How to Wake Up Pro-Iraq War Republicans?

[Shatterhand]

How does one wake up all the pro-Iraq war republicans who have been listening to neocon talk radio? :confused:

It seems to me that they have been brainwashed. :(

Here are some familiar talking points on why to leave Iraq.

1. Unfair burden on our troops.
2. Can't afford it (printing money/borrowing money)
3. The war is making our military weaker and the enemy stronger
4. A pro-Iraq war republican can't win the presidency (70% of the public is against the war)

Does anyone have any good ideas to share that might wake up the pro-war crowd?

:D :D :D :D :D :D

[andrewgreve]

The pretext for war was a lie.

[lucius]

1) Iraq For Sale
2) War on Iraq
3) War and Globalization

They went too sleep with the tv on...

[Sematary]

How does one wake up all the pro-Iraq war republicans who have been listening to neocon talk radio? :confused:

It seems to me that they have been brainwashed. :(

Here are some familiar talking points on why to leave Iraq.

1. Unfair burden on our troops.
2. Can't afford it (printing money/borrowing money)
3. The war is making our military weaker and the enemy stronger
4. A pro-Iraq war republican can't win the presidency (70% of the public is against the war)

Does anyone have any good ideas to share that might wake up the pro-war crowd?

:D :D :D :D :D :D

There is no argument that works with neocons. they are committed to perpetual war in the name of "safety". They ignore common sense arguments and seem to believe that we can borrow forever without consequence.

[ThePieSwindler]

Tell them that we went to war mainly to enforce a UN resolution. Most neocons i know are suspicious of the UN, and hearing things like that helps get their brains stirring.

[jj111]

I would focus on areas of agreement, not disagreement. Tell them that you respect your differences of opinion on the Iraq War, but if you don't know much more about Ron Paul, please give him a chance and take a look at him on the Internet because you may find a lot of areas of agreement with him. Ron Paul says he is the most conservative candidate running for President because he consistently votes for the least government spending and the lowest taxes. Please give Ron Paul a chance and give him a few minutes of your time....

Ron Paul is the best salesman for himself.

With people like this, my strategy is to try to get them to look at Ron Paul, and not argue with them. Find areas of agreement. Confronting others head on is usually a no-win situation. Use verbal judo. Don't attack others head on. Dale Carnegie principles: How to Win Friends and Influence People. "You can't win an argument."

You can't teach people things easily. It is much easier if they learn it for themselves.

Besides, don't waste time arguing with people who are turned off by Dr. Paul's basic policies. Instead spend that time introducing Dr. Paul to the other 90% of people who don't know who he is. Move on.

This is the strategy I try to employ.

[ProximoAZ]

The stated objectives of the war have already been met. Sadam's regime has been removed, there is no weapons of mass destruction and we have set up a democracy, and a new police force.

The majority of people attacking our troops are iraqi's not al queda and the majority wants the US to leave. At some point the Iraqi's have to take responsibility for themselves and the time is now. Our staying there is at this point simply helping al queda recruit and giving them targets to shoot at. There is no way to WIN - because the only way to WIN would be to kill everyone because everytime we kill the Iraqis against us we create more against us.

[Shatterhand]

The stated objectives of the war have already been met. Sadam's regime has been removed, there is no weapons of mass destruction and we have set up a democracy, and a new police force.

The majority of people attacking our troops are iraqi's not al queda and the majority wants the US to leave. At some point the Iraqi's have to take responsibility for themselves and the time is now. Our staying there is at this point simply helping al queda recruit and giving them targets to shoot at. There is no way to WIN - because the only way to WIN would be to kill everyone because everytime we kill the Iraqis against us we create more against us.

Great post. Welcome to the forums. Thanks for the wise words. I forgot about that aspect of the war.

Key word: Mission creep.

[ape]

How does one wake up all the pro-Iraq war republicans who have been listening to neocon talk radio? :confused:

It seems to me that they have been brainwashed. :(

Here are some familiar talking points on why to leave Iraq.

1. Unfair burden on our troops.
2. Can't afford it (printing money/borrowing money)
3. The war is making our military weaker and the enemy stronger
4. A pro-Iraq war republican can't win the presidency (70% of the public is against the war)

Does anyone have any good ideas to share that might wake up the pro-war crowd?

:D :D :D :D :D :D

Those 4 are good, you can also use the ' wide open borders during a war on terror ' argument. I usually ask if it makes sense to have wide open borders during a war on terror, especially since we're constantly being told by our leaders running the war that muslims wanna come here and kill us all. That shuts the terror warriors up really quick, we enforce the borders of other countries more than our own which is very disturbing to most people. I believe it's been reported by the DEA that mexican cartels are working with foriegn terrorist orgs in getting them smuggled into the U.S., Bush and the republican leadership are so pathetic.

[Sematary]

I have made all of these points (and more) with necons - they affect them not, because they are NOT rational. They ARE brainwashed and there is (apparently) no way to reverse the process.

[quickmike]

Most neo-cons are followers by nature. They joined the team when it was the "thing to do". The only way they will wake up is when they realize they are in the minority. Apparently Sean Hannity is still doing a pretty good job of convincing them that they are the majority. They will only wake up when they feel all alone, then they will act like they never were for Iraq in the first place.

Right now, theres nothing youre gonna do to convince 90 percent of them of anything. You can try if you want, but for me its just too damn frustrating and I end up getting pissed off.

[ProximoAZ]

Great post. Welcome to the forums. Thanks for the wise words. I forgot about that aspect of the war.

Key word: Mission creep.

Well actually the true mission in my opinion is to secure control of all the oil in the middle east one country at a time - thats why they built the 14 permanent bases - that's just not what they told everyone.

[LastoftheMohicans]

You will never convince the 2nd tier of the neocon establishment: talkradio, columnists and bloggers. Some of them are true believes and some are just faking it to make money.

You can reach Joe conservative because he thinks he's a conservative. Conservatives used to believe in a set of ideas. Now, their whole platform consists in saying, "we're not politcally correct, America-hating liberal Democrats".

War results in big government, centralizing power in Washington at the expense of the states, taxes increases either directly or indirectly through inflation and the Shredding of the Constitution.

"But probably the most important reason for the collapse of the Old Right was not external blows, but the loss of its own soul and principles. As the older intellectual and political leaders died or retired, a powerful new force arose in 1955 to fill that vacuum. This new force – people grouped around National Review – set out to transform the nature of the American Right, and they succeeded brilliantly. Headed by a brace of shrewd ex-Communists, steeped in Marxist-Leninist cadre organizing tactics, allied to youthful Eastern seaboard Catholics, the New Right determined to crush isolationism, and to remold the right-wing into a crusade to crush Communism all over the world, and particularly in the Soviet Union."

The Life and Death of the Old Right (http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard25.html), Murray Rothbard

[Shatterhand]

There is no argument that works with neocons. they are committed to perpetual war in the name of "safety". They ignore common sense arguments and seem to believe that we can borrow forever without consequence.

I agree that it's hopeless with neocons. But I am talking about regular folks, your average citizen who is registered as a republican and still believes we need to be over there. My question is how to wake up these people who are probably good honest folk, but have been brainwashed? It seems to me that if RP supporters can list 10 reasons to get out of Iraq off the top of their heads then the better for our side. If you meet someone who says they kind of like RP except for his anti-Iraq war position then this person might be convinced if we have knowledge and facts readily available. :D

[jj111]

Most neo-cons are followers by nature. They joined the team when it was the "thing to do". The only way they will wake up is when they realize they are in the minority. Apparently Sean Hannity is still doing a pretty good job of convincing them that they are the majority. They will only wake up when they feel all alone, then they will act like they never were for Iraq in the first place.

Right now, theres nothing youre gonna do to convince 90 percent of them of anything. You can try if you want, but for me its just too damn frustrating and I end up getting pissed off.

Don't confront the neocons on Iraq unless they ask you to discuss it intelligently.

If they haven't figured out they're wrong by now, nothing you can say will change their minds.

Eventually the political reality I believe will be that the Republican leadership will start moving towards a less hawkish position towards Iraq as the election nears. Time is on Ron Paul's side on this issue I believe.

[cjhowe]

Your common man is looking for an opportunity to save face. General Petraeus's report was supposed to be that opportunity. The Democrat's mucked it up by bitching early. They don't want the war to end either, at least not until the end of the election cycle.

[quickmike]

Don't confront the neocons on Iraq unless they ask you to discuss it intelligently.

If they haven't figured out they're wrong by now, nothing you can say will change their minds.

Eventually the political reality I believe will be that the Republican leadership will start moving towards a less hawkish position towards Iraq as the election nears. Time is on Ron Paul's side on this issue I believe.

Lets just hope the Romney McRudysons of the world dont co-opt Rons message on Iraq and have all the sheep fall for it as if they were against Iraq all along. Thats my biggest fear. People have very short attention spans in this country and that works against honesty sometimes.

I sure hope youre right though.

[LastoftheMohicans]

You can appeal to the regular guy morally, Constitutional or practically.

The moral argument: Iraq has nothing to do with 911. (And even if the government did, it does not justify slaughtering innocent people). There are dead Americans and dead Iraqis because of a lie. (There were already hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqis from the Clinton supported embargo in the 90's)

The Constitutional argument: There was no Declaration of War. It's illegal. If the President and Congress can ignore one part of the Constitution, why not another?

Practical argument: It didn't work and similar adventures haven't work. As Joe Sobran says, "War is just one more big government program." It is about effective as (pick the government program of your choice).

[Paulitician]

Well as long as they're indoctrinated with the thinking that 3rd world nations (who have no navy or airforce or a military even close to ours) are somehow a threat to us because they want to acquire nukes, and because they "hate our way of life" would be willing to bomb us (even though they have no way of doing so) and anyone else who is not Islamist (essentially they want to take over/blow up the world, like that's even plausible), well then you can't really argue with such absurdity, now can you?

[shadowhooch]

Here's my advice....focus on the KNOWNS of what will happen.

1) If we continue to fight, more of our American troops will die. If we leave, fewer American troops will die.

2) If we stay, we will continue to spend over 500 billion a year and continue to borrow much of that money from Japan and China. If we pull back now, we can use that 500 billion on fixing OUR infastructure and securing OUR borders.

3) If we stay and even succeed in establishing a "friendly" government in Iraq, we will continue to incite hatred among Muslims because we are still interfering with their government and their lives.

4) It is MUCH harder for the enemy to cross a sea and attack us instead of giving them a fixed target and steady supply of troops to attack.

We must act on KNOWNS instead of Maybes. The arguments for staying are ALL based on maybes. Maybe Iran will get stronger and attack us; maybe the radicals will take over; maybe this and that. We must deal with maybes if and when they happen.

How long can we continue funding and fighting the entire world? There will always be a threat and there will always be another potential place to attack. Is this really the eternal situation we want America to be in?

[Michael Ingram]

All I know is that in the next couple of days, whenever it is, Petraeus will report that progress is being made in Iraq.

[emilysdad]

I like the suggestions here, really good points.

One thing I see people missing is, this is not a war, it is an occupation. There is a difference and I would suggest the occupation of Iraq not be referred to as a war.

[BLS]

Simple.

No matter how long,
No matter how many men,
No matter how many we kill,

We will never ever win in Iraq.

[cjhowe]

All I know is that in the next couple of days, whenever it is, Petraeus will report that progress is being made in Iraq.

If Patraeus's report is in line with the OIG's report, then the Republicans had the opportunity to say too little too late, but the Democratic leadership is more concerned about being right than doing right.

Warner comes out and says we need to start bringing them home. The Democrats seize upon it and act as if they've converted someone, which forces those that have made strong statements in the past (because they're just as stupid on allowing people to save face) to dig in their heels further. Everyone in Washington is so concerned about sound bites and the next election, they can't be allowed to admit a mistake.

[Shellshock1918]

How does one wake up all the pro-Iraq war republicans who have been listening to neocon talk radio? :confused:

It seems to me that they have been brainwashed. :(

Here are some familiar talking points on why to leave Iraq.

1. Unfair burden on our troops.
2. Can't afford it (printing money/borrowing money)
3. The war is making our military weaker and the enemy stronger
4. A pro-Iraq war republican can't win the presidency (70% of the public is against the war)

Does anyone have any good ideas to share that might wake up the pro-war crowd?

:D :D :D :D :D :D

Just wait until the September Report. It probably won't show any major political success just some military success.

[ButchHowdy]

Only God can soften hearts and He has to expose this nature in a person. Still blinded, I voted for Bush in 2004 so I didn't get 'the revelation' until after.

[hard@work]

I focus on "neocon" vs. "real Republican". And use terms like "taking the party back", "you were robbed", "they lied to you and you bought it", "do you own damn homework", etc. We know what's going on, we read about it and we listened. But these people are those that haven't done this, they've been saturated by the "party line" for eight years and told a bunch of pitch phrases like "cut and run", "these colors don't run", etc. etc.

No one who researches or listens to those who've done the footwork on the situation would be swayed by these pitiful attempts at nationalism. I just plug patriotism, this country belongs to all of us. And only traitors question the patriotism of the dissenters.

:)

[MicroBalrog]

How does one wake up all the pro-Iraq war republicans who have been listening to neocon talk radio? :confused:

It seems to me that they have been brainwashed. :(

Here are some familiar talking points on why to leave Iraq.

1. Unfair burden on our troops.
2. Can't afford it (printing money/borrowing money)
3. The war is making our military weaker and the enemy stronger
4. A pro-Iraq war republican can't win the presidency (70% of the public is against the war)

Does anyone have any good ideas to share that might wake up the pro-war crowd?



I'm pro-war and pro-Paul. It's not impossible.

It's just I care more about restoring the Constitution and individual liberty in America then about the war.

Sure if there was a candidate just like Ron that also backed the war, I'd vote for hm, but there isn't.

[klamath]

For those that are so flag waving patriotic I like to say. If our country always does right then we don't even have to vote because our leaders will always do right, democrat or republican regardless. That kind of makes them think.
Our country is like people, when we make a mistake we need to correct it, learn from it and move on.

[max]

How does one wake up all the pro-Iraq war republicans who have been listening to neocon talk radio? :confused:

It seems to me that they have been brainwashed. :(

Here are some familiar talking points on why to leave Iraq.

1. Unfair burden on our troops.
2. Can't afford it (printing money/borrowing money)
3. The war is making our military weaker and the enemy stronger
4. A pro-Iraq war republican can't win the presidency (70% of the public is against the war)

Does anyone have any good ideas to share that might wake up the pro-war crowd?

:D :D :D :D :D :D


1. war hero pat tillman turned against the war
2. ron paul is NUMBER 1 in military donations
3. desertions are skyrocketing

what does it tell u when the tropps are against the war?

[american2]

An important argument, especially with Christian conservatives is the end of Christianity in Iraq.

Radical Muslims have had free reign to kill Christians since the US invaded, and this has forced all Christians who survived to flee to Syria. As a seminary student, I have met a number of Christians from Muslim countries. They all oppose the Iraq war and the invasion of Iran, because they know further turmoil will result in the end of Christianity in the region. One said to me that for all the evil Saddam did, he did allow the Christians to worship freely and protected their churches from attack by Muslims. The US troops were unable to provide that level of security - the invasion, having created a sort of anarchy throughout the area, made Christians easy prey.

Those who feel that our presence in Iraq is for the purpose of making the people free should keep this in mind.

There are some websites devoted to the death of Christianity in Iraq, and I believe their was an article on Lew Rockwell sometime back for those who are interested.

[libertygrl]

I think one of the best responses I've ever heard was from Scott Ritter on CSPAN's BookTV yesterday. He was the UN weapons inspector who has been very outspoken against this war.

I can't remember the exact quote but it was something like - "This war is not worthy of the sacrifices being made by our soldiers, marines, etc."

He was actually offering great advice to the anti-war movement. He was critical of their lack of strategy and lack of knowledge about the US constitution. He said that the movement should actually be called "The Pro-Constitution Movement." He had some good ideas about how to use the media as well. I felt that much of what he said was very similar to Ron Paul's beliefs.

I think it ran about an hour and it was to promote his new book. Maybe someone can record it and put it up on YouTube. It's very powerful and I think the RP movement could actually pick up a few tips from this guy. Check it out:

Waging Peace: The Art of War for the Antiwar Movement

Authors: Mark Crispin Miller; Scott Ritter
Upcoming Schedule

Book TV
Sunday, September 9, at 4:15 AM


Scott Ritter argues that the antiwar movement in the U.S.*should look to*military strategists like Sun Tzu and John Boyd to help it end the Iraq War.* He is interviewed about his book by New York University's Mark Crispin Miller at an event hosted by McNally Robinson Booksellers in New York City.

[RockEnds]

libertygrl,

I couldn't find a video link, but I found this interview with Scott Ritter. He analyzes the progressive anti-war movement, but his assessment was definitely worth reading. Thanks for the reference.

Here is the link:

http://uprisingradio.org/home/?p=1584

[fj45lvr]

it is obvious that this currently is not a "war" and that "winning" is not defineable....we finished the "war" when the enemy surrendered and we captured the leader and his generals.....now we are occupiers that are "NATION BUILDING" .... (which will most likely be another example of Korea or Germany to which we still are there!!)

most true conservatives must be slightly irritated by the premise of our nation fighting because of U.N. Resolutions especially those indiscriminately chosen for enforcement (there have been many resolutions against Israel that are completely ignored or vetoed by US)

While we are on foreign soil our own people are victims of those that slip across our open borders...many to cease the opportunity for vice....does it comfort the conservative to believe that while a massive debt looms over our heads requiring heavy taxation that we should protect IRAQ's borders from illegal crossing yet leave merely a handful to try to encase the tide sweeping over ours?? folly

What motivates men to sacrafice their very lives in retaliation to America?? Could it be that as George Washington stated to the nation that it is because


"a passionate attachment of one nation for another produces a variety of evils....It leads...to concessions to the favorite nation of privileges denied to others which is apt... to injure the nation making the concessions... by exciting jealousy, ill-will, and a disposition to retaliate, in the parties from whom equal privileges are withheld"


It is no secret that while the drums of war are conjured up against middle eastern states for "nuclear aspiration" that ISRAEL has been conceeded unprecidented favoritism as a "favorite nation" having not only developed WMD but by thwarting U.N. resolutions regarding illegal occupations...we not only VETO routinely world and arab condemnation as a member of the security council but we finance and arm the occupation of what the Israeli's even admit is "stolen land"....It is no secret that having ones land stolen and occupied will not go over very well (do you think you would like it?? Did the American Indian??) We have blatantly in the face of the arab and world community spat on their sense of justice to uphold the transgressors in their theft and naked aggression and tyranny of their conquest and made 100% of what George Washington warned a glaring reality that makes the absolute absurd put parroted as FACT by many republicans (that they attack us because of our freedoms).....if the OBVIOUS is rejected to believe a FARCE it would at least be more accurate to parrot the farce that they would attack us for our wickedness as the purveyors of internet gay porn, abortion on demand, and a host of other perversions eminating out into the world from the dark side of our culture beaming signals via satellite.

[Santana28]

just ask them if they want Hillary or Obama as their next president - because 3/4ths of the country want the war to end and how ever many people don't approve of Bush and a pro-war Republican simply has NO CHANCE of winning (unless something terrible happens, or they manipulate the vote).

I think a hardcore Republican would take a moderate Republican over a moderate Democrat just out of principle. Sadly, the same in reverse. But the good thing is that Ron Paul can pull in supporters from both sides :)

[LizF]

Many good points so far in this thread.

One of our Meetup members (and former marine) addresses the issue this way:

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


I've found that when discussing the war with my opponent, the best approach is to separate Afghanistan and Iraq . I start by telling my war-loving opponent that I fully support holding those responsible for 911 accountable. That those responsible for 911 were a group of persons residing within the country of Afghanistan and not the nation of Afghanistan . That our reason for going to war was to kill or capture those responsible for 911. At what point did it become our mission to spread democracy throughout Afghanistan or anywhere else in the world; particularly Iraq ? Then just sit back and wait for the RCA dog look. While they are giving you that puzzled look as their brain housing group scrambles for a sensible answer, ask them what Hussein did to the U.S. that warranted the invasion of his country by the U.S. ? Tell them that while you agree that Hussein was a tyrant/dictator, was that fact alone justification for invading his country? At that point they will usually say that you don't understand. And that's when you politely say, "You're right. I don't understand. I'm honestly trying to understand, but you're not helping me here." And with that, you order another beer, raise your glass and toast the defeat of yet another opponent without a round being fired.



Note: The conversation is longer most of the time. But you get the idea. In the end, they usually walk away in frustration as it's impossible for them to come up with any reason for the War in Iraq . They will usually bring up the "War on Terror" to which you simply reply, "Those responsible for 911 were held up in Afghanistan , not Iraq ".

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[LizF]

An important argument, especially with Christian conservatives is the end of Christianity in Iraq.

Radical Muslims have had free reign to kill Christians since the US invaded, and this has forced all Christians who survived to flee to Syria. As a seminary student, I have met a number of Christians from Muslim countries. They all oppose the Iraq war and the invasion of Iran, because they know further turmoil will result in the end of Christianity in the region. One said to me that for all the evil Saddam did, he did allow the Christians to worship freely and protected their churches from attack by Muslims. The US troops were unable to provide that level of security - the invasion, having created a sort of anarchy throughout the area, made Christians easy prey.

Those who feel that our presence in Iraq is for the purpose of making the people free should keep this in mind.

There are some websites devoted to the death of Christianity in Iraq, and I believe their was an article on Lew Rockwell sometime back for those who are interested.



Welcome to the forum american2. Your (very astute) point will certainly come as news to many.