"It's the war, stupid!"

[Matt Collins]

In the general election, Ron Paul is the ONLY one who can beat Hillary.

Why?

"It's the war, stupid!"

[Marceline88]

Or more specifically.........(see signature)

[billjarrett]

Actually, its the economy, not the war. CNN has been saying that all day.

Push the antiwar without the noninterventionist policy and other policies, and you turn off the "I don't agree with the war, but what else are we going to do?" crowd. And 50+ years of history and a foreign policy lesson are pretty hard to fit in a soundbite.

[Corydoras]

A LOT LOT LOT of people have no idea that Hillary and Obama want to stay in Iraq until at least 2013. We need to get that information out to people.

[Matt Collins]

A LOT LOT LOT of people have no idea that Hillary and Obama want to stay in Iraq until at least 2013. We need to get that information out to people.Yes - this entire election is a war of information.

We need to go on the offensive to spread the truth, specifically the truth about Fred and Huckabee's past.

We can worry about Hillary later.

[parke]

Its the economy. Its the war.. ITS THE CONSTITUTION!!

[wgadget]

Also, Hillary and the other Pubs are pretty much PRO illegal immigrant....I'd be willing to bet that that is one of the TOP ISSUES. Ron's got em beat here, too.

[Jimmy]

A LOT LOT LOT of people have no idea that Hillary and Obama want to stay in Iraq until at least 2013. We need to get that information out to people.

I honestly think this one key point that has been overlooked and not pushed NEARLY enough.

[Matt Collins]

Actually, its the economy, not the war. CNN has been saying that all day.I have been noticing that. I don't know if it's true though.

[Kap]

A LOT LOT LOT of people have no idea that Hillary and Obama want to stay in Iraq until at least 2013. We need to get that information out to people.

Everytime I mention this people are shocked. Then they want to hear more about Ron Paul.

[Geronimo]

"It's the war, stupid!"

There's something very un-Ron Paul like about that statement.

I could live without ever hearing it again.

[ChickenHawk]

The war is the only thing keeping me from supporting Ron Paul. I wonder how many people like me are out there.

[billjarrett]

The war is the only thing keeping me from supporting Ron Paul. I wonder how many people like me are out there.

I was in the same boat as you, until I looked at the whole package:

1. The war is costing us 400 Billion a year approximately. We are already 9 trillion dollars in debt. To win a war, you have to win on all fronts. Troops coming home from war and greeted by a depression with no jobs for them, out of control inflation, etc, etc is not really winning the war. It is not a victory if the military wins but the whole nation goes bankrupt in the meantime.

2. I was a big "If we don't finish in Iraq, the war will continue here" guy before I found Ron Paul. However, economically we need to get out of there. Although there is the religious aspect of the war, it is really masking the political agendas behind it. I think that if we mix pulling out of Iraq with a total noninterventionist policy, and prove to the world we mean it, I think out threat of terrorism would go down incredibly. I would recommend http://www.amazon.com/Through-Our-Enemies-Eyes-Radical/dp/1574889672/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/104-0111106-0170359?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1194836094&sr=8-1 as an area to get started in understanding whats really going on over there. Also, looking up the Shah Coup de Tat, Carter's presidency and how it relates to Iran and Afghanistan, Reagans continuing of Carters policies in Afghanistan, Reagans attempt at troops in Lebanon, reactions to our troops in Saudi Arabia, Iran/Contra affair, and probably a bunch of other events I'm forgetting. After doing the homework, I came to the conclusion that pulling out of Iraq with a strict non-interventionist policy would probably be our best choice at this point.

[schmeisser]

The war is the only thing keeping me from supporting Ron Paul. I wonder how many people like me are out there.

I was also there until I really looked at what the future likely held there and separated my emotion from the logic. As a veteran, I am not anti-war - I just want it to be handled properly. Declared by congress, prosecuted quickly with overpowering force, and then get out. I do not want 14 military bases in Iraq and a neverending presence in the middle east.

I am ready to leave there and try a new tact. Ron Paul offers a logical one.

[born2drv]

The war is the only thing keeping me from supporting Ron Paul. I wonder how many people like me are out there.

Same here, I was a hardened neo-con. I'm a middle eastern Christian whose family going back many generations have suffered from radical Islam persecutions so I was Bush's biggest supporter going into this war, same with my family, my dad who's an orthodox priest called him "St. George".

But then I realized it's just not sustainable financially, and even if we spent every penny we have we would still not win. We're radicalizing more people then we're moderating. We're also occupiers in their land, like it or not this is the truth and a major thorn in their radicalization.

We were winning the "war on terror" even before we invaded if you think about it. The region had moderated so much. Everyone there had satelite TV and watched our programs --- the brady bunch, the cosby show, etc... they wanted the American dream. Women in Iran dyed their hair blond, went without wearing their headress, were becoming more educated, all the schools there were moderate, etc... now because of our intervention modern women in Iran have been kidnapped, raped, murdered... hardline Sharia law has been more enforced again, university professors are being replaced with islamic clerics, etc... everything is moving backwards and all the progress made in this region over the past 100 years is being erased all because we screwed things up there.

We need to go back to what we were doing --- lead by example, be the best democratic government there is, the most prosperous nation in the world, etc. and the radical element of islam will drop off naturally over time, and a more moderate islamic religion will flourish.... peace will take hold, christians, jews and muslims will be able to live in peace, etc.

But it will never happen with us building dozens of bases in their region, putting sanctions on millions of people and starving/killing them, and depriving them of basic rights of human life all for the sake of our thirst for their oil. We need to stop punishing the people of the middle east for our out of control demand of oil and let them live their lives in peace before we can ever expect them to be peaceful.

[Goldwater Conservative]

"It's the Constitution, stupid!" seems like a better fit for Paul's candidacy, since it encompasses the whole range of his positions, especially if you consider the libertarian "spirit" of the Constitution.

However, I don't think Paul would go around saying "stupid", nor do I think it would fit the image he's fostering (and that's an accurate reflection of who he is), even if it's just a parody of Clinton's line in '92.

[ChickenHawk]

I really think that the Bush administration missold this war. The "Bush Doctrine" is supposed to be about preemption but we have yet to take a preemptive action. I personally do not think that preemption should be the policy of the US and should only be done under very special circumstances which I have yet to see. This war was a response to on going aggression and blatant cease fire violations. I believed and still believe that it would have been extraordinarily irresponsible not to take action.

I am not certain what path we should take at this point however. It may be that we have accomplished as much in Iraq and Afghanistan that we can ever hope to militarily and we aught to be winding things down. I am not prepared to pull the plug and leave people who have worked with us to salvage Iraq to get slaughtered.

I believe that the abandonment or the South Vietnamese was one of the most cowardly things his country has ever done and do not want to see something like that happen again.

[schmeisser]

This war was a response to on going aggression and blatant cease fire violations. I believed and still believe that it would have been extraordinarily irresponsible not to take action.

Still a messy debate, but I could have lived with some response. I parted ways when it became occupation and we started eyeing Iran and Syria.


I believe that the abandonment or the South Vietnamese was one of the most cowardly things his country has ever done and do not want to see something like that happen again.

Would the numbers have been any less through a more prolonged presence? Murderers will be murderers and I cannot afix the blame for that on the US even if it was hurried along by leaving. The moral fault still lies with the killers IMHO.

[Corydoras]

This war was a response to on going aggression and blatant cease fire violations. I believed and still believe that it would have been extraordinarily irresponsible not to take action.

We were doing it for the UN-- that was the legal justification-- and not for the defense of the United States. What is your opinion on being the UN's policeman?

[ChickenHawk]

I don't think I will ever agree the Ron Paul's stance on foreign policy so it is going to come down to whether or not I believe the the federal government is so screwed up on the domestic front that I end up supporting him despite his FP views. With the extravagant spending and increasing size of the federal government I may get there soon.

However, even if RP is elected president he could do very little domestically with a hostile congress but could do quite a bit on foreign policy. So he would be effective on the things I disagree with him on and ineffective on the things I agree with him on. Kinda puts a damper on things don't ya think?

The fact is Americans love their nanny state and aren't going to give it up without a fight.

[ChickenHawk]

What is your opinion on being the UN's policeman?


I think we aught to get out of the UN. However we do need to be the world's policeman because if we don't Russia, China or Hugo Chavez will be. That doesn't mean we should go around the world starting wars but we should have the strength and presence around the world to keep things from getting out of control. Weakness is extremely dangerous.

IIRC the UN never authorized the use of force in Iraq.

[slantedview]

For me it's the economy, for others, yea the war.

BUT, Hillary is running ads stating "I'll end this war".

BS, but that's what she's saying.

[justinc.1089]

I don't think I will ever agree the Ron Paul's stance on foreign policy so it is going to come down to whether or not I believe the the federal government is so screwed up on the domestic front that I end up supporting him despite his FP views. With the extravagant spending and increasing size of the federal government I may get there soon.

However, even if RP is elected president he could do very little domestically with a hostile congress but could do quite a bit on foreign policy. So he would be effective on the things I disagree with him on and ineffective on the things I agree with him on. Kinda puts a damper on things don't ya think?

The fact is Americans love their nanny state and aren't going to give it up without a fight.

You mention Vietnam, but what about Darfwur (did I spell that right? idk) or Pakistan? What about Taiwan? Venezuela? All of those countries are up against powerful corrupt governments too, so should we go help them all? CAN we go help them all? What would make Vietnam more important than the other people in the world that need help too?

There is always going to be a war being fought, and if there's a war one side is justified to be fighting it. Does that mean you're going to go fight in every war that happens though? We can't police the world even if we wanted to do so. There is no way we could fight in every country right now that needs help. There is ALWAYS a war happening somewhere, but unless we want economic depression and a constant warfare state with soldiers dying then we take no sides and trade with everyone, and only fight wars in OUR defense.

We can't just intervene in every bad thing that happens in the world. Its simply not possible for even us to do.

As far as gov. spending Paul could make a much bigger difference than you realize. He could cut agencies tremendously which would cut down the budget quite a lot. It would take congress working with him to get a lot done but he could do a lot without them too.

[ChickenHawk]

We can't just intervene in every bad thing that happens in the world. Its simply not possible for even us to do.


Agreed, we have to pick our battles wisely.

[Corydoras]

IIRC the UN never authorized the use of force in Iraq.

It was the legal justification that the United States used. Whether or not that was the UN's intent...!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_resolution#International_law
In short,

The position of the US and UK is that the invasion was authorized by a series of UN resolutions dating back to 1990.

[Corydoras]

Agreed, we have to pick our battles wisely.

But using what criteria? You find the Just War theory to be too restrictive?

[Goldwater Conservative]

I think we aught to get out of the UN. However we do need to be the world's policeman because if we don't Russia, China or Hugo Chavez will be.

I think you're overestimating their power. They're never going to be able to do what we do... although we won't either in the future if we don't change our domestic AND foreign policies.

[ChickenHawk]

But using what criteria? You find the Just War theory to be too restrictive?

The criteria would be decided by our elected officials. That is why I hesitate to support RP.
The just war theory may be too restrictive in rare cases. I am sure many people would disagree whether or not the Iraq war meets the criteria. I think that it did.

[ChickenHawk]

I think you're overestimating their power. They're never going to be able to do what we do... although we won't either in the future if we don't change our domestic AND foreign policies.

I may well be overestimating but that is better than underestimating them. I admit that before 9/11 I overestimated the threat from Islamic terrorists. As a result on 9/11 I was relieved that we got off easy while most American were in shock at how bad it was. In most cases overestimating a threat is the safe thing to do.

[justinc.1089]

I don't understand how you can see how much corruption there is in our government, but still think there was a justified reason to go to war in Iraq.

Afghanistan was justified because the Taliban basically controlled that government and that was who we fought there. But Iraq is not justified. Whats the reason for being there?

[klamath]

Chickenhawk,
8 months ago I was where you are at and I have a DD 214 with service in Iraq to back that up. I came to RP because of his integrity not so much of his anti Iraq war pitch. It was the vile hate for RP from his own party that made me really start questioning their motives and researching the world more. The war on terror was a joke to begin with and I knew it then. There is no way we are going to stop terror by spreading our divisions around the world. Terror is gerrilla warfare with a different name. We stupidly took over the mess of the middle east from the French and English and we are going broke blundering around with mass warfare while Bin laden still roams free. The cost of the war exceeds the amount of oil we get from that area. As our debt soars and our dollar falters the EU is getting a trade surpluss selling Airbuses around the world. The GDP of the EU exceeds our own. Why are we going in debt to China to provide defence for NATO? If you think we cauld get into a conventional war with China and win forget it. The only thing that evens that out is our nuclear weapons, which we don't need to be spread around the world to be effective. We have no need to defend south Korea. THey would walk all over the north if a war started.

[ChickenHawk]

Iraq invaded Kuwait, an important ally and a supplier of oil. We kicked them out and slapped a bunch of sanctions on them. Over the next decade Saddam was in violation of pretty much every agreement he ever signed on to, tried to assassinate a former US president and was trying to shoot down our pilots patrolling a no fly zone.

Many will say that much of that was illegitimate UN resolution enforcement but we still would have had to do a lot of it even without the UN. Leaving Saddam in power would have been very dangerous not necessarily because of what he would do but because of the message it would send to all the other power hungry dictators around the world.

Also, oil plays a huge roll in all of this. It is hard for me to understand how anyone could think that oil isn't worth fighting for.

[ChickenHawk]

Many have said that the war is bankrupting our country. The unconstitutional spending spree the federal government has been on for 60+ years is what is bankrupting us. The war is a legitimate federal responsibility, although congress should have declared war.

[ChickenHawk]

"The defense policy of the United States is based on a simple premise: The United States does not start fights. We will never be an aggressor. We maintain our strength in order to deter and defend against aggression -- to preserve freedom and peace. "

Ronald Reagan

It's funny, It appears that this quote is being used to imply that we are no longer following that policy. I don't see how we have deviated from it at all.

[NewEnd]

Also, oil plays a huge roll in all of this. It is hard for me to understand how anyone could think that oil isn't worth fighting for.


because fighting for it makes it more inaccessible.

we cant nuke the people who man the oil fields, so we have to occupy them... and that isn't going too well. Mostly because Iraq has a history of resistance. If we tried Saudi Arabia, we woudl really see worldwide jihad.

Oil is much cheaper if we just trade for it in peace. Iraqis cant make pentiums, we cant extract oil cheaply, why not treat them with respect?

[NewEnd]

It's funny, It appears that this quote is being used to imply that we are no longer following that policy. I don't see how we have deviated from it at all.

bah, your wasting my time, welcome to my ignore, troll.

[ChickenHawk]

bah, your wasting my time, welcome to my ignore, troll.

I figured I get labeled a troll, kinda surprised it took so long. Putting someone on your ignore list because you disagree with them is somewhat revealing.

[schmeisser]

bah, your wasting my time, welcome to my ignore, troll.

QFT

[Liberty Star]

Ron Paul can stage a major upset if he kept raising money like this and spent it wisely to get his message out. Anti Iraq war sentiment out there is powerful and growing, he has whole GOP field open to him alone to tap into that sentiment.

[Corydoras]

I don't think I will ever agree the Ron Paul's stance on foreign policy so it is going to come down to whether or not I believe the the federal government is so screwed up on the domestic front that I end up supporting him despite his FP views. With the extravagant spending and increasing size of the federal government I may get there soon.

Well, who else is there who is pro-war and is at all addressing domestic policy in the way you want? Some of them, like Thompson, are mouthing the words "small government," but as far as I can see, Ron Paul is the only one who is actually serious about it enough to give details.
:)

[ChickenHawk]

QFT


Obviously I disagree with most on this form as far as foreign policy is concerned. I enjoyed hearing peoples opinions and offering my views as well. I'm sorry if that wastes your time.

[schmeisser]

Obviously I disagree with most on this form as far as foreign policy is concerned. I enjoyed hearing peoples opinions and offering my views as well. I'm sorry if that wastes your time.

Your name, avatar, and signature pretty clearly identified you as a probable troll, but most were still willing to give you honest, thoughtful and logical responses. When you try and say that oil is worth losing my life or the lives of my brothers in harm's way now - you went over the top.

Even back on Hannity's forum you'd have a hard time getting people to let that one slide.

Good luck to you and your candidate.

[Goldwater Conservative]

I may well be overestimating but that is better than underestimating them. I admit that before 9/11 I overestimated the threat from Islamic terrorists. As a result on 9/11 I was relieved that we got off easy while most American were in shock at how bad it was. In most cases overestimating a threat is the safe thing to do.

In regards to 9/11, that's just an example of how interventionism actually led to a stronger threat.

In regards to the Iraq war, I sketch out my argument in this post on another thread: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?p=396144#post396144

I too used to be more hawkish on foreign policy, and I still advocate tight border/port security and strong military reserves ready to intervene even in the defense of other peaceful countries... but I've definitely come around to seeing nation-building as a counterproductive enterprise doomed to failure.

[ChickenHawk]

Your name, avatar, and signature pretty clearly identified you as a probable troll, but most were still willing to give you honest, thoughtful and logical responses. When you try and say that oil is worth losing my life or the lives of my brothers in harm's way now - you went over the top.

Even back on Hannity's forum you'd have a hard time getting people to let that one slide.

Good luck to you and your candidate.

The avatar and screen name were supposed to be humorous but I can see how it could be viewed that way.

As far as me saying that oil is worth fighting for, I believe that. Oil is the fuel that drives the economy and even freedom. I suppose if you find that position totally absurd then that would indicate that I am a troll. All I can say is that I am not.

On Hannity's forum (I assume, I've never been on there) they don't want to admit the roll of oil in the war because it is unpopular.

[ChickenHawk]

In regards to 9/11, that's just an example of how interventionism actually led to a stronger threat.

In regards to the Iraq war, I sketch out my argument in this post on another thread: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?p=396144#post396144

I too used to be more hawkish on foreign policy, and I still advocate tight border/port security and strong military reserves ready to intervene even in the defense of other peaceful countries... but I've definitely come around to seeing nation-building as a counterproductive enterprise doomed to failure.

It is always nice to see someone make an argument in an intelligent manner even if I don't agree with it entirely. In fact the only thing I think I don't agree with is that interventionism led to a stronger threat. There is evidence that it may have but I'm not convinced. One thing I am really tired of the is the "Bush lied people died" rant that so many anti-war people use.

Anyway, I don't know if I will vote for Ron Paul in the Republican primary but if Giuliani wins the nomination I will support him for a third party run.

[born2drv]

Iraq invaded Kuwait, an important ally and a supplier of oil. We kicked them out and slapped a bunch of sanctions on them. Over the next decade Saddam was in violation of pretty much every agreement he ever signed on to, tried to assassinate a former US president and was trying to shoot down our pilots patrolling a no fly zone.

Many will say that much of that was illegitimate UN resolution enforcement but we still would have had to do a lot of it even without the UN. Leaving Saddam in power would have been very dangerous not necessarily because of what he would do but because of the message it would send to all the other power hungry dictators around the world.

Also, oil plays a huge roll in all of this. It is hard for me to understand how anyone could think that oil isn't worth fighting for.

Oil does play a big role in this but not like you think. After WW2 the US dollar was the only thing left standing. Everyone sought refuge in our dollar and it quickly became the world reserve. Back then something like 90% of all oil was traded in US dollars. From there on out we priced all the commodities of the world.... oil, gold, etc... we got lazy and greedy and untied our dollar to gold, we exerted more and more control over the middle east, and we've pissed off a lot of people since then...

We've seen Iraq try to dump our dollar and switch purchase of his oil to Euros --- he was swiftly bombed.... we've seen Chavez now demand payment for Venezuala's oil in euros, so far we haven't dealt with him yet. Russia has reformed their monetary unit and now demands payment in Rubles. The stranglehold of the US over commodities pricing is coming to an end... something like 50% or less of the world's oil now is traded in US dollars and it's shrinking every day. Iran is already trading it's oil in Euros and I'm certain that's the main reason we want to bomb them too.. so we can swoop in, take control, award no-bid contracts to US companies and get it pumping back in US dollars again like we did in Iraq.

When we made our 50-basis point cut in the federal reserve, Saudi Arabia refused to cut as well, because they already have high inflation, this basically signals they will not be in lockstep with the US dollar any more. And infact the Saudi's, Kuwait, UAE, etc are all working on their own unified currency, the GCC (Gulf Coast Currency) and have plans to phase out the US dollar by 2010. Once this happens only something like 30% of all oil will be traded in US dollars and it will crush our currency and economy. So our control over the world's commodities is coming to an end.

We can no longer control the world economically. We can not control them politically. And our government is grasping at straws and trying to exert control militarily. But it will not work. Everyone is dumping our currency and wants independence. They don't want the US having so much influence over the world and who can blame them?

Venezuala and Brazil just signed a deal to have a new South American Bank to rival the World Bank. China is growing stronger and stronger economically. The writing is on the wall.

The US needs to stop it's intervention abroad. We can still get oil through peaceful trade and commerce. Will we get it at a discount and be able to print money out of thin air to gain an unfair economic advantage? No. But will we have a stable supply of oil? Yes. And who knows, with peace and stability and less tension in the air, and a fiscally responsible government back in power we could get even cheaper oil then what we have now.

[ChickenHawk]

With the world sucking down 3 billion gallons of oil a day and supplies tightening, clearly it is going to play a huge role in world politics for years to come. I often wonder if a massive world wide economic recession is the only way out of this in the short term. I looks like that is going to happen one way or another.

[Goldwater Conservative]

As far as me saying that oil is worth fighting for, I believe that. Oil is the fuel that drives the economy and even freedom. I suppose if you find that position totally absurd then that would indicate that I am a troll. All I can say is that I am not.

Well, if oil is a reason, I imagine it'd be better to tap our reserves and/or do more domestic drilling while investing (without playing favorites) in alternative energy research.


One thing I am really tired of the is the "Bush lied people died" rant that so many anti-war people use.

Although I don't want to open that can of worms (there seem to be people on both sides of that issue in great number here), I personally don't buy it myself. I think incompetence was more to blame... but I also think there has been revisionism going on about why we're in Iraq and a lot of covering up since we got in there. I also think, just like they're using excuses to get into it with Iran, 9/11 only made more likely what was already on the table for the Bush administration (war in Iraq).


Anyway, I don't know if I will vote for Ron Paul in the Republican primary but if Giuliani wins the nomination I will support him for a third party run.

I find that interesting. Do you not buy Giuliani's "I'm Mr. National Security" claim, or do you just think his domestic policies should matter (which most of his GOP supporters think shouldn't)?

[ChickenHawk]

I find that interesting. Do you not buy Giuliani's "I'm Mr. National Security" claim, or do you just think his domestic policies should matter (which most of his GOP supporters think shouldn't)?

Giuliani is WAY too much of a believer in authoritarianism. If there is one issue for me that disqualifies a candidate it is support for gun control. Needless to say I'm not buying his recent conversion on the issue.

[Matt Collins]

Wow... look what I started ;-)