How do we counter the "Congress should fund the troops, no questions asked!" group.

[Starks]

I consider the people who support giving Bush a blank check to be the most evil of all, but are there any good talking points to use against them?

[Ron Paul Fan]

If you keep funding the troops, the war keeps going and going and going. If Bush doesn't get his money, he'll have to bring the troops home or he'll endanger their safety. We've spent way too much money on this war already and lost way too many lives. How many more do you wanna lose? How much longer do you wanna be there? What do we have to pay to save face? That's all we're doing is saving face! It's time we came home!

[Zarxrax]

They aren't funding the troops, they are funding the mission.

[foofighter20x]

I'd tell them that Washington, Madison, Hamilton, and Franklin all disagree.

They gave Congress the pursestrings for a specific reason.

Then I'd tell that person to go read a book.

[quickmike]

I consider the people who support giving Bush a blank check to be the most evil of all, but are there any good talking points to use against them?

Not really. The problem is, they have a fundemental difference in thinking than the rest of the 70% of americans. Nothing you can say to them will convince them because they believe that no matter what we do in the world, as long as its done under the guise of "patriotism" and helping other countries, its is justified. Where do you go from there? As long as the have these beliefs, you cant convince them of anything. Only time will have an effect on these types of people when they see the economy tank because of inflation caused by our overseas spending.

Dont waste your time with these people. The more you push, the more they stick to their mindless beliefs and the more they push back.


Leave em alone and let them figure it out for themselves.

[Jordan]

They aren't funding the troops, they are funding the mission.

Quote of the year.


Random and slightly related: 25% of homeless people are Veterans.

[MGreen]

The President controls the military, the Congress controls the purse. If Congress stops giving money to the military, the President has to decide how to proceed. Any casualties inflicted because the troops were running low on supplies would be the fault of the President, not Congress.

[LibertyEagle]

I can't remember the exact number, but Paul has recently said that there are hundreds of billions of dollars in the pipeline for the troops. What Bush is wanting is more money to expand their empire-building. It's not for the troops at all. That's point number one.

The second point is that it is not up to the president to unilaterally decide to conduct war. It is largely up to the Congress. The House holds the purse strings for a reason. They are the branch of government closest to the people. If the House does not vote to give any more money to the war effort, it is up to Bush whether he wants to keep the troops in the Middle East for longer than the money will last. If he does, it will be HE that is threatening the troops. Not Congress.

[torchbearer]

I consider the people who support giving Bush a blank check to be the most evil of all, but are there any good talking points to use against them?

Congress Should follow the constitution no questions asked. Declare a War and fund it. Or Don't Declare a War and Don't Fund it.

[american.swan]

I consider the people who support giving Bush a blank check to be the most evil of all, but are there any good talking points to use against them?

Sure, "THERE ALREADY ENOUGH MONEY IN THE PIPELINE, DON'T NEED ANYMORE!!!"

At least I think that's Dr Ron's take on it.

[american.swan]

The President controls the military, the Congress controls the purse. If Congress stops giving money to the military, the President has to decide how to proceed. Any casualties inflicted because the troops were running low on supplies would be the fault of the President, not Congress.

+1

[Ron LOL]

The President controls the military, the Congress controls the purse. If Congress stops giving money to the military, the President has to decide how to proceed. Any casualties inflicted because the troops were running low on supplies would be the fault of the President, not Congress.

This is my perspective as well.

Consider also RP's argument that we don't even have the money to fight this war, and that the President and the Congress have a moral responsibility to not bankrupt this country before any kind of argument can be made about a moral responsibility to clean up our mess in Iraq.

[torchbearer]

Someone wrote a thread that had a Sun Tzu quote regard how to wage a war that doesn't destroy your country economically... but I can't find it on the search function.

[evadmurd]

There is enough money in the pipeline to best serve our troops by getting them home--now.

[LibertyEagle]

Congress Should follow the constitution no questions asked. Declare a War and fund it. Or Don't Declare a War and Don't Fund it.

Yes, but didn't the troops, long ago, accomplish the goals in Iraq approved by Congress?

[American]

The Neo Cons are talking about closing bases here at home at a time when we are supposed to be scared. This is whats being said, if this happens I hope the Democrats dont flinch this will just sink this whole mind set about terrorism.

[Visual]

There is enough money and time for an ORGANIZED withdrawl. There's still 3 months of funding for the army (till febuary is the figure I heard) and 5 months for the marines (till march). That would give MORE than enough time to withdraw. However, the president would rather run a war without the money and make the troops suffer, than to do what the majority of the american public wants.

[Menthol Patch]

If we fund the troops we are simply giving them money to keep heading strait towards their death.

We need to bring all of our troops home.

[bbachtung]

HON. RON PAUL OF TEXAS

Before the U.S. House of Representatives

January 18, 2007

Everybody Supports the Troops

Mr. Speaker, I have never met anyone who did not support our troops. Sometimes, however, we hear accusations that someone or some group does not support the men and women serving in our armed forces. This is pure demagoguery, and it’s intellectually dishonest. The accusers play on emotions to gain support for controversial policies, implying that those who disagree are unpatriotic. But keeping our troops out of harm’s way, especially when war is unnecessary, is never unpatriotic. There’s no better way to support the troops.

Since we now know that Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction and was not threatening anyone, we must come to terms with 3,000 American deaths and 23,000 American casualties. It’s disconcerting that those who never believed the justifications given for our invasion, and who now want the war ended, are still accused of not supporting the troops! This is strange indeed!

Instead of questioning who has the best interests of our troops at heart, we should be debating which policy is best for our country. Defensive wars to preserve our liberties, fought only with proper congressional declarations, are legitimate. Casualties under such circumstances still are heartbreaking, but they are understandable. Casualties that occur in undeclared, unnecessary wars, however, are bewildering. Why must so many Americans be killed or hurt in Iraq when our security and our liberty were not threatened?

Clichés about supporting the troops are designed to distract us from failed policies, policies promoted by powerful special interests that benefit from war. Anything to steer the discussion away from the real reasons the war in Iraq will not end anytime soon.

Many now agree that we must change our policy and extricate ourselves from the mess in Iraq. They cite a mandate from the American people for a new direction. This opinion is now more popular, and thus now more widely held by politicians in Washington. But there’s always a qualifier: We can’t simply stop funding the war, because we must support the troops. I find this conclusion bizarre. It means one either believes the “support the troops” propaganda put out by the original promoters of the war, or that one actually is for the war after all, despite the public protestations.

In reality, support for the status quo (and the president’s troop surge) in Iraq means expanding the war to include Syria and Iran. The naval build up in the region, and the proxy war we just fought to take over Somalia, demonstrate the administration’s intentions to escalate our current war into something larger.

There’s just no legitimacy to the argument that voting against funding the war somehow harms our troops. Perpetuating and escalating the war only serve those whose egos are attached to some claimed victory in Iraq, and those with a determination to engineer regime change in Iran.

Don’t believe for a minute that additional congressional funding is needed so our troops can defend themselves or extricate themselves from the war zone. That’s nonsense. The DOD has hundreds of billions of dollars in the pipeline available to move troops anywhere on earth-- including home.

We shouldn’t forget that the administration took $600 million from the war in Afghanistan and used it in Iraq, before any direct appropriations were made for the invasion of Iraq. Funds are always available to put our troops into harms way; they are always available for leaving a war zone.

Those in Congress who claim they want the war ended, yet feel compelled to keep funding it, are badly misguided. They either are wrong in their assessment that cutting funds would hurt the troops, or they need to be more honest about supporting a policy destined to dramatically increase the size and scope of this misadventure in the Middle East. Rest assured one can be patriotic and truly support the troops by denying funds to perpetuate and spread this ill-advised war.

The sooner we come to this realization, the better it will be for all of us.

http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/document.php?id=530

[Zarxrax]

The core problem you face in arguing against these guys is that they truly, honestly believe that if we aren't over there fighting these "islamo-facists" they are going to come over here and start bombing shopping malls, forcing us all to become muslim, and destroy our "free society". As ludicrous as it is, this is what they really believe, and what you have to argue against.

[jjockers]

Quote of the year.


Random and slightly related: 25% of homeless people are Veterans.

25% of the homeless are veterans, yet veterans only make up 11% of the population (http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-11-07-homeless-veterans_N.htm).

Does this mean that joining the military increases your chance of becoming homeless by more than 200%?

Sounds like something to tell a recruiter.. :o

[torchbearer]

25% of the homeless are veterans, yet veterans only make up 11% of the population (http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-11-07-homeless-veterans_N.htm).

Does this mean that joining the military increases your chance of becoming homeless by more than 200%?

Sounds like something to tell a recruiter.. :o

QFT.

[torchbearer]

Have you seen the numbers on suicides by vets who return from Iraq? I don't remember the exact numbers, but i'm sure google would pull up the article I was reading on it.

[Starks]

The core problem you face in arguing against these guys is that they truly, honestly believe that if we aren't over there fighting these "islamo-facists" they are going to come over here and start bombing shopping malls, forcing us all to become muslim, and destroy our "free society". As ludicrous as it is, this is what they really believe, and what you have to argue against.

For the sake of argument, let's assume this is true and islamofascism exists in the manner described. How should it be dealt with?

[Zarxrax]

For the sake of argument, let's assume this is true and islamofascism exists in the manner described. How should it be dealt with?

I don't really know... because its easy to logically argue against, but these people don't respond to the logical arguments on this issue for some reason. I've got one in my own family that I've been working on for a while now.

The key points, in my opinion might be as follows:

1. If we want to keep these guys out of our country, why are our borders wide open, and why are so many republicans fighting so hard to keep them open.
2. These guys exist all over the middle east, not just in Iraq. If they are out to get us, why aren't the muslims from all of these other countries over here attacking us right now? Seems like it would be an opportune time, seeing as our troops aren't here to defend us!
3. Why aren't the millions of muslims that already live here in the US attacking us? (he may counter that they are... in which case I don't know how to respond)
4. The troops are donating more money to Ron Paul than to any other candidate. They are on the ground over there and know whats going on far better than any of us civilians, or any political commentator does. Why are they supporting the candidate that is against the war? These guys are over there risking their lives for their country. Do they really want to let the muslims come over here and take us over?
5. How do we win the war? I've never gotten a straight answer on this from anyone who argues for it. They might claim that we "win" when the violence in Iraq drops to lower levels. This argument doesn't make sense though, if you point out that we are on the verge of entering a number of other nations over there in the middle east. It also doesn't make sense from a tactical standpoint... all the terrorists have to do is calm down for a few months... then start back up after we leave.

[Goldwater Conservative]

If you cut the funding, the war is over by default in a matter of weeks/months. "X" number of troops will die in the meantime. "Y" amount of money will be spent.

If you don't cut the funding, the war is over only when the president says it's over, which under Bush or most of the people running for his job would mean several years, at best. Far more than "X" number of troops will die in the meantime. Far more than "Y" amount of money will be spent. No guarantee or even strong chance that the situation in Iraq will be any better.

Regardless, Ron Paul is running so he can end the war without cutting funding.

[Mark Rushmore]

For the sake of argument, let's assume this is true and islamofascism exists in the manner described. How should it be dealt with?

You're missing the point I believe, they build into this very notion of 'islamofascism' the principle that it can't be dealt with. That there is no victory possible, but rather that for the rest of our history we will be a hunted and isolated group which must constantly fund and fight a perpetual war or else be assimilated.

If you attempt to portray 'islamofascism' as something that can be 'dealt with' in any manner - you are already going to be arguing from the outside in.

It's like me saying "imagine there is an unstoppable virus... how can we stop it?"

Just think about the framing..

We aren't fighting them over there so that we can defeat them.
We are fighting them over there so that we don't have to fight them here.

You'll notice that no matter what, fighting is our master plan - not winning.

[RonPaulStreetTeam]

it's not "the troops" they're not funding.
It's the WAR they are not funding.

If the troops dont have funds and Bush keeps them over there he should be punishable by death for endangering them.

[manny]

This whole issue has been seriously skewed by the media. I say it's time to turn it back on the neo-cons. Ask any supporter of Rudy/Mitt/McCain why American kids should die to bring "democracy" to foreign countries and enforce UN (in other words foreign) ideas.

Remind them RP is a veteran and received the most donations from soldiers. Do not be afraid to take them on in their own terms. Patriotism, love of America, respect for armed forces - these are some of the thigns RP stands for. So let them know that.

The single strongest argument we have is the example of Vietnam - you'll notice most neo-cons hate the comparison. Again a supposedy "evil" ideology that we were told was out to destroy America and in particular that if troops lef there would be a domino effect. Did that happen. If a neo-con is to be consistent surely they would endorse a new war in south east asia? Perhaps one against China? It's crazy.

The thing is you won't get them to agree there and then. They aren't bad folks - patriotism is a good thing. Just make the arguments and leave it at that, let them think. And point out how quickly things got better once the war ended in Vietnam. The same thing would happen all over today...

The neo-cons are the internationalists who will see American soldiers die for nothing. Ron Paul is the most patriotic guy running for President and they can't be reminded of that enough.

[PennCustom4RP]

Congress Should follow the constitution no questions asked. Declare a War and fund it. Or Don't Declare a War and Don't Fund it.

Exactly

Ask why should Congress approve funding for a war that that is unconstitutional, therefor illegal as Congress did not declare this war.