Where the heck is Dr. Paul's statement of "common defense" and "foreign defense"

[vechorik]

Where the heck is Dr. Paul's statement of "common defense" and "foreign defense"

I searched "issues" and there is tons of stuff -- but what about something SHORT to post around to fearful people (They're coming to kill us--kinda people).

[hammy]

This works really well for me:

Even if you don't agree 100% with Ron Paul's foreign policy, a Paul presidency would be dictated heavily by the congress (as the constitution says it should). So if the congress thinks there is an imminent threat, Dr. Paul would be obliged to respond.

[bluesc]

I like this.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ATmUE8TCmjE

[sailingaway]

Ron thinks you can do a lot with nuclear submarines and letters of marque and that our recent presidents didn't know how to use the weapons at their disposal.

[Xelaetaks]

Where the heck is Dr. Paul's statement of "common defense" and "foreign defense"

I searched "issues" and there is tons of stuff -- but what about something SHORT to post around to fearful people (They're coming to kill us--kinda people).

Ive been saying this for a while it doesn't do the campaign good not to have a section on the site for these kinds of people. Ive even emailed the campaign about this. :\

[vechorik]

Ive been saying this for a while it doesn't do the campaign good not to have a section on the site for these kinds of people. Ive even emailed the campaign about this. :\

Fox and the media has scared the hell out of voters. They are looking for SAFETY and say Dr. Paul doesn't give them that.
The campaign better be making some SAFETY SOON!

[MikeM39]

Fox and the media has scared the hell out of voters. They are looking for SAFETY and say Dr. Paul doesn't give them that.
The campaign better be making some SAFETY SOON!

You are right.

[sailingaway]

Ron has said it a million times, it would be easy to put together something. However, have you looked at the 'Ron Paul on the Issues' forum here?

[bluesc]

Fox and the media has scared the hell out of voters. They are looking for SAFETY and say Dr. Paul doesn't give them that.
The campaign better be making some SAFETY SOON!

Pilots being able to carry guns wouldn't provide safety if another 9/11 were attempted? How about if the troops were home, which would remove most of the incentive for them to attack? Listen to Michael Scheuer, he was the head of the CIA Bin Laden unit, and is extremely well educated on these matters, and was a regular on Fox. He says if the troops come home, a terrorist attack is extremely unlikely.

[MikeM39]

The average Republican isn't going to believe that if the troops come home the Muslims over there will leave us alone. The Republican mainstream media has convinced them that there is a Muslim conspiracy to conquer the world and convert all Christians to Islam. The original poster is correct in saying that Paul doesn't really say anything that would remove these false beliefs from the minds of the voters. What he does say on the issue is extremely unpopular such as the issue of our bases in Saudi Arabia which we had there to defend against any potential aggression by Saddam Hussein so it wasn't like we didn't have a reason for it.

[The Gold Standard]

What he does say on the issue is extremely unpopular such as the issue of our bases in Saudi Arabia which we had there to defend against any potential aggression by Saddam Hussein so it wasn't like we didn't have a reason for it.

What? Oh, I guess we have a reason to have bases in every nation on earth in case there are some bad people around them that might get aggressive. Sorry, you're right.

[bluesc]

The average Republican isn't going to believe that if the troops come home the Muslims over there will leave us alone. The Republican mainstream media has convinced them that there is a Muslim conspiracy to conquer the world and convert all Christians to Islam. The original poster is correct in saying that Paul doesn't really say anything that would remove these false beliefs from the minds of the voters. What he does say on the issue is extremely unpopular such as the issue of our bases in Saudi Arabia which we had there to defend against any potential aggression by Saddam Hussein so it wasn't like we didn't have a reason for it.

If having bases over there provided Hussein with the opportunity to present a threat to the US, how could more bases solve that? He could have never reached US soil.

[MikeM39]

What? Oh, I guess we have a reason to have bases in every nation on earth in case there are some bad people around them that might get aggressive. Sorry, you're right.

We had just fought the Gulf War, remember? I don't think a U.S. military base in Saudi Arabia in the 1990's was that irrational. Most Americans aren't going to be convinced that the base was a mistake.

[MikeM39]

Saddam Hussein posed a threat to Saudi oil not a direct threat to U.S. territory but in our global economy you can't pretend that we don't depend upon Saudi oil. The Saudis have been a U.S. ally since the FDR administration. Saudi oil is intended to be ours while Iranian oil was originally going to belong almost exclusively to Britain.

[bluesc]

Saddam Hussein posed a threat to Saudi oil not a direct threat to U.S. territory but in our global economy you can't pretend that we don't depend upon Saudi oil. The Saudis have been a U.S. ally since the FDR administration.

The only reason Saudi Arabia is surrounded by threats is that we support their regime - a Sunni Islamic regime. They will be attacked at some point, if not overthrown from within. Can't prop up dictators forever. With diplomacy, you can get oil elsewhere, or, you know, drill for oil in the US.

[vechorik]

Well, instead of arguing about it, I'm new to the campaign and need some help.
What can we come up with? We need 2 or 3 paragraphs that addresses SAFETY and SECURITY
Lots of talented people are here, I hope something develops that is dynamite.
I posted some blog comments to show what needs to be addressed.


Opposition: "How would Paul protect us? It doesn’t matter how rational you behave if others, armed with WMD’s, are ready, willing and ABLE to kill you! They are not rational. They don’t care about our constitution. They don’t care that we are trying to mind our own business. In their minds we are infidels and should – no – must convert or die. If these fanatics did not exist I could vote for Dr. Paul in a minute. The fact is they do exist and he is woefully unprepared to deal with such a threat."

Opposition: "Dr. Paul thinks there is no such thing as terrorism. He thinks it's a crime!"
I'm new to Dr. Paul, but I'm not bothered by treating terrorism as a CRIME. I didn't like it when racial/gay crimes were designated as a "hate crime." I considered that unnecessary because a crime, is a crime, is a crime.

Opposition: "Dr. Paul doesn't care that Iran has nukes"
Opposition: "Interviewer: Dr. Paul, what will you do about the Iran situation? Dr. Paul: Why, I‘ll go over there and give’em a big ol’ hug. Yes, I will."
I almost laughed when Romney said in the debate "Elect Obama, Iran will have nukes. Elect me, Iran won't get nukes." It was a ridiculous statement, but he gathered votes by making the voters feel safe.

Opposition: "Can you imagine a world without our influence? How many bully countries and organizations out there would have the rest of the world destroyed within four years?........... the world would go to hell in a handbasket if we weren’t out there, like it or not,"

Opposition: "When it comes foreign policy and boarder policy he’s as liberal as Obama. When it comes to sovereign military defense, he is down right dangerous"
Enforce Border Security – America should be guarding her own borders and enforcing her own laws instead of policing the world and implementing UN mandates.

Opposition: "As for the boarder I believe you got that wrong. I remember Ron Paul saying that a boarder fence could be used to keep us in. He was not for securing the boarder"

Opposition: "If I cannot trust him to commit to his own party how can I trust him with anything else. Furthermore, he never really outlines any real solution to problems."

Opposition: "What is Ron Paul prepared to do to protect the country as well as the constitution?"

Opposition: "destroy your county’s sworn enemies before they destroy us."

Opposition: "No Ron Paul supporter I have ever spoken/posted with has ever described the solution to the problem of the millions of whack jobs that want us dead."

Opposition: "I believe two things that keep me from supporting Dr. Paul. 1) As Christians we should always support Israel. 2) His isolationist policies will make it impossible for Americans to be safe when traveling anywhere outside the United States. What good is liberty without the ability to go where we want.
I also disagree with his policies on protecting the borders. "

Opposition: "Republican Jewish Coalition Bars Ron Paul From Debate: ‘He’s misguided and extreme’

Opposition: "He's not a leader. He hasn't offered one solution to take care of those that want to kills us."

Opposition: "My opinion if Ron Paul would switch his foreign policyjust slightly as in getting completely out of the “Stans” and keep the US support in Europe and the Far East (Japan and the Phillipines etc). He could well be a very good candidate,"

[Feeding the Abscess]

Respond when attacked, otherwise, make peace.

If people are too wimpy and insecure to understand and accept that, then that's too damn bad.

Might doesn't make right.

[asurfaholic]

Ron Paul's Foreign policy, and national defense - as I see it.

The presidents job, limited as it is, is to protect America from threats. He would do this by reversing the dangerous trend of offensive warfare that we have been seeking for the last half decade. Our policy is to pay those who listen to us, and bomb those who don't. By stopping this nonsense and opening up trade relations with all nations, the people would be safer immediately as we are no longer a threat to other nation's sovereignty and safety. This would reduce the appeal to come here and attack us.

The troops would all come home to America, where they will be stationed across the country at bases well equipped to defend this nation from foreign invaders, the current model of spreading them around the world only thins the line of defense here in the country.

Ron Paul would never allow gun control to continue, so people who own guns for their own defense could properly defend their homes and communities. The current Agenda 21 is a wrecking ball for our ability to control ourselves, paving the way for global control.

The end of the wars would trigger an economic boom as all that money returns to the USA. Improved trading relations will bolster business. Ending the FEDs ability to print money from thin air will stop the devalue of the currency, making our economy more stable, and in turn, making us more capable of defending ourselves in the case we need to.

My take on it anyways..

[vechorik]

asurfaholic, that's a great response. Hope more respond and maybe we can condense the responses into one dynamite response. Thanks.

[LibertyEagle]

Vechorik, the first thing I would tell the folks is that the word is B-O-R-D-E-R; not boarder.

[vechorik]

Vechorik, the first thing I would tell the folks is that the word is B-O-R-D-E-R; not boarder.

LOL Funny, but don't think I want to call people stupid before trying to convince them of Dr. Paul's policies.

[LibertyEagle]

It is pretty simple. If a foreign nation attacks us, or there is an immediate threat of same, President Paul would ask Congress for a declaration of war. He then would commit everything we have to defeat the enemy quickly and surely and then, bring the troops home. Our military should be used for one thing and one thing only and that is to defend our country. They shouldn't be used to police the world and most certainly, should not be used to carry out UN mandates.

[sailingaway]

Ron thinks letters of Marque are better for pursuing small and mobile groups than declaring war on an entire nation 95% of whom have nothing to do with the group, and he thinks nuclear submarines in large part can do the job of overseas bases, if your plan is to defend, and not occupy.

He thinks our recent presidents weren't very bright about military policy and armament at hand.

[vechorik]

This is developing nicely ---- I combined a bunch of answers --- what do you think? How to improve this?
------------
Ron Paul's Foreign policy, and national defense - as I see it.

The presidents job, limited as it is, is to protect America from threats. He would do this by reversing the dangerous

trend of offensive warfare that we have been seeking for the last half decade. Our policy is to pay those who listen to

us, and bomb those who don't. By stopping this nonsense and opening up trade relations with all nations, the people

would be safer immediately as we are no longer a threat to other nation's sovereignty and safety. This would reduce

the appeal to come here and attack us. Dr. Paul thinks we can do a lot with nuclear submarines and letters of marque and that our recent presidents didn't know how to use the weapons at their disposal.

The troops would all come home to America, where they will be stationed across the country at bases well equipped

to defend this nation from foreign invaders, the current model of spreading them around the world only thins the line

of defense here in the country.

Ron Paul would never allow gun control to continue, so people who own guns for their own defense could properly

defend their homes and communities. The current Agenda 21 is a wrecking ball for our ability to control ourselves,

paving the way for global control.

The end of the wars would trigger an economic boom as all that money returns to the USA. Improved trading

relations will bolster business. Ending the FEDs ability to print money from thin air will stop the devalue of the

currency, making our economy more stable, and in turn, making us more capable of defending ourselves in the case

we need to.

Even if you don't agree 100% with Ron Paul's foreign policy, a Paul presidency would be dictated heavily by the

congress (as the constitution says it should). So if the congress thinks there is an imminent threat, Dr. Paul would

be obliged to respond.

Dr. Paul speaking of America's safety
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ATmUE8TCmjE

[vechorik]

I like this answer to "I stand with Israel" people that I found in this article: h ttp://www.nysun.com/opinion/ron-paul-will-be-missed-at-forum-of-jewish/87591/

Ron Paul's War

Dr. Paul supports using "letters of marque and reprisal."

These are, in effect, licenses to private parties to carry out acts of war. We used them against the Barbary pirates. Almost immediately after the attack on the World Trade Center, Dr. Paul introduced in the 107th Congress H.R. 2076, called the September 11 Marque and Reprisal Act of 2001, authorizing holders of the letters to go after bin Laden and other Al Qaeda leaders and seize them and their property. He also voted to give President Bush authority to use the military to go after Al Qaeda, but he has been pressing for letters of marque ever since.

Dr. Paul’s bill would have covered not only past attacks but any “planned future air piratical aggressions and depredations” against us. It would have given the president discretion to pay up to $40 billion in what were, in effect, bounties for the “capture, alive or dead, 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.”

Dr. Paul said that one thing he wanted as to avoid a trillion dollar expedition when there was a simpler, constitutional approach of bringing the war to our enemy.