noztnac
11-17-2007, 07:56 PM
It is essential that Ron Paul convince at least a portion of pro-war Republicans. I think the real problem is that they see Ron Paul's argument as an extension of the Democrat's argument when, in actual fact, it is not. Many of these Republicans have spent the last several years shoring up defense of the Bush doctrine as a response to the Democrat's attacks.
There is a big difference!
One of Ron Paul's main arguments against our intervention in Iraq is that we did not declare war.
We can point out that the fact that we did not declare war is what has divided the nation. Congress, including a bunch of Democrats, shirked their constitutional responsibility in order to give themselves a free pass to use the war for political gain regardless of how the war turned out.
So Ron Paul's position that we should vote up or down to declare war is the traditional conservative position and the constitutional position. And Bush and the troops would be in a far better position had we voted on a declaration of war. This would be true if we voted to go to war or if we voted not to go to war.
Not voting to declare war puts the president and the troops in the position of fighting a war without the support of the people.
So even Republicans who support the war should realize that they are in a much weaker position now for having not followed the constitution as Ron Paul insisted we should.
Next, George Bush campaigned on a platform of a "humble foreign policy and NO nation building".
We are certainly nation building in Iraq.
So Bush supporters should be asked why.
I can understand, although I disagree with, wanting to topple Saddam Hussein and to remove his threat to use WMD's.
But the fact is we have accomplished both objectives. Saddam is dead. The WMD's, if there ever were any, ar no longer in the hands of Saddam Hussein. He is no longer a threat.
So if our objective was to accomplish those two tasks we have won. Our mission has been accomplished and the troops should be brought home.
The only argument for staying is that we "broke it" so now we must "fix it".
The fact is Iraq was all screwed up before we got there. We removed a dictator and now there is a power vacuum.
But that is absolutely NOT our problem. That is an Iraqi problem and we should let them sort it out. It is their future, not ours.
If they all choose to kill each other too bad. Eventually we will leave. They can either kill each other now, ten years from now, or twenty years from now.
Unless we plan to stay forever, we are only prolonging the inevitable.
Right now we have troops in Japan, South Korea, and Germany. How long ago was WW2? How long ago was the Korean war?
Do we really want troops in Iraq 50+ years from now?
Ro Paul supporters need to discuss these issues with the pro-war crowd. The pro-war crowd needs to go through the process of rationalizing the extent to which they are pro-war.
I think most conservatives, when guided through this process of rationalizing the war step by step, will come to the conclusion that they do not have the same objectives as the neoconservatives. Some, of course, will. But I think a far larger percentage will begin to question the logic of their position.
In the end we can only hope that logic beats demagoguery.
There is a big difference!
One of Ron Paul's main arguments against our intervention in Iraq is that we did not declare war.
We can point out that the fact that we did not declare war is what has divided the nation. Congress, including a bunch of Democrats, shirked their constitutional responsibility in order to give themselves a free pass to use the war for political gain regardless of how the war turned out.
So Ron Paul's position that we should vote up or down to declare war is the traditional conservative position and the constitutional position. And Bush and the troops would be in a far better position had we voted on a declaration of war. This would be true if we voted to go to war or if we voted not to go to war.
Not voting to declare war puts the president and the troops in the position of fighting a war without the support of the people.
So even Republicans who support the war should realize that they are in a much weaker position now for having not followed the constitution as Ron Paul insisted we should.
Next, George Bush campaigned on a platform of a "humble foreign policy and NO nation building".
We are certainly nation building in Iraq.
So Bush supporters should be asked why.
I can understand, although I disagree with, wanting to topple Saddam Hussein and to remove his threat to use WMD's.
But the fact is we have accomplished both objectives. Saddam is dead. The WMD's, if there ever were any, ar no longer in the hands of Saddam Hussein. He is no longer a threat.
So if our objective was to accomplish those two tasks we have won. Our mission has been accomplished and the troops should be brought home.
The only argument for staying is that we "broke it" so now we must "fix it".
The fact is Iraq was all screwed up before we got there. We removed a dictator and now there is a power vacuum.
But that is absolutely NOT our problem. That is an Iraqi problem and we should let them sort it out. It is their future, not ours.
If they all choose to kill each other too bad. Eventually we will leave. They can either kill each other now, ten years from now, or twenty years from now.
Unless we plan to stay forever, we are only prolonging the inevitable.
Right now we have troops in Japan, South Korea, and Germany. How long ago was WW2? How long ago was the Korean war?
Do we really want troops in Iraq 50+ years from now?
Ro Paul supporters need to discuss these issues with the pro-war crowd. The pro-war crowd needs to go through the process of rationalizing the extent to which they are pro-war.
I think most conservatives, when guided through this process of rationalizing the war step by step, will come to the conclusion that they do not have the same objectives as the neoconservatives. Some, of course, will. But I think a far larger percentage will begin to question the logic of their position.
In the end we can only hope that logic beats demagoguery.