PDA

View Full Version : The answer to Paul's "Iran problem"?




JJ2
02-06-2012, 07:11 PM
Most Republican voters are scared of an Iranian nuclear threat and thus refuse to vote for Ron Paul because he won't go to war with Iran preemptively.

But this is false.

Dr. Paul needs to say that if the American people fear Iran and feel threatened and want to got to war with Iran, then Congress can declare a war. It doesn't matter what Paul wants, because it is the Constitutional responsibility of Congress to declare ware, not the President.

This scenario kinda scares me, actually. ;) But it should reassure most Republican voters.

GeorgiaAvenger
02-06-2012, 07:25 PM
It will not get better for Paul, because it increasingly appears that Iran neither side is going to want to talk or use their weapons for defense.

Ron Paul needs to re-analyze and not necessarily change his position, but understand that it is likely conflict will take place and that both sides WANT war.

jmdrake
02-06-2012, 07:32 PM
A) I don't know of any case historically where congress has declared war and the president didn't want one.

B) A president still has veto power. So a declaration of war would have to be so popular that it had a 2/3rds majority.

C) It's already constitutionally settled that while a president doesn't have the power to unilaterally declare war, as commander in chief he has unfettered power to "declare peace". Basically congress can't force the commander in chief to send troops where he doesn't want to send them.

Here's the real answer to Ron Paul's "Iran problem".


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jRW30b_51KY

The Ron Paul campaign is being negligent in not making this the most famous Rick Santorum stump speech ever. The follow up point should be "We agree with Rick that Iran doesn't want to bomb Israel and only wants a bomb because they feel threatened. So common sense says quit threatening Iran."

LineHogs
02-08-2012, 08:07 PM
Most Republican voters are scared of an Iranian nuclear threat and thus refuse to vote for Ron Paul because he won't go to war with Iran preemptively.

But this is false.

Dr. Paul needs to say that if the American people fear Iran and feel threatened and want to got to war with Iran, then Congress can declare a war. It doesn't matter what Paul wants, because it is the Constitutional responsibility of Congress to declare ware, not the President.

This scenario kinda scares me, actually. ;) But it should reassure most Republican voters.

I must say I diagree. you have to examine the issue further. The Republican party is 90% Christian. they fear Iran having a Nuclear Weapon because of Israel. They will ALWAYS seek to protect Israel. It's a stop gap issue. There is nothing which can be done. He can try to connect to those most hard line conservative voters on liberty and economic issues because despite their foreign policy MOST Republicans view themselves as defenders of those things. But that's about it. The only way Paul can bring those voters around on foreign policy issues is to promise defense of Israel which is not possible. A believer in Liberty understands that strong forein intervention leads to more powerful government. Just look at the Cold War. Korea, Vietnam, and other less active conflicts gave rise to stronger intelligence divisions and dangerously powerful government entities. Such is also the case with 911. Shame.

So there is no reconciliation here. It is what it is. Paul needs to be himself and hammer it out of the park. There is no loosing here because the terms are not defined by winning. That is a side goal. A Bonus. Paul can relax and do what he has always done....... Push Liberty.

I do however believe he can win. There are any number of shifts in an election cycle. His moment could come at any time. Less Debates will actually help ron Paul more than anything.

truefictions
02-09-2012, 10:14 AM
I would suggest the following replies to any questions about Iran:

"What do you think a war with Iran will do to the price of gas at the pump?"

"What effect would it have to the economy if energy prices rise even more?"

LineHogs
02-09-2012, 10:20 PM
I would suggest the following replies to any questions about Iran:

"What do you think a war with Iran will do to the price of gas at the pump?"

"What effect would it have to the economy if energy prices rise even more?"

I would say that's a pretty solid answer. It's true and it hits home.

dirtdigger
02-09-2012, 10:44 PM
I would suggest the following replies to any questions about Iran:

"What do you think a war with Iran will do to the price of gas at the pump?"

"What effect would it have to the economy if energy prices rise even more?"

Good point. This should be in the form of assertions and not questions. Just say that the Iraq war has pushed the price of gas from 1.50 a gallon to nearly 4 dollars a gallon today. A war against Iran will push it to 6.50 a gallon. If the opponents claim that the price will fall, just point out that is what they said during the Iraq war as well.