How to Win Over the Pro-War Folks
Posted October 29th, 2007 by Copperhead
output
There is a common misconception amongst the people whom I talk to about Ron Paul that he's some sort of a pacifist, and against all forms of foreign war. This misconception was reinforced and repeated by Bill O'Reilly a few months ago when Dr. Paul was on his show.
WIth the limited television budget, I would love to see the following in the hardcore "red states". I would love to see Dr. Paul say something like the following.
"On September 11, 2001, America was attacked by a group of Islamic militants in a plan masterminded by Osama bi Laden. On [fill in the date], I voted to authorize President George W. Bush to deploy our military into Afghanistan to overthrow the corrupt government which was protecting these criminals, and to bring Osama bin Laden to justice. Since that time, our government has been distracted from this quest for justice by a war in Iraq, a country that has never attacked the United States and joined us as an enemy of Islamic jihadists.
The war in Iraq is draining our resources, and distracting us from our original mission of finding Osama bin Laden and destroying the Al Qaeda terrorist organization.
As president, I will refocus our military on the original mission, and go after the global criminal terror networks, and not allow our military to be used for to serve the interests of the oil companies and the military industrial complex."
I think this would really ring a bell with the red state republicans and make them think twice about the other republican candidates who somehow equate the war in Iraq with the "War on Terror" and also remind people that Ron Paul isn't a pacifist, but simply promotes the proper use of the military.
Bookmark/Search this post with:
Follow the Constitution
We should say that as followers of the Constitution that if Congress declares war then President Ron Paul would follow the orders of Congress and the Constitution. He is a war veteran and has never strayed from his conviction of following the Constitution. He would go to war. His main complaint all along is that the Iraq war was not done legally.
Have you noticed we get into the most trouble in this country when we do not follow are own laws. Look at the Iraq war and our immigration mess.
Our government needs to start becoming law abiding.
I love it.... I like the
I love it.... I like the sentence that reminds them that he voted to get Bin Laden.... and I like the sentence
"As president, I will refocus our military on the original mission, and go after the global criminal terror networks, and not allow our military to be used for to serve the interests of the oil companies and the military industrial complex."
I would like to add:
"And as your president, I promise the American people a new approach to getting Bin Laden. We can't swat mosquitoes with sledge hammers, but we can follow the Constitution, issue Marque and Reprisal letters to catch and prosecute stateless terrorists. I am asking for your vote and support come the primaries."
everyone wants to be a winner
they want to win the war on terra!
It is the red-staters that
have the reality problem, not the truthers.
Famous Quote from Justice William O. Douglas
"The Constitution is not neutral.
It was designed to take the government
off the backs of people."
Who was it that said.........
Walk softly, and carry a big stick. That's not hard to understand, but it's sure not what the US is doing around the world. Our war machine rolls for profit......not freedom. And it's not so much the profit for military contractors, it's about profits for the world banks who get all the financial business of these mega loans that the public never sees, or much less, understands. That's why our good Dr. Paul is not in their "best interest".
Not a good reference
It's actually, "speak softly and carry a big stick", but the guy who said it was Teddy Roosevelt, who once termed the Spanish American war as "fun" and as President would add the Roosevelt corollary to the Monroe Doctrine, which stated it was the responsibility of the US to exercise "international police power" anywhere in the Western Hemisphere that we happened to think needed it.
re jihadist
Thx JanBrennan1970 for raising the point.
As a Muslim it is frustrating that the positive term "jihadist" has been turned into a negative... just like we as Americans don't want to turn the word "patriot" into a negative just because warhawks use it to invade countries the world over. I really wish RP & his supporters would stop using the term "jihadist" as I am working hard to get Muslims I know to listen to RP's message! seeing those words makes them doubt RP is a candidate to be looking at!
Re the ad for pro-war folks: I agree RP needs to show them he is not a "pacificist", that he IS willing to use military force to defend our country. I would edit the above quote to say something like "when our intelligence sources identified Osama bin Laden as being behind the 911 attacks, I fully supported military action to bring him from Afghanistan".
I wouldn't even mention the Taliban govt b/c they were not behind the attacks and in reality Afghanistan is a sovereign country we invaded. A good number of Muslims worldwide will remember the Taliban officially telling the US: give us proof of bin Laden's involvement in 911, and we will hand him over... and the US did not oblige, but invaded instead.
There are some 911 Truth activists who don't like RP's refusal to acknowledge the "inside job" aspect. (and I agree it's a topic to avoid right now!) For those people, this isn't saying RP agrees personally that bin Laden was the right target, but that he was unwavering in supporting military action given what evidence he did have.
Just Remember This
"Jihadist" is so Operation Enduring Freedom. All the cool kids say "Islamofascist".
Just Remember
Most American voters AREN'T Muslims, and we have to speak their lingo when we're trying to communciate to them. Whether we like it or not, "jihadist" gets the point across to them.
...in the same way
that I would not expect RP to speak to a pro-life audience by calling pro-choice folks murderers.... sure, that sends a clear message to people who are adamantly anti-abortion, but the pro-choice crowd will hear that message too, and you'll lose their interest in hearing more about RP.
that's just fine
... but Muslim registered voters DO get out the vote, and they WILL disregard RP because they won't get past that to learn more about his message.
I've been told this by activist Muslims who DO vote and DO spread the word on candidates and for people to vote.
If that's okay with RP & his supporters... well, that's a shame. And not just because it is inaccurate (which implies ignorance).
There ARE other terms which can be used which send the same message without giving the impression that RP is prejudice against Muslims.
No one should be turned off
No one should be turned off of Ron Paul's message for something as easy to correct as terminology.
Al Qaeda and others use the term "jihad" the same way Bush uses the term "patriot". If your against the Patriot Act you're against patriotism and therefore you must be against your country. If your against his form of jihad, your against fighting for God and therefore you must be against God. By using the term jihad in a negative way we are creating more "us against them" which is exactly what both sides want. There is a lot of "lingo" out there that people understand, it doesn't mean we should use it to garner support.
I think "radical" and "fundamentalist" also misaddresses the issue. Tranquilhorizons, what are other terms which can be used which send the same message without giving the impression prejudice against Muslims?
something as simple as
"terrorists" is just fine. Why do we need to go beyond that? RP should go after ANY person/organization (even country) that terrorizes Americans, whatever their race, nationality, religion etc.
Everyone has a different image in their head of what a "terrorist" looks like anyway, but we all understand the idea of one who terrorizes others... and it's not limited to any particular group. If the pro-war crowd needs to envision a man with a turban to understand RP wants to go after terrorists, hey, that's their problem.
"Extremists" might work too. Or criminals (for times when a softer message works better). Same argument as above - no need to specify which extremists (whether they be whites, blacks, Christians, Muslims, or elite politicians!)
Using "jihadist" implies that it's only Muslims who are terrorists, and we *know* terrorists come in all shapes, sizes, colors and creeds.
the meaning
Some people here may not know the roots of the word jihad. It literally means "effort" and refers to a struggle on behalf of God. I believe it's often used in terms of a personal struggle to be a better person and Muslim. I like your comparison to the word "patriot". We all know how incorrectly that has been used lately.
This URL
http://www.youtube.com/wa... of a military guy in his own words sure doesn't hurt...
JMR
Condi Rice and Madeleine Albright Irked Muslim Men
Now regarding foreign policy, there is more to talk about.
The culture war against radical feminism is still going on in Muslim countries (we have lost the war in the west).
You want a State Department that knows how to dialogue with Muslim men, not stick their middle finger up at them.
Madeleine Albright especially irked Muslim males. A Hillary Clinton Secretary of State will probably be worse. I am not sure how Condi is doing.
I agree with the last poster that we lost the war on terror to domestic insurgents. These people took over Congress by pretending to be for the Iraq War and then being given power to push their other agendas.
If they can put up with
If they can put up with those people at all while we are bombing them and squatting on their land (they've shown more diplomacy than I could muster) any selection will do fine providing we withdraw all military personnel from their sacred sands.
It's really simple just what the Doctor ordered.
Bring'em home. From everywhere.
We are bombing Al Qaeda and
We are bombing Al Qaeda and Iranian mercenaries. Everyone in the Mideast knows the distinctions of whom we are aiming at and everyone with any power understands that collateral damage really is something that comes with war. We cannot get RP up in the polls by using left wing rhetoric that deliberately talks past the pro-war crowd using phraselogies that are proven incorrect or misleading.
The phrase "bombing them" implies that we are irrationally bombing decision makers whom we are trying to be friends with. Nothing could be further than the truth.
To say "we are on their land" implies that you want to verify Al Qaeda's concept that one third of the world's land mass "belongs" only to adherents of Al Qaeda or pan-arabism. Otherwise, American forces are welcomed by the democratically elected Iraqi government to possibly keep bases in the desert for 40 years.
Saudi citizens have no right to gainsay their Iraq neighbor's decisions, unless they see that the new Iraqi democracy is as corrupt and undemocratic as the US democracy is now (full control of the media by jackasses, etc).
It really is left wing to say "Look...our evil troops just killed more children". One has to stay away from that kind of talk in order to win a general election, much less a Republican primary.
This is not a topic where RP can win more than 3% of Republicans on.
RP's other qualities are what can bring him to 20% or more.
I assure you I am not left
I assure you I am not left wing. I voted for the traitor G.W.Bush. I believed there were WMDs and I believed we had been attacked by 19 Saudis with boxcutters. I believed Saddam was going to develop a nuke any day and we had to do something fast before he sold it to Bin Laden. I believed G.W.Bush was an honest man. Then I began to study. I finally had to admit the GOP leaders had sold out to the globalists just as the Dems had sold out en mass a decade earlier.
I'm a veteran of the cold war too. I'm going to be 50 years old in a couple weeks. I see H.R. 1955 and it just adds to the conviction our country has been taken over from within, like inland piracy they have snuck in and taken over. Open your eyes and see the ghastly truth of how desperate the situation is in this land.
The only way for someone to understand is to come to the terribly sobering recognition:
9/11 was an inside job.
That really is the only way to wake up. Good luck.
Let me ask you something. If you were president and you believed as you do now would you or anyone else in their right mind leave the Mexican border wide open? Would you?
This whole thing is about controlling the people of the United States. It has nothing to do with Islamic terrorists.
glad for the vote
I'm glad you support Ron Paul.
But I will have to disagree with you on calling it an inside job.
Incompetence explains a lot more. That same incompetence
says that they really couldn't pull such a thing off and keep it secret.
If they could why not pull off a simpler conspiracy and plant WMD
in Iraq?
Ron Paul does not believe it was in any way an inside job.
This thing is much bigger
This thing is much bigger than a backroom plan fostered by G.W. and Dick Cheney. This involves a considerable percentage of the top people at the pentagon, the FBI the CIA the Democrat and Republican parties and of course Rudy Ghoul (iani). Oh did I mention leaders and intelligence organizations of the UK and Israel and just about everybody in the Bilderberger group and the upper level of the Council on Foreign Relations? Not last and most definitely not least Rupert Murdoch and all those other few at the top ownership positions of our mainstream media. You know, the people we all count on to alert us to danger..
Hey the international bankers are buying out everybody who has power. Why wouldn't they?
G.W. cannot say "nuclear" but he is an able frontman. He did not plan this he just said "yes" and he said it with eagerness knowing he would get the accolades for being such a champion of "democracy".
Fact is we don't know exactly what happened. But we do know it was not at all what they said it was. All three buildings were most definitely brought down by controlled demolitions. This much can no longer be denied. The rest of the story remains to be deciphered by a real investigation.
actually, more & more are starting to speak out
...about 911, how the official story makes absolutely no sense.
check out www.whatreallyhappened.co... for a link to tons of articles on the topic.
i remember reading just in the past week or two about 7 CIA agents who are now coming out to say the official story is "ridiculous" etc.
You have commercial airline pilots, firemen who were on the scene, engineers, many people speaking out... gosh, a ton of material out.
But let's just say it was NOT an inside job -- then why in the heck is the US govt covering it up? no independent investigation, getting rid of crime scene evidence, so many suspicious moves. And why then did we stop pursuing bin Laden and lie about Iraq's connection to 911?
Yeah, people can keep a secret (how do all the secret service agents not tell the world all they witness? and the domestic help? and all the other staffers etc? think back to Monica Lewinsky just to mention one silly scandal). Not so hard to keep mum if people believe their families, friends could be harmed, their careers destroyed, their lives shattered, esp. knowing they might not have enough proof, may not be believe, may be set up to take a fall etc.
Anyhow, don't want to take the focus off RP. He knows the Iraq war was based on bad information (to put it mildly) and knows we are making more enemies now than ever before.
I agree that the WOT is about controlling us, not Muslim men
I agree the War on Terror is being used to take our own freedoms away. I know this more than most. I live in Europe but the feminists in Congress have taken away my right to say hello to a European woman online via the IMBRA law that says I have to be background checked first.
Nobdy in Congress will listen to a male veteran who complains of an anti-male law.
Well feminism was bankrolled
Well feminism was bankrolled by the Rockefeller family. Check out Aaron Russo. It was designed to remove the mothers from the children so the state could raise and indoctrinate the next generation. it was also intended to double or nearly double the income tax revenues.
Anyway, Ron Paul says from time to time we were bombing Iran for ten years under the Clinton administration before we invaded. And also we had a military base in Saudi Arabia.
Now understand Saudi land is holy land to all Islam. Understand the Saudi Royal Family is not popular among many Islamics and Saudis in particular. The Royal family made a deal with the U.S. state dept. contrary to the will of the people of Saudi Arabia. So then goes the argument "they" attacked us because we were squatting not on just any land but on their holy land and using it as a staging area to bomb neighboring Iraq. A lot of those bombs didn't hit exactly where they were intended to hit. They killed innocent Islamic people. After ten years such a situation gets really old. I know you can understand that.
Our foreign policy has been determined by those who do not have the best interest of the United States at heart. For many many years. Learn about false flags and overseas cia sponsored coups to put corrupt regimes in power. read about what the cia did in Iran in 1953. Learn that the Gulf of Tonkin incident was a lie. Learn how LBJ was willing to let everyone on the U.S.S. Liberty die to start a war by deception.
People in the United States for the most part trust the mainstream media to alert them to serious conditions especially within our borders. This trust has been deliberately betrayed for many many years.
Osama had very little to do
Osama had very little to do with the attacks. The real terrorist threat is the threat of another false flag from people inside the beltway. The actual terrorists are in Washington D.C.
It amazes me that even some Ron Paul supporters.. supposedly the most web savvy politicos in the country could continue to believe we were attacked by a bunch of camel riders brandishing boxcutters.
9/11 was an inside job. Research it for yourselves and stop talking like we are at war with Arabic terrorists. Ron Paul has to pretend not to believe it but of course he knows it is true. He's got a hard job to do only saying publicly what the sheeple can stand to hear..
You Win Us Pro-War Vets by Not Talking About Iraq Much At All
My organization consists partly of men actually fighting in Iraq now (I served in the Cold War when there was not much shooting).
They are for Ron Paul because they expect him to stop wasteful spending for special interest groups like the NOW (yes, George Bush supports the NOW) and to work to repeal IMBRA and other Internet Regulation that might not already be overturned by the courts in 2009.
The less one accuses these volunteers of "making a mistake" the better.
The military vote is largely for Ron Paul because of his pro-Constitution attitude.
Every time someone at HQ thinks "I want to make a statement about Iraq," they should instead make a statement about some corrupt Congressman who just took another $20K to place an earmark on a Trillion dollar appropriations bill.
This is not to say I don't respect others' opinions about the Iraq War. It is just, if you are going to win over the pro-war Republicans, the best strategy is to talk about anything but Iraq.
Nobody is going to convince many more on the right anymore on their opinion of Iraq. It is mostly history. It is winding down. I served on German bases 40 years after the invasion of Germany. For all I care, there could be soldiers like me on Iraqi desert bases in 2045.
The war doesn't take away from my rights the way Internet regulation does.
To win the presidency, Ron Paul has to appeal to individual self interest. It is liberal to try to appeal to humanitarianism or "the common good".
If one must stress the Iraq War, it should be regarding the cronyism and huge profits for the friends of politicians who MIGHT want to see the war go on forever to increase their cash flow.
Your post IS what the
Your post IS what the hardcore want to hear, however Dr. Paul has stated that we ought not to be "prancing about the world buiding an empire".
Protect America from Islamist extremism... get out of their houses!
Think about Iran for a minute and look at the map. Look where we have troops. UAE, Quatar, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Turkey. Hell, we have Iran surrounded! If I were them I would be doing a little saber rattling, condemning the nation that surrounds me, and looking for any ally or weapon I could find to protect myself.
Imagine if China was in Mexico, Canada, Greenland, Cuba, Haiti, and Equador and you begin to understand....
Keeping it simple
I think the key is to keep it as simple as possible. Something like "I am not against using force when it is needed, believe me as President I will protect this great nation of ours. But as it has been made apparent, the Iraq war has been a big mistake and it is in our nation's best interest to correct that mistake, not make it worse"
The pro-Iraq-war people have made it sound anti-American to be opposed to the war, so I think one needs to speak of their love for this great country of ours to make it clear that they want the best for America and want us to return to what made us so great.
Also, the pro-war people think the anti-war people are ignorant about the real threats to us around the world. They are worried that some puss will be in control, too afraid to do anything. I think it would be wise to acknowledge that there are real threats, and they will be taken seriously, but that we must also be cautious when using force because it could lead to disasters like Iraq and stir up more problems than we had to begin with.
An excelent set of talking
An excelent set of talking points, with two exceptions: lose the bit about oil companies and "the military industrial complex". The first term makes you sound to reactionary red staters like you are against Capitalism, and the second term will get you labeled a leftist Oliver Stone type.
You might also want to change the bit about overthrowing the government in Afghanistan, since I don't think that is Dr. Paul's stance. Rather, I would simply say he wants to pursue the terrorists, hunt them down, etc.
just me popping in....
so...on this other post someone mentioned how the term "jihadist" has been made into a negative title....and I get it...after all...it WAS the word that Bin Laden used himself....
But, if it really DOES mean a "good" thing to all the regular Muslims in the world...maybe we are sending a mixed message?
Think I recall hearing the term "Islamic Radicals" somewhere....I dunno...
but I do know words are very powerful. Anyone have any ideas on this...cause I love this thread for pointing out that Dr. Paul was totally on board for getting Bin Laden...but I also want to make sure I'm not making Bin Laden's actions sound good or anything by using a word that very well might mean "hero" or "patriot" by our standards....
I NEVER heard the word before the MSM fed it to me...and we all know we can't trust their dictionary....
Definition of Jihad?
As I understand it, "jihad" means something akin to the Christian cross to bear or, in general terms, a spiritual mission or journey.
Here is a very simple way to
Here is a very simple way to "compromise" and win some of the pro-war folks:
I recommend that Dr. Paul (President Paul) gives the Iraqi government an ultimatum to implement what they are supposed to do so that the three factions there can work together to help re-build their country, otherwise we start packing the troops and our embassy staff in 90 days with no extension. We can always take care of our interest from our carriers in the region; and we have to be tough! This will actually give us a better position to vigorously defend our interest in the region without having troops on the ground.
If the Iraqi government does meet all of our demands within 90 days, we will gradually start packing to leave anyway since they will be able to take care of their country. We will leave our embassy staff and some security personnel there.
This is a win-win situation. I hope that RP will follow this line of withdrawal and discuss it during the campaign. You just can’t leave on a moment notice, and he mentioned it several times. He said it will take up to a year to withdraw anyway.
Good idea, but...
Don't you think this is a bit contradictory as far as what Ron has said in the past and what he stands for? He said something like "if we're going to war, then we should do it legally, fight it, win it, and get it over with, but don't drag it out since we can't police the world" a few months ago. Even though the good doctor voted "yes" for the war in Afghanistan, don't you think such a proposal to breathe life back into Afghanistan goes against the aforementioned? Hopefully I'm making sense, it's past my bedtime...
I'm not trying to drag anyone down here, but I see this as not being the best way to win the hearts of the pro-war guys. Most of them believe we should continue screwing around in Iraq anyway, for whatever reason(s). I personally feel we should focus more on the undecided voters and the lefties/Democrats.
This is just me and what I
This is just me and what I would do if I were Paul (I dont think he would ever do this)
I would say in a debate or advertisement the following:
My fellow Americans, we are embroiled in a war which I was against from the start, and I because it was never declared, If elected I will do the following: 1st - I will go straight to the congress seeking a declaration of war against Iraq, so that we may complete the war constitutionally, and if the congress does not grant me that declaration, then I will have no choice but to pull our troops from the region immediately.
If nothing else it might get people thinking.
Extremism in the defense of Liberty is no vice.
This is the way!
I can see this as a perfectly do-able solution and would love to see/hear RP take this stance. I liked a lot of the original post other than telling people that RP would "go after" terrorists - that would mean more foreign intervention, and considering the broad definition of "terrorist" these days, I don't care much for that terminology at all.
not necessarily intervention, esp in the current sense
but, as Paul submitted as an alternative to our current military embroglio, letters of marque and reprimand (pay bounty-hunters or sanction privateers' to keep wealth found while hunting individuals found (by congress) to be responsible. Also, we could have increased funding to Interpol and sent off a cadre of law enforcement officers to help (per Interpol's terms of use.)
alternative, more useful defense appropriations
like, for instance rebuilding our navy to meet the coming Chinese 1,000 ship fleet. Our navy's current long run outlook has us settling at around 240 ships, down from ~600 under Reagan. The neocons are content to join the Law of the Sea treaty and rely on other nations for our defense.
Tbh..
No country in their RIGHT / sane minds is ever going to invade the US. Not even a consideration. Even if they have superior air power / land / military - what are they going to do? Occupy the United States? hahah. They'd be fighting to gain control of the beaches, and even then - every turn around a corner, theres another US citizen exercising their second amendment & defending their home land.... besides this, if the US was declared war on (invasion) [by a country / state / nation] not a mythical terrorist organization... and if in this instance, contrary to all other times of US war (bar WWII - pearl harbour) they'd have a real reason to be righteous. Countries would come to the US's aid. You guys helped save us from the Japanese in ww2. So basically, like we are still helping out in Iraq / Afghanistan, we'd do what we can to help you guys out, should it ever come to that [which it won't] - I hope.
Good fences make good neighbors
or so said Frost. I appreciate your sentiment, but would prefer we kept our navy up to snuff anyways for a variety of reasons.
1. Pirates. No, i'm not joking. The media just aren't reporting that piracy is at an all time high. Which it is. Thanks to the way we feel it necessary to cart expensive goods across the globe incessantly (Can you name the last time you bought a piece of electronics made in America (or your country)? And it's lucrative for the pirates, who could be, i don't know, criminals in other regards as well, like perhaps having a desire to blow up innocent people elsewhere.
2. To keep the industrial base up. America has very few operating shipyards left, and many of those are operated as private concerns by foreign nations. E.g. the Philadelphia naval shipyard is operated as a commercial dry dock by Kvaerner, a Dutch or nordic company. Nothing wrong with that particular instance, but as a trend it impinges on our eventual ability to provide the dominating technological capabilities much beyond 2020. Also, as a bargain shopper, I'd rather the government pay $20B and get 60 submarines than pay $15B to get 20. Or whatever the actuals are.
3. Historically, and as embodied in the constitution, there are few (no) limits placed on the size of the navy. On the other hand, until WWI we had a great tradition of having fewer than 30,000 in the standing army (a small standing army *is* called for in the constitution.) Aside from the liberty preserving nature of a small army, it is far easier to raise an army than it is to build out a navy, as we found to our chagrin in WWII. (I'm sorry, but concrete Liberty ships are a poor freighter, even if they are fast to build and cheap. So, in the unlikely event that we are attacked by a nation-state, we will have the navy and be able to devote attention to raising an army. It's just prudence.
4. To address the probability of a nation-state attacking the US, I look at it as a potential long-term eventuality that may be forced on us (indirectly) by our weakening economy and vanishing manufacturing base, just as those factors are contributing to the downfall of the dollar and increased reticence of Chinese vendors to make goods to our standards.
There are many in the US that think the Chinese *need* to send us their manufactured goods. That somehow the dollar is manna or some such and has inherent value, no matter how much the government "prints." Sane people know differently and the markets are beginning to tell the tale. We have spent the equity (wealth) our forebearers have built up in real terms, and in terms of the dollar "brand."
If we as a nation and as individuals, for whatever reason, continue down the spending spree we're on, some other nation is likely to see an opportunity to capture our natural wealth, just as Hitler wanted to make the US a food producing colony for Germany. I have no faith that our representatives will stop spending recklessly, and I have little faith that we as individuals will do so either, until it is too late. As evidenced by our mortgage issues, it is clear that we cannot look to the business sector to act responsibly, especially with government intervention to "save the economy" likely. It's too easy and too lucrative to game the system.
So, in conclusion, a navy is something that is generally useful and defensive in nature, especially when air and land capability is withheld from the list of available options. It promotes free trade by ensuring open trade routes. I appreciate and honor our European and other friends, but I also share Paul's belief in the adherence to a Jeffersonian foreign policy absent entangling alliances. E.g. when the British had to deal with Argentina invading the Falklands, we were unable to come to the defense of either side due to our alliances with both (NATO and Rio treaty). Ironically, I think each treaty called for us to defend one side, so technically we failed both treaties. What a mess.
Very well said
Copperhead, that post is right on the nosy. I hope RPHQ is making note of that. Ron Paul must not be made into the image of a pacifist by the neocons.
Remember, Dr. Paul takes his marching orders from The Constitution, not al-qaeda. Time to refresh the country's collective memory on what Marque and Reprisal means.
You might also point out
that with all the "saber rattling" that the neo-cons are doing about the assistance that Iran is giving to the shi'a militias, no mention is made about the equal, if not greater, assistance that the Saudis are giving to the sunni militias. The simple truth is that our military is caught in an escalating conflict between two factions of Islam and should not be there.
true, but...
I agree, but my real goal (and the words aren't really important...) is to convince the republican base that Dr. Paul isn't a "head in the sand" idealist, and to convince the voters that he does have the qualifications to be commander-in-chief of the military.
While your points are legitimate, it's hard to education people on geopolitics in a thirty second spot, but it is possible to show people that he's not anti-military. Heck, he could even mention his time in the air force (Maybe at the end say, "As a former member of the air force, I understand the strength and value of our military, and promise to support their mission to defend America and our Constitution.")
Just saw this
Looks like Paul is trying to get out ahead of this:
http://www.jacksonholesta...
notice he makes sure to mention he's not a pacifist.
Great idea, the war is only getting more unpopular and former supporters will be looking for way to leave and remain "strong on defense"
good idea
...