PDA

View Full Version : Friend Says "Ron Paul Lost Me" Over Bill




Anne
05-25-2007, 01:13 AM
Ron Paul voted against the war funding bill along with Hillary and Obama. I have a fiend who is a staunch supporter of the war who was initially against Ron Paul for his anti-war stance. However, I'd slowly been getting him to see that Ron Paul stands for the Constitution and freedom and he'd started to come around to Ron Paul's side.

However, he just called me and said "Ron Paul lost me" because of his vote against the war funding bill. He says as long as we're over there we need to finish the job and without this new funding the soldiers will die without supplies.

What can I tell him to explain why Ron Paul voted against the bill?

The following article mentions Ron Paul as having voted against the bill.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070525/ap_on_el_pr/candidates_iraq_4

Bojangleman
05-25-2007, 01:28 AM
Well, first of all, what is "the job" we must finish? We've already completed the original stated goals of ousting Saddam and replacing his gov't with a new one. It just so happens that the new government is incapable of securing the country, which should be of no surprise.

Secondly, there's already 600 billion dollars in the pipeline headed to our troops, without the funding. That's more than enough money to responsibly pull our troops over a period of time. No new funding is needed for that.

IrrigatedPancake
05-25-2007, 01:33 AM
Tell him it's crazy that anyone, after realizing that money wasn't coming, would leave the soldiers there to die. If congress decided that the war should end and stopped funding it, then it becomes the president's job to use what money is left, or ask congress for some more money to use to bring the the soldiers home. If they were left somewhere to die, it would be 100% the president's fault.

Ron Paul is against fighting this war, so he votes not to fund it. Other congressmen and women who claim to be anti-war, but continue to vote to fund the war are giving money to someone who wants to fight a war. That's promoting the war in the biggest way that the congress can, by giving the necessary resources to the people that are ordering soldiers to fight.

One can NOT be AGAINST the WAR while voting FOR WAR FUNDING bills.

Gee
05-25-2007, 01:33 AM
Its simple, defunding the war ends it. It only keeps needed supplies from our troops if their current funds run out, which as I understand it would take so much time that we could easily evacuate the troops.

I suppose Bush could keep the troops there in a game of chicken with the congress, but that would be a really, really low thing to do.

billv
05-25-2007, 01:37 AM
http://vcnv.org/analysis-and-talking-points-on-the-2005-supplemental-spending-bill
http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2007/tst021207.htm

These two should help. Please let us know how it goes.

billv
05-25-2007, 01:38 AM
It's just a myth that the troops will suffer if we defund the war. There are other ways to shift funding to Iraq in the short term. Though I wonder if Bush would keep out troops there, stubborn as he is, and play a dangerous game of chicken with Congress with out troops stuck in the middle.

tnvoter
05-25-2007, 02:31 AM
Be sure to mention that Paul wants us to leave, lead by means of the USA Generals.

Meaning, our military Generals will be deciding the best ways to leave, NOT cutting and running-- but inevitably leaving as soon as possible.

Bruehound
05-25-2007, 05:32 AM
Tell your friend nothing. Realize that some people are unreachable and move on to the next. Having been a candidate myself, one thing we all must realize is that politics' is actually more about prospecting than it is about persuasion.

I think we should keep our focus on getting Dr. Pauls message out to those who have a pre-existing agreement and then make sure we turn them out to the polls. Use your time productively.

cujothekitten
05-25-2007, 06:49 AM
Tell him to watch this video where he explains it:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4A45NG8tOCQ

Basically he's 1.) against the war and 2.) since we've never declared war he's trying to get congress to debate the issue again and change the policy. The reasons for the war have changed and need to be revisited. It's at the 5:35 time mark.

mesler
05-25-2007, 06:57 AM
Your friend has bought into the flawed logic that the administration is pushing, that if you defund the war you oppose the troops.

In the words of Donald Rumsfeld, you go to war with the army you have, not the army you want. Bush knows the country has lost the stomach for this war, yet he wants more troops, he wants to escalate, when he should be de-escalating. If any of our troops have to go into battle without adequate funding, it will be his fault, for not pulling them out sooner.

disciple
05-25-2007, 08:37 AM
Tell him, Israel has been trying to finish the job for the last sixty years and it has only gotten worse.

JosephTheLibertarian
05-25-2007, 08:53 AM
Ask him how we can "win" something that has no defined victory?

Bossobass
05-25-2007, 10:30 AM
I would become a bit indignant if one of my friends said this to me, especially after having had discussions prior to the statement.

1) The funds are barely going to support troops. According to my friends who are over there and a 2-tour Iraq vet who I spoke with at length at the SC debate:

a) We have no war policy. Our troops are routinely sent out on patrol with no clear objective. They are no more than moving targets.

b) Blackwater mercenaries are being paid more in a week than our soldiers get paid in a month, and they have no oversight and are above the law. They indeed do have a clear objective, unlike our military.

c) quote: "...We are definitely building permanent bases. In fact, that is ALL we're doing over there. I know, I stayed in one of them. There never has been an exit strategy, and there isn't one in sight."

2) We entered into this war without a formal declaration by Congress, so it isn't a war, it's an invasion and occupation which leaves America and Americans as targets.

3) We entered into this conflict under false and fraudulent pretenses, which makes it an impeachable offense. Passing more spending is the same as condoning the illegal actions that thrust us into the conflict in the first place.

4) This aggessive action has lowered the status of America in all the world's eyes, which hurts us diplomatically, economically and strategically...period.

5) More spending isn't a show of our support for the conflict. Since we have to borrow every red cent of the spending bill, we are supporting the loans, not the troops or the conflict. Foreign Governments are supporting the conflict, not your friend. He's only supporting the loans, but then...so is every American citizen...without a choice.

6) All that's accomplished by war is that a few bankers and arms dealers get rich.

We need to be out of Iraq. Just my 2 cents.

Booso

Bob Cochran
05-25-2007, 10:43 AM
When you look at the conditions in parts of Walter Reed hospital (conditions that existed on Bush's watch), how was THAT supporting the troops?

Here's how I would support the troops:

With no news announcements at all, I'd start pulling our guys away from the most dangerous areas and shipping them home. Then everyone else would be quickly phased out.

Yeah, we will have cut and run, and many will say we "lost". But at least we'd have stopped the bleeding of American lives and money.

I know, I know. Only in one's wildest fantasy would this happen any time soon. It'll take some chain of events I don't even dare imagine for the powers that be to admit defeat in Iraq. Or, more catastrophically, they'll NEVER admit defeat.

Bob Cochran
05-25-2007, 10:48 AM
bassobass:

I agree with all you said. I will take it one step further and say that Dubya, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and all who felt we should engage in this Iraq insanity are traitors. They have maliciously caused irreparable, irreversible harm to this country.

The word "traitor" popped into my head one day in late 2005, I think it was. Unfortunately, I had voted for Dubya twice by then. I can be slow at times.:p

slantedview
05-25-2007, 11:10 AM
"He says as long as we're over there we need to finish the job and without this new funding the soldiers will die without supplies."

Without funding, no soldiers will die, the military will simply be forced to bring them home. Ron Paul actually addressed this exact issue in one of his recent "Texas Straight Talk" posts.

vertesc
05-25-2007, 12:39 PM
Many congressmen and women voted against the funding bill, not because of the money involved, but because of the "strings attached". Prominently, there was a timetable to pull out on that bill. There were also the usual number of pork barrel clauses for individual politicians. Bush himself vetoed the bill because of the timetable.

angelatc
05-25-2007, 12:42 PM
The word "traitor" popped into my head one day in late 2005, I think it was. Unfortunately, I had voted for Dubya twice by then. I can be slow at times.:p

Oh well, you can still take solace in the fact that you didn't vote for Gore. Me, I always vote either 3rd party or against the incumbant. I hardly ever vote for winners, but then again, I figure that means it's not my fault that things are so messed up.

Anne
05-25-2007, 01:54 PM
Thanks guys. I mentioned some of the things you said to him. Here was his latest response:

"There is no reason to penalize our troops in time of war. They are non-political innocents. If the war is funded and we were able to pull out early the money would not be spent. I do not disagree with you that the government is a spendthrift and cannot function within a normal budget. But that is a different matter and one that Bush has failed miserably at as did many of his predecessors. The only good note is that of all the western nations we have the best budgetary track record and the lowest national tax rate."

Bob Cochran
05-25-2007, 02:21 PM
Oh well, you can still take solace in the fact that you didn't vote for Gore. Me, I always vote either 3rd party or against the incumbant. I hardly ever vote for winners, but then again, I figure that means it's not my fault that things are so messed up.
I couldn't have voted for Gore or Kerry. I remember thinking in 2004 that I was picking between what I thought was the lesser of two evils.

A man like Ron Paul CAN be president but it will take an extraordinary groundswell of grass roots support.

Those of us who see this gem for what he is may need to speak persuasively in simple terms about Ron Paul to those who listen to the mainstream media and do not think for themselves...I mean, we'll need to do some old-fashioned cheerleading, distasteful as that may be.

I have my mantra. It continues to be: "I'm voting for Ron Paul, the only candidate who has delivered over 4,000 babies, is staunchly pro-life, was a flight surgeon in the US Air Force, has never voted to raise taxes, has never voted for an unbalanced budget, has never voted for a federal restriction on gun ownership, has never voted to raise congressional pay, has never taken a government-paid junket, has never voted to increase the power of the executive branch, voted against the Patriot Act, has always voted against regulating the Internet, voted against the Iraq war, does not participate in the lucrative congressional pension program, and returns a portion of his annual congressional office budget to the U.S. treasury every year."

I think it bears repeating often, even for the members of this forum who already know these facts. The simple truth can be powerful.

Hawaii Libertarian
05-25-2007, 02:22 PM
During WW II (our last declared war), at least there were unambiguous objectives--the unconditional surrender of Germany and Japan. The empty rhetoric we get from the administration is that we'll leave when the "job is done." Unfortunately for the troops, the definition of what exactly "the job" is keeps shifting. Muslim extremism and factional hatred has been rife in the region for over 1000 years. Ironically, Saddam's Hussein's regime was secular and thanks to his toppling, we have made a bad situation worse. Yes, Bush and by extension the U.S. is indeed responsible, but we will never be able to impose a "peaceful" Iraq on their people as long as the government is a theocracy.

Tell your friend to read the new Iraqi constitution. It's not a clone of our constitution, but it set-up an Islamic state instead with the blessing of our government. The problem is, few of our leaders and policymakers understand the "irrationality" of Arab politics as Dr. Paul described it.

The troops will continue to get slaughtered as long as the status quo continues. Short of surging several hundred thousand more combat soldiers into the country, things will not get better. Thing about the occupation of Japan and Germany after WW II--it took years to establish new governments and transition power there, and we didn't have suicidal fanatics in Japan once the Emperor there renounced his divinity.

The bottom line is that the neocon plan for "planting the seeds of freedom" in the Muslim Middle East is naive at best, and criminally irresponsible at the worst. Yes, withdrawal will be painful, but like Vietnam, it is the wrong war at the wrong time and our nation does not have the collective will to pay the ultimate price in lives, maimed limbs, and fiscal resources to see it to a conclusion.

With the "terrorists" hiding among the civil population, it would literally take a "scorched earth" policy with thousands of innocent civilian casualties to sift out the insurgents from the "peaceful" civilians. The problem is, the "terrorists" don't wear uniforms. Like the Viet Cong, you can't tell an enemy combatant from an innocent civilian on sight. We fight by the Law of Armed Conflict, but the insurgents don't.

The real tragedy is that while the troops suffer and die, the Administration architects of the failed war left the Department of Defense and landed cushy jobs as a reward. How anyone can hire Doug Feith or Paul Wolfowitz for any job of significant responsibility after the Iraq fiasco is one of the great mysteries to me, (unless they're being rewarded for being establishment yes men.)

TheConstitutionLives
05-25-2007, 02:41 PM
The best argument against this stuff is make him realize that the war has been illegal/unconstitutional from the very beginning b/c according to the const. only Congress can declare a war. Congress didn't declare war on Iraq. They weezled out and unconstitutionally passed their own responsibility to the president to decide if we go to war or not. The constitution doesn't authorize you to pass your own responsibility to someone else.

Can a police officer hand his gun to a pedestrian and tell him to direct traffic while he goes to lunch? No, b/c the police officer does NOT have the power to pass his responsibility to someone else.

Same thing. The Iraq was is unconstitutional, nevermind we have no business over there in the first place b/c there was no WMD's, Saddam wasn't a threat, and invading a sovereign country b/c of something someone MIGHT do is completely immoral. By that logic we should invade Canada b/c you never know what they MIGHT do one day.

Korey Kaczynski
05-25-2007, 03:18 PM
Needless to say, your friend isn't very intelligent; he's just spewing bullshit to be politically hip by shouting out pundit talking points.

LibertyEagle
06-25-2007, 10:12 PM
Dr. Paul said in an interview with someone that there was like $800 billion dollars in the pipeline and that was plenty to take care of the troops. (Note: that I am paraphrasing here and what I am saying is totally from memory, so don't quote me.) I thought it was the interview after the 2nd debate with Blitzer, but I just watched it again and it wasn't that one.

Anyone else remember what interview it was?

mikelovesgod
06-25-2007, 10:35 PM
No one dies for lack of funds. People go home. It's just that simple. If the war is un-Constitutional than the only way in your power as a Congressman is to defund the war. No one dies, the war ends and only then do you really care for the troops. If you de-fund the war you are pro-troops because no one dies.

That's being for the troops, not allowing them to be targets to be killed at 100 a month.