1836
12-16-2011, 06:32 AM
I cannot remember who said it. But I heard some commentator say something to the effect of how Ron Paul defies the notion that people want a president who is ready for war, even if the nation is at peace.
And after thinking about it, I think this is the ideal message (or sort of message) for the campaign and for us to adopt.
Ron Paul would keep America safe by being prepared for war. But he would also be actively engaged in avoiding war.
Just imagine if a Ron Paul message sounded like this:
"Ron Paul will keep the country prepared, because America's enemies are always prepared. But Ron Paul will also ensure that the United States is not at war needlessly, nor without a declaration of war as required by the Constitution. As president, Ron Paul's foreign policy would emulate that of the founding fathers, who encouraged economic and diplomatic cooperation, while always keeping Reagan's words in mind, 'Trust, but verify.'
As president, Ron Paul would never send our armed forces into battle on his own, without notifying Congress, unlike what Barack Obama has done in Libya and elsewhere. He would never grovel in front of the United Nations or the Arab League, unlike Obama. As a veteran, he respects the service enough of our military men and women to not carelessly send them on overseas UN-sponsored humanitarian missions.
When it comes to terrorism, Ron Paul advocates for a policy that is comprehensive and aimed at understanding the enemy. Why shouldn't our foreign policy seek to reduce terrorist attacks against our overseas interests and here at home by outsmarting the jihadists? Radical Islamic terrorism uses some of our policies to help them recruit new terrorists; where we can reduce that effect, we should aim to. Ron Paul wants to get rid of the existing terrorists, not create new ones. Ron Paul feels that we should never let up or take our eye off of the ball when it comes to maintaining good counterintelligence and a robust anti-terrorism strategy. That's why people like Michael Scheuer, who headed up the Osama bin Laden counterterrorism unit at the CIA, endorse and speak so highly of Ron Paul's understanding of foreign policy.
If the homeland is attacked, where are our resources to respond? Currently, many of our important military resources, including our troops, are overseas, either at bases in friendly countries like Germany, Japan, and South Korea, or building schools and bridges in the Middle East. Wouldn't it be more productive to put those resources to work defending the homeland in an era of constant threat?
We need to keep our valuable military resources at the ready, and that's why Ron Paul has pledged to bring the military home where feasible and as soon as possible. We have achieved our goals in the Middle East, and now it is time to focus on our national defense.
Ron Paul would be a president ready for war, trained for conflict, and experienced enough to make the tough decisions in a time of crisis. But he would do everything possible to avoid war, because American lives should only be put on the line in the gravest of circumstances.
Ron Paul is ready to be commander in chief."
And after thinking about it, I think this is the ideal message (or sort of message) for the campaign and for us to adopt.
Ron Paul would keep America safe by being prepared for war. But he would also be actively engaged in avoiding war.
Just imagine if a Ron Paul message sounded like this:
"Ron Paul will keep the country prepared, because America's enemies are always prepared. But Ron Paul will also ensure that the United States is not at war needlessly, nor without a declaration of war as required by the Constitution. As president, Ron Paul's foreign policy would emulate that of the founding fathers, who encouraged economic and diplomatic cooperation, while always keeping Reagan's words in mind, 'Trust, but verify.'
As president, Ron Paul would never send our armed forces into battle on his own, without notifying Congress, unlike what Barack Obama has done in Libya and elsewhere. He would never grovel in front of the United Nations or the Arab League, unlike Obama. As a veteran, he respects the service enough of our military men and women to not carelessly send them on overseas UN-sponsored humanitarian missions.
When it comes to terrorism, Ron Paul advocates for a policy that is comprehensive and aimed at understanding the enemy. Why shouldn't our foreign policy seek to reduce terrorist attacks against our overseas interests and here at home by outsmarting the jihadists? Radical Islamic terrorism uses some of our policies to help them recruit new terrorists; where we can reduce that effect, we should aim to. Ron Paul wants to get rid of the existing terrorists, not create new ones. Ron Paul feels that we should never let up or take our eye off of the ball when it comes to maintaining good counterintelligence and a robust anti-terrorism strategy. That's why people like Michael Scheuer, who headed up the Osama bin Laden counterterrorism unit at the CIA, endorse and speak so highly of Ron Paul's understanding of foreign policy.
If the homeland is attacked, where are our resources to respond? Currently, many of our important military resources, including our troops, are overseas, either at bases in friendly countries like Germany, Japan, and South Korea, or building schools and bridges in the Middle East. Wouldn't it be more productive to put those resources to work defending the homeland in an era of constant threat?
We need to keep our valuable military resources at the ready, and that's why Ron Paul has pledged to bring the military home where feasible and as soon as possible. We have achieved our goals in the Middle East, and now it is time to focus on our national defense.
Ron Paul would be a president ready for war, trained for conflict, and experienced enough to make the tough decisions in a time of crisis. But he would do everything possible to avoid war, because American lives should only be put on the line in the gravest of circumstances.
Ron Paul is ready to be commander in chief."