Why pro-war conservatives should support Paul

G

GoSlash27

New member
I think that we can all agree that both houses are going more Dem next year. If anybody disputes that it's open for discussion.

The electorate has stated unequivocally that it wants the war to finish. You may disagree with them, but it is evident that the war is the #1 issue this cycle. The Dems have received the lion's share of donations, attendees, supporters.... Ask them why and they will tell you: The war.

Looking at all the public opinion polling, the fact is indisputable: The war is the #1 criteria this year and 3 out of 4 Americans want our troops home. The conclusion from this is inescapable:
The next president of the United States will not be pro-Iraq war. Which also means that any hopes of stabilizing Iraq will end in January 2009 when our new anti-war commander-in-chief is sworn in. In other words, there *is* a hard deadline for the Iraq war. Call it a timeline for surrender or whatever you like...the rhetoric is immaterial. Unless we are collectively hoping that things will somehow be set right within the next year , it's already lost.

So let's be pragmatic for just a second. The Democrats have many possibilities the general electorate will vote for, but the Republicans have only one: Dr. Ron Paul of Texas.

So who do you want to be our next president with overwhelming Dem majorities in both houses? A tax-and-spend anti-gun liberal, or a fiscally conservative pro-gun president who will appoint strict-constructionist Justices?

Unless you want the former, you'd best get on the ball and start pushing Paul hard. Even if you think he's a loony, even if you disagree with his opposition to the war. It's either him or a Dem.
 
Pro war?

How many people are still pro war? The approval for the "war" or more accurately, occupation, of Iraq is down at 36% or lower. This means that even people who watch Fox News dissaprove! Probably because the whole mess has been spin-doctored so many times, nobody knows what the mission is any more.

What is the current mission by the way? Anyone?.....
 
What is the current mission by the way? Anyone?.....
Click to expand...
To stabilize Iraq so as to avoid a regional war in the Middle East.

The longer range mission is to leave a stable and friendly Iraq. If possible, that one will take generations. Leaving a stable Iraq could be done more quickly if we don't care how stability is achieved and if we're willing to try to be friends with another tyrant. Even that will take a while.

No one wants to talk about leaving Kurdistan, Shiiraq, and Sunniraq instead of just leaving Iraq, but that's another possibility.

Pulling out now is a big mistake, IMO. OTOH, it's hard to wage an unpopular war.

It's also hard to wage a war the public doesn't understand. Do they know who the Sunnis are, and that Saudi Arabia is a Sunni country? Do they know who the majority Shiites are, and that Iran is a Shiite country? Do they know who the Kurds are, and where the rest of the Kurds are, and what Turkey thinks of the idea of a Kurdistan?

Even Americans who support the war usually have no clue about all of that. They think it's all about Al Queda. According to the other thread, we have Al Queda on the run in Iraq, and that really shouldn't be very hard to do. You just have to figure out how to unite the tribes in pursuing that goal, and make the people see AlQ as a bigger threat than the US military to their everyday lives.

Great, we can do that, and neutralize Al Queda to a large extent in Iraq. That does help to solve the problem of a stable Iraq. Not having AlQ around blowing stuff up always helps. But the Shiites have not forgotten the recent Sunni regime in Iraq, nor have the Kurds. They're just not going to get along, and their largest and most powerful neighbors don't really want them to get along.

We should leave Iraq because we're tired of staying and we don't support or even understand the problems of occupation and nation building? That may happen, regardless of who is elected. I still think it's a bad idea.

Why should pro war conservatives support Paul? For me, it's about the size and scope of government, and I'm willing to set aside my serious difference with his stated intention to withdraw from Iraq (and cease doing things like defending Taiwan, S. Korea, and dozens of other places where we currently act as the world's policeman). If more join, maybe we can convince Ron Paul to think again on his intention to withdraw from Iraq.
 
Goslash is exactly correct of course. The people WILL put an end-the-war POTUS in office. It can either be a Democrat or Mr. Paul. The only thing it won't be is Bush rubber-stamper on that overarching all-important issue.
 
If you honestly believe what you wrote in that first post, then you might as well accept that our next president will be a Democrat. Because Ron Paul isn't going to draw nearly as many Democratic or "liberal" voters as you might like to think, and he'll turn off a lot on the Republican/"conservative" side as well.
 
Don't know about your world, but in mine, candidates go on radio and TV and do interviews.

I have seen Mitt Romney, Duncan Hunter, Rudy Giuliani, Mike Huckabee and (I believe) John McCain on Glenn Beck's TV show. I have heard or seen most of them and others on various other tv and radio shows.

I have yet to see or hear Ron Paul on tv or radio (outside of the debates, where, in all honesty, he does not come across very well).

If he wants to be taken seriously he needs to get his face out there where people will see it, and get his ideas out there where people can listen to and evaluate them on their merits.

Of course, people on this board have heard of him. Some on this board speak for him, endlessly. :rolleyes:

I (and many others) would like to hear it in his words, from his mouth.

Until he does that, he's irrelevant. Nothing you say or do changes that. Only he can change that. So far, he either doesn't understand that or choses to ignore it.
 
The war is already over. I'm in favor of not abandoning the Iraqi people to die at the hands of madmen, while simultaneously turning the 95% of Iraqis that are for, against us.
 
orionengr,
You must just be watching the wrong channels at the wrong times. He's been on Colbert, Stewart, O'Reilly, Leno, Dobbs, Carlson, PBS Newshour, FOX & Friends, Maher, Kudlow & company, and I'm sure a long, long list of others I've forgotten.
Not that it really has anything to do with the topic at hand, but if you just want to see some interviews all you have to do is search "Ron Paul Interview" on YouTube.

Juan Carlos,
I have accepted the fact that even Dr. Paul has an uphill battle this cycle. Have you accepted that the other Republicans have no chance at all?
 
If you look at sources other than the MSM, defeatist democrats and Paul, real progress is being made in Iraq, things are getting better.

Try talking to an ACTUAL SOLDIER.

The war is the #1 criteria this year and 3 out of 4 Americans want our troops home.
Click to expand...

Cite this poll. I call unmitigated BS on that claim otherwise. And the last time Paul said it, the reaction was "BOOOOOOO!"

Unless you want the former, you'd best get on the ball and start pushing Paul hard. Even if you think he's a loony, even if you disagree with his opposition to the war. It's either him or a Dem.
Click to expand...

GoSlash, the ridiculousness of your wild, completely unsubstantiated and unsupported arguments with no citations has now officially gone beyond left field and out of the park, over the rainbow to someplace very special where everyone holds hands in padded rooms.

Who ARE you trying to convince? Yourself?
 
g-cym,
That's my point. It doesn't really matter what you want anymore. Sorry for potting it so bluntly, but there it is.
No matter how badly you want this war to work out, unless it is going swimmingly (and more importantly the general electorate recognizes it as such) by one year from today you have absolutely no choice in the matter because the next president will be anti-war.
 
The facts available don't jive with your assertions GoSlash. Polls show a different public sentiment.

I think that we can all agree that both houses are going more Dem next year. If anybody disputes that it's open for discussion.
Click to expand...

From GALLUP (not Fox, CNN, USA Today, etc.)
Americans Disapointed

Bottom Line

Democrats took power in January 2007 with a pre-scripted agenda for what they would accomplish in the first 100 legislative hours, but also offering the customary promises about working in a bipartisan fashion to do the nation’s business. At the time, 37% of Republicans and 39% of Democrats approved of the job Congress as a whole was doing. As of October, only 25% of Republicans and 26% of Democrats approve.

The data reviewed above indicate some of the causes for today’s depressed ratings. Of the major issues Congress has wrestled with this session, Iraq and immigration appear to be producing the most flak for congressional Democrats, with a majority of rank-and-file Democrats as well as Republicans generally critical of their job performance. The Democrats’ taking a stand on these issues, and then failing to deliver, has produced substantial bipartisan irritation with Congress.
Click to expand...

The electorate DOES want the war concluded as you asserted. But is AGAINST pulling out. They result they want is SUCCESS. The desire to have the war concluded has been twisted into a desire to pull out by Democrat leadership. Your 3 out of 4 (75%) is WAY WAY out of proportion.

Again from GALLUP

And finally:
Looking at all the public opinion polling, the fact is indisputable: The war is the #1 criteria this year and 3 out of 4 Americans want our troops home. The conclusion from this is inescapable:
The next president of the United States will not be pro-Iraq war. Which also means that any hopes of stabilizing Iraq will end in January 2009 when our new anti-war commander-in-chief is sworn in. In other words, there *is* a hard deadline for the Iraq war. Call it a timeline for surrender or whatever you like...the rhetoric is immaterial. Unless we are collectively hoping that things will somehow be set right within the next year , it's already lost.
Click to expand...
The 3 out 4 ratio having already debunked above I'll address your next premise that the next President will be a Democrat. Given that Hillary is almost the ASSURED Democrat nominee and her being covertly PRO-WAR (she does continue to vote for legislation after all, and has stated in a debate he would have combat troops in Iraq at the end of her first term, AND has eluded to 'the new war' more then a few times) if you believe for a SECOND she is going to let a defeat there happen on her record your sorely mistaken.

The clock IS ticking. To get a defeat n BEFORE Bush leaves office. There is a critical political need for it. Democrats just today voted down war funding in Iraq in the face of indisputable progress there.

The clincher that completely breaks down your assertion that pro-war conservatives should support Ron Paul is that he has stated directly that he would "just bring them home" immediately and consequences be damned in a debate.


The inaccuracies and false premises you used to draw a deceiving conclusion are the definition of sophistry. This kind of 'anti-logical' wordplay is what contributes to political frustrations. Those less then diligent to find facts are being led to believe such non-sense in mass and believe a litany of absolute fiction due to it.

Ones biases are revealed by the adjectives you use, ones credibility is revealed by the use of facts , and your ability to reason is revealed by ones ability to connect facts. Work off this premise and your posts won't be so easily disseminated in the future.

Feel free to quote me some more in your sig as you wish should you find some of this as profound as you did what's there now.
 
Bruxley, how dare you cite actual real-world Gallup poll results to challenge wild allegations from a Paul enthusiast. Don't you know that that's against their rules?
;)

Facts bad! Panicky left-field allegations good!
 
Looking at all the public opinion polling, the fact is indisputable: The war is the #1 criteria this year and 3 out of 4 Americans want our troops home.
Click to expand...

That's far from the whole story.

Most Americans oppose a precipitous withdrawal from Iraq and recognize that the troop surge has worked to improve the situation there significantly.

Most American's, if they had any awareness of Ron Paul, would reject his call for an immediate pullout of US forces from Iraq.
 
If you honestly believe what you wrote in that first post, then you might as well accept that our next president will be a Democrat. Because Ron Paul isn't going to draw nearly as many Democratic or "liberal" voters as you might like to think
Click to expand...

Agreed. How many Liberal voters are going to vote for Ron Paul when they find out he wants to end thier pet programs like Medicare, Medicaid, the Dept. of Education, etc.
 
Agreed. How many Liberal voters are going to vote for Ron Paul when they find out he wants to end thier pet programs like Medicare, Medicaid, the Dept. of Education, etc.
Click to expand...

Oh, there's that. There's also that liberals in general aren't in favor of isolationism. Educated liberals have generally taken some history courses, and maybe some economics courses, and while I'll not argue the merits of either side let's just say there's some controversy over whether a return to the gold standard is a sensible idea. Liberals are going to want to hear much better explanations regarding some of the issues with those old newsletters. Liberals hear the idea of returning to what are essentially letters of marque and their first reaction is "WTF?"

He has a few positions that might be interesting to the more liberal set, including some Democratic voters. Unfortunately, he also has quite a few that are going to scare them off once they look a little deeper. The anti-war position and at least some level of social libertarianism on the surface aren't going to be nearly enough to convince them to vote for him once they start digging any deeper.
 
Bruxley,
Manedwolf's snide post aside, from the poll you cited:

Similarly, the Democrats’ failure to force President Bush to pull out of Iraq, or at least to support a timetable for withdrawing troops, perhaps explains why 17% of Democrats are angry with congressional Democrats on the Iraq issue. (note 17% is the differential between Dem and GOP.
Click to expand...


Additional polling supporting my assertion HERE

and I
"Do you think the U.S. should keep military troops in Iraq until the situation has stabilized, or do you think the U.S. should bring its troops home as soon as possible?"

.

Keep in
Iraq Until
Stabilized 42%
Bring Home
As Soon as
Possible 54%
Unsure 4%

"From what you know about the U.S. involvement in Iraq, how much longer would you be willing to have large numbers of U.S. troops remain in Iraq: less than a year, one to two years, two to five years or longer than five years?"

<1 45%
1-2 27%
2-5 12%
>5 5%
Unsure 11%

And most damning of all

"Which political party -- the Democrats or the Republicans -- do you trust to do a better job handling the situation in Iraq?" Options rotated

Democrats 50%
Republicans 34%
Click to expand...

I repeat: They want out. If you can find a poll that says they'd rather stay than pull out precipitously (as you have claimed as fact) then by all means please share.

In the mean time, it'd really be in your best interest to get your head out of the sand and recognize what you're up against.
This is what they're concerned about and I can guarantee you they're gonna take this opinion into the polling booth next year if things don't turn around.

Furthermore, you presented a fallacy in the attempt to attack my assertion that both houses are going more Dem next year. Look at the vulnerable seats on both sides. Look at who has the war chest to campaign and who doesn't. Refer back to the poll results I have quoted above. Do the math.
Yeah, they're disappointed. Doesn't mean they're voting Republican, buddy.

Somebody in the peanut gallery said something about left-field assertions and citing polls?


cool hand luke,
He will draw some. He will scare some away. This is a vast improvement over all the other Republican choices who will draw none and scare *all* of 'em away.
 
I repeat:
Support a pro-war candidate if you insist, but it's going to cost you the election which is going to lose you the war anyway. It's also going to lose you any hope of countering the liberal agenda lumbering down the tracks.
Better wise up before it's too late.
 
Paul is akin to this election cycle's H. Ross Perot, IMO...just, less-pronounced ears and fewer graphs.

:D

You can quote me on that!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top