Letters of Marque and the Pro-War Republican

[Chrispy]

I pretty much sealed a strongly pro-war republican today on Ron Paul by first bringing up the bill RP introduced on letters of marque and reprisals. This sort of underhand vigilantly approach to putting bounties on the heads of terrorists sits quite well with them.

After explaining how the process would work, I then introduced the guy to Ron Paul's position on the war in Iraq and why he takes that position. It really helps show that RP's anti-Iraq war stance does not reflect that he is a hippish pacifistic pussy that will be soft on terror. I would really recommend trying this when dealing with pro-war republicans.

[margomaps]

Good tip. I'm working on a couple war hawks right now myself. They like Ron except for his stance on the war.

[DeadheadForPaul]

thats solid work! It's a hard task to bring a pro-war individual over

[Chrispy]

Ttt

[RickSp]

Folks, please forget that Ron Paul proposed using Letters of Marque and Reprisal. It wasn't his finest hour.

Letters of Marque existed as a matter of international law when the Constitution was written. It was effectively outlawed by the mid-1850s. The US did not sign the Declaration of Paris of 1856 which outlawed Letters of Marque but it did invoke the Declaration during both the American Civil War and the Spanish American War.

Bottom line, Letters of Marque work only if all parties agree to them. Without such agreement, privateering is simply called piracy. No one has recognized Letters of Marque in one hundred and fifty years.

I think the best response if anyone asks about Dr. Paul's position on Letters of Marque is to say "Letters of Who?"

[austin356]

I think the best response if anyone asks about Dr. Paul's position on Letters of Marque is to say "Letters of Who?"

that just makes you look uninformed b/c obviously the person asking knows about them and has heard something about Dr. Paul and them.

A better suggestion would be to not bring it up except in rare circumstances, and usually opt for saying Ron Paul would rather enable "stealth warriors" to track down and capture terrorists than use big bombs, big tanks, big planes, and big $ to do the relatively simple job.

[RickSp]

A better suggestion would be to not bring it up except in rare circumstances, and usually opt for saying Ron Paul would rather enable "stealth warriors" to track down and capture terrorists than use big bombs, big tanks, big planes, and big $ to do the relatively simple job.

So, are you suggesting that we should turn our foreign policy completely over to the likes of Blackwater mercs?

If so, not a good answer.

[FreedomLover]

I've been telling you guys, Republicans don't trust RP because he hasn't talked at all about any alternative approach to fighting terrorism besides leaving the middle east.

I hear people all the time telling me about how Ron Paul is so great on domestic issues, but they can't bring themselves to support him because..."he wants us to surrender in iraq and let the terrorists have victory, he doesn't want to fight terrorism, etc" That's his achilles heel. He needs to illustrate effective counter-measures to handle terrorist groups, such as the bounty hunters thing. He needs to put the fed and the irs on the backburner and try to reassure repubs that he will be strong on defense.

[DaronWestbrooke]

Folks, please forget that Ron Paul proposed using Letters of Marque and Reprisal. It wasn't his finest hour.

Letters of Marque existed as a matter of international law when the Constitution was written. It was effectively outlawed by the mid-1850s. The US did not sign the Declaration of Paris of 1856 which outlawed Letters of Marque but it did invoke the Declaration during both the American Civil War and the Spanish American War.

Bottom line, Letters of Marque work only if all parties agree to them. Without such agreement, privateering is simply called piracy. No one has recognized Letters of Marque in one hundred and fifty years.

I think the best response if anyone asks about Dr. Paul's position on Letters of Marque is to say "Letters of Who?"

Thanks, I've been eaten alive (not in the good way) when I get into these fights. Usually it is just people mocking it, but I'll know now to avoid these conversations.

[austin356]

So, are you suggesting that we should turn our foreign policy completely over to the likes of Blackwater mercs?

If so, not a good answer.

When you are talking to a pro-war Republican if you sound like a pacifist you will be spit on. And how is setting a bounty on specific wanted terrorists "completely turning over foreign policy over to mercs?"

You prefer trillion dollar tank warfare? Or you prefer not bringing terrorists to justice?
Both ways are equally insane. The only logical response is to target specific individuals, all the while acknowledging and changing the factors that motivated the terrorists in the first place.