Any former neo-cons/foreign interventionists here?

[Heimdallr]

In response to this thread: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?p=2970826#post2970826

To my knowledge, we have yet to find an effective strategy for winning over neoconservatives and hawks.

To help us in this, would any former neo-cons share what exactly convinced them that Ron Paul was right on foreign policy? What made you a non-interventionist? What should we do to inject some sanity into this debate?

[FrankRep]

First, you must know the Neoconservative psychology:

Read this:


Defining Terms: What is a Neoconservative (Neocon)?
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=257106



A Neoconservative is a Liberal who has been mugged by reality.

--Irving Kristol (Neocon Godfather)

[lester1/2jr]

I pretty much was after 9/11 when I knew nothing about anything. That's the most readily available info out there. It's the same with economics, the big authors are Galbraith and Krugman and stuff.

I was a staunch defender of Israel and US foreign policy. I started reading Pat Buchanan and Justin Raimondo and started to see their point.


The bigger turn for me was talking to actual muslims at shiachat, a popular shia website. It slowly dawned on me that the whole thing was hopeless, that muslims have a completely opposite view of Israel and US foreign policy than most Americans do and the good guys in our version of the story are the bad guys in theirs.

I was kind of pro palestinian for a while but eventually settled on the Ron Paul position of it's not our business.

[bwlibertyman]

I'm an ex- neocon. My thinking then (which keep in mind was high school) was that we have to be the ones who fight first instead of being attacked. I think that is the whole phobia that they have. Neocons are obsessed with being attacked so they'll do anything. I really believe that neocons think that anyone who's not us wants to attack us. It used to be the british, then the communists, and now it's the islamofascists. I think there's also the military industrial complex part of it. I think some of the people with power that are promoting these wars are getting some major kick backs.

How do we persuade these people over to our side? I've tried to talk to neocons before and try and persuade them to noninterventionism but I have been unsuccessful. I think we have to push blow back. I think we have to make our number one priority of explaining that the liklehood of being attacked is greatly increased the more that we are involved with other peoples' affairs. I think the China analogy is great. I know the neocons that I've said that to just say oh well that's a totally different situation but it's really not. Many of them are indeed in denial. So 1) blow back, 2) the economics of interventionism, and 3) constitution declarations of war. I think if we stick to this plan we can persuade a number of neoconservatives.

[FrankRep]

I'm an ex- neocon.

Were you a Trotskyite?

[amy31416]

I haven't tried it yet...but I'd have no issue with insulting their manhood/conservative cred by pointing out that they want big-daddy gov't (and more of it) to keep them safe from everything that goes bump in the night.

[Sola_Fide]

To my knowledge, we have yet to find an effective strategy for winning over neoconservatives and hawks.



?

Don't know what you are talking about. We here in the great state of Kentucky are loving our new paleoconservative senator.


I think Rand showed all of us in the movement how paleocons can win the Republican vote:)

[Heimdallr]

I haven't tried it yet...but I'd have no issue with insulting their manhood/conservative cred by pointing out that they want big-daddy gov't (and more of it) to keep them safe from everything that goes bump in the night.

Yup, this is a good tactic for airport security/PATRIOT act stuff.

Basically, what I have come up with:

-- Listing off the number of staunchly undemocratic regimes we have supported. (The Shah, Pinochet, Suharto, Saddam)

-- Explaining the socialist origins of Neoconservatism.

-- Blowback.

-- The vast majority of nuclear weapons are in our or our allies' hands.

-- The Mujahideen "freedom fighters".

[Stary Hickory]

The best way to win over a neocon-lite, that is someone who subscribes to the idea but is not some zealous promoter of it, is to explain that reckless war actually weakens America and makes it more vulnerable. Fiscally and diplomatically, it puts us in a very dangerous situation. Also bring up Reagan, who was not a warhawk, he spent money on defense but not to use it, but as a deterrent. Contrast Reagan with the Bushies, who loved to deploy and use force.

Neocons think they are protecting America, when they actually endanger everyone of us with their half thought out wars. For Iraq and Afghanistan, ask them to define victory, then inform them it is a missaplication of our forces when we cannot define victory in terms of destruction and killing. Because it's all our military can do effectively, therefore if you have "goals" that are other than destroying or killing you are misapplying our forces.

[Heimdallr]

?

Don't know what you are talking about. We here in the great state of Kentucky are loving our new paleoconservative senator.


I think Rand showed all of us in the movement how paleocons can win the Republican vote:)

As far as I know, Rand never talked much about foreign policy. I have no doubt that paleocons CAN win the Republican vote, but I'm talking about convincing interventionists of the superiority of a sensible foreign policy.

[Sola_Fide]

As far as I know, Rand never talked much about foreign policy.


No, he actually did...and he couched that talk in terms of a balanced budget. And if you will remember, Jack Conway tried to run to the "right" of Rand in order to get the neocon vote!

[FrankRep]

No, he actually did...and he couched that talk in terms of a balanced budget. And if you will remember, Jack Conway tried to run to the "right" of Rand in order to get the neocon vote!
We'll see how Rand Paul votes. That's what matters.

[Sentient Void]

I was definitely a former neocon raging imperialist bastard. My philosophy was fairly zero-sum, and thought that somebody has to be on top - it might as well be us. I thought that everyone is simply always fighting to move up the pecking order, and in order to move up, SOMEONE, or some nation, has to be pushed down - and it was our job and that of the govt to ensure we stayed on top.

I would say my idea behind this was certainly stemming from not only a sense of jingoism, but ultimately a sense of apathy and just feeling the need to fall into some sort of collectivist ideology, becaus I simply didn't know that libertarianism even existed or that you had to choose between the left and the right - an that no other view was possible or even a choice. It stemmed from ignorance. It wasn't until I saw Ron Paul in the debates that something just *clicked*.

At the same time, no one else presented a case to libertarianism to me. He did it so well, and it made me want to look deeper into it myself. And that's when I sa how brutally consistent and common sense it was, that I had to look further and further.

[lester1/2jr]

The combination of the zionist goals of keeping its enemies/ neighbors perpetually unable to attack it and the evangelical thing about restoring the biblical Israel is a very very lethal combination and could easily spell ruin for our country or even humanity. That is no exageration.

[Brett]

I used to support the Iraq war. During the presidential campaign I argued for McCain constantly.

[Sola_Fide]

The combination of the zionist goals of keeping its enemies/ neighbors perpetually unable to attack it and the evangelical thing about restoring the biblical Israel is a very very lethal combination and could easily spell ruin for our country or even humanity. That is no exageration.



If we audited and ended the FED, each generation would have to pay for their own wars, not finance it through printing fiat money.


Believe me, even the most commited evangelical would grow war-weary when it affects their pocketbooks directly. Our central bank is the root of the problem, not even evangelicals...

[bunklocoempire]

In response to this thread: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?p=2970826#post2970826

To my knowledge, we have yet to find an effective strategy for winning over neoconservatives and hawks.

To help us in this, would any former neo-cons share what exactly convinced them that Ron Paul was right on foreign policy? What made you a non-interventionist? What should we do to inject some sanity into this debate?

I was one from apathy and ignorance. I also got to a point where I was sick and tired of being 'feared to' my whole life.

Something *clicked* with me from the PUSA debates as well -the Rudy/Paul moment and I knew I had to do some homework.

I was always curious as to why we spent billions on 'foreign aid' -but not so much curious about 'military aid'.

THIS tied it all together for me/sealed the deal, and got me examining U.S. military and monetary intervention throughout history and throughout all the world : http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul303.html


The End of Dollar Hegemony
by Ron Paul

"Realizing the world was embarking on something new and mind-boggling, elite money managers, with especially strong support from U.S. authorities, struck an agreement with OPEC to price oil in U.S. dollars exclusively for all worldwide transactions. This gave the dollar a special place among world currencies and in essence “backed” the dollar with oil. In return, the U.S. promised to protect the various oil-rich kingdoms in the Persian Gulf against threat of invasion or domestic coup.

This arrangement helped ignite the radical Islamic movement among those who resented our influence in the region. The arrangement gave the dollar artificial strength, with tremendous financial benefits for the United States. It allowed us to export our monetary inflation by buying oil and other goods at a great discount as dollar influence flourished."


It is the measure I now hold any politician accountable to. If they're not talking monetary policy, they're not leveling with you -concerning 'threats abroad' or anything else.

The strategy I use in talking to neocon warhawks is pointing out the differences in what they think the war strategy is, compared to how it is actually being waged.

Killing the bad guy vs. bribing the bad guy. This, along with a good dose of dollar hedgemony can get them thinking.

In my experience, warhacks cannot be approached from any position other than "what is good for the troops" and, "what is bad for the enemy". (what they perceive as the enemy)



Bunkloco

[LisaNY]

I supported the war in Iraq, even after my 22 year old cousin came home in a box. At the funeral his mother made the comment "George Bush killed my son". At the time I dismissed her as a leftist and grieving parent (I supported Bush and the war).

I honestly did not wake up until I heard Ron Paul's 2010 CPAC speech. They way he put it out there, made me realize that we have been wasting money and lives and are none the safer for it. The terrorists still want to kill us, that's for sure. And at that moment I also realized it's ok to be a conservative and have a different approach to foreign policy.

[Heimdallr]

This arrangement helped ignite the radical Islamic movement among those who resented our influence in the region. The arrangement gave the dollar artificial strength, with tremendous financial benefits for the United States. It allowed us to export our monetary inflation by buying oil and other goods at a great discount as dollar influence flourished."

This is very important. I think it's quite dangerous if you only focus on rolling back our military. Bringing the troops home, while a wonderful step in the direction of liberty, will do nothing in the way of effectively dismantling our empire, and stopping the resentment.

They hate us not because we occupy their countries, but because we shackle them with debt, and arrange for our corporations to have monopolistic control, crushing any hopes they might have for any sort of economic independence.

Thankfully, ending the fed would solve a lot of these problems.

[tnvoter]

check.

I was 18 and voted Bush 2000 based on his talking points of Low Taxes, Limited Government, Humble foreign policy.... around 2003 I was getting suspicious... he was re-elected "to finish his job"... around 2005 I realized the Police State had grown in size, the debt had grown, and we were building at least 2 nations and increasing the size of government on most aspects and moving opposite of what Bush preached. In 2008 I voted for Constitution party, and if it weren't for Chuck Baldwin I would have reluctantly voted Libertarian Barr for Pres as the best option.

Thank goodness for Ron Paul, and this movement

[Wren]

I supported the war in Iraq, even after my 22 year old cousin came home in a box. At the funeral his mother made the comment "George Bush killed my son". At the time I dismissed her as a leftist and grieving parent (I supported Bush and the war).

I honestly did not wake up until I heard Ron Paul's 2010 CPAC speech. They way he put it out there, made me realize that we have been wasting money and lives and are none the safer for it. The terrorists still want to kill us, that's for sure. And at that moment I also realized it's ok to be a conservative and have a different approach to foreign policy.

I'm extremely glad to learn that his speech at CPAC did not fall on deaf ears. Glad you could be a part of the modern day revolution

[Dripping Rain]

I supported the war in Iraq, even after my 22 year old cousin came home in a box. At the funeral his mother made the comment "George Bush killed my son". At the time I dismissed her as a leftist and grieving parent (I supported Bush and the war).

I honestly did not wake up until I heard Ron Paul's 2010 CPAC speech. They way he put it out there, made me realize that we have been wasting money and lives and are none the safer for it. The terrorists still want to kill us, that's for sure. And at that moment I also realized it's ok to be a conservative and have a different approach to foreign policy.

This post is full of WIN

[emazur]

I was never an interventionist, but I think a good argument for someone who considers himself a pro-war fiscal conservative would be this vicious circle:
"The surest path to big government is war, and the surest path to more war is big government" (is there an essay out there that makes this point?)

Also, you know how those neocon talking heads are always saying that we should never talk to our enemies (such as Iran)? Have them play this Reagan clip:
YouTube - Reagan explains why it's OK for U.S. to talk w/ adversaries (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rpfXw2Nj_Wk)

[LibertyEagle]

I supported the war in Iraq, even after my 22 year old cousin came home in a box. At the funeral his mother made the comment "George Bush killed my son". At the time I dismissed her as a leftist and grieving parent (I supported Bush and the war).

I honestly did not wake up until I heard Ron Paul's 2010 CPAC speech. They way he put it out there, made me realize that we have been wasting money and lives and are none the safer for it. The terrorists still want to kill us, that's for sure. And at that moment I also realized it's ok to be a conservative and have a different approach to foreign policy.

I think this applies to a lot of conservatives. In addition to seeing that being a non-interventionist does not mean being weak on national defense; quite the contrary.

[teacherone]

ask them why the terrorists aren't attacking madagascar.

they're free too right?

why don't the islmofascists hate all those free living madagascans!

[osan]

In response to this thread: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?p=2970826#post2970826 (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?p=2970826#post2970826)

To my knowledge, we have yet to find an effective strategy for winning over neoconservatives and hawks.

This seems to be mainly a waste of time. The real neoconservatives, i.e., the ones holding office, are not interested in liberty - certainly not for us, anyhow.

The only thing they will understand and respect is force.

[osan]

I supported the war in Iraq, even after my 22 year old cousin came home in a box. At the funeral his mother made the comment "George Bush killed my son".

This reminds me of the first kid from Vancouver (WA) to be killed in that ridiculous war. Seeing the news coverage was a painful thing - there were the parents, my neighbors, visibly and obviously destroyed by the loss of their son. The most heart wrenching part was when the mother stated publicly to the effect that at least he died for a worthy cause. I felt so awfully for them, to see such desperation that they would have to resort to believing such an obvious untruth that I wanted to shoot the friggin' TV. Honest to God, it was ghastly. I will never forget it.

[nate895]

I used to be a real neocon. I actually supported the moderate welfare/warfare state of the neocons when I was younger and blindly followed my parents on most matters, only seeking evidence for the wars and stuff. As I started to learn about the Constitution, I started to lean in that direction, but I was still pro-war. When I noticed Ron Paul was running for President in the first GOP debate, I started to think "I like this guy on everything but foreign policy." I was going to support him anyway, until the Giuliani thing in the next debate, which turned me off for a few months until I understood the reasons against the Bush foreign policy.

[tremendoustie]

I used to support aggressive war. I was willing to listen to Paul on the issue because I agreed with not only his positions, but his reasoning behind his positions, on just about every other issue.

Mainly, I realized that if I recognize that the government is incompetent and counterproductive in every other area, why would I believe it magically becomes competent when you give it guns? Also, I considered what would be the reaction of americans if they were treated, over time, as the US has treated so many middle eastern nations.

Americans would be livid -- and no doubt some of the more extreme people would be advocating attacks on domestic targets within the country that had been oppressing us, if there were no other recourse.

This government's foreign policy creates most terrorism.

[Maximus]

I'm an ex Neocon because I thought my only choice was between Bush and Democrats, and I loathed Democrats, thus I supported whatever Bush did

[Ekrub]

I don't consider myself an ex neo-con (more like a fiscal conservative who didn't give a rat's ass about social issues), but I supported the the War on Terror for a time. Mostly because I foolishly believed that small government conservatives wouldn't thrust us into a war unless it was for a damn good reason. The Democrats, by and large, were saying the same thing.

It was only after I became disillusioned with the Bush presidency (around 2005) that I seriously started reflecting and educating myself and found myself being very attracted to libertarian philosophy. It was hard to admit being wrong, but I'm all the better for it now. Ron Paul gave me that extra kick in the ass during the debates that made me hold the views I now hold today.

I don't know if you can argue with somebody and change their views. No one who I argued with ever really threatened my beliefs. It was only after I did a lot of reading and educating myself that I started to come to the views that I hold today.

[libertythor]

I used to be a domestic libertarian and a foreign interventionist. e.g. Libertarian on domestic issues and Neocon on foreign policy I voted for Harry Browne in 2000 and Michael Badnarik in 2004, but I had hope that the Republicans would fix things.

After Bush's reelection it was apparent to me that our foreign policy wasn't working at that most Republicans weren't for smaller government. However, I had always liked Ron Paul and occasionally dialed into his 888 number for his updates long before the 2007/2008 campaign.

[klamath]

I supported the war in Iraq, even after my 22 year old cousin came home in a box. At the funeral his mother made the comment "George Bush killed my son". At the time I dismissed her as a leftist and grieving parent (I supported Bush and the war).

I honestly did not wake up until I heard Ron Paul's 2010 CPAC speech. They way he put it out there, made me realize that we have been wasting money and lives and are none the safer for it. The terrorists still want to kill us, that's for sure. And at that moment I also realized it's ok to be a conservative and have a different approach to foreign policy.

Great Post. You can just as much want to defend America as the next conservative but you can have a completely different strategy to do so.

[bossman068410]

To my fellow Surfs.

Yes I was a neocon. Here is my history and how the movement turned my views.

I was a Regan and Ross Perrot Voter at those times I really didn't know much about politics and how they worked but the rederic sounded good.

Sometime before the last presidential race I became addicted to talk radio. Well, the only opinions that dominate that area was Hannity, Rush, and Levin. I joined the Hannity forums and actually would download the shows online. Then I was totally sold on the NEOCON views and started to watch Youtube clips online to support my own views.

How did I change to the libertarian views?

Persistence !!!!

To those who put out well thought out arguments in a clear, easy to understand formats that includes history to explain the arguments on you tube and other forums thanks. It took over 2 years to really come on board. That’s how bad my conditioning was. From Hannity forums, I learned more on You tube then to this forum, then Alex Jones, then Freedomain Radio, and now I get my info from multiple online sources.

I was in complete denial about the wars and believed we were white as snow on the issue. It is easy to get tribal and want to kill those strangers who attacked out land. I spent a lot of time on you tube leaning about Pallywood, and other things that supported my neocon reasoning. The only reason I would listen to libertarians is because you made so much sense about every other issue. After quite a bit of persistence of the issues surrounding the wars by the libertarians I started to second guess my view. Learning from you guys I still was iffy about the subject until someone who was in the war indirectly confirmed that we were not angels in the situation.

The second big issue was the drugs. My brother was a big user so I was totally against legalization. I think what triggered it for me was the fact that soo many people die because it’s illegal the beheadings, the shootings, and the human slaves on the border.

The more I learn the more I don't want government regulating, taxing, or licensing anything.

I just want to say THANK YOU to all the keyboard warriors who would take the time, patience, and well thought out ideas to me personally. No matter how angry you get at people who are bull headed don't insult just influence a steer them in the right direction.

Ps. One of the reasons why the freedom movement is so hard to accept is because It is so drastically different to the life we live now. SLAVERY.

[Southron]

I think to convince anyone to change his political beliefs is going to usually take more than reasoning with that person.

People get very defensive when you challenge what they believe.

I don't think there is any magic bullet, but that person has to be willing to challenge himself and work out what he believes and why he believes it.

[Brian4Liberty]

Who even knew what a "neo-conservative" was prior to 2000? They kept a very low profile. Strong foreign policy was just considered "right wing". But even before the infamous PNAC statements, it was possible to identify Bill Kristol and John McCain as extreme war-mongers, who also seemed suspiciously coordinated. You could say that Bill Kristol and John McCain started me on the path of questioning endless and unjustified war, long before even knowing the term "neo-conservative". ;)

And I might add, this was long before the "maverick" label was lovingly applied to McCain by both the left and right media, as they started their push to run McCain as a Presidential Candidate.

[AGRP]

Here here.

What do you need to know? :D

Read this:

http://www.thenorthwestreport.com/top-10-ways-to-convert-a-neocon-into-a-libertarian/

[Tyr]

The combination of the zionist goals of keeping its enemies/ neighbors perpetually unable to attack it and the evangelical thing about restoring the biblical Israel is a very very lethal combination and could easily spell ruin for our country or even humanity. That is no exageration.


This is spot on right here. There is one big issue at the moment that isn't shrinking, it is growing. The Religious Right. They are heavily brainwashed and largely a coordinated group of single issue voters. There are only TWO issues they care about. 1: That the candidate is Pro-Life and 2: That the candidate will, at the drop of a hat sacrifice their own mother apon the altar of Zionism for the benefit of Israel.

This group has been talked into, and honestly believes God is up in the sky with a notepad in one hand taking notes and ready to inflict punishment on us for not marching lockstep with whatever the Zionist wing tells them to. In honesty they could care less how big Government grows or what form we have, as long as it is of benefit to Israel and we're not aborting babies. Just as a disclaimer, i'm NOT saying all Christians are like that nor disparaging someone for a belief in God. Believe in God. Follow Christianity all you'd like. Just don't let snake oil salesmen brainwash you into believing that Israel is now God and you are to grovel to and serve Zionism.

Not ALL neocons are in that group, but that group IS a MASSIVE voting bloc. The question is if you can bleed off those who don't belong to that and if so will it nullify the Religious Right/AIPAC voting blocs. If it the answers are both affirmative the way to Educate them is, well, Education and ALOT of hard work.

As someone who has tried with small success I can tell you it takes alot of time and patience. You are talking about whiping out a large amount of false teaching and re educating the person FROM SCRATCH. Unfortunately you're going against the entire "Conservative" mainstream which has successfully been hijacked by the neocon wing. My advice? Go slow with it. Introduce them to the very basics to open discourse. From there bring them along slowly.

Also keep in mind, you're trying to convince someone that the Libertarian position ISN'T some progressive agenda, or that Paleoconservatism is the genuine Conservative deal. Always remember you're dealing with a person that was taught Libertarian Ideals are left wing and that Conservatism started in 1980 with neocon Ronald Reagan. The object is to show them otherwise.

[tremendoustie]

To my fellow Surfs.


It's serfs, fyi ;)

[BamaAla]

I was until last year. I wasn't neoconservative per se; I was a social libertarian and a war hawk on foreign policy. I'm so sorry and shamed because of that, but that's what it was. Two factors played a role in my conversion:

1. My GF's dad is a big Ron Paul supporter and he worked on me quite a bit.

2. Was the Iranian election ordeal in June of last year. I could just see CIA hands all over the "dissenters," and all of a sudden, everything my Ron Paul friends had said rang true.

[tremendoustie]

2. Was the Iranian election ordeal in June of last year. I could just see CIA hands all over the "dissenters," and all of a sudden, everything my Ron Paul friends had said rang true.

Having working eyes and ears, and paying attention for a while, is the best argument for liberty possible.

[heavenlyboy34]

I was a neocon-lite at one time, just because I was young and ignorant. I found libertarianism myself and got out of that neoconism. Coincidentally, my libertarian "ah-ha" moment was about a year before I heard of Ron Paul. Had it not been for him, I wouldn't have been involved in the '08 primaries at all.

[TheeJoeGlass]

In response to this thread: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?p=2970826#post2970826

To my knowledge, we have yet to find an effective strategy for winning over neoconservatives and hawks.

To help us in this, would any former neo-cons share what exactly convinced them that Ron Paul was right on foreign policy? What made you a non-interventionist? What should we do to inject some sanity into this debate?

I voted for Clinton once, Bush twice, and Obama ONCE. I did'nt even know what a neo-con was before 2008. But I was one at one time. Not anymore.

[Chester Copperpot]

Ive noticed with some neocons that they take a liking to Rand Paul... Perhaps maybe for no other reason thats its not RON PAUL and Ron Paul seems to critique them, and so they take it personally and get all thin skinned hurt and shit..

Somehow I think theyll cozy up to Rand and then come around that way.

[lester1/2jr]

a recurring theme in this thread seems to be once once DISCOVERS the position of being conservative but against the war on terror chances are good they will embrace it. For alot of people it doesn't seem to click though even when you explain it.

I am sure glad I am not a bagholder for the war on terror though. I remember reading one guy explain it rather cycnically

"I stopped defending Bush when it became a full time job"

there is nuance in that I think. We all defend Ron Paul as a full time job but we LIKE the job. ON some level, people were defending a war they couldn't really get behind and even if you are a pretty clever debater motivation is a big factor.


also, one of my all time favorite quotes on the Iraq war was by Michael Steele, then the governor of Maryland ? is that right?

"It didn't work".

that was the thing people forget about Iraq. It was supposed to empower muslims to want to like work at Starbucks in Baghdad or something instead of being jihadists. It was supposed to stop terrorism sort of the way NAFTA (not to open that can of worms) was supposed to stop illegal immigration by building up Mexicos economy.

[cswake]

I voted for Clinton once, Bush twice, and Obama ONCE. I did'nt even know what a neo-con was before 2008. But I was one at one time. Not anymore.

That's an interesting path of Presidential votes. Mind if I ask your thoughts when you made the votes at their respective times?

[georgiaboy]

that was the thing people forget about Iraq. It was supposed to empower muslims to want to like work at Starbucks in Baghdad or something instead of being jihadists. It was supposed to stop terrorism sort of the way NAFTA (not to open that can of worms) was supposed to stop illegal immigration by building up Mexicos economy.

Yeah, good point - get rid of the awful tyrant Saddam and the oppressed will come out of their caves and a new dawn of peace & prosperity will descend upon the freed population of Iraq. Oops.

I've always been a paleo-conservative economically, supported Bush and the GOP House and Senate, hoping for gov't to begin to be rolled back, then 9/11 happened and I got distracted and scared for about 2 or 3 years and wanted to get those who did this to us. I trusted the leadership when we went into Afghanistan the first time, but when the announcement was made to invade Iraq, I became confused and unsettled in whether what we were doing was really in the best interests of America and conservatism generally. I felt like I was the only conservative who was quietly questioning the policy, what with talk radio & Fox News telling me that this was the way to do things.

Then I heard Ron Paul in the '08 presidential debate. His economic and small gov't views were so right on, but then he went "just come home" and it shocked me; I had to find out more about this guy and where these views came from. When he said that original true conservatism was non-interventionist, and that we had over 700 US military bases in over 130 countries around the world RIGHT NOW, I knew he was so right and I was able to square my instincts with the reality and bring the full spectrum of conservatism in sync for me.

Regarding the 'conversion' of others, we need to keep pushing on all fronts, sometimes gently, sometimes loudly. As this thread shows, we're all coming at this from different places and are influenced in different ways. The one thing we must do is don't stop! It's truth, and it's working.

Proud RPR. Viva la r[evol]ution!

[Theocrat]

In response to this thread: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?p=2970826#post2970826

To my knowledge, we have yet to find an effective strategy for winning over neoconservatives and hawks.

To help us in this, would any former neo-cons share what exactly convinced them that Ron Paul was right on foreign policy? What made you a non-interventionist? What should we do to inject some sanity into this debate?

For the Christian conservatives (the largest voting bloc within the Republican Party) who believe in the neoconservative principles of foreign intervention, their Number One issue will be supporting Israel. The only way to change their minds about that is on theological grounds, a place which many members here dare not go with them. But grace be to God that some Christians are currently engaged with those Christians to get them thinking in a more faithful and sober way. :)

[TheeJoeGlass]

That's an interesting path of Presidential votes. Mind if I ask your thoughts when you made the votes at their respective times?

Voted for Clinton cause I disliked Dole. Voted for Bush twice cause I disliked Gore and Kerry. And I voted for Obama cause I did'nt know who Ron Paul was.