His Foreign Policy and Others Dismissing it Immediately

[JeffersonReincarnate]

The opposition says we shouldn't withdraw from Iraq because they will follow us here, I believe its crucial to rebuttal this with an example of our terrible defense operation on 9/11, and that its gotten worse now that we are wasting all of our military funding, and that without foreign expenditure we will be able to secure our borders tenfold and prevent anyone from entering our country at all.

Just a thought, though many you have likely had it already its good to have a nice solid retort for anything if you don't already.

PS-Paul needs to debate Romney and Giuliani one on one. He would win, easily, and become the candidate by sheer comparison with the two partisan hacks.

[Zeteo]

For a quick sound bite I'd say: "The Iraq war is a wasteful way of fighting against terrorism. It also leaves us exposed to the Chinese threat. Dr. Paul has better solutions for national security."

[sickmint79]

CIA: no terrorists in iraq before we went in, now more terrorists
CIA: one of bin laden's original complaints was US presence in the middle east (9/11 comission report)
CIA: al qaeda using us presence as a recruiting tool
michael scheurer, head of CIA bin laden unit for 6 years has endorsed ron paul
robert pape, leading expert on suicide terrorism has endorsed ron paul

the other candidates and continuing this war only result in more terrorists - as we have already seen. the war on terror has not made us any safer - and it is bankrupting us through rampant spending. we don't have enough money so we borrow it from the chinese; when that's not enough we print it and take it from the people through inflation.

[Nicketas]

,.,

[idiom]

Ron Paul has plans to capture terrorists and right accidental injustices caused by America with out starting decade long wars.

Mitt Romney might get his lawyers to sue Osama.
Rudy let his electorate get attacked by terrorists on national television.

[user]

One good argument I heard somewhere to use in favor of bringing troops home from all around the world is to point out how China doesn't have bases all over the place, but nobody is going to invade China. They'd have to face the largest standing army in the world.

Trying to maintain an empire makes our national security worse, not better. Spreading our troops all over the world and inciting hatred with our interference is not the way to go.

[Goldwater Conservative]

Who would follow us here? Why, how, and how many? And why can't we stop them at the border or just take them out if they somehow enter our territorial reaches? Don't we have any faith in our military? Isn't that why we pay $500 billion a year for "defense"?