Why pro-war conservatives should support Paul

GoSlah, you claim that the Iraq "War" is the #1 priority to Americans, and that they will vote overwhelmingly for a candidate that claims to want to get us out, because the war is going so bad.

That idea is full of errors. First, social issues like taxes and illegal immigration are going to be the key factors of the next election, not the war. That is mainly because we are doing so well. Violence has dropped more than 70% since the surge started, and Al Q is all but driven out of Baghdad(and yes, they were there to begin with). The media, which has been the allies of the left for decades, has downplayed everything about Iraq, simply because it is going well now, and they don't want to give the impression that their friends in Congress were wrong about Bush and wrong about going to war. Simply put, we're winning, so it's not going to be a big issues in the media. And what's not a big issue in the media, is not going to be an issue to America.

This election will be about the S-CHIP bill giving free healthcare to 25 year old "children" who make $82,000 a year but are still "poor., in exchange for votes" This election will be about giving out free benefits, in exchange for votes, to illegals.

Really what it comes down to, is that every move the left makes, is a play to create another block of voters enthralled to them. They do this by offering bribes in the form of programs, at the expense of taxpayers. THAT is what this election will be about. The debate over them Dems bribes-for-votes scheme. Every voting American pretty much has their heart set on their opinion of the war in Iraq. And the Dems know it's not enough to win on alone. They already tried and got hammered. No, this election will be about the goings on at home, not in Iraq.

And when it comes to what happens at home, the GOP has a better plan and better morals hands down. The Dems want to take our rights away. The Reps don't. The Dems want to tax us and give the money to those too lazy to work. The Reps don't. The Dems want to tax us and give the moeny to those who aren't even citizens. The Reps don't. The Dems want to tax us and give the money in the from of grants to "artists" who put a statue of Jesus in a jar of urine. The Reps don't. The Dems want to tax us and give the money to Planned Parenthood, while at the same time making a 12 year old girl still have to get a parent's permission to get aspirin at school from the nurse, but no permission to get an invasive abortion. The Reps don't. The Dems want to make the "social re-education" programs like we saw at U of Delaware, standard and required, courtesy of taxpayer money. The Reps don't. And the Dems don't mind taxing the hell out of every business they can, even if it drives those businesses into the ground or out of the country. The Reps don't This election will be about the warped socialized moral-less view of the world the Dems want to force on us. And how the Reps oppose it.
 
I hate to say this, but there are bits and snatches of many of these posts that have some of the very aspects in which I believe.

Now, here's the big question.

At some future time, the USA will cut Iraq loose due to the cost in American lives, money, investment return, public malaise and mission completion.

When that point in history comes, how do we ensure that our enemies/opponents agree on that same time-line so we can get our troops safely to the border?

Just because we say it's ended, I'm not sure the Iraqis feel that same way. Would any President, be it Hillary, RP or Wildalaska, make much of a difference?
 
GoSlash27 said:
Tourist, Good question, but I believe it's one that'd be best answered in another thread.

Yes, if that question in its entirety is to be debated.

My position is more addressed to our foreign entanglements. In other words, if I say I going to pull the handle for Wildalasks, then it presumes that I believe he and his support staff have an exit strategy--no matter what it is and one in which I agree.

Seriously, when I make that choice and vote, I am also saying in an indirect way that I also agree with Wildy's farm policies.

At this point, my view is more addressed to the candidates in general. I'm not sure I see the tipping point I need for a solid vote.

To address the postulates of this thread, one might make the argument that I am a "pro war" supporter.
 
Pro war?

Benonymous

What is the current mission by the way? Anyone?.....

To make sure that Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia all don't fall under control of enemies of the US, IMO.

If those three countries (plus a few other ME oil producers) all become governed by radical Muslims, then $100/barrel oil will soon become $200/barrel oil, and maybe even $300/barrel oil.
 
sasquatch said:
If those three countries (plus a few other ME oil producers) all become governed by radical Muslims, then $100/barrel oil will soon become $200/barrel oil, and maybe even $300/barrel oil.

If I was a smarmy leftie debater, my linchpin postulate would be that we were told the reason was to find WMD.

Like I said, we might make a singular vote (for the purposes of this debate). That vote also addresses many other issues.

In this case, were we lied to?
 
sasquatch,
Meh...nevermind. Not really relavant to the discussion anyway...

all,
This thread isn't about the relative merits of the war itself, but the interplay between the war and election year politics. You may have any number of reasons for believing that the war is worth fighting. I appreciate that, it's just immaterial.

Everything I'm seeing in the polls tells me that this cycle will be especially hostile to pro-war candidates and Republicans in general. I have seen nothing to make me believe that it's even remotely possible for a pro-war Republican to see the inside of the oval office unless he takes a guided tour.
As such, the outcome of the war is a dead issue. Failure to accede to this reality will only result in the additional loss of any protection from the forthcoming liberal agenda.

This is a high-stakes bet we're in. You're betting your guns, your liberty, and your paycheck on the idea that a pro-war Republican can win. I'm telling you that it's a fool's wager. TIFWIW.
 
Which is exactly why they're vulnerable to Paul.
They have all shown their weaknesses and contradictions on the war. Paul can snatch that anti-war group right out from under them.
And even though they are basically paying lip-service, I guarantee you the general public will vote for that before they vote for any of the other Republican candidates.

The only thing the Democratic candidates have said is that they can't guarantee that they'll have all combat troops out by 2013. This doesn't mean they don't intend to do so, and won't try to do so, just that they're unwilling to commit to do so no matter what.

Which, in politics, is pretty smart..."absolute" statements are pretty easy to attack you on in further elections, even if your reasons for breaking them are pretty reasonable.

I mean, say things suddenly turn to rainbows and kittens over there in the next year or so, casualties go down dramatically, we reduce our force to a quarter (or less) of it's current size, but combat troops are still needed in some limited capacities? Well then, now the President lied during their campaign, and you can count on there being dozens of ads saying so.

What if we do pull out all combat troops, but then the situation devolves, a genocide starts (or terrorist cells are granted safe haven) and we have to go back in for any of these reasons? Same thing.

The American people's desires aren't quite as black-or-white as Ron Paul's positions, methinks.
 
JuanCarlos,
The only thing the Democratic candidates have said is that they can't guarantee that they'll have all combat troops out by 2013.
Actually they have said a great deal more than this. Hillary has stated that she intends on maintaining a presence in Iraq (to safeguard American interests in the region). Obama has expressed a willingness to invade Pakistan (if they refuse to act, we will). Their voting records are also very vulnerable.
If you're a pro-war guy, you might want to consider voting for one of the Dems this cycle.
The American people's desires aren't quite as black-or-white as Ron Paul's positions, methinks.
You'd better hope you're right, 'cuz you've got a lot riding on this and all the polls I'm seein' are stating pretty loudly otherwise. ;)
 
If memory serves we had this same discussion just last year.
It brought me little comfort to say "I told you so", but I had hoped that you folks might pay a little more attention to the warnings this time around.
 
If my memory serves, there was a lot of blustery "I'm gonna vote those Republicans out of office" talk before the last Congressional election as well, coming from irate conservatives. They aimed to "teach them a lesson."

And now we have a leftist majority in Congress. Thanks guys, you really showed them. Too bad you had to give the leftists all the power so you could feel good about yourself.
 
I don't think we are doing any worse with the Democratic majority we have now, compared to the Republican majority we had before the last election.
 
If I was a smarmy leftie debater, my linchpin postulate would be that we were told the reason was to find WMD.

WMDs are a case of the big lie theory, if the left keep saying something long enough, everyone tends to believe it. Are most of you aware of a document declassified late last summer that list over 500 cases in which WMDs were found in Iraq? Granted most were old, but 1 WMD is greater than 0 WMDs, hence there were WMDS in Iraq when we invaded. At that point some of the leftist change the "No WMDs" to these weren't the WMDS we were looking for.

Beyond the WMDs found, many Ammo Supply Points that contained barrels of what later was tested to be tons of "Bug Spray." Iraq does have a sand fly and mosquito problem, but not so much that the Iraqis would keep that much bug spray in their ASPs. I sure most of you know the history of nerve gas, and what the Germans were trying to make when they created Tabun in the 1930s? Or what happens to nerve agents if improperly stored.
 
And this is all irrelavant with the exception of this:

If my memory serves, there was a lot of blustery "I'm gonna vote those Republicans out of office" talk before the last Congressional election as well, coming from irate conservatives. They aimed to "teach them a lesson."

And if you think last year was bad, you ain't seen nuthin' yet. Don't care who you blame it on or how you feel about it; just know that next year will be worse than last year. The only thing that *might* cushion the blow a little is a Republican candidate who's out there changing the brand image; making people think twice before pulling the plug.. Even then, it's not gonna help much.
 
Back
Top