How would YOU address the foreign policy issue, RonPaulForums?

[1836]

I know that Ron Paul is often attacked, not only by pundits but also by our own supporters, for giving poor foreign policy answers. I'll be the first to admit that his answers are not always the best, and certainly not always helpful in our ultimate goal of winning the nomination during this campaign.

However, I would ask a simpler question, open-ended: how would you respond to the foreign policy issue in a minute or less? This is an honest question.

I guess if I have a point to make here, it is that, given the limited time in which Dr. Paul can respond to these difficult questions, I think he overall does a pretty smashing job. The fact that people boo or hiss him does not mean he isn't making his points soundly and saliently in a way that makes people think.

And Ron Paul's best attribute as a politician, to paraphrase Gary North, is that he persuades people. He gets them to think.

So: how would you rather him address the foreign policy issue?

Full disclosure: I have made a number of threads suggesting different tacts for Ron to take when addressing foreign policy, and particularly when we, his supporters, defend him on that point. Particularly Iran; see my thread "Iran, Iran," stickied in the Issues subforum.

[The Gold Standard]

His answer on Bin Laden was fine if he didn't stumble around so much and give the bloodthirsty scum a chance to get all worked up. His answer was essentially, "I voted for the authority to go after Bin Laden. I got upset when we stopped going after him so that we could nation build and go into Iraq. It wouldn't have taken 10 years to get him if I was president. Since we waited 10 years, we might as well have tried to work with the Pakistani government we prop up with tens of billions of ill gotten dollars instead of just raining bombs on them and causing the people of a nuclear armed nation to despise us."

He just didn't word it that way, which is unfortunate.

[hammy]

Show every living American "Dying to Win."

[Philosophy_of_Politics]

He needs to tie in the economic factor in with his foreign policy. Getting people to understand that our military adventurism will be the death knell of our country, is crucial. It simply costs too much money.

[cajuncocoa]

duplicate...sorry!

[cajuncocoa]

@The Gold Standard: The bloodthirsty don't have the patience to sit still for such an answer. MUST. KILL. NOW.

[Shellshock1918]

I'll say this for the 5th-6th time

WEINBERGER DOCTRINE

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weinberger_Doctrine


The Weinberger doctrine:

The United States should not commit forces to combat unless the vital national interests of the United States or its allies are involved.
U.S. troops should only be committed wholeheartedly and with the clear intention of winning. Otherwise, troops should not be committed.
U.S. combat troops should be committed only with clearly defined political and military objectives and with the capacity to accomplish those objectives.
The relationship between the objectives and the size and composition of the forces committed should be continually reassessed and adjusted if necessary.
U.S. troops should not be committed to battle without a "reasonable assurance" of the support of U.S. public opinion and Congress.
The commitment of U.S. troops should be considered only as a last resort.

[Miss Annie]

Most people don't even know what the Military Industrial Complex is..........

[TheTexan]

I would take that "Left of Obama" attack and turn it on its side. War is neither left nor right. War is right or wrong. Going to war without a declaration of war is not only unconstitutional, but is immoral, and both parties are guilty of this. Etc etc.

[QWDC]

If i was running for president , I would probably try a few different appeals:
1. Appeal to the budget: "We can't afford them ect."
2. Appeal to morality: "Senseless killing for nothing, innocent children are being bombed no real strategy etc."
3. Appeal to sense: "ask the other candidates how having a military base in Germany helps us at all, and is it worth destroying families?"
4. Appeal to history: "the CIA and regime changing, then blowback"
Pretty much what is he is doing already, not quite sure what else to do honestly.

[Eric39]

I would look at it from the perspective of how we do serious wars.

We have carriers that can launch drones and jets, destroyers that can accurately launch missiles at targets, and subs that can stay hidden and still launch nonnuclear missiles from underwater. Also our c17's can go across the world without refueling. So how is it even logical to be spending money as though military might is still greatly derived from geography?

Why even have land bases when we have the most powerful aircraft carriers in the world?

[ronpaulfollower999]

If I were Ron Paul:

"All of us up here are pro-life when it comes to abortion. We all agree that every single human life is precious and has a right to life. But why does this thinking change after the baby is born? How can we be so passionate about protecting life before birth, yet recklessly start wars that not only kill the innocent children in these foreign countries, but also takes the lives of our own men and women, the same who we worked so hard to protect when they were in their mother's womb. Not one of these wars were properly declared by the Congress. What if North Korea started assassinating our own scientists? What if China policed the streets of Myrtle Beach? I'd think we would find ourselves acting the same way our enemies are acting now if China and North Korea did these things."

[coffeewithchess]

I know that Ron Paul is often attacked, not only by pundits but also by our own supporters, for giving poor foreign policy answers. I'll be the first to admit that his answers are not always the best, and certainly not always helpful in our ultimate goal of winning the nomination during this campaign.

However, I would ask a simpler question, open-ended: how would you respond to the foreign policy issue in a minute or less? This is an honest question.

I guess if I have a point to make here, it is that, given the limited time in which Dr. Paul can respond to these difficult questions, I think he overall does a pretty smashing job. The fact that people boo or hiss him does not mean he isn't making his points soundly and saliently in a way that makes people think.

And Ron Paul's best attribute as a politician, to paraphrase Gary North, is that he persuades people. He gets them to think.

So: how would you rather him address the foreign policy issue?

Full disclosure: I have made a number of threads suggesting different tacts for Ron to take when addressing foreign policy, and particularly when we, his supporters, defend him on that point. Particularly Iran; see my thread "Iran, Iran," stickied in the Issues subforum.

The campaign has MILLIONS of dollars, and keeps asking for more, and this issue has not been addressed. Ron Paul is great for talking about a government that can't run anything, but his campaign has some issues (if they win first in South Carolina, I will shutup forevermore on a debate coach though, I'm happy to be proven wrong). I created a thread months ago, for this very issue, and even emailed one of the campaign's advisers with information several times. It seems like they think a few tweaks here and there is good enough, when a speech debate boot camp is what is needed.

[Diablesse]

I'll say this for the 5th-6th time

WEINBERGER DOCTRINE

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weinberger_Doctrine


Bravo!

[1836]

The campaign has MILLIONS of dollars, and keeps asking for more, and this issue has not been addressed. Ron Paul is great for talking about a government that can't run anything, but his campaign has some issues (if they win first in South Carolina, I will shutup forevermore on a debate coach though, I'm happy to be proven wrong). I created a thread months ago, for this very issue, and even emailed one of the campaign's advisers with information several times. It seems like they think a few tweaks here and there is good enough, when a speech debate boot camp is what is needed.

I think Ron is more likely to try and cram a book's worth of knowledge into 30 seconds than to try and repeat rehearsed talking points, though the latter strategy is surely more effective in this absurd "debates."

This is who the man is, and we all respect him for it, but it doesn't always make for the cleanest of performances in an era of 140 character tweets and the 30-second-soundbite. Go figure. Ron Paul is a man trying to shake the very foundations of big government in a country of 300 million people. Sometimes big issues need longer explanation.

But on balance, I'd agree with the idea of having him get some basic points down on foreign policy that are tested against voter sentiment, to try and condense and improve his message in that area. When given longer to explain it in his town hall format meetings across early states, he does much better. At these debates, he should have a few points to stick to and elaborate on.

[Paulitics 2011]

TAKE NOTES FROM DOUG WEAD!!!

[Orgoonian]

If I were Ron Paul:

"All of us up here are pro-life when it comes to abortion. We all agree that every single human life is precious and has a right to life. But why does this thinking change after the baby is born? How can we be so passionate about protecting life before birth, yet recklessly start wars that not only kill the innocent children in these foreign countries, but also takes the lives of our own men and women, the same who we worked so hard to protect when they were in their mother's womb. Not one of these wars were properly declared by the Congress. What if North Korea started assassinating our own scientists? What if China policed the streets of Myrtle Beach? I'd think we would find ourselves acting the same way our enemies are acting now if China and North Korea did these things."

I like it,but i think it's still too logical for the herd:p

[Indiana4Paul]

I'll say this for the 5th-6th time

WEINBERGER DOCTRINE

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weinberger_Doctrine

Agreed. I would add that I would use the concept of "Troop Surge" that was so damn popular during the 2008 debates to make the point that we aren't following the Weinberger Doctrine right now.

I also think Dr. Paul needs focus very tightly on his Constitution argument. I think he runs into major issues when he starts making comparisons, if he'll just stick to the argument about using force when it is authorized by Congress, he'd steer clear of harms way in these debates.

[MadOdorMachine]

So: how would you rather him address the foreign policy issue?

All I can say is what Ron Paul has said in the past which actually got me to side with him on foreign policy. It took me years to agree with him on this.

1. al Qaeda, Bin Laden and Civil Liberities.
In 2007 Ron Paul said the goal of al Qaeda was to get us into the Middle East so they could kill us easier over there and bankrupt us. In short - they are winning! We are doing exactly what they wanted us to do. We should have captured or killed Bin Laden and gotten out of the Middle East. This would have sent a message imo without bankrupting us and tarnishing our image. We are also destroying our civil liberties. There's a lot he can bring up here - TSA, Patriot Act, NDAA, SOPA, etc. etc. Also what is the point of going after al Qaeda in Iraq and Afghanistan when we are supporting them in Lybia?

2. Blowback
He did a much better job in 2007 at explaining the unintended consequences of us meddling in other countries particularly with Iran.

3. Iraq, Iran, Israel and WMDs
I think he could do a much better job at explaining the propaganda going on with Iran right now and the consequences of going to war with them. It's not like Iraq. It's much larger and they also provide oil to China. Syria also has ties with Iran and they have agreed to support each other if one of them is attacked. Russia is backing Syria. This could potentially explode.

Then there's Ahmadinjad. The people would unite behind him if we went to war with them. This to me is a far bigger threat to Israel because we would justify them going to war with Israel. If we didn't invade them, we could use China as leverage against Iran attacking Israel and if they did think of doing something crazy like that, let them know we will completely annihilate them.

4. National Debt and American Lives
Can we afford more war? He has said in the past that we are over extending our military, thus making us weaker. He also needs to point at the cost of lives and wounded as well as the monetary cost and ask the American people if we can afford more national debt. The best way to do this is with a declaration of war.

I'd just like to say that his answer tonight on opening up closed bases in the U.S. was a great response. He also said in the past that he wants to build up our Navy and use more diplomats. He needs to explain more that we are at more risk at our borders here than over seas.