Ron's Foreign Policy Glass Ceiling...again

[Todd]

I've been working on this friend for about 3 years now and I sent her the Rand Paul Des Moines letter today.

It's that darn FP issue that is the glass ceiling I can't break through again.

Been working on a response today to this...

be advised she is a staunch conservative Republican as they come but she trusts and respects me.


Here was her email to the letter.



I so totally agree Todd! I can't even imagine what will happen if Romney OR Gingrich get the GOP nomination! How in the heck is this happening AGAIN to us????? We have to do anything we can to promote the tea party principles and candidates. Junius and I are leaning towards Santorum, but his numbers are pretty low. I know you have been a Ron Paul admirer for several years, and I do like his ideas, but the one thing that would keep me from voting for him is the fact that he would cut our military 40-50%.... with the enemies we have now (thank you Obama) and the fact that Iran is almost a nuclear nation..... Pakistan, etc... the last thing I would want to see cut is our military and I wouldn't vote for Ron Paul because of that. To cut the military by that much would be a treacherous thing to do in my estimation.

Give me your ideas of why you're ok with that Todd. Maybe you can turn my way of thinking around. I am almost virtually certain I would not vote for Ron Paul unless he was the nominee and then I would of course support him against Obama.

:) MB

Any help on pointers...my email's almost done.

[Trigonx]

Why do we have more enemies thanks to Obama? Oh yes.. meddling with more countries with the military.

[LibertyEagle]

Just a few thoughts off the top of my head:

Ron Paul is concerned with ensuring that America has a strong national defense. Not using America's sons and daughters to police the world, build bridges and roads in Iraq and most certainly, not to carry out UN sanctions. Our troops should be used for one thing and one thing only, and that is to defend America.

Just throwing money at the "defense" bucket and expecting that to ensure a strong national defense, is no different than throwing more money at "education" and expecting that to result in quality education for our children. We both know how that has worked out.

Our government has our military involved in 6 or 7 wars around the world right now and it appears they are about to start an 8th with Iran. Tell me, while our government has our soldiers trotted out all over the world, who is minding the store back home? Since when did policing the world take priority over defending America?

This thread may be useful. I don't know:
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?336125-Breakthrough-Learned-a-big-lesson-yesterday.-We-are-all-on-the-same-team!

[AlexAmore]

Well he would cut militarism not defense. Gosh how much of that percentage of military is us just occupying bases all around the world for no reason? Ron Paul would focus on a smaller but more agile military force that could be anywhere in a pinch, swiftly take out threats and move on. Not rebuild their whole goddamn country while we're at it. What ungodly pcertage is that in the military budget? Right now we're sending drones out for about 10 innocent deaths per 1 terrorist. The question is how many terrorists per 10 innocents deaths do we create? We've created a never-ending cycle and we need cut this out.

That's my take. Writing this stuff gets me angry so...I'm sure you see that.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

There is a reason why the military supports Ron Paul and non-intervention, a drastically reduced budget, priorities, and responsibilities. Surely, paying 500$ for a 125$ TV is a bit outrageous, and so is spending nearly TWENTY times as much as the next closest Nation. Somethings amiss. I smell the MIC and the oil interests at foot here.

Honestly, show her the Thomas Woods videos. We spend more now today for less material and troops. Navy budget increased 53% since 2001 and we have 200 fewer ships to show for it. How can she support such outright thievery?!

[spladle]

Link her to this: http://dailycaller.com/2011/12/06/billions-for-defense-but-not-one-cent-for-empire/

[Bosco Warden]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JqdH6y4-8xU

[specsaregood]

Foreign policy won't seem so darned important if we keep overspending and the dollar collapses and she finds herself digging through cookbooks trying to find new delightful ways to prepare catfood for the family dinnertable.

[Jason Sallee]

Here is an article that I wrote on November 7th, 2011. I put my thoughts out there regarding the misconceptions about Dr. Paul's policy ideas. Maybe this will help you.

http://www.nolanchart.com/article9094-ron-paul-versus-the-establishment.html

[cucucachu0000]

definitely mention he gets 74% of the military donations and that the soldiers on the ground know alot more about our foreign policy then the guys at desks in washington. also mention how much the next biggest spender on military is i think its china with 180 billion. you should check that first im not sure of that number. also mention that tanks and air craft carriers dont work against terrorists only smaller mobile special forces do. its like having The Maginot Line in ww2 its slow, bloated and outdated, it needs to be made lean and mean so that in case of a real war with another country we can ramp up our military with no problem. right now if we were attacked by china or russia it would take weeks to get all our troops and equipment back home to defend this country and who knows if there would be anything when we got back. the amount of spending on military just like spending on education doesnt translate to quality and being the only part of the government that doesnt get audited and has almost no oversite besides the fed you can bet its one of the most inefficient parts of our government and that theres plenty of space to cut.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Oh, yeah, did I mention that there is at least 3 TRILLION dollars unaccounted for aka missing from the DoD? Yeah...let's not forget the Iraq Federal Reserve fiasco either. I mean, seriously. Inform the lot of the people!

[emazur]

Liberals make the mistake that we can perpetually spend far more money than we actually have on domestic problems and never self-destruct. Conservatives make the mistake that we can perpetually spend far more money than we actually have on the military and never self-destruct. Ron Paul is the only candidate who understands that limitless domestic or military spending creates the ultimate weapon of mass-destruction that will destroy America: the U.S. dollar.

I tackled the military spending from a fiscal standpoint in the RP2012 article linked in my sig. Here are a few excerpts:


Glenn Beck reminded viewers of what was said back in 2004

Osama bin Laden said these words, that he would do to America what he did to the former Soviet Union. What is that? Bleeding it to death, financially.



Gregory Zerzan was Deputy Assistant Secretary and Acting Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the administration of President George W. Bush. In his October 2009 article entitled "Dollar is a National Security Issue", he wrote

The ability to cripple the U.S. economy by massively devaluing the dollar is the type of "asymmetric warfare" that the People's Liberation Army has discussed openly in recent years. This is not to suggest that the People's Republic wants to destroy the dollar, nor that doing so would come without cost. But such power would clearly give China tremendous leverage.


Ron Paul has sounded the alarm bell on this issue earlier. In a piece titled "The End of Dollar Hegemony" from February 2006, he said

"In the short run, the issuer of a fiat reserve currency can accrue great economic benefits. In the long run, it poses a threat to the country issuing the world currency. In this case that’s the United States. As long as foreign countries take our dollars in return for real goods, we come out ahead. This is a benefit many in Congress fail to recognize, as they bash China for maintaining a positive trade balance with us. But this leads to a loss of manufacturing jobs to overseas markets, as we become more dependent on others and less self-sufficient. Foreign countries accumulate our dollars due to their high savings rates, and graciously loan them back to us at low interest rates to finance our excessive consumption.

It sounds like a great deal for everyone, except the time will come when our dollars-- due to their depreciation-- will be received less enthusiastically or even be rejected by foreign countries. That could create a whole new ballgame and force us to pay a price for living beyond our means and our production. The shift in sentiment regarding the dollar has already started, but the worst is yet to come.


Gao: I think China is also very much concerned, mainly about the security of its massive amount of investments in the United States. You mentioned very correctly that China is now the largest creditor to the United States. Of course China has all the reasons and justifications to be worried about that because the signs seem to indicate that the massive amount of spending and printing of money in the United States may eventually result in hyperinflation which will decimate the purchasing power of the 2 trillion U.S. dollar foreign currency reserve... We cannot afford to have any 1 single country whose financial crisis will eventually result in holding the rest of the world hostage


a March 2010 Zogby poll revealed

More than twice as many U.S. adults (58%) say that debt owed to China is a more serious threat to the long-term security and well-being of the U.S than is terrorism from radical Islamic terrorists (27%). Interestingly there was little variation by party identification with a majority of Democrats, Republicans and independents all agreeing that the debt owed by the United States to China poses the greater threat.


Dr. Jerome Corsi reported on a 2010 Joint Operating Environment report released by the United States Joint Forces Command concerning America's debt

The JOE 2010 correctly noted that the unfunded obligations constituting the nation's $70.7 trillion negative net worth are a result of the U.S. baby-boom generation coming of age to receive entitlement benefits in Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, while the underlying working population that pays to support the programs is declining as a consequence of both demographics and unemployment.

With regard to national-defense implications of the deteriorating U.S. economic position, the JOE 2010 worried that should China demand higher interest rates as an inducement to continuing to buy the U.S. Treasury debt needed to finance continuing trillion-dollar U.S. federal budget deficits, the U.S. could suffer a "hard landing" that could increase the perception the U.S. no longer controls its financial future.

Noting President Obama's warning that the U.S. economy will add $9 trillion debt over the next decade, the JOE 2010 warned the result could be "a decreased ability of the United States to allocate dollars to defense."


In his 2008 bestseller The Revolution, Dr. Paul wrote

In early 2006, Harvard's Linda Bilmes and Columbia's Joseph Stiglitz estimated the long-term costs of the war, including care for our maimed soldiers, at $2 trillion. By the end of the year they were saying that the $2 trillion figure was too low.

It isn't just the Iraq war that busts the budget - it's our overseas military presence as a whole. We have reached a point at which it now costs $1 trillion per year to maintain. One trillion dollars. The proposed Pentagon Budget alone was $623 billion for 2008. "What's remarkable about this year's military budget," wrote one military analyst, "is that it's the largest budget since World War II, but, of course, we're not fighting World War II

What is the consequence of this all this unsustainable spending? GAO data from 2007 (http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d07983r.pdf ) shows that **by 2040, nearly every dollar the government collects in taxes will be needed for Social Security, Medicare, and paying interest on the national debt**. That info of course predates that massive increase in the national debt since then. Reckless domestic or military spending will in the not-so-long run leave America without a single penny to pay for the most basic function of government. But if it ever reaches the point where we are all tax slaves of the government, not only will America be unable to defend itself, it will no longer be worth defending.

Debt is a tax on the unborn generations. It is taxation without representation, the very thing America rebelled against in 1776.

[asurfaholic]

Wait, when did ron paul say he would cut military 40-50%?

[Todd]

One thing that I have included in the email to be sent is that we are broke. Our economy is our number one national defense issue. If our economy crashes, then we won't be funding the military at all anymore. If that happens we will have serious trouble defending ourselves against Iran or any other threats that come along.


Thanks for the input.

[Feeding the Abscess]

Wait, when did ron paul say he would cut military 40-50%?

He mentioned cutting military spending in half during a CSPAN book club deal a month or so ago.

[Occam's Banana]

Foreign policy won't seem so darned important if we keep overspending and the dollar collapses and she finds herself digging through cookbooks trying to find new delightful ways to prepare catfood for the family dinnertable.
"You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to specsaregood again."

[Philhelm]

1. Ron Paul receives the plurality of all military campaign contributions.
2. Ron Paul served in the military.
3. Our current foreing policy is straight from the Progressive playbook of the early 1900's.
4. Should U.S. soldiers fight and die for nations whose people hate us?
5. Can we honestly afford to police the world?
6. We are spread too thin and risk a coalition rising against us in our moment of weakness.
7. Our soldiers and military equipment are run ragged.
8. Cutting the military budget doesn't necessarily equate to reducing our defensive strength.
9. No other military in the world has the force projection that we have. A trillion soldier army is worthless if they can't be deployed anywhere on the globe like ours can.
10. American conservatives had a strong tradition of trying to avoid foreign wars.
11. Do we really need as many military bases as we have across the world?
12. At the very least, shouldn't South Korea, Israel, and Europe pay us for our contributions to their national defense?

[AGRP]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SaN2tF3xpa4

[Southron]

If she only knew how much military contractors benefit from our spending and how little actually goes to defense she would be outraged.

[klamath]

For god's sake sent her the link to RP's restore america plan!! I knew the anti defense people running around here spouting that RP was going to cut defense by 50% was going to come back and bit RP hard.He is cutting defense 15% all from war spending nothing more!
http://www.ronpaul2012.com/the-issues/ron-paul-plan-to-restore-america/

[klamath]

He mentioned cutting military spending in half during a CSPAN book club deal a month or so ago.
Read his actual plan. It is 15%! That 50% was a mix of all budgets not just defense.

[RabbitMan]

I talked to my dad about foreign policy today, and told him that this gets on my nerves because people think that the president is some dictator that is able to declare wars. He looked at me confused, and asked me what I meant. He looked kind of shocked when I told him that congress declares wars, the president just is the 'commander in chief' when we are in, and that we technically haven't had a war since WWII. Then he fell back on that, well, nobody is going to vote for him anyway, and when I mentioned the early state/caucus strategy and how competitive he is with Obama, he slowly started to come my way...the first part really seems important to emphasize though.

[GeorgiaAvenger]

Tell her this:

"Except for the situation of imminent threat, Ron Paul would leave war declarations to the United States Congress as mandated by the U.S. Constitution. Most things that will be cut are wasteful spending. We would have a national security upgrade with troops on the border and a more powerful Navy. Ron Paul voted for SDI and he clearly understands what the main role of government is."

[Feeding the Abscess]

Read his actual plan. It is 15%! That 50% was a mix of all budgets not just defense.

You can plainly see from the post you quoted that I said military spending, which would include anything related to the military.

Also, let's say that I push for a 50% cut to the Pentagon budget. How is it anti-defense to call for a budget that would be three times the size of China's defense budget?

[seapilot]

We borrow with interest to Communist China (who now has the most advanced SUPER COMPUTER IN THE WORLD) so we can fund our military ventures around the world. Then China takes their money and use it to buy oil from Iran. Iran takes the money from China and invests it in weapons to protect itself against attack. The USA then borrows more from China to make more weapons because of the threat from Iran. How is this a good foreign policy?????

[Johnnybags]

All Ron has to say if war is needed we use all the resources in our arsenal to win a surrender flag! Not nation building but nation destroying should war be declared. White flag, not Federal Reserve printing presses for rebuilding or securing oil/mineral rights for corporations. Start with..


Make no mistake, should war be necessary.....blahblahblah!

[klamath]

You can plainly see from the post you quoted that I said military spending, which would include anything related to the military.

Also, let's say that I push for a 50% cut to the Pentagon budget. How is it anti-defense to call for a budget that would be three times the size of China's defense budget?
Because 50% is what YOU want and so you are trying to project that onto RP even if it is flat out not what RP has proposed. Read his actual plan. Spreading this 50% Cr*p will cost Rp the election as this thread is exactly about. A person is NOT voting for RP because they heard this 50% cut shit. Is that what you Really want?

[Harald]

Ask her which country is more difficult to defend geographically.

1) Russia
2) China
3) U.S.A

Which country is an easier target for terrorists? (A: Russia, China)

Which country oppresses muslims in their own terroritory? (A: Russia, China)

Which country spends less on defense than U.S. department of education? (A: Russia)

Which of those countries are considered weaklings and push overs? (None of them)

Which country borders North Korea and Iran (at least in its USSR borders) (Russia)

Which country is more scared of radical Islamists? (U.S. - is that fear for real or just political justification for more spending)

Which country funded radical Islamists as a geopolitical play? (U.S - proving that it wasn't always considered radical islamists to be a mortal danger)

Which country spends on military more than the next 10 runner ups combined? (U.S. -- does it have to?)

[Todd]

Thanks to LE AED, Specs, and everyone else for good ideas and some facts….….if I missed anyone you’ll know who you are when you read this..... (Feel like I’m on an academy awards show)


I appreciate everyone's imput. I changed a bunch of the email's body

Remember...when dealing with the average Republican voter you are playing "capture the Flag". Now, I don't buy into that B.S. much anymore, but the key fact of American politics, especially REPUBLCAN politics, is the one who most identifies with Patriotic fervor has the upper hand.



M.B.

I understand your concerns and I would ask you to look at several of these videos and one piece that explain his stances better than I ever could. And then I’ll explain why I think he is the best choice.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jFZpL8F4FgU

http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/paul-israel-support-wead/2011/12/07/id/420247

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JqdH6y4-8xU

Here's why I support his views:

Ron Paul wants America to have a strong national defense. He does not want to use America's sons and daughters to police the world, carry out UN sanctions and nation build in Afghanistan and Iraq. He believes policing the world should not take precedence over defending America. Therefore, he would not be cutting “defense” but “militarism” which only wastes money taken from our overburdened middle class tax payers.

He believes simply throwing billions at "defense" and expecting that it ensures a “strong national defense” is akin to how the left throws money at "education" and expects “quality education” for our children.

Obama has our military involved in multiple wars around the world and it appears he may start another with Iran. This leaves us extremely vulnerable on the home front. Our borders remain porous while the troops guard many distant Middle Eastern nation’s borders. All of this while our economy is reeling here at home. And not one of the other Republican candidates ever mentions this when discussing American defense.

Then there is our economy. We are broke. Our economy is our number one national defense issue. If our economy crashes, then we won't be funding or projecting the military at all anymore. If that happens we will have serious trouble defending ourselves against Iran or any other threats that come along. Foreign policy and the military won’t seem so important when our savings accounts are gone and we are struggling to make ends meet, feed our family, etc.

I recently saw a breakdown of our military spending, that I feel every American should aware of: According to a 2007 Congressional Budget Office report, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan will cost $2.4 trillion in direct war expenses plus interest by 2017. That's $7,814 for every man, woman, and child in the United States and $14,749 for US Federal Income Taxpayer.

When Ron talks about cutting the military, he is talking about the costs of our overseas wars, foreign aid and the cost of hundreds of thousands of troops on deployment in nearly 700 military bases world wide. I assure you he is not talking about completely dismantling the military.

We're wasting American wealth, and our children and grandchildren's futures, for the national security of other Nations during a time of great hardship for a great many Americans. I do not understand howw other candidates can say they are a fiscal conservatives without serious consideration of our defense budget and nation building overseas.

Lastly, what Paul wants is a leaner more agile military that projects itself swiftly to take out our immediate threats, while still being robust enough to challenge the modern Iranian, Chinese and Russian militaries. The Chinese Iranians and Russians don’t even spend a quarter of what we do on their military budgets. We waste a lot of money in the military. For example: did you know our Navy’s budget is 50% larger since 2001 and there are 200 less ships in the fleet? This is blatant defrauding of the American taxpayer.

I believe that Paul better than anyone else understands the problems we face. I've been in the military going on 24 years and I've seen a lot of changes in a quarter century. We were far stronger when I went in under Reagan than we are today. Reagan never overextended our military, avoided a shooting war with the Soviets and still beat them and they had thousands of nuclear weapons.

There are no other Republican candidates talking about how the economy and the wars directly contribute to the devaluing of our dollar and our wasteful military budget but Ron Paul. It is absolutely paramount that we get our house in order. Many of us in the military already know this. Did you know that Paul gets more military donations than any other Republican candidate? I know….I am one of them. :) Google…. Ron Paul Military donations.

That’s my take…long and winded, but I’d love to hear your thoughts. I hope you’ll reconsider come primary day. I think he’s going to surprise a lot of people come the Iowa caucus. I hope I can help answer any other concerns you may have.

[LibertyEagle]

Wow, that is a great email, Todd.

[Todd]

Wow, that is a great email, Todd.

pshaw....

you helped

[kill the banks]

yes nice job ... our troops know it's President Ron Paul

[Paul Revered]

http://media.economist.com/sites/default/files/cf_images/images-magazine/2011/09/17/WO/20110917_WOC674.gif

http://cdn1.globalissues.org/i/military/11/country-distribution-2010.png

[klamath]

Good response. the only thing I would have added is a direct challenge to 40-50% cut number. It is 15% as stated in RP's restore America plan. You might do a PS on this as that 40-50% cut number was not challenged.

Thanks to LE AED, Specs, and everyone else for good ideas and some facts….….if I missed anyone you’ll know who you are when you read this..... (Feel like I’m on an academy awards show)


I appreciate everyone's imput. I changed a bunch of the email's body

Remember...when dealing with the average Republican voter you are playing "capture the Flag". Now, I don't buy into that B.S. much anymore, but the key fact of American politics, especially REPUBLCAN politics, is the one who most identifies with Patriotic fervor has the upper hand.

[Feeding the Abscess]

Because 50% is what YOU want and so you are trying to project that onto RP even if it is flat out not what RP has proposed. Read his actual plan. Spreading this 50% Cr*p will cost Rp the election as this thread is exactly about. A person is NOT voting for RP because they heard this 50% cut shit. Is that what you Really want?

I say:


He mentioned cutting military spending in half during a CSPAN book club deal a month or so ago.

You say:


Read his actual plan. It is 15%! That 50% was a mix of all budgets not just defense.

I say:


You can plainly see from the post you quoted that I said military spending, which would include anything related to the military.

I say "military spending," you say "all budgets, not just defense," and I say "that's what I'm saying".

Military spending is not limited to the Pentagon budget. Depending on what figures you believe, the Pentagon budget is only about 50-60% of total military spending.

[roho76]

Tell her she may as well vote for Obomba since his foreign policy is more in line with hers. If that's the make or break issue with people you may as well move on.

[Paul Revered]

Tell her she may as well vote for Obomba since his foreign policy is more in line with hers. .

http://i209.photobucket.com/albums/bb235/kusokosla/389955_146499088785406_100002759474390_154138_2168 25122_n.jpg

[Giuliani was there on 911]

People like your friend are so brainwashed. I don't think you can get through to them.

[asurfaholic]

People like your friend are so brainwashed. I don't think you can get through to them.

I disagree. Most of them just need to hear the truth from someone they trust, hence the above conversation. Reason and logic goes a long way...

[jeremiah89]

People like your friend are so brainwashed. I don't think you can get through to them.

Weren't most of us "brainwashed" at one point? But here we all are...

[J-Reg]

Ron Paul's foreign policy: Stop putting our troops in needless danger and making other countries hate us. When war is needed, DOMINATE!

[Feeding the Abscess]

Ron Paul's foreign policy: Stop putting our troops in needless danger and making other countries hate us. When war is needed, DOMINATE!

Missing the element that, in my opinion, is most necessary:

War is only to be a defensive measure.

[J-Reg]

Missing the element that, in my opinion, is most necessary:

War is only to be a defensive measure. Good point!