice their objections to what they see as one-sided support in
favor of Israel and against Palestinian rights, and the longstanding, even increasing
support for what Muslims collectively see as tyrannies, most notably Egypt, Saudi
Arabia, Jordan, Pakistan, and the Gulf states.

http://www.acq.osd.mil/dsb/reports/ADA428770.pdf

or you could point your uncle to watch this video, basically CIA admitting we are in this mess because of our policies:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=udz5_FdoFGU&feature=player_embedded

[Eric21ND]

Ask your uncle to watch this video.


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

[LibertyEagle]

He is very confused about foreign policy. What Dr. Paul is suggesting is not left-like at all. Unfortunately, it is your uncle who is embracing a leftist foreign policy. The Southern Avenger gave an interview today as part of the MoneyBomb in which he addresses this. He lists a number of traditional conservatives who your uncle should know who have, or had when they were alive, the same foreign policy as Ron Paul. You may also want to ask him to listen to Michael Scheuer's interview he recently gave on C-SPAN. Scheuer was also interviewed today on the moneybomb radio show. You can listen to it, here. www.ronpaul2012.com/radio

Scheuer's CSPAN interview:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zPlGO6a8Xmg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rbuggY0pzI8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=plh868KGQzc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6UK6f-d2ZGA

[kojirodensetsu]

He won't watch videos online. The only way I can probably get through to him is in writing.
http://paul.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1912:a-foreign-policy-update-mutually-assured-destruction-vs-mutually-assured-respect&catid=16:speeches

Here's a transcript of the video.

[Nate-ForLiberty]

Focus on blowback. Cite examples. Compare it to healing a sick person as opposed to masking a symptom. Don't go off onto any other topic.

Blowback blowback blowback

[LibertyEsq]

Mention to him that Santorum was lieing - Paul doesn't think America was to blame for 9/11, he thinks our foreign policy has contributed to the terrorists' motives. Also mention to him that Paul was FOR defending America with the original military operations in Afghanistan. Also ask him if he's willing to go to war to prevent Iran from getting a nuke when Pakistan/North Korea/China already have them.

[jene277]

I'm still a little new with educating myself on our foreign policy, but I have convinced quite a few people with these items.

This video which explains our history in the Middle East http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=srFnLkrwtVM&feature=player_embedded

The fact that we give Israel's neighbors 6 times as much aid as we do to Israel. That Israel can defend itself.

The CIA and the 9-11 Commission Reports state the EXACT same stance as Dr. Paul. Explain Blowback to him.

Ron Paul was one of the very few in Congress who supported Israel in the early 80s when they took out one of Iraq's nuclear facilities. We tie the hands of Israel, we need to stop doing that. They have every right to defend themselves without our permission.

Iran is not stupid enough to launch a nuke into Israel, if they do they will be committing suicide. Not to mention destroying numerous religious sites that are extremely important to them.

Ron Paul is NOT an isolationist, he will defend our country. Right now we are spread so far around the world that we are leaving ourselves open for attack. We don't even have our National Guard here to help when needed in natural disasters, etc.

Our troops give more to Ron Paul than any other Republican candidate combined, along with more than Obama. They know better than the people back at home what is really going on over there.

I'm sure others on this forum can help you more, or you may already know these things, but this is a list of what has worked for me.

[Eric21ND]

He won't watch videos online. The only way I can probably get through to him is in writing.
Well your uncle's learning curve is going to be much slower then. Go to Michael Scheuer's website non-intervention.com and find an article you like on there, or you could buy him Michael Scheuer's book "Imperial Hubris" or "Through Our Enemies Eyes", compliment that book by sending him Robert Pape's book "Dying to Win".

[AJ187]

Just send him a link to the where Ron posted it and your uncle will see Rick's total fabrication of the original story.

[LudwigVonMisoSoup]

What you'll find with these types is that they blame the entire religion of Islam for the events that occurred on 9/11, as well as other attacks. This is akin to blaming the entire religion of Christianity for the extremists responsible for the attacks during 'The Troubles' of Northern Ireland.

[AJ187]

Well your uncle's learning curve is going to be much slower then. Go to Michael Scheuer's website non-intervention.com and find an article you like on there, or you could buy him Michael Scheuer's book "Imperial Hubris" or "Through Our Enemies Eyes", compliment that book by sending him Robert Pape's book "Dying to Win".

Awesome suggestions, Eric! Rep!

[Eric21ND]

This will also be most helpful.

Prof. Robert Pape on Suicide Terrorism (http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL69EBA4BAED49C7CB)

[libertybrewcity]

It looks like you have him almost there. He has been exposed to the ideas, now you just need to lure him in with straight facts.

Show him what Osama bin Laden said and wrote on many occasions about the reasons why he attacked us on 9/11.

Give him easy to understand scenarios. "Imagine if...China was building military bases on our lands...imagine if...your family was murdered by a foreign country bombing a house next to you?...wouldn't you seek revenge?"

There are many ways you can approach this letter.

[Eric21ND]

What you'll find with these types is that they blame the entire religion of Islam for the events that occurred on 9/11, as well as other attacks. This is akin to blaming the entire religion of Christianity for the extremists responsible for the attacks during 'The Troubles' of Northern Ireland.
That's why reading Robert Pape's work is so important. At least 95% of all attacks, aren't motivated by religion, in fact one of the most deadly groups conducting suicide terrorism is a secular marxist group. They do it because of occupation.

[eleganz]

Don't forget to clue him in on my post (first page of this thread) about the 36,000 lbs of unaccounted weapons grade uranium and plutonium, that is HUGE ammo on his fear of Iran getting nukes.

[Eric21ND]

It looks like you have him almost there. He has been exposed to the ideas, now you just need to lure him in with straight facts.

Show him what Osama bin Laden said and wrote on many occasions about the reasons why he attacked us on 9/11.

Give him easy to understand scenarios. "Imagine if...China was building military bases on our lands...imagine if...your family was murdered by a foreign country bombing a house next to you?...wouldn't you seek revenge?"

There are many ways you can approach this letter.
Neocons are too knee-jerk emotional when you bring up bin Laden, better to use people in the defense department that they already venerate, such as CIA veteran Michael Scheuer and others.

[libertybrewcity]

Neocons are too knee-jerk emotional when you bring up bin Laden, better to use people in the defense department that they already venerate, such as CIA veteran Michael Scheuer and others.

True, you could reference a number of people.

Don't just tell him to read some books. Actually bring up cold hard facts that are absolutely irrefutable. You could also sprinkle a little emotion in there to give your argument that extra persuasiveness.

[wongster41]

Show him this video..

"Why do some Muslims hate America? 2004 Pentagon report says it's b/c of America's foreign policies"


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lInwaAjwJ38

[sabu140]

Instead of asking people their opinion which has been influenced by media bias and misconceptions talk to him in person with some material and shape the conversation. You could talk about the debt or something that suits Ron Paul.

Here is a link to my Ron Paul 2012 handout I made.

http://www.meetup.com/Okaloosa-Walton-Ron-Paul-Campaign/files/

[blabam]

Don't forget this video!!!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x4PgpbQfxgo

[Eryxis]

I showed the Scheuer interview (the short 2 minute version) to one of my "America First" buddies, and his rebuttal was...

"He also said multi-culturalism is the cause of the Norway shootings. What a great job he did as the Bin Laden Unit Chief too, seeing as under his watch Bin Laden had his 9/11 plan well into place.

Islamic Terrorism is nothing more than using hate and fear as a means to grab power from the people. They will point there aggression at this country even if we were out of the middle east, because they will always need a cause to keep their power. See Iran. Islamic Terrorist or any terrorist for that matter will always have a target of hate. Islamic terrorists, extremists for that matter have hated western civilization well before this country was even founded. As long as there is an affront to their religion...any other religion, atheists, etc... they will always have a reason for existence.

So you have two choices, close the door and cross your fingers they aren't doing anything bad or Keep a foot in the door just to keep an eye on them."

His responses kind of took me by surprise.

[Inkblots]

A great starting point would be to actually send him what Jack Hunter's blog said on 9/11 - it never said America was responsible or to blame for 9/11. In fact, I can't find anything that could even be misinterpreted as saying that, but I presume they're referring to this:

Former head of the CIA’s Bin Laden Unit Michael Scheuer explains what Mr. Rumsfeld still can’t understand:

“Our growing number of Islamist enemies are motivated to attack us because of what the U.S. government does in the Muslim world and not because of how Americans live and think here at home.”

Frighteningly, Rumsfeld and those of his mindset have learned nothing since 9/11 and they continue to endanger this country with their stubbornly unreflective views.
http://www.ronpaul2012.com/2011/09/10/learning-nothing-from-911/

So it's clear Ron and his campaign have never said anything like we're responsible for 9/11. Indeed, Jack Hunter's blog post on 9/11 makes it clear (http://www.ronpaul2012.com/2011/09/11/never-forget/): the responsibility is upon the vile murderers who planned and committed that awful attack. However, to think about the motives of our enemies and what actions make this nation more or less safe is the key to wise foreign policy, and to disregard the way are actions may ultimately encourage people to harm Americans is irresponsible and unpatriotic.

Here's an analogy that may help make this understandable for your uncle: if a person is mugged, it is never her fault - it is the fault the thug who commits the despicable act. However, a sensible parent will advise his son or daughter not to walk alone through the ghetto at night, because it will hugely increase the chances of their being robbed. If they ignore that advice, stroll alone through the bad part of town at night, and are mugged, it is not their fault - the responsibility falls on the criminal. However, they were certainly not exercising good judgment, and made robbing them easy. So if a father tells his daughter to avoid the bad part of town at night, is he somehow justifying what the robbers do? No; he's merely helping his daughter to make it difficult for anyone to harm them.

Ron Paul's statements about terrorism are exactly analogous. By continuously garrisoning and bombing the Middle East and Central Asia, we make it easy for terrorists to attack us and recruit young people to the cause of jihad. The attackers on 9/11 were able to be recruited (remember, most of them were Saudi) by Osama bin Laden whipping them up into a righteous wrath about the presence of America troops on what they considered to be the holy land of the Arabian Peninsula, and about the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi women and children in Iraq under American bombing and the sanctions of the 1990s, which he spun as a war, not against Saddam Hussein, but against innocent Muslims. So our presence and interference in the region made recruitment easy, and provided a justification for those who wished to attack us - we became a recruiting sergeant for al Qaeda. Just as the lady strolling through the bad part of town as night makes it easy for the mugger to do an evil act against her, so our presence in the Mideast makes it easy for radical jihadi terrorist groups to motivate attacks against innocent Americans.

As to your uncle's line "I still can't find anything in the Constitution that says we aren't allowed to defend ourselves", that's easy - point out Ron agrees with him. Ron Paul is no pacifist, tell your uncle that he voted for the authority to go into Afghanistan to get bin Laden, he just objects to our staying to engage in nation building - something our military is ill-equipped for and shouldn't be forced to do. Also show him Ron Paul's Marque and Reprisal Act of 2001, that would have allowed small and mobile privateer units to hunt down and destroy al Qaeda wherever they are found - just as was ultimately done to bin Laden, but with the added benefit of being private individuals, so that a diplomatic incident like that that seriously harmed bilateral relations between the US and Pakistan after the bin Laden raid would be avoided.

[IterTemporis]

I showed the Scheuer interview (the short 2 minute version) to one of my "America First" buddies, and his rebuttal was...

"He also said multi-culturalism is the cause of the Norway shootings. What a great job he did as the Bin Laden Unit Chief too, seeing as under his watch Bin Laden had his 9/11 plan well into place.

Islamic Terrorism is nothing more than using hate and fear as a means to grab power from the people. They will point there aggression at this country even if we were out of the middle east, because they will always need a cause to keep their power. See Iran. Islamic Terrorist or any terrorist for that matter will always have a target of hate. Islamic terrorists, extremists for that matter have hated western civilization well before this country was even founded. As long as there is an affront to their religion...any other religion, atheists, etc... they will always have a reason for existence.

So you have two choices, close the door and cross your fingers they aren't doing anything bad or Keep a foot in the door just to keep an eye on them."

His responses kind of took me by surprise.

Where is there proof that they hated western civilizations that far back..? And furthermore, how could they hate us, before we (us) even existed? And then if they hated us so much, why did they not attack us before we went over there?

I do not know about you, but.. if I hated another country and wanted them gone, I would do it when they were just starting out as a nation, when they are weak. Not wait until they are considered one of the best/most powerful countries in the world.

Then again.. I could be interpreting the quote incorrectly.

[spladle]

Send him these:

Ron Paul, Please Pull Out of the Race. (http://barnegeddon.wordpress.com/2011/09/13/ron-paul-please-pull-out-of-the-race/)

Rage on. (http://barnegeddon.wordpress.com/2011/09/13/rage-on/)

[tribute_13]

Dr. Paul parrots the same message that our own intelligence agencies espouses. An interventionist foreign policy has, over the course of centuries, put us in danger. Our intelligence agencies during their investigation of 9/11 came up with the explanation of the motives behind the attacks. Dr. Paul never blamed America, he consistently blames blowback from flawed foreign policy. By saying he blames America, it relays the imagery that each individual victim of 9/11 was responsible, when people should be stating what he really believes which is flawed leadership and a lack of understanding of true conservative foreign policy has put us all in constant danger. Our leadership during the 80's trained Osama Bin Laden and what happened? It came back to bite us on our proverbial ass. You can't expect to go into sovereign nations and dismantle their political system from the inside out without making a few enemies along the way. Any rational human being that believes in freedom, liberty and prosperity would know that the means never justify the ends when the means are less philanthropic than the end you are trying to accomplish. You cannot spread democracy through less than democratic methods or you become a parody of yourself. We come across as a joke to foreign nations when we invade for less than viable reasons or topple governments through unilateral control when we should be leading by example. If we can manage to get our own house in order and manage ourselves as a country to restore America then others will be more receptive to the message of liberty. As for Iran, the same applies. Most countries in the Middle East already have nuclear capabilities. Yet none have been launched. No sane Muslim would dare launch a nuclear attack on Israel for fear of destroying their own holy land. The act itself would never cross the minds of muslim leadership in the Middle East. Additionally, Israel's military has been funded and trained by the U.S. as well as supplied with nuclear capabilities of their own that far exceed any technological achievement of any country in the Middle East. Should any country be stupid enough to attack Israel, which honestly Iran doesn't even have the technical ability to LAUNCH a missile that far, let alone a nuke, they would be wiped off the face of the planet before the nuke even reached them. Iran is no threat, they've never been a threat. They've been an ally for far longer than they have been an enemy. Politicians have the audacity to assume that we as a people are uneducated enough that we can't come to these very real and rational conclusions. They give talking points to pull at the heartstrings of the audience to get that cheap vote. Throughout the course of history, governments have used fear and baseless claims to manipulate the population in order to achieve ends that benefit those in power. Can you really say that current leadership is any different? Even within the Republican party there are far too many people eager and trigger happy and ready to send others to die for their dead end causes. It puts us in far more danger than if we emphasized a foreign policy of trade, national defense, border control, and open commerce and friendship with all nations that seek it. This is the foreign policy of our forefathers and of the true Grand Ol' Party. When people speak of change, its sometimes intimidating to imagine the system being drastically overhauled. Its a talking point all politicians use yet none seem to fall through with the promises. However we have a man who has been fighting for 30 years, most of the time by himself, to truly change the system with the utilitarian cause of promoting peace by standing up to threats only when necessary and by cutting the scope of government so that the people deal a more effective hand in controlling those that seek to control us. A common archetype in human history is that those who control are the ones that should be controlled. Sooner or later, the system will change, it always does. We just have to ask ourselves, how much more are we going to take before we finally decide its time for that change?

[Voluntary Man]

your uncle watches too much television / listens to too much talk radio / doesn't think for himself. no offense. get him a copy of 'Liberty Defined' ... if he reads.



I wrote my Uncle (a Bachmann) supporter, asking him his thoughts on Ron Paul. The e-mail I got back was quite disturbing, but typical of an uneducated voter. Help me respond!

"Dr. Paul is a wonderful man in so many ways, and I agree with ALOT of his conservative ideas and the way he has voted alot of the time. But when he puts things on his own website saying WE are to blame and responsible for the slaughter of about 3,000 innocent Americans on 9/11 ,amongst many other wacked out things like it wasn't neccessary for us to kill Bin Laden and saying the whacko in Iran has the right to pursue nuclear weapons it,(are you kidding me??) unfortunately, makes him unelectable and almost scary to me. Maybe this is what makes him that "crazy ole nut"? I don't know, but that could be one of the reasons why it doesn't seem like anybody takes him serious. He is VERY left-leaning and tone deaf when it comes to foreign policy. I still can't find anything in the Constitution that says we aren't allowed to defend ourselves!! When our forefathers set up our country, the ultimate protection of the American people was one of the most important things our leaders were to do. No, I don't hate Dr.Paul in any way, or want a bullet in his head, but unfortunately he doesn't get it ,and still a wasted vote in my humble opinion. Now, on the other hand, for all you "Paulies", how about his awesome son Rand.? Now, for me, that' could very well be the Paul to be!! He is a brilliant young man , and seems like a genuine Ronald Reagan type conservative. Love you P.S. This could have been much longer but I didn't want to bore you toooo much!!"

[cucucachu0000]

First thing, print out the blog post he's talking about and send it to him cuz you knooooooow he never read it and is just repeating what he heard on tv. Second send him "dying to win"great book that should change his mind a bit. And send him a quote from micheal sheur talking about why we are attacked. Make sure to mention he was head of the CIAs bin laden unit.

[Eryxis]

Where is there proof that they hated western civilizations that far back..? And furthermore, how could they hate us, before we (us) even existed? And then if they hated us so much, why did they not attack us before we went over there?

I do not know about you, but.. if I hated another country and wanted them gone, I would do it when they were just starting out as a nation, when they are weak. Not wait until they are considered one of the best/most powerful countries in the world.

Then again.. I could be interpreting the quote incorrectly.

Playing my friend... I would say the evidence they hated Western Civ was the constant wars through the dark ages, and the Barbary Pirates. Perhaps the Islamics weren't in a position to rid the world of us when we were young, or didn't realize what we would become. My argument again is the Barbary Pirates and the attacks on US ships during the 1800's of evidence of Muslims hating America! This may be more history than he really knows, but it's what has gone through my head.

[Birdlady]

Does your uncle not believe our own intelligence agencies? Because Ron Paul is paraphrasing what our own CIA and intelligence analysts have reported on and found out over the years...

My mom is much like your uncle and there is no hope for her. I've been on her for about 7 years now and I just cannot get through because she watches too much TV and listens to too much talk radio.

Edit: I wanted to add one thing. They have taken this war and made it a personal issue too. To attack the war, means you are attacking them. Back when Bush was in office, they were convinced the war was necessary because of the war propaganda that turned out to be garbage. Well now they can't admit that was all wrong, so they just continue to come up with excuses to be there...

[cucucachu0000]

Also send him recent polls and polls of him matched up with obama how he is consistantly 1 or 2 points back for obama and gets the most indies and dems than anyone else.

[LibertyEagle]

Send him these:

Ron Paul, Please Pull Out of the Race. (http://barnegeddon.wordpress.com/2011/09/13/ron-paul-please-pull-out-of-the-race/)

Rage on. (http://barnegeddon.wordpress.com/2011/09/13/rage-on/)

I seriously doubt these profanity-filled articles, especially the 2nd one, would appeal to anyone over the age of 40, who has an IQ above doorstop.

[Mises_to_Paul]

So you have two choices, close the door and cross your fingers they aren't doing anything bad or Keep a foot in the door just to keep an eye on them."


Hello, Mr. False Dichotomy!

Your friend is simply incorrect on these being the only available options.

He also neglects the causal role of interventionism in producing these effects. Killing a terrorist while you create another terrorist doesn't help the bottom line when dealing with terrorism.

1. Non-interventionist foreign policy
2. *Actual* free trade
3. Vigilant police work and intelligence gathering (which we could actually increase in size for national defense, if we cut the empire)

Are the actions of the state that will give us the best chance at combating terrorism.

[erowe1]

Ask him for an exact quote of where Ron Paul said we were to blame for 9/11.

[silentshout]

What I can't believe is that there are still so many people that support these wars, on both sides of the aisle!!

[Eric21ND]

I showed the Scheuer interview (the short 2 minute version) to one of my "America First" buddies, and his rebuttal was...

"He also said multi-culturalism is the cause of the Norway shootings. What a great job he did as the Bin Laden Unit Chief too, seeing as under his watch Bin Laden had his 9/11 plan well into place.

Islamic Terrorism is nothing more than using hate and fear as a means to grab power from the people. They will point there aggression at this country even if we were out of the middle east, because they will always need a cause to keep their power. See Iran. Islamic Terrorist or any terrorist for that matter will always have a target of hate. Islamic terrorists, extremists for that matter have hated western civilization well before this country was even founded. As long as there is an affront to their religion...any other religion, atheists, etc... they will always have a reason for existence.

So you have two choices, close the door and cross your fingers they aren't doing anything bad or Keep a foot in the door just to keep an eye on them."

His responses kind of took me by surprise.
That's the problem with a short 2 min clip, you barely get the story. Scheuer lays it all out in his longer interviews, especially his C-SPAN interview last week about how Clinton passed up opportunities to kill or capture Bin Laden. Watch that interview in its entirety. The longer foreign policy discussion I posted also makes some good points concerning our nation building in Afghanistan actually made the resistance more wide spread and deadly.


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


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


Scheuer's CSPAN interview:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zPlGO6a8Xmg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rbuggY0pzI8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=plh868KGQzc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6UK6f-d2ZGA


There's another way of doing things as Robert Pape had advocated. Again refer to the video. He speaks of off shore power...no boots on he ground. Dr. Paul has cited his work numerous times.

Prof. Robert Pape on Suicide Terrorism (http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL69EBA4BAED49C7CB)

[wowrevolution]

Ask him if he really thinks that the for the past 50 years our leaders have been guided by upright moral principles and if he believes our leaders have been saints in foreign policy matters. Does he feel men like Henry Kissinger are akin to Mother Teresa?

[Valli6]

Ron Paul's reading list for Rudy Guliani http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KZGHey7anhI



Johnson, Chalmers.* Blowback.* Henry Holt and Company: New York, NY.* 2000.
Pape, Robert A.* Dying to Win.* Random House: New York, NY, 2005.
Scheuer, Michael.* Imperial Hubris.* Potomac Books: Washington, DC, 2004.
National Commission on Terrorist Attacks. The 9-11 Commission Report, Final Edition.* Barnes & Noble Publishing: NY, NY, 2006
...

Or Read the "Cliff Notes" (scroll down)
http://www.rawstory.com/news/2007/Paul_campaign_hopes_Reading_for_Rudy_0524.html

[runamuck]

Thank you everyone for your feedback!

I basically had all the same thoughts, I just wanted to make sure I had a fully formed approach before I sent anything back to him. I'll keep you posted.

[Anti Federalist]

No, I don't hate Dr.Paul in any way, or want a bullet in his head, but unfortunately he doesn't get it ,and still a wasted vote in my humble opinion. Now, on the other hand, for all you "Paulies", how about his awesome son Rand.? Now, for me, that' could very well be the Paul to be!! He is a brilliant young man , and seems like a genuine Ronald Reagan type conservative

A couple of things here.

A - The only one of four Congressmen who endorsed Reagan isn't Reagan enough?

B - When terrorists blew up 238 Marines in Lebanon, Reagan did not invade the entire Middle East. He left.

C - What does Rand believe? Obviously not in non intervention since he signed this:


Senators unite around punishing Iran

http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/1005-trade/176097-senators-unite-around-punishing-iran


Punishing Iran for what, exactly?

Defending themselves against 60 years of US meddling into their affairs that have cost the lives of hundreds of thousands of Iranian citizens?

Sadly, none of these points will make the slightest dent, as the fake left and the misguided right continue choke each other in the cab of the train, arguing about the necessity of each wing of the welfare/warfare state, as the whole stinking mess flies off the washed out bridge trestle.

We're broke and can't afford either one.

[FreeMind&Market]

Historically, this goes back 1000's of years, even before the establishment of Islam and Christianity. Remember the Greeks vs the Persians? Alexander the Great? Roman expansion into the middle east (beyond Israel)? After the fall of Rome, the Islamists pushed across north Africa into Spain, and so on ... The point is however, that this has been going on for thousands of years and there is no end-game; fighting the "culture war" is a fools errand. We cannot wipe-out all the "terrorists" and will go bankrupt trying to so.

I'm all for protecting our citizens and our citizens' interests. However, if a US company does business in a foreign country like Iran or Venezuela, its their gamble and their loss if the company's assets get nationalized. Like Ron Paul, I was in favor of the initial war in Afghanistan. But not Iraq and not the never ending occupations with no clear and/or legitimate objective. We've gone well beyond protecting our interests, into pushing our values on people that will and have pushed back.

Its best to mind our own business. Thomas Jefferson understood this; Ron Paul understands this.

[PaulConventionWV]

Dr. Paul parrots the same message that our own intelligence agencies espouses. An interventionist foreign policy has, over the course of centuries, put us in danger. Our intelligence agencies during their investigation of 9/11 came up with the explanation of the motives behind the attacks. Dr. Paul never blamed America, he consistently blames blowback from flawed foreign policy. By saying he blames America, it relays the imagery that each individual victim of 9/11 was responsible, when people should be stating what he really believes which is flawed leadership and a lack of understanding of true conservative foreign policy has put us all in constant danger. Our leadership during the 80's trained Osama Bin Laden and what happened? It came back to bite us on our proverbial ass. You can't expect to go into sovereign nations and dismantle their political system from the inside out without making a few enemies along the way. Any rational human being that believes in freedom, liberty and prosperity would know that the means never justify the ends when the means are less philanthropic than the end you are trying to accomplish. You cannot spread democracy through less than democratic methods or you become a parody of yourself. We come across as a joke to foreign nations when we invade for less than viable reasons or topple governments through unilateral control when we should be leading by example. If we can manage to get our own house in order and manage ourselves as a country to restore America then others will be more receptive to the message of liberty. As for Iran, the same applies. Most countries in the Middle East already have nuclear capabilities. Yet none have been launched. No sane Muslim would dare launch a nuclear attack on Israel for fear of destroying their own holy land. The act itself would never cross the minds of muslim leadership in the Middle East. Additionally, Israel's military has been funded and trained by the U.S. as well as supplied with nuclear capabilities of their own that far exceed any technological achievement of any country in the Middle East. Should any country be stupid enough to attack Israel, which honestly Iran doesn't even have the technical ability to LAUNCH a missile that far, let alone a nuke, they would be wiped off the face of the planet before the nuke even reached them. Iran is no threat, they've never been a threat. They've been an ally for far longer than they have been an enemy. Politicians have the audacity to assume that we as a people are uneducated enough that we can't come to these very real and rational conclusions. They give talking points to pull at the heartstrings of the audience to get that cheap vote. Throughout the course of history, governments have used fear and baseless claims to manipulate the population in order to achieve ends that benefit those in power. Can you really say that current leadership is any different? Even within the Republican party there are far too many people eager and trigger happy and ready to send others to die for their dead end causes. It puts us in far more danger than if we emphasized a foreign policy of trade, national defense, border control, and open commerce and friendship with all nations that seek it. This is the foreign policy of our forefathers and of the true Grand Ol' Party. When people speak of change, its sometimes intimidating to imagine the system being drastically overhauled. Its a talking point all politicians use yet none seem to fall through with the promises. However we have a man who has been fighting for 30 years, most of the time by himself, to truly change the system with the utilitarian cause of promoting peace by standing up to threats only when necessary and by cutting the scope of government so that the people deal a more effective hand in controlling those that seek to control us. A common archetype in human history is that those who control are the ones that should be controlled. Sooner or later, the system will change, it always does. We just have to ask ourselves, how much more are we going to take before we finally decide its time for that change?

That was a stellar piece of writing. +rep

[PaulConventionWV]

Ask him for an exact quote of where Ron Paul said we were to blame for 9/11.

I honestly don't think rhetorical questions are going to help here. It would be much better to just explain to him that he does not, in fact, think that America is to blame. It's very easy to explain. No need making him angry and sending him down rabbit holes to find the truth. Give him some resources, but don't do things that will likely just make him defensive.

[simon1911]

Some people must be convinced by their emotions. My suggestion would be to bring Paul's stance in a way that is appealing to them: foreign military interventions makes us less safe and entices more terrorist attacks; fighting undeclared wars mean fighting endless wars and; our "militarism" will end sooner or later because we're broke just for examples. My 2 cents for what it's worth.

[ForLiberty2012]

Keep us updated! I would like to have a success story to tell :)

[TruckinMike]

Quote Ron Paul from the house floor warning congress (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yXYd5eHfRIE) and the American people of a potential terrorist attack as a result of our foreign policy . The video link entails warnings from 11/13/97, ?/?/98, 2/2/99, ?/?/99, and a final warning in July of 2001.

July 2001

"...Our arrogant policy and attitude of superiority will continue to elicit a smoldering hatred towards us and out of shear frustration will motivate even more terrorist attacks against us."

I suggest getting the transcript for those different speeches and use them to full effect.

Good luck,

TMike

Full speech:2/2/99 (5 min) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hd8jPKwArsM&feature=results_main&playnext=1&list=PL6CFACA82C7AE1FAB) Great speech

[LinuxJedi]

I have had to spend some time discussing Ron Paul's view on not policing the world with family also. A couple points that might help:

- Ron Paul supported invasion of Afghanistan so far as I understand... a declared, full-out war in retaliation for 9/11. So far as I know, there are areas of Afghanistan that the US has not even entered... instead of nation-building and playing with "spreading democracy", I believe Paul has said that we would have entered, destroyed the enemy, and left... instead we are fiddling around without clear objectives, and ultimately have been defeated in Afghanistan.

- Ron Paul said something that really struck me... the US has not won a single war since WW2.

Americans must realize, that "War" is not a hobby... it must be a commitment of all resources to the cause, until the enemy has been eliminated. This can mean rationing and sacrifice.

[ONUV]

what does he think a Reagan conservative is?

[sailingaway]

He never said we are to blame, he said our actions give a story line radicals can use to radicalize those there. Quote the head of the bin Laden task force on it. Good luck.

[Valli6]

Don't forget his September 11 Marque and Reprisal Act of 2001 which he introduced within 1 month of 9/11.
(When I reread this, I still get mad that no one in congress listened!)
Summary:

September 11 Marque and Reprisal Act of 2001 - Authorizes and requests the President to issue letters of marque and reprisal to commission privately armed and equipped persons and entities to seize outside of the United States the person and property of Osama bin Laden, of any al Qaeda co-conspirator, and any conspirator with Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda who are responsible for the terrorist attacks against the United States on September 11, 2001, including any similar planned acts against the United States in the future. Authorizes the President to place a bounty, from amounts appropriated on September 14, 2001, in the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Recovery from and Response to Terrorists Attacks on the United States or from private sources, for the capture, dead or alive, of Osama bin Laden or any other al Qaeda conspirator responsible for the act of air piracy upon the United States on September 11, 2001. http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h107-3076&tab=summary
Full text:
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h107-3076

[moreliberty]

I didn't read all the posts, so if someone else suggested this sorry. Look up some of our founding fathers famous quotes about foreign policy, they had many good things to say about what our approach to defense should be. Also Dr. Paul stood in front of congress in 1997, 1998, 1999, and 2001 before the attack asking congress to stop bombing foreign nations before they caused an attack or started a war.

[TruckinMike]

what does he think a Reagan conservative is?
Most likely what Sean Hannity tells him.
TM

[tribute_13]

That was a stellar piece of writing. +rep

Thank you kind sir.

[pacelli]

Unfortunately Ron will need to start talking about when it is appropriate to declare war, as well as how to properly fight and win the war. Might even help if he spoke about "If I was president and Iran got a nuclear weapon..." or "If I was president during 9/11..."

It is a dirty subject, but people get scared when they hear him talk about nuclear permissibility and blowback. You know, lots of people are still voting who were indoctrinated to fear nuclear weapons... i.e. "Duck & Cover" in school. Don't deny it-- it wasn't that long ago and that practice inflicted a great deal of pain, fear, and trauma on people's minds.

Fuck, Ron went through it himself...



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IKqXu-5jw60


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i4k2skbJDm8


Do you folks realize how many people were scared shitless as children with these movies and drills???? This is the reason Ron is not coming off as "sane" to these folks. He needs to acknowledge it and talk about it.

Ron absolutely must discuss his plan for DEFENSE, including intelligence. It doesn't mean he needs to sound like a neocon in terms of pre-emptive war... it means he must talk about his plan to defend the united states in the event of another attack.

[donnay]

"...amongst many other wacked out things like it wasn't neccessary for us to kill Bin Laden "

As far as Ron Paul saying it wasn't necessary to go after Osama Bin Laden, I guess that is because he read the FBI's "Most Wanted" List. Osama was never on it for the "slaughter" almost 3,000 people on 9/11.

Source:
http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/topten/usama-bin-laden

I would also ask your uncle what did Iraq have to do with what happened on 9/11?


"...Iran has the right to pursue nuclear weapons it,(are you kidding me??)"

Ask him when Iran has made personal threats towards the US? You should ask him why is it alright for Israel to have over 200 nukes, and Iran have none? Nevertheless, it is none of our business what any of those countries do, as long as they are not making any direct threats to us.

Also ask your uncle if he knows his history, with regards to blow back. If not for nothing, Iran should be pissed at US and the UK for our meddlesome ways, in 1953, CIA operation AJAX to overthrow Mossedeq with coup d'état.

Source:
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB28/

[John J]

He won't watch videos online. The only way I can probably get through to him is in writing.Well your uncle's learning curve is going to be much slower then.
I realize I'm a little late to this party, but I have to agree with this. My first question is "how old is your uncle"? If he's over 60 I'd say your time is probably better spent trying to persuade others...like 25 year olds. Or better yet, educating 18 year olds.

Not that I'm trying to tell you how to live your life, I'm just saying it's important to consider goals and priorities. If it's really important to you that your uncle agree with you, then by all means do whatever you can to convince him. But if you're more concerned about the cause as a whole, and the future of the country and the world, I'd say there's more effective things to be doing.

It's kind of like that story of all the gold coins strewn out on the floor. Some of them are glued down, others aren't. Someone says to you and a big group of other people that you have 60 seconds to pick up as many as you can. Whatever you can pick up, you get to keep. When the timer begins, the wisest among the group begin to check a coin, and if it moves, pick it up. If it doesn't, they move on to the next one. If you come across one you really like, but it won't budge, sure, you can sit there and work on it...and who knows, maybe you'll even peel it up off the ground. And just as you do, the referee will say "time". And you'll get to say "look! I got that one coin!"

[fisharmor]

We're broke and can't afford either one.

I don't know why nobody makes a point out of this:
http://articles.cnn.com/2004-11-01/world/binladen.tape_1_al-jazeera-qaeda-bin?_s=PM:WORLD

Bin Laden: Goal is to bankrupt U.S.
That was their stated goal in 2004.

What is our stated goal? What's that? There isn't one?

Unavoidable conclusion:
They won.

[hubze]

I wrote my Uncle (a Bachmann) supporter, asking him his thoughts on Ron Paul. The e-mail I got back was quite disturbing, but typical of an uneducated voter. Help me respond!

"Dr. Paul is a wonderful man in so many ways, and I agree with ALOT of his conservative ideas and the way he has voted alot of the time. But when he puts things on his own website saying WE are to blame and responsible for the slaughter of about 3,000 innocent Americans on 9/11 ,amongst many other wacked out things like it wasn't neccessary for us to kill Bin Laden and saying the whacko in Iran has the right to pursue nuclear weapons it,(are you kidding me??) unfortunately, makes him unelectable and almost scary to me. Maybe this is what makes him that "crazy ole nut"? I don't know, but that could be one of the reasons why it doesn't seem like anybody takes him serious. He is VERY left-leaning and tone deaf when it comes to foreign policy. I still can't find anything in the Constitution that says we aren't allowed to defend ourselves!! When our forefathers set up our country, the ultimate protection of the American people was one of the most important things our leaders were to do. No, I don't hate Dr.Paul in any way, or want a bullet in his head, but unfortunately he doesn't get it ,and still a wasted vote in my humble opinion. Now, on the other hand, for all you "Paulies", how about his awesome son Rand.? Now, for me, that' could very well be the Paul to be!! He is a brilliant young man , and seems like a genuine Ronald Reagan type conservative. Love you P.S. This could have been much longer but I didn't want to bore you toooo much!!"

All I did with my Father...X Bush supporter...and I mean HUGE Bush supporter and then Perry supporter and all I did was send him videos to watch and learn for himself. He resisted very hard at first and defended Perry and all I did was get him information on what Perry has done etc. and then just yesterday, and this has been going on for about 3 weeks, I talked to him on the phone and he said "I am voting for Ron Paul." He completely turned around and it was Ron himself talking to him in the videos that did it.

Just encourage him to do some due diligence because YOU will not change his mind...he is the only one that can change his mind, and Ron's message seems to do that to a lot of people when they actually open their mind and listen. Don't get frustrated and keep on him! =]

[tremendoustie]

I wrote my Uncle (a Bachmann) supporter, asking him his thoughts on Ron Paul. The e-mail I got back was quite disturbing, but typical of an uneducated voter. Help me respond!

"Dr. Paul is a wonderful man in so many ways, and I agree with ALOT of his conservative ideas and the way he has voted alot of the time. But when he puts things on his own website saying WE are to blame and responsible for the slaughter of about 3,000 innocent Americans on 9/11


He has never said that. Those who murdered innocents are 100% responsible. However, he has also pointed out, as has the CIA and the 911 comission report, that running around the world occupying countries, bombing people, and enforcing sanctions, creates enemies. It'd be insane to think otherwise. Indeed, the CIA coined the term "blowback" in the first place.

Here are a few books on the topic:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DAt6Pf7jZjA

How would people react if another country started dropping bombs on us, or putting warships off our coast to prevent trade, or opened military bases here? Does he not think americans would be angry at that foreign country -- some to the point of doing violence?

Estimates, which Madeline Albright and Clinton accepted, were that the sanctions in the 90s directly led to the deaths of over 500,000 children in Iraq. They said it was "worth it". How does he think the parents and relatives of those kids would react? Does he not think this kind of arrogant behavior in the world creates enemies?



,amongst many other wacked out things like it wasn't neccessary for us to kill Bin Laden


He should have been captured and brought up on trial.



and saying the whacko in Iran has the right to pursue nuclear weapons it,(are you kidding me??)


Don't you think it's a bit hypocritical for the US government, which has more nukes than anyone, is the only country engaged in multiple occupations and aggressive wars overseas, and the only country actually to have used nukes (on civilians no less), to be dictating what other countries may or may not posses nukes?

I can certainly understand why they might want them. The US government has invaded nearly every country around them, and killed their leaders. A nuke would be a deterrent.



unfortunately, makes him unelectable


Says who? The MSM? I didn't realize they decided the elections around here.

Actually, polls show Paul performs better against Obama than any other republican candidate, except Romney (and they're almost tied).



and almost scary to me. Maybe this is what makes him that "crazy ole nut"? I don't know, but that could be one of the reasons why it doesn't seem like anybody takes him serious.


Lots of people take him seriously. You mean anybody in the MSM.



He is VERY left-leaning and tone deaf when it comes to foreign policy.


Running around the world invading and occupying foreign countries, and creating enemies intent on attacking us here at home, is anything but conservative, or "small government". It is unsustainably expensive, arrogant, and damaging. Traditionally, it's been leftists that got us into wars, not conservatives.


I still can't find anything in the Constitution that says we aren't allowed to defend ourselves!!

Again, running around the world bombing people, imposing sanctions, deposing leaders, financing tyrants, etc, is not "defense", and doing so without a congressional declaration of war is certainly not constitutional.


When our forefathers set up our country, the ultimate protection of the American people was one of the most important things our leaders were to do.


Unfortunately they've been running around the world stirring up enmity with the us, and putting us in greater danger.


No, I don't hate Dr.Paul in any way, or want a bullet in his head, but unfortunately he doesn't get it ,and still a wasted vote in my humble opinion. Now, on the other hand, for all you "Paulies", how about his awesome son Rand.? Now, for me, that' could very well be the Paul to be!! He is a brilliant young man , and seems like a genuine Ronald Reagan type conservative.

The same reason you think he's "awsome" -- he's not nearly as committed to changing the US government's insane foreign policy -- is the reason he's not nearly as "awesome" as Ron. Please turn off the TV and seriously think about these issues. How would we react, if other countries did to us what we do to them?

[klamath]

Your uncle does not believe RP as president would defend America for any reason and it has nothing to do with being a neocon. Unfortunately this is a perfect example of how badly RP's statement that he wouldn't have gone after OBL hurt him. Everything else your uncle brings up can be defeated with solid arguments. RP voted to get the people responsible for 911 but he was against the mission creep into nation building but then RP turns around and says he wouldn't have gone after OBL??? Until RP solidly clarifies that statement it is the keystone to all the other statements he has made that formed the idea that RP is an american hating leftist to the non neocon strong defence conservatives that could have been convinced to vote for RP.
RP's statement on OBL jerked all my arguments defending him out from under me. It is one of the very few times RP changed his position and it had to be one of the worst.

[Revolution0918]

no offense....but he's an idiot

[georgiaboy]

I'd say your uncle isn't afraid of Ron Paul. He's afraid of what his buddies will call him when he tells them he's gonna vote for the guy who "gets his marching orders from Al-Qaeda".

Couple of new thoughts for you.

1. What kind of person is your uncle -- an early adopter of new things, one who generally goes with the crowd, etc.? This may have a lot to do with where he's coming from.

2. Consider having a conversation with your uncle about what a sensible foreign policy for a consitutional America is. Through that you can point out what Ron's real plan is for defending the nation.

[Steve-in-NY]

Just keep it simple.
its a rebuttal formula:
Restate issue to rebut - make single brief point - add analogy.
Thats all.

Let me know if this sounds good to you...

Uncle,
Thanks for the letter. I have some stuff Id like to bring up:

Ron Paul never suggested that we were to blame for 9-11, he just said thats what our enemies said was the reason for attacking us. Its like a detective trying to find out the motive behind a serial killer. You have to know how they operate in order to best go about stopping them.

Suggesting that it wasn't necessary to kill Bin Laden was said simply that so much more information can be gleaned from a live person than a dead one. (No analogy here, but I'll cater to what I can guess would appeal to him - obviously you know him - in other words, insert sugar topping here: I'll try.)
1. I bet a lot more of those SOBs would have been taken down after a few hours of water boarding Bin-Laden.
2. Having him rot in prison for years would be more appropriate than a quick bullet to the head.
something like that. idk.

Paul has been explicit that we can and should defend ourselves, which is why he voted for the afghan war and to take out or capture bin-laden after 9-11. (someone check me on that) The way I see it, if someone breaks into your house, of course you can shoot and kill them, but its not right, or in the constitution to break into someone elses house and kill them because you think that they might be a threat to you some time in the future, maybe.

As far as Iran goes, its a non-issue, because Israel would destroy Iran in a heartbeat and we wouldn't have to risk a single life, plane, or even waste a dime on a missile or a single bullet. Im sure we agree that there's no way Israel is going to let that happen, so why should we even get involved? The second Israel thinks Iran is a viable threat, they should be able to take them out without asking us for permission.

Anyways, I hope you look into him a bit more, and if you do and have any questions, Id be glad to help answer them.

How was that?

[AuH20]

There is nothing overly outlandish about this letter, in fact it's quite grounded in reality. Ron doesn't accentuate his defense philosophy enough and frequently utilizes progressive talking points, which echo pacifism as opposed to a sound defensive strategy. There is a reason why Rand can get these votes and Ron can't even get close to them, and it boils down to rhetoric not message. Ron and Rand are basically identical on foreign policy but Rand chooses not to talk like George McGovern. And you see the vast discrepancy in results.