Santorum v Paul- Iran war debate coming

[nyrgoal99]

Could be Saturday

this is going to be massive

[hammy]

Could be Saturday

this is going to be massive

I can't wait till frothy chokes on all his WMD lies.

[The One]

Sure hope RP is able to articulate his position well.

[jsem]

Lincoln/Douglas debate on Iran between Santorum and Paul.

RP would completely dismantle every single argument of Santorum.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Whenever Paul raises his voice (as sad as it is, thats what scores points) on the topic, he'll score easy.

[hazek]

And when this debate comes I bet my every penny Ron will again get tricked into sounding like a pacifist against a perceived threat of Iran instead of distancing himself from the specific scenario and address it philosophically through the rule of law and the constitution. Gosh I wish I could have a private 30min chat with that man.

[ohgodno]

It's important that he doesn't appear weak - but maintains an agressive war is out of the question.

Dr. Paul must stress that if an attack on the US is imminent he will get a declaration of war, fight it, win it, and eliminate the threat, Constitutionally.

If the question is something like "what do you do if they HAVE a nuke?" - the answer shouldn't stay away from the perception out there of Dr. Paul: "do nothing…" it should focus on things like - working with the CIA and military to determine if they're an imminent threat to US security… if so, then - congress > declaration of war > win.

It's all about framing the response, but staying on-message of no agressive wars.

[Koz]

I hope so, the last debate didn't go so well in my opinion. He needs to have a plethora of answers ready. Gingrich is going to hit him hard too.

[rockandrollsouls]

I think Ron will tear into Santorum.

What he needs to do is make him EAT his words...

Santorum: "We need to defend Israel etc etc."
Paul: "Rick, I think it's odd you'd speak for the Israeli people. Prime minister Natenyahu of Israel has said, himself, that they do not want nor do they need American assistance. He has stated Israel can stand on her own. We are more eager to fight a war for Israel than Israel is to fight a war for Israel."

Santorum: "Terrorists, terrorists, terrorists, fear mongering, etc."
Paul: "Head of the CIA Bin Laden unit has actually endorsed me and agrees my policies are the best for countering and containing terrorism"

Santorum: "Iran nuclear weapons, Iran hates Jews, lie some more."
Paul: "Iran has the largest Jewish population among arabic nations. They do not hate Jews. Furthermore, were there any security threat I would provide congress with the necessary information to declare war. Were war declared, I would be sure I was entering with a clear objective against the proper individuals, take them out efficiently and effectively, and end it as soon as possible. Our men and women should not be exposed to prolonged periods of war, as this will weaken our defense."

If Santorum continues to argue after this, Ron just needs to say "I've presented you with the facts, and I find it disrespectful you are attempting to gain the highest office in America with fear mongering and lies. That, sir, is the definition of terrorism."

I just hope the campaign is briefing Ron in this manner.

On another note, Ron also needs to make it known he's the only candidate that was vehemently against the NDAA and SOPA

[Freedom of Speech]

Ron Paul needs to rattle off short bullet point responses...

- Netanyahu agrees with me (mentioning Netanyahu's speech)

- Head of the Bin Laden Unit Michael Scheuer agrees with me.

- Mossad agreeing with him.

- The troops donate to him more than all other GOP candidates combined adding they don't want to be sent to war carelessly.

[rockandrollsouls]

^^^ That

And, that he was the only one that actually supported Israel's actions to take out nuclear reactors!

[Havax]

Ron should call this prick a freedom-hater to his face right on the debate stage.

[seapilot]

Ron Paul needs to rattle off short bullet point responses...

- Netanyahu agrees with me (mentioning Netanyahu's speech)

- Head of the Bin Laden Unit Michael Scheuer agrees with me.

- Mossad agreeing with him.

- The troops donate to him more than all other GOP candidates combined adding they don't want to be sent to war carelessly.

email that to the campaign.

[chickensguys]

Ron Paul needs to rattle off short bullet point responses...

- Netanyahu agrees with me (mentioning Netanyahu's speech)

- Head of the Bin Laden Unit Michael Scheuer agrees with me.

- Mossad agreeing with him.

- The troops donate to him more than all other GOP candidates combined adding they don't want to be sent to war carelessly.

But Iran has bad guys there.
INVADE INVADE INVADE
*Inside the mind of a NEO-CON*

[ohgodno]

The heart of the question is - would you protect the country. We know the answer is YES — the narrative in the media is he won't. He HAS to come away from that question with the perception that he will protect the country from harm—while stressing he will never fight a war of agression.

Also, while bringing up the two members of Mossad is valid, my problem is: most people don't know who/what the Mossad is… so an answer should not center on that - as a supporting fact, yes, but not the central theme.

So, the answer to the Iran question should focus on the determination of whether Iran poses an imminent threat to US security–and if so, protect the US Constitutionally.

[thehungarian]

Don't forget that in Newt's post-Iowa caucus speech he basically promised to go after Ron Paul in the next debate. Hope he's ready.

[Begood]

If they bring up Amahdinejad hatred for Israel, Ron needs to tell the world that this guy is only President and have no real power over the military.

[Feeding the Abscess]

And when this debate comes I bet my every penny Ron will again get tricked into sounding like a pacifist against a perceived threat of Iran instead of distancing himself from the specific scenario and address it philosophically through the rule of law and the constitution. Gosh I wish I could have a private 30min chat with that man.

Ron's a dove and a peacenik, just get over it already. Said it himself in an interview on Nevada TV: he couldn't be convinced to pick up a rifle and shoot someone, so he went into the military as a doctor to heal and help people instead. Said in a Houston paper editorial interview that he would like to see fewer nukes around the world, and also isn't a fan of conventional weapons.

Promote what we have.

[eugenekop]

Ron is who Ron is. And I think there is almost no scenario that justifies an attack on Iran, as long as they don't physically invade the United States. So Ron will never say America should attack Iran because he doesn't believe this is the right course of action no matter what. And I agree with him on that.

[Matthanuf06]

Ron is so close. If he wins this, it could put him over the top. What he needs to do is act like a politician, not like a professor. He needs to get his talking points, and frame his answers. Do not get tricked into answering specific scenarios that can make him look bad. Americans want a STRONG foreign policy, but not an aggressive one. People realize Paul won't be aggressive, but they do not need the strength. He needs to emphasize, that if there is a threat against the United States that he will act with brute strength. If the public believes that Paul will "wipe Iran off the face of the earth" if they actually become a threat, then his chance at becoming the next POTUS increases exponentially. If people continue to believe Paul won't act until a WMD is set off in the states, then he has no chance. He needs to frame his answers to look tough and strong.

[Tyler_Durden]

This!!!!!!!

"To ensure regime survival, Iran's security strategy is based first on deterring an attack."

The document goes on to make this key statement, "Iran's nuclear program and its willingness to keep open the possibility of developing nuclear weapons is a central part of its deterrent strategy."


http://milwaukeestory.com/index.php/...-an-attack-344

I've Drudged it. I'vs Circulated it. I've Spread it. The MSM and GOP references a vague 13pg IAEA Report as the basis for the iron grip and saber rattling, but NOBODY talks about this Report!!

[Kevin Smyth]

Ron Paul needs to rattle off short bullet point responses...

- Netanyahu agrees with me (mentioning Netanyahu's speech)

- Head of the Bin Laden Unit Michael Scheuer agrees with me.

- Mossad agreeing with him.

- The troops donate to him more than all other GOP candidates combined adding they don't want to be sent to war carelessly.

I agree with you 100%, bullet points are the only thing most Americans can understand because they have such short attention spans, Paul has to use his speaking time wisely and get right to the point.

[eugenekop]

But RP doesn't believe Iran should be wiped off the face of the earth. He doesn't believe innocents should die. That's just not who Ron is, fortunately.

[Matthanuf06]

No. You need to think like the American electorate. Ron Paul isn't a prof at some university. He was running for POTUS. People don't give a rats behind whether Amahdinejad has "power" or no power. People care if Ron will defend the United States of America with all its might. That is what people care about. If we focus on the million reasons why Iran is not a threat or may not be a threat, then we are a guaranteed loser. The focus needs to be on what Ron will do if they are a threat. What a "threat" is can be up for interpretation, he can stay vague there. But he needs to say it over and over again, if Iran is a threat to the USA or lays the tiniest of fingers on the USA, that he will blow them to the moon and back. That is what the electorate needs to hear. An academic speech on what a "threat" is will win us no votes at this point.

[Echoes]

Ron should pound home how the iraq war bankrupted us, lasted 10 yrs and was fought over WMD lies. Most americans believe this to be the case. Iran would be the sequal to iraq.

[Feeding the Abscess]

No. You need to think like the American electorate. Ron Paul isn't a prof at some university. He was running for POTUS. People don't give a rats behind whether Amahdinejad has "power" or no power. People care if Ron will defend the United States of America with all its might. That is what people care about. If we focus on the million reasons why Iran is not a threat or may not be a threat, then we are a guaranteed loser. The focus needs to be on what Ron will do if they are a threat. What a "threat" is can be up for interpretation, he can stay vague there. But he needs to say it over and over again, if Iran is a threat to the USA or lays the tiniest of fingers on the USA, that he will blow them to the moon and back. That is what the electorate needs to hear. An academic speech on what a "threat" is will win us no votes at this point.

Ron is running for president to reverse course, and as such, runs on ideas. He doesn't want power; he wants us to be free.

[Txrose4ever]

The heart of the question is - would you protect the country. We know the answer is YES — the narrative in the media is he won't. He HAS to come away from that question with the perception that he will protect the country from harm—while stressing he will never fight a war of agression.

Also, while bringing up the two members of Mossad is valid, my problem is: most people don't know who/what the Mossad is… so an answer should not center on that - as a supporting fact, yes, but not the central theme.

So, the answer to the Iran question should focus on the determination of whether Iran poses an imminent threat to US security–and if so, protect the US Constitutionally.

I agree. The bottom line is that the public needs to feel he is not afraid to be aggressive when legitimately needed and that he WILL protect America.

[Matthanuf06]

You can't fight a war, especially fighting in a way of "get in, win it, and get out", without having some collateral damage. It is beyond hypocritical. Surgically striking and taking out leadership without nation building can create a power vacuum that is extremely dangerous to innocents as well. Heavy bombing to take out military instalations and leadership creates the power vacuum as well as actual collateral damage. The fact is, any war is going to hurt innocents of a country you are fighting against. Either way, Ron will lose votes if his position is "If we get attacked/imminent threat we will pansy our way into a war because we don't want to hurt people". That just isn't what the American electorate wants.

[jmdrake]

There's nothing to debate. We have Santorum on record saying that Iran doesn't want a bomb to attack Israel but that Iran wants a bomb to defend themselves. That's pretty much Ron Paul's position except that Ron isn't convinced that Iran is necessarily working on a bomb and Ron doesn't what to threaten Iran. So using Santorum's logic if Ron Paul was president Iran would quit working for a bomb because they wouldn't need to defend themselves.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...for-protection.

[trey4sports]

Ron better eat his wheaties cuz Santorum will be all over Ron.