9 votes

A discussion with Teo-Con on Ron Paul's Foreign Policy.

In a discussion over the Al-Awaiki assination I recieved this response from a Tea Party guy I know.

"Well, honestly, I believe democrats have no respect for constitution and believe in complete government control. If bush did it, the press would go crazy. Like I said, i agree with Ron Paul on alot but I feel he doesnt show sympathy when he talks about 9/11 victims. I understand his positions but he makes it sound like they deserved it. Personally, I like Ron Paul much better than someone like a Michele Bachmann."



I want to take the opportunity to point out something I think is very telling, as to why Ron Pauls Foreign Policy doesnt seem to resonate with everyone. Notice what this Tea Partier said;



"I feel he doesnt show sympathy when he talks about 9/11 victims. I understand his positions but he makes it sound like they deserved it."



I made the point about sympathy and the perception that Paul sometimes tries to justify the attacks of 9/11 a few weeks ago on another thread. We have to realize that perception can be reality. Paul needs to adjust his message on foreign policy.


When discussing the causes of suicide terrorism Paul MUST STATE UP FRONT that he has the greatest sympathy for the victims of these attacks, and that he voted for the use of military force to get those responsible. He must also be clear that AS PRESIDENT, he would do whatever it takes to keep the American people safe in so long as it abides by the Constitution.



I believe that adding this to the script on foreign policy may help him resonate more favorably with the Republican Primary Voter.

P.s. Someone send this to Jesse Benton.



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

showing sympathy

For the victims doesnt change his message or the facts. The problem is people refuse to hear the facts about Suicide Terrorism because they percieve Paul to be Justifying the attacks. So what good is it to spit out truth if no one will listen? He needs to defuse the idea that he is justifying the attacks first, show sympathy, and then continue to the facts and evidence on suicide terrorism. Perception is reality alot of times....we need to refine the message, not the material.

No, he doesn't need to..

drape himself in an american flag and shed alligator tears over the people who were murdered on 9/11 like the rest of those god-damned charlatans.

He needs to do what he did in the election cycle last cycle. Give the fucking morons a god damned history lesson, ask some hypothetical questions, and then round house kick their brains with some philosophy.

He needs to tell the story of how the United States overthrew the democratically elected government of Iran, point out we've spent billions of dollars propping up dictatorial regimes across the region (Egypt, Pakistan, Iraq (before Bush the 1st took office), etc ) and has been generally fucking with everyone in the that portion of the world ever since WWII.

Then he needs to pose questions to the effect of: 'What the hell would YOU be doing if China came over here and told you what to do, and how to live? What would you do if they started putting military bases on our land?

And then he needs to finish up with something profound and philosophical that sets him apart from the other candidates-- a teaser to how he's different from the rest of the fucktards on the stage.

Something to the effect of:
'We'd be furious. Its disingenuous to pretend otherwise, and its absolute madness to ignore that simple truth when devising our foreign policy. For too long there has been a disconnect between the ideals upon which this country was founded, and the way we interact with the the rest of the world.

We no longer have legitimate public debate before we go to war, when we do go we don't bother to declare it, we dabble in clandestine operations, coups, provide tacit support for brutal regimes and religious radicals: that's the heart of the issue-- time and time again we've lowered the bar. As the years have gone by our legislature has abandoned its responsibility, ceded more and more power to the executive branch and the CIA. The result has been disastrous.

I don't blame those whom were murdered. I don't blame the American people. I blame those who committed the act. I blame the process and the policy we've had for the past half a century. Violence begets violence it should never be used except as a last resort, and all other alternatives must be exhausted. Washington too often has taken the path of least resistance, the politically expedient route. The result? For the past 50 years our foreign policy in the middle east has been one of violence and hypocrisy.

Its time for a real change. Its time to give this country the foreign policy it deserves and go back to leading as we always should have: not by the virtue of our strength, but by the strength of our virtues.

Ron Paul isn't criticizing

Ron Paul isn't criticizing the 9/11 victims. He's criticizing the policy-makers that handed terrorists a reason to kill those victims. These are two different groups of people. His position shows the -most- sympathy for those who were killed, because he recognizes that they are -victims- of a corrupt government's foreign policy and the unrest that it creates around the world.

LISTEN UP! Ask him to view two things...

1st Robert Pape's presentation entitled "Dying To Win". Then ask him to watch the old Swayze/Sheen film "Red Dawn".

From that point on, you'll stand on common ground in your knowledge of what is going on and he will be disarmed for the most part...except for that damn belief system...sometime old neural networks are hard to defeat. This is a good weapon...no...a great weapon in the fight to awaken the citizens of the Republic of Dumbf#@kistan.

Wha? .....hey....who stole my country?

I had a discussion with a Teo-Con just a bit ago on FB

And he said, while he agrees about the Fed and that stuff, he can't ever support RP due to his "naivete" concerning the "radical Muslim threat"/Iran with a bomb. He went on about how Obama would be down with either socialist totalitarianism or Marxist republic under Sharia law.

I forget about that Sharia stuff.

No I don't want Sharia either. I told him that the best defense against socialist totalitarianism or theocracy is a limited gov't, especially a limited federal gov't. I also pointed out that there is no more money for this stuff and that we are going down from within. No response back yet.

We had a previous discussion about the AlWaki guy's assassination. He just didn't see a problem with it at all--just another enemy combatant dead, no worries about how that can come back to haunt us later.

I come up against opponents of his foreign policy all the time.

In fact, in about half the cases it is the ONLY issue causing people to hesitate in supporting him.

Our foreign policy is such a complicated topic. For the last five years I've been reading and watching everything I can---going back to JFK. The more I learn, the more I realize how little I know. Then I think of the couch potato, or the USA! USA! crowd...

To them, with the help of the media, his foreign policy message doesn't quite connect. We have bits and pieces to sell: percent of military campaign contributions, we financially can't afford it, it's gone on too long, etc.
But I find a lot of people can't really wrap their hearts and minds around it. Their perspective is stuck in the Bush years.

We all can fully connect with his policy because we've educated ourselves. Paul has an outstanding record as an educator, but again, this is a very complicated issue and he's got spin to adjust for.

I suspect he'll start growing on people as events unfold. Plus, he's got people like you and me to talk to these TeoCons.

I agree. All he's really

I agree. All he's really saying is that the US government's foreign policy creates the motivation for terrorists to attack us (and makes it much easier for existing terrorists to recruit). Even if this is considered "Blaming the US government" (which it isn't) it in no way means he is blaming America itself, or the American people, and especially those killed in the attacks. The problem is, many people don't think these things through and it does come off to some as if he's saying it's our fault. He needs to express himself better on this issue.

No..and the killing of the Al

No..and the killing of the Al guy SURELY added a bunch of people looking for REVENGE..and while I AM talking about that guy's terrorist followers, I am also talking about those of us who do not like to see people murdered with no trial by our own government.

I'm not sure what the no was

I'm not sure what the no was for ... I agree with what you posted and didn't post anything to the contrary myself

What ever it takes

In so long as it abides by the Constitution.

"It does not take a majority to prevail but rather an irate, tireless minority keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men."

--Samuel Adams

Yes

Naturally

</