what would Ron Paul as president do....
Submitted by krazypolitico on Sun, 01/06/2008 - 16:36
The primaries for my state are approaching and I am in the process of making my final decision as to who I will support.
Could someone please explain or point me to a place that I can find a straight answer, from Paul if possible and not opinion, as to what Ron Paul would do in the event that the United States had another attack of the scale of the 9/11/2001 attacks?
I get that we should not be over there, I get the idea that many folks do no believe that there is a threat. I disagree with both ideas but, I am willing to overlook them. Thanks in advance for the help.
»
At least we would have enough troops to respond.
We would have 600,000 troops ready to go if Dr. Paul was president instead of having them spread out policing the world. That in itself is a pretty good deterent. And he would only go when Congress actually debates and declares war.
Dr. Paul voted for going into Afghanistan after Bin Laden...
... unfortunately, actually capturing him would have put a kink in Bush and company's war plans so Bin Laden was allowed to escape several times.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3NbQiSQFFh0
"These are the times that try men's souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country; but he that stands it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman." -Thomas Paine
Constitution response
If appropriate and an attack was supported by a government, he would have Congress declare war as it is supposed to do. No back-door wars.
He Would Respond Appropriately
Responding is different from reacting. The latter does not involve thoughtful reflection upon all aspects of a situation and guidance by a firm set of timeless principles. None of the other candidates from my perspective have a consciously well understood set of principles in order to help guide them through such tough situations. In fact, judging by last night's debate, the others demonstrated they don't seem to even understand what is meant by the term "principles" in response to the moderator's great question about what principles they rely on for guidance. Dr. Paul's judgement is superior to the others and has helped him wade through the sea of garbage in Washington D.C. and emerge without the same stench that clings to all of his rivals.
.
.
The clearest thing I can point to about that
is the concept of letters of "Marque and Reprisal" that he attempted to introduce as legislation in the House of Representatives. Certainly there should be consequences when we are attacked, but those consequences should be targeted at the offenders and not just other nations in general as we have done. There is no connection between Iraq and the events of 911 and we had no justification for our attack on that country. That Afghanistan was aiding and abetting Al Quaida was readily apparent, but we still should have limited our response to the actual perpetrators. Still, it should be noted that Dr. Paul voted in favor of the legislation to go after them, he just didn't know it would be used as an excuse for an exercise in nation building. I would suggest his book "A Foreign Policy of Freedom" which would explain his views very well and show that they have been consistent for over 30 years. Some of the speeches he gave many years ago are nearly prescient in describing the problems our foreign policy would create in coming years. We have the military and intelligence capabilities to surgically remove those who would commit such acts against us and it would be better to use the surgical precision of those capabilities than inflicting the blunt force trauma as we are now doing. Meanwhile, look at what we have "accomplished" in Pakistan and remember that it was a CIA engineered coup that brought the dictator du jour to power there. Now, over 80% of the Pakistani people believe that Musharref is a US puppet and we are looking at a strong possibility of blow back there like we experienced with Iran when the Shah was overthrown. This is a more critical issue for they have 60 nuclear weapons and our military is stretched too thin for any type of response other than a strategic air attack. So, what makes any one think that when interventionism is causing our problems, that more of the same will solve them?
x
x
Re: what would Ron Paul as president do....
Hi Krazypolitico
From Studying Dr. Paul positions and voting record, he would seek authorization from Congress to hunt down and capture/kill the people responsible wherever they are.
This is based on what he did after 9/11. He supported going after Osama Bin Laden in Afghanistan.
Email me at iamtheavatar@gmail.com and we can discuss further or just reply back on the thread if you like.
I'd like to hear who you are planning to support and discuss Ron Paul's positions on the issues that are important to you.