Sure, and I'll keep it simple. Both were/are political dividers (even though Perot was third party, Paul still essentially is too)with sincere, but misguided (IMO) supporters, who have/had zero chance of being elected but could/did contribute to the election of the "other" side's nominee.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Why pro-war conservatives should support Paul
- Thread starter GoSlash27
- Start date
Unregistered
Moderator
How does Ron Paul running in the Republican Primary contribute to a Democratic victory in the General Election???
Why is Ron Paul "essentially" a third party candidate, when he is serving in the US House as a Republican, and is running as a Republican?
Why is Ron Paul "essentially" a third party candidate, when he is serving in the US House as a Republican, and is running as a Republican?
cool hand luke 22:36
New member
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
According to Rasmussen, only 26% of Americans polled want to see an immediate pullout.
57% want to stay for about another year but want that to be a limit.
From Rasmussen:
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/pub..._events/the_war_in_iraq/iraq_troop_withdrawalTwenty-six percent (26%) now want the troops brought home immediately. That’s unchanged from a week ago.
Looking at the other end of the spectrum, 33% now want troops to remain in Iraq until the mission is complete. That’s down two points from a week ago.
Many more people want us to stay indefinitely, than want an immediate pullout.
Repeat your false assertions all you like. In fact that is the tactic used to bring about the litany of fictionous beliefs I refereed to. Repeat bunk to those less diligent to find facts and they think it's true.
Repeating your false assertions do not make then true. Pro-war conservatives should not vote for Paul based on the sophistry you presented(they may or may not have other reasons. I don't wish to disparage Ron Paul).
The electorate does see the success and does want this concluded. The shortest path to a conclusion at this time is to let the success in Iraq reach fruition. As the poll showed precipitous pull out isn't the desire (except for among some Democrats).
Repeat the fiction that has been repeated to you all you like. There is no fact based credibility in it and credibility would require there be.
As the premise of this thread has been laid to rest, the Iraq situation is more appropriately debated on topic here.
Repeating your false assertions do not make then true. Pro-war conservatives should not vote for Paul based on the sophistry you presented(they may or may not have other reasons. I don't wish to disparage Ron Paul).
The electorate does see the success and does want this concluded. The shortest path to a conclusion at this time is to let the success in Iraq reach fruition. As the poll showed precipitous pull out isn't the desire (except for among some Democrats).
Repeat the fiction that has been repeated to you all you like. There is no fact based credibility in it and credibility would require there be.
As the premise of this thread has been laid to rest, the Iraq situation is more appropriately debated on topic here.
cool hand luke 22:36
New member
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.
The election is a long ways off. If Hillary is the nominee for the Democrats, then there is hope. She has a tremendous amount of baggage that an articulate conservative candidate like Huckabee or Thomas could exploit.
If the war in Iraq is going as well in August-November of 2008 as it is right now it might not be the main issue that concerns voters.
If the war is going well, if the troops are beginning to come home, if we stay out of recession, if the Republicans nominate an articulate candidate that the base can get behind, and if the Democrats nominate Clinton or Obama, the Republicans could win.
Last edited:
orionengnr
New member
Well, if you believe that 42% equals "Three out of four" then your problems go above and beyond understanding the political climate...
One thing I note is that when the question is worded "Do you approve of the way the war is being handled?" will draw "No" responses from both the people opposed to the war as well as people who believe that we are not pursuing victory with any zeal.
FWIW, I fall into the latter category, as do most people I associate with (mostly veterans)...
One thing I note is that when the question is worded "Do you approve of the way the war is being handled?" will draw "No" responses from both the people opposed to the war as well as people who believe that we are not pursuing victory with any zeal.
FWIW, I fall into the latter category, as do most people I associate with (mostly veterans)...
Orionengnr,
I was in that same category for a long time too. Abizaid simply couldn't get the job done. Petraeus however is getting it done. Are you aware of his approach? The 'surge' is a far more in depth strategy then just increasing the troop count. I made a very brief summary here. It is the same plan he presented at his unanimous Senate confirmation hearings and his report to Congress. The more you look into not only what he is doing but why it is working the more you can see the real depth of understanding this General has of the cultures of the region. The plan is actually quite brilliant. But few are diligent to the facts to even know what it is so they would know why it works.
The gains he has made are empirical. And it is becoming apparent that if the Congress wouldn't have been so obstructionist in giving this General the resources he needed to implement the plan he was unanimously confirmed to implement we would have alot less honored dead. He was confirmed in January 06' and didn't get what he needed until June. Effects were immediate as August until present have been steady, consistent progress. The period from January until then while the Congress tried to assure failure was among the bloodiest since the war began. And they are STILL working to beat that clock right now denying the NOW SUCCEEDING war effort the resources they need. How can the Democrats leading this unpopular obstruction in the face of success avoid responsibility for those lives lost? When this General has what he needs he gets the job done.
I was in that same category for a long time too. Abizaid simply couldn't get the job done. Petraeus however is getting it done. Are you aware of his approach? The 'surge' is a far more in depth strategy then just increasing the troop count. I made a very brief summary here. It is the same plan he presented at his unanimous Senate confirmation hearings and his report to Congress. The more you look into not only what he is doing but why it is working the more you can see the real depth of understanding this General has of the cultures of the region. The plan is actually quite brilliant. But few are diligent to the facts to even know what it is so they would know why it works.
The gains he has made are empirical. And it is becoming apparent that if the Congress wouldn't have been so obstructionist in giving this General the resources he needed to implement the plan he was unanimously confirmed to implement we would have alot less honored dead. He was confirmed in January 06' and didn't get what he needed until June. Effects were immediate as August until present have been steady, consistent progress. The period from January until then while the Congress tried to assure failure was among the bloodiest since the war began. And they are STILL working to beat that clock right now denying the NOW SUCCEEDING war effort the resources they need. How can the Democrats leading this unpopular obstruction in the face of success avoid responsibility for those lives lost? When this General has what he needs he gets the job done.
Bruxley, now Reid has succeeded in causing a funding problem by refusing to put forward a working bridge spending bill.
The troops are going to be short of stuff, they're going to have to use operating budgets to fund the war, and lay off 200,000 military-employed citizens in January as a result.
Reid just tried to scuttle the successes of the war, out of traitorous spite.
Any soldier that dies from running out of ammo or parts, their blood will be on his hands.
The troops are going to be short of stuff, they're going to have to use operating budgets to fund the war, and lay off 200,000 military-employed citizens in January as a result.
Reid just tried to scuttle the successes of the war, out of traitorous spite.
Any soldier that dies from running out of ammo or parts, their blood will be on his hands.
From what you know about the U.S. involvement in Iraq
I think that is the biggest problem, very few people really know what is going on in Iraq. You don't know how many times I have been told by people who have never been to Iraq how bad it is there based on the press and what they read on the internet. But hey what would I know only spending a little under 2 years there serving as a unit commander, staff officer with the Marines and adviser to an Iraqi Army unit.
Unregistered
Moderator
Any soldier that dies from running out of ammo or parts, their blood will be on his hands.
I don't think that blaming Democrats is correct in that situation. If our commanders in the field, and our generals in the pentagon, know that they have inadequate resources to fight with, and they put soldiers into combat any way, then I think they are the ones to blame. They don't need to be trying to fight with inadequate equipment. It doesn't look to me like you need to be a West Point graduate to know that you don't fight unless you have what you need to win.
If the Congress won't fund the war, then the military shouldn't try to fight one.
We're ALREADY fighting. AND we're fighting with the strategy the SENATE (Harry's house) UNANIMOUSLY confirmed this General with and that is SUCCEEDING.If the Congress won't fund the war, then the military shouldn't try to fight one.
Further, if you actually knew what the legislation was, you'd know that this isn't to stop the war via legislation cutting off funding. It APPROVES funding but has the caveat of troop with draws on the DEMOCRAT schedule rather then the unanimously confirmed, STATED schedule of General Petraeus. It's not de-authorization, it's tampering with the success. The Democrat leadership is now accountable for any honored dead that result from lack of resources.
Here is exactly what is going to happen.The next president,probably Hillary or Rudy but no matter,is going to sit down in the oval office and realize they have a large military force sitting in the middle of the lion's share of the most important resource in the world.The one that if it dries up will cause a depression that will make the 30's look like a party.The one that through some group hypnosis the media and government has managed to lead us to believe this war is not about.
Do you think any president, after they say whatever it takes to get elected, is going to give up that control.
Ain't going to happen.Look to have a force determined by conditions in Iraq for many years.
Anybody got the gonads to make a wager with me?
Do you think any president, after they say whatever it takes to get elected, is going to give up that control.
Ain't going to happen.Look to have a force determined by conditions in Iraq for many years.
Anybody got the gonads to make a wager with me?
Unregistered, if (a really big if) Paul made it to the general election he wouldn't have the divisive issue as he'd be the nominee from the Republican Party, of course. I'm, of course, referring to everything that comes before a general election...Paul is not electable as he has too many Libertarian issues even though he runs as a Republican. He is, at best, a marginal national candidate with a limited fan base.
Unregistered
Moderator
I think ZeroJunk is correct. Whether we get a Democrat or Republican, nobody is going to leave Iraq anytime soon.
In the meanwhile, our Generals need to figure out what the best strategy is for the funding they are given. I don't think we can keep giving a blank check for the Iraq War.
In the meanwhile, our Generals need to figure out what the best strategy is for the funding they are given. I don't think we can keep giving a blank check for the Iraq War.
Again, it's not a matter of aproval or amount. Another version of the same legislation that DIDN'T have troop withdraws on the Democrat timetable was voted down the same day. It is about scuttling the success not approving the funds or the amount.
Their actions are summed up by "We'll write the check if you let us run the job into the ground otherwise we'll let you fail for lack of resources."
Their actions are summed up by "We'll write the check if you let us run the job into the ground otherwise we'll let you fail for lack of resources."
Unregistered
Moderator
Well I guess I just see things differently. If I was a General, and Congress refused to give me the money I needed to equip my troops, I would not embark on missions that I did not have the equipment necessary to successfully complete.
I just seems like an assanine battle plan to go into a fight without the equipment and materiel you need to win.
I just seems like an assanine battle plan to go into a fight without the equipment and materiel you need to win.
JuanCarlos
New member
I just seems like an assanine battle plan to go into a fight without the equipment and materiel you need to win.
Or, more accurately, to continue that battle plan. (It was started long ago)
Looks to me like the Democrats have decided that public opinion is in favor of either a timetable for withdrawal, or simply defunding the war and ending it that way. So, they decide to offer the choice of funding with a timetable, or no funding at all. Seems to be within their power, and we'll probably see shortly if A) they have the guts to actually stick to it (I doubt this) and/or B) the American people are actually okay with this plan.
But throwing out words like "traitorous" seems a bit extreme. I guess around here the rhetoric goes up to 11.
Well I guess I just see things differently. If I was a General, and Congress refused to give me the money I needed to equip my troops, I would not embark on missions that I did not have the equipment necessary to successfully complete.
I just seems like an assanine battle plan to go into a fight without the equipment and materiel you need to win.
LOL. The plan was aproved in JAN. '06!! The congress doesn't say look, here's 100 million dollars, come up with a plan that fits that budget okay.
This isn't to fund anything NEW!!
Seems you have this backwards.