Can a pro-Iraq War Republican support Ron Paul?

[Wayne Hammond]

I'm asking for the help of the community here. I am a very conservative, right-wing Republican and have been for many years.

Side note: I am not a neo-conservative (I don't even like that term because it literally means "new conservative"). And those who promote higher taxes or bigger government or more centralized government are in no way conservative-- either old or new (neo). I prefer calling them "fake conservatives".

Earlier this year, I was a pro-Iraq war Republican, and I agreed with Dr. Paul on just about every single issue he stands for, except for the war in Iraq. I did support the mission as outlined by GW Bush at that time. I slowly began to read more and more about Dr. Paul's positions. I found that he agreed with my positions on eroding liberties, the need to run this country on Constitutional ideals, ending the cradle-to-grave programs that are ruining our financial solvency, etc.

Over a period of a few months, I came to the conclusion that the loss of our liberties here at home (due to the USA Patriot Act and other federal efforts) were a greater danger to our Republic than the enemies we were fighting in Iraq.

Don't get me wrong - I still thought that the Iraq war was a just war.

But then, I began reading Dr. Paul's writings. Over time, I became more and more convinced that indeed, we must not allow ourselves to be dragged down into an endless foreign entanglement, such as the one which we now face in Iraq. Dr. Paul changed my mind on that, and I now actively support and campaign for his Presidency.

But it took me a very long time to come to that conclusion.

I have many friends who are just like I was-- pro-Iraq War, but also pro-Constitution, pro-liberty, anti-New World Order, anti-UN, anti-Federal Reserve, and pro-2nd Amendment. The problem is that I need a much quicker way to convert these types of friends. It took me nearly a year to come to where I am, but most of my conservative friends don't have the time to do the kind of research and reading that I have done.

I'm talking about methods to convert the old, mainline Republicans here. (Methods that don't include photos of dead babies that were killed by US bombing runs, videos appealing to the emotions, rather than logic, or videos featuring prominent anti-war liberals, etc. - those types of things are generally rejected as leftist propaganda by most conservatives.)

Any suggestions?

.

[jamesmadison]

War leads to death, death to suffering, suffering to hatred, hatred to death, death to war.

If you are for the war because you see Islam as a threat this is a perpetuated lie by the same media who want you erode your rights.

The ideas of liberty are the only force that can win, for humanity.

[rodent]

I'm asking for the help of the community here. I am a very conservative, right-wing Republican and have been for many years.

Side note: I am not a neo-conservative (I don't even like that term because it literally means "new conservative"). And those who promote higher taxes or bigger government or more centralized government are in no way conservative-- either old or new (neo). I prefer calling them "fake conservatives".

Earlier this year, I was a pro-Iraq war Republican, and I agreed with Dr. Paul on just about every single issue he stands for, except for the war in Iraq. I did support the mission as outlined by GW Bush at that time. I slowly began to read more and more about Dr. Paul's positions. I found that he agreed with my positions on eroding liberties, the need to run this country on Constitutional ideals, ending the cradle-to-grave programs that are ruining our financial solvency, etc.

Over a period of a few months, I came to the conclusion that the loss of our liberties here at home (due to the USA Patriot Act and other federal efforts) were a greater danger to our Republic than the enemies we were fighting in Iraq.

Don't get me wrong - I still thought that the Iraq war was a just war.

But then, I began reading Dr. Paul's writings. Over time, I became more and more convinced that indeed, we must not allow ourselves to be dragged down into an endless foreign entanglement, such as the one which we now face in Iraq. Dr. Paul changed my mind on that, and I now actively support and campaign for his Presidency.

But it took me a very long time to come to that conclusion.

I have many friends who are just like I was-- pro-Iraq War, but also pro-Constitution, pro-liberty, anti-New World Order, anti-UN, anti-Federal Reserve, and pro-2nd Amendment. The problem is that I need a much quicker way to convert these types of friends. It took me nearly a year to come to where I am, but most of my conservative friends don't have the time to do the kind of research and reading that I have done.

I'm talking about methods to convert the old, mainline Republicans here. (Methods that don't include photos of dead babies that were killed by US bombing runs, videos appealing to the emotions, rather than logic, or videos featuring prominent anti-war liberals, etc. - those types of things are generally rejected as leftist propaganda by most conservatives.)

Any suggestions?

.

The easiest argument is to show them the US Dollar Index and explain how we will all suffer if the dollar suffers. You can't fight a war if your currency is busted.

Some Neo-cons don't believe the dollar can continuously fall; for those people, you have to ask them what they think will cause the market to correct. The truth is, there's not much they can do right now to fix that dollar. The world isn't the same as it was in the 1970s and a lot of things are different. The world does not need to put up with our imperialism because there are other currencies that can do the job.

[AlexMerced]

depends if that's the issue they vote on, if it is, then no, if they vote based on the economy or other issues, then probably

[foofighter20x]

My question for the hawks: how does this war in Iraq make us any safer?

We are borrowing our way into debt slavery to China in order to fund the war. What happens when China turns off the money spigot in order to yank our leash politically? What do we do then? How will we even be able to afford any sort of reaction?

[MadViking10]

WIthout a doubt he/she can. Out of the six people at work that will be voting for Paul, five think we should stay in Iraq. Its about personal freedoms, gun rights, and the economy/debt.

[nbhadja]

Yes, but a pro-Iraqi war person cannot support the war after researching it, or going to Iraq, or talking to the Iraqis.
I used to support the war, until I researched it. Now I think.. or rather know it was one of the worst decisions made by the US ever.

[partypooper]

But it took me a very long time to come to that conclusion.

I have many friends who are just like I was-- pro-Iraq War, but also pro-Constitution, pro-liberty, anti-New World Order, anti-UN, anti-Federal Reserve, and pro-2nd Amendment. The problem is that I need a much quicker way to convert these types of friends. It took me nearly a year to come to where I am, but most of my conservative friends don't have the time to do the kind of research and reading that I have done.

I'm talking about methods to convert the old, mainline Republicans here. (Methods that don't include photos of dead babies that were killed by US bombing runs, videos appealing to the emotions, rather than logic, or videos featuring prominent anti-war liberals, etc. - those types of things are generally rejected as leftist propaganda by most conservatives.)

Any suggestions?

i think so. i completely agree with you on your assessment - there is no enough time to change people's minds about the nature of war and perhaps even on foreign policy in general.

here is what i (would) do. tell them that we can' afford it. forget about the war being unjust or unconstitutional or about surge "not working" (and definitively forget about dying iraqi babies etc). grant them everything and focus on the cost of the war.

the fact is - even if war in iraq helps our safety in a sense of reducing the probability of a terrorist attack we still can't afford it. even if the surge is working it's too expensive. perhaps we can make iraq look like switzerland if we spend 50 trillion dollars and a million american lives. can we afford that? no.

the bottom line is that wars are not cost-effective. we can't afford to spend 500 or 600 billion dollars (not to mention lives and reputation) to save 5000 potential victims of terrorism.

we just have to live with the small probability of a terrorist attack. it sounds scary but it's a normal part of life and i think many republicans at the bottom are ready to appreciate the argument (in any case, much more so than the argument about morals or facts about weapons of mass destruction or development of situation on the ground in iraq)

more people die from traffic accidents every year than died on 9-11 (and the deaths are also very gruesome) and we still live with it.

[rfbz]

I think the best thing to do is find a way to agree with them as much as possible. Show them that you understand where they're coming from. No conservative will take an anti-war liberal seriously, so you have to ensure them that that's not what you are, you're on the same side as them.

[bbachtung]

If your friends are anti-UN, then just show them that the authorization for use of force in Iraq had two justifications and one of them was to enforce UN resolutions.

Here's the text (from the White House's website (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021002-2.html)):



SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) AUTHORIZATION. The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to

(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and

(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq.


That should make their anti-UN, pro-sovereignty blood boil.

[Matthew Zak]

Change their mind in an hour and a half: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3405669348838274375&q=why+we+fight&total=31424&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=5

If that doesn't do it, add another hour: http://video.google.com/googleplayer.swf?docId=6632255652046262625&hl=en

[schmeisser]

I was pro-Iraq war, but I am anti-nation building, and anti-occupation. Ron Paul is not a pacifist, he understands that if we must go to war, we must follow the rules our founders laid out for us. When we do, we are successful - when we don't we get most of the problems we see now.

The morality of the war was a debateable issue, unfortunately the congress wasn't among those debating it.

I am ready to try something different, and orderly draw down has just as much chance of success (IMHO more) than occupation.

Ask them if they want the same process followed for Iran that we used for Iraq. You must give your friends an opportunity to make a rational policy change decision, not question their morals or ask them to join Code Pink.

[Bestboss]

I am not one to change direction without much thought. I stood by Bush and his ways longer than I should have. A primary employee took the Kerry - Democrat side.
After eons of sparring and information exchanges, we came upon Dr. Paul and for once, have a common political agenda. My wife, children and most of my customers have indepentantly come to the same conclusion, that one else is working as hard for the people's best interest.
I am still not sure, that we can just walk out of Iraq. And realistically, I doubt Dr Paul would just disappear in the middle of the night. His strong sense of responsibility and long term goals for this country would temper that. But I do believe our time has come, to see if they can stand on their own feet. If not, another 10 years, will not make a difference.
The man has my vote.....
Bestboss

[manny]

This is a good thread.

1) The obvious but sound advice - "all the other stuff". To those who believe that defending civil liberties, defending the 2nd Amendment, cutting taxes & federal spending, the rule of law etc. are the most important issues, they should be voting for RP so just push those issues.

2) The real problem comes from the deliberate lie put forward that being pro-war is the same as being patriotic. This is important because we must remember that many supporters of the war are not bad people. Most have simply been misled and lied to. So it is our job to explain:

- RP is not an isolationist- he is a free-trader who wants the maximum trade possible between America and the rest of the world
- RP wants to see Bin Laden brought to justice. Has the war helped here?
- RP wants to defend American servicemen? Has the war been a success here?
- RP wants to defend the borders of America not Iraq.
- RP served in the military himself (contrast with Rudy) and had his record on defence praised by Reagan
- RP wil make the safety of the American public his priority. The "War on Terror" has created more terrorists.

In short there's lots of ammo. But never insult or get angry. Most pro-war people sincerely believe it is helping America, but if they can understand it isn't then they can be converted.

As far as strategy goes, as well as considered explaining and looking at the facts, I think sometimes the issue should be taken on directly. "SUPPORT THE TROOPS: VOTE RON PAUL" etc type slogans.

Rudy will let American soldiers die for the UN. Ron Paul never will. Can we get pro-war Republicans to support RP? Yes! They're 75% of the way there as people - the patriots I mean - just needing some nudging.

[USPatriot36]

When dealing with any hard core republican whether pro-war or not, I like to start off talking about how we lost control of the House and Senate last year. That many of the House seats were gerrymandered to keep the seat in Republican hands forever. That 70 percent of Americans want out of Iraq.

Then I say, if the Republicans nominate a candidate who wants to remain in Iraq then we will lose badly and have 8 years of Hillary. Then I talk about how the Senate may go 60 seats to the Democrats meaning that we Republicans couldn't even filibuster in the Senate. Then about how that under that scernario, every evil socialistic dream of Hillaries will fly through congress at warp speed. That not since the days of FDR will so much government taxation and regulation pass.

Then after I really have scared the crap out of them, then I bring up that our only chance to save off disaster is to nominate someone who is in sync with the American peoples desire to get our troops out of Iraq. Someone like say umm, RON PAUL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Ron Paul Fan]

"Ron Paul says to a lot of people eager to hear this message, you can be anti-war and be a conservative. In fact, he says, if you're a real small-government conservative, you have to be anti-war." -George Will

[unklejman]

My question for the hawks: how does this war in Iraq make us any safer?

IT KEEPS THE TERRISTS OVER THERE AND NOT HERE!!!!!!

[Adamsa]

IT KEEPS THE TERRISTS OVER THERE AND NOT HERE!!!!!!

They're gonna come over here in a life boat or something?

[eloquensanity]

I'm asking for the help of the community here. I am a very conservative, right-wing Republican and have been for many years.

Side note: I am not a neo-conservative (I don't even like that term because it literally means "new conservative"). And those who promote higher taxes or bigger government or more centralized government are in no way conservative-- either old or new (neo). I prefer calling them "fake conservatives".

Earlier this year, I was a pro-Iraq war Republican, and I agreed with Dr. Paul on just about every single issue he stands for, except for the war in Iraq. I did support the mission as outlined by GW Bush at that time. I slowly began to read more and more about Dr. Paul's positions. I found that he agreed with my positions on eroding liberties, the need to run this country on Constitutional ideals, ending the cradle-to-grave programs that are ruining our financial solvency, etc.

Over a period of a few months, I came to the conclusion that the loss of our liberties here at home (due to the USA Patriot Act and other federal efforts) were a greater danger to our Republic than the enemies we were fighting in Iraq.

Don't get me wrong - I still thought that the Iraq war was a just war.

But then, I began reading Dr. Paul's writings. Over time, I became more and more convinced that indeed, we must not allow ourselves to be dragged down into an endless foreign entanglement, such as the one which we now face in Iraq. Dr. Paul changed my mind on that, and I now actively support and campaign for his Presidency.

But it took me a very long time to come to that conclusion.

I have many friends who are just like I was-- pro-Iraq War, but also pro-Constitution, pro-liberty, anti-New World Order, anti-UN, anti-Federal Reserve, and pro-2nd Amendment. The problem is that I need a much quicker way to convert these types of friends. It took me nearly a year to come to where I am, but most of my conservative friends don't have the time to do the kind of research and reading that I have done.

I'm talking about methods to convert the old, mainline Republicans here. (Methods that don't include photos of dead babies that were killed by US bombing runs, videos appealing to the emotions, rather than logic, or videos featuring prominent anti-war liberals, etc. - those types of things are generally rejected as leftist propaganda by most conservatives.)

Any suggestions?

.

Wouldn't protecting our own borders make us safer?
I believe that the obvious reason to perpetuate this war is to erode our liberties and gain more control over the people.
If we really are unsafe why are the borders open and the military away in foreign lands?

[foofighter20x]

Another good point for them to chew on:

More terrorists have been caught through the cooperation between law enforcement and intelligence agencies that have been caught by soldiers on the battlefield.

[lynnf]

I'm asking for the help of the community here. I am a very conservative, right-wing Republican and have been for many years.

Side note: I am not a neo-conservative (I don't even like that term because it literally means "new conservative"). And those who promote higher taxes or bigger government or more centralized government are in no way conservative-- either old or new (neo). I prefer calling them "fake conservatives".

Earlier this year, I was a pro-Iraq war Republican, and I agreed with Dr. Paul on just about every single issue he stands for, except for the war in Iraq. I did support the mission as outlined by GW Bush at that time. I slowly began to read more and more about Dr. Paul's positions. I found that he agreed with my positions on eroding liberties, the need to run this country on Constitutional ideals, ending the cradle-to-grave programs that are ruining our financial solvency, etc.

Over a period of a few months, I came to the conclusion that the loss of our liberties here at home (due to the USA Patriot Act and other federal efforts) were a greater danger to our Republic than the enemies we were fighting in Iraq.

Don't get me wrong - I still thought that the Iraq war was a just war.

But then, I began reading Dr. Paul's writings. Over time, I became more and more convinced that indeed, we must not allow ourselves to be dragged down into an endless foreign entanglement, such as the one which we now face in Iraq. Dr. Paul changed my mind on that, and I now actively support and campaign for his Presidency.

But it took me a very long time to come to that conclusion.

I have many friends who are just like I was-- pro-Iraq War, but also pro-Constitution, pro-liberty, anti-New World Order, anti-UN, anti-Federal Reserve, and pro-2nd Amendment. The problem is that I need a much quicker way to convert these types of friends. It took me nearly a year to come to where I am, but most of my conservative friends don't have the time to do the kind of research and reading that I have done.

I'm talking about methods to convert the old, mainline Republicans here. (Methods that don't include photos of dead babies that were killed by US bombing runs, videos appealing to the emotions, rather than logic, or videos featuring prominent anti-war liberals, etc. - those types of things are generally rejected as leftist propaganda by most conservatives.)

Any suggestions?

.


you've said it yourself - "loss of our liberties here at home (due to the USA Patriot Act and other federal efforts) were a greater danger to our Republic than the enemies we were fighting in Iraq."

you must convince your acquaintances that the magnitude of the loss is such that the constitution is being trashed by the neocons - so much that it is approaching irreversibility. the constitution must come before any war or we are no longer a constitutional republic.

lynn

[Bertrand]

Appealing to war supporters is easiest when you ask them if they really think we can win, if you frame the issue in a slightly bigoted context (many see it in such a context i.e. say these backwards people are not going to accept democracy) and you rationally demonstrate to them it's a waste of time, money and that a 3rd world country 6,000 miles away.

This puts many on the fast-track towards embracing Paul's position.

[kotetu]

Hi Wayne, I think the best way is to appeal to those things you have in common first. You're all friends, so they probably know you well, so just start talking politics at home, civil liberties, etc, until you've got a big hot discussion going where all of the heat is on the same side. Then drop the bomb.

"Damn, this conversation has made me realize that the loss of our civil liberties are more important than the war in Iraq." And see how the conversation goes from there.

[honkywill]

I live in south-east Alabama and have encountered at least two pro-Iraq war Ron Paul supporters.

It blew my mind the first time.

[Hook]

I'm asking for the help of the community here. I am a very conservative, right-wing Republican and have been for many years.

Side note: I am not a neo-conservative (I don't even like that term because it literally means "new conservative"). And those who promote higher taxes or bigger government or more centralized government are in no way conservative-- either old or new (neo). I prefer calling them "fake conservatives".

Earlier this year, I was a pro-Iraq war Republican, and I agreed with Dr. Paul on just about every single issue he stands for, except for the war in Iraq. I did support the mission as outlined by GW Bush at that time. I slowly began to read more and more about Dr. Paul's positions. I found that he agreed with my positions on eroding liberties, the need to run this country on Constitutional ideals, ending the cradle-to-grave programs that are ruining our financial solvency, etc.

Over a period of a few months, I came to the conclusion that the loss of our liberties here at home (due to the USA Patriot Act and other federal efforts) were a greater danger to our Republic than the enemies we were fighting in Iraq.

Don't get me wrong - I still thought that the Iraq war was a just war.

But then, I began reading Dr. Paul's writings. Over time, I became more and more convinced that indeed, we must not allow ourselves to be dragged down into an endless foreign entanglement, such as the one which we now face in Iraq. Dr. Paul changed my mind on that, and I now actively support and campaign for his Presidency.

But it took me a very long time to come to that conclusion.

I have many friends who are just like I was-- pro-Iraq War, but also pro-Constitution, pro-liberty, anti-New World Order, anti-UN, anti-Federal Reserve, and pro-2nd Amendment. The problem is that I need a much quicker way to convert these types of friends. It took me nearly a year to come to where I am, but most of my conservative friends don't have the time to do the kind of research and reading that I have done.

I'm talking about methods to convert the old, mainline Republicans here. (Methods that don't include photos of dead babies that were killed by US bombing runs, videos appealing to the emotions, rather than logic, or videos featuring prominent anti-war liberals, etc. - those types of things are generally rejected as leftist propaganda by most conservatives.)

Any suggestions?

.

War is the quintessential big government program. Ask him if he would feel safer with the troops patrolling our borders or patrolling Iraq's borders. We don't have enough troops for both.

[FreedomLover]

I thought the iraq war was an ultimately necessary and just war as well. I didn't like the way it was handled, but I thought the end of the saddam regime and the sinkhole it created for Al-Qaida and insurgent support (money and fighters) into it far outweighed any of the drawbacks.

I came to supporting an anti-war candidate by myself through my own research, just like you. I DO think the surge was a good idea and I DO think we should commit to staying until the the remaining insurgent presence is unable to do any real damage once we start leaving.

But this has been an endless cycle of propping up, supporting, then sanctioning and taking down different leaders around the world when the situation suits us.

Eventually we're going to need a real revolutionary change in foreign policy since the current path seems way too dangerous and the cost-benefit ratio seems unsustainable.

Heads up for those trying to change "neo-cons" over the internet or in-person, a couple of tips when debating:

1. Do not bring up "millions died" or "war for oil." These are very typical liberal anti-war chants and most pro-war people are tired of them and don't take them seriously anymore. I have a problem with this because first off, no where near 1 million iraqis have died. Second, the majority of those that have died are directly caused by terrorist acts such as bombings and beheadings, not us. It's a bad line and will only serve to make that person more entrenched in their view.

2. Stick with the cost-benefit analysis. Is it worth trillions of dollars? Is it worth thousands of dead and wounded americans? Why help these people if another Saddam is going to pop up again once we leave? We have no business there since the UN resolutions have been upheld.

3. Here's a very good line: Why are we sending border guards to Iraq when we have our own front door wide open?

4. Don't argue against the Surge. Argue against what happens after the surge is over.

I'd come up with some more but I'm kind of tired.

[ChickenHawk]

I am pro Iraq war and an seriously considering voting for Ron Paul. Some of the arrogance that is apparent from some of the anti-war types on this forum is a bit annoying. You can research the war, serve in the war and/or know someone who is/was and still support it. You can be thinking rationally and support the war.

When I start reading posts about how anyone who supports the war is a war mongering moron that can't be thinking rationally it make want to not even be associated with this movement. I just have to tell myself that there are closed minded people of every political persuasion and it doesn't represent a majority.

Even some of the things Ron Paul says about the war I find a bit over the top but he is so right on all the other issues that it would be foolish not to seriously consider his candidacy.

[FreedomLover]

When I start reading posts about how anyone who supports the war is a war mongering moron that can't be thinking rationally it make want to not even be associated with this movement. I just have to tell myself that there are closed minded people of every political persuasion and it doesn't represent a majority.

Even some of the things Ron Paul says about the war I find a bit over the top but he is so right on all the other issues that it would be foolish not to seriously consider his candidacy.

You and me both bud.

[steph3n]

I supported the war and everything about it till about 1 week before the end of October :)

[steph3n]

I am pro Iraq war and an seriously considering voting for Ron Paul. Some of the arrogance that is apparent from some of the anti-war types on this forum is a bit annoying. You can research the war, serve in the war and/or know someone who is/was and still support it. You can be thinking rationally and support the war.

When I start reading posts about how anyone who supports the war is a war mongering moron that can't be thinking rationally it make want to not even be associated with this movement. I just have to tell myself that there are closed minded people of every political persuasion and it doesn't represent a majority.

Even some of the things Ron Paul says about the war I find a bit over the top but he is so right on all the other issues that it would be foolish not to seriously consider his candidacy.

You are right, some of the people on these forums don't accept anything that ins't exactly what they believe, and say if you don't believe the same then you aren't a supporter.

Blowback discussion with rudy got my attention first, but what won me over was economic matters, the other GOP candidates are totally CLUELESS

[Shellshock1918]

I'm asking for the help of the community here. I am a very conservative, right-wing Republican and have been for many years.

Side note: I am not a neo-conservative (I don't even like that term because it literally means "new conservative"). And those who promote higher taxes or bigger government or more centralized government are in no way conservative-- either old or new (neo). I prefer calling them "fake conservatives".

Earlier this year, I was a pro-Iraq war Republican, and I agreed with Dr. Paul on just about every single issue he stands for, except for the war in Iraq. I did support the mission as outlined by GW Bush at that time. I slowly began to read more and more about Dr. Paul's positions. I found that he agreed with my positions on eroding liberties, the need to run this country on Constitutional ideals, ending the cradle-to-grave programs that are ruining our financial solvency, etc.

Over a period of a few months, I came to the conclusion that the loss of our liberties here at home (due to the USA Patriot Act and other federal efforts) were a greater danger to our Republic than the enemies we were fighting in Iraq.

Don't get me wrong - I still thought that the Iraq war was a just war.

But then, I began reading Dr. Paul's writings. Over time, I became more and more convinced that indeed, we must not allow ourselves to be dragged down into an endless foreign entanglement, such as the one which we now face in Iraq. Dr. Paul changed my mind on that, and I now actively support and campaign for his Presidency.

But it took me a very long time to come to that conclusion.

I have many friends who are just like I was-- pro-Iraq War, but also pro-Constitution, pro-liberty, anti-New World Order, anti-UN, anti-Federal Reserve, and pro-2nd Amendment. The problem is that I need a much quicker way to convert these types of friends. It took me nearly a year to come to where I am, but most of my conservative friends don't have the time to do the kind of research and reading that I have done.

I'm talking about methods to convert the old, mainline Republicans here. (Methods that don't include photos of dead babies that were killed by US bombing runs, videos appealing to the emotions, rather than logic, or videos featuring prominent anti-war liberals, etc. - those types of things are generally rejected as leftist propaganda by most conservatives.)

Any suggestions?

.

I was the same way till I saw this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S9YuD9kYK9I

[CMoore]

If 70% of the U.S. is against the war, are we wasting time trying to win over the 30% who still support it? Would the effort be better spend getting Ron Paul's name out to those who oppose the war but have never heard of him?

[steph3n]

If 70% of the U.S. is against the war, are we wasting time trying to win over the 30% who still support it? Would the effort be better spend getting Ron Paul's name out to those who oppose the war but have never heard of him?

honestly, because about 25% of that 30% is GOP Primary voters.

AKA the ones that matter if we don't have people join the GOP to vote.

[Corydoras]

1. Ask them to define success/victory. How will they know when it's won?

2. If they believe that the terrorism stuff is pure propaganda, and that the war is indeed about oil, and that the United States indeed needs to use force in order to secure oil sources-- I used to think this-- then ask them if the war has stabilized U.S. oil supplies and prices.

[Ron Paul Fan]

If 70% of the U.S. is against the war, are we wasting time trying to win over the 30% who still support it? Would the effort be better spend getting Ron Paul's name out to those who oppose the war but have never heard of him?

Yep. A lot of the 30% are Republican. We're running for the nomination of the Republican Party. If we can get some of the pro war vote on domestic, economic, and overall foreign policy issues, there'd be no stopping us! Remember, the 30% probably voted for Bush in 2000 who advocated a humble foreign policy, no nation building, don't police the world. Ron Paul is running in 2008 on a humble foreign policy, no nation building, don't police the world. Bush didn't adhere to this policy and look where we are now.

[ChickenHawk]

I was the same way till I saw this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S9YuD9kYK9I

I remember that interview from when it was originally recorded. He was right about the difficulties but wrong about it not being worth it. In fact it probably would have been much easier back then and saved us a lot of trouble in the future.

You might remember that not going all the way to Baghdad after the liberation of Kuwait was pretty unpopular at the time. It led to many predictions that we would be back there in 10 years and it would be much harder.

If anything that video just proves that Cheney isn't the war monger that many people say he is. After 9/11 he (and Bush) most likely decided that it was finally time to take care of Saddam but underestimated how difficult it would be. Of course for those that think Dick Cheney, Halliburton and the Jews blew up the WTC then none of this argument means much.

[PatriotOne]

I'm asking for the help of the community here. I am a very conservative, right-wing Republican and have been for many years.

Side note: I am not a neo-conservative (I don't even like that term because it literally means "new conservative"). And those who promote higher taxes or bigger government or more centralized government are in no way conservative-- either old or new (neo). I prefer calling them "fake conservatives".

Earlier this year, I was a pro-Iraq war Republican, and I agreed with Dr. Paul on just about every single issue he stands for, except for the war in Iraq. I did support the mission as outlined by GW Bush at that time. I slowly began to read more and more about Dr. Paul's positions. I found that he agreed with my positions on eroding liberties, the need to run this country on Constitutional ideals, ending the cradle-to-grave programs that are ruining our financial solvency, etc.

Over a period of a few months, I came to the conclusion that the loss of our liberties here at home (due to the USA Patriot Act and other federal efforts) were a greater danger to our Republic than the enemies we were fighting in Iraq.

Don't get me wrong - I still thought that the Iraq war was a just war.

But then, I began reading Dr. Paul's writings. Over time, I became more and more convinced that indeed, we must not allow ourselves to be dragged down into an endless foreign entanglement, such as the one which we now face in Iraq. Dr. Paul changed my mind on that, and I now actively support and campaign for his Presidency.

But it took me a very long time to come to that conclusion.

I have many friends who are just like I was-- pro-Iraq War, but also pro-Constitution, pro-liberty, anti-New World Order, anti-UN, anti-Federal Reserve, and pro-2nd Amendment. The problem is that I need a much quicker way to convert these types of friends. It took me nearly a year to come to where I am, but most of my conservative friends don't have the time to do the kind of research and reading that I have done.

I'm talking about methods to convert the old, mainline Republicans here. (Methods that don't include photos of dead babies that were killed by US bombing runs, videos appealing to the emotions, rather than logic, or videos featuring prominent anti-war liberals, etc. - those types of things are generally rejected as leftist propaganda by most conservatives.)

Any suggestions?

.

Loved your post Wayne and I totally understand that it takes alot of research to come to the same conclusions you have.

I would ask your friends why they think we are in this war in the first place. If they answer because of 9/11, you can show them that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. If they still think there were WMD's in Iraq, you can tell them that the so-called intelligence was manufactured by the CIA (see Valerie Plame story) and can find plenty of back up material for that.

If they think it was because Sadam H gassed all those Kurds and we were going in to "free the Iraqi's from a tyrant, you can tell them that the U.S. was the ones who sold them the gases that Sudam gassed them with.

If you are as well researched as you seem to be, and they are not so closed off that they don't even want to discuss it, you should be able to deflect all the lies told by this administration asto the reason we went into Iraq. That might get them wondering why the hell we are there in the first place.

[steph3n]

I remember that interview from when it was originally recorded. He was right about the difficulties but wrong about it not being worth it. In fact it probably would have been much easier back then and saved us a lot of trouble in the future.

You might remember that not going all the way to Baghdad after the liberation of Kuwait was pretty unpopular at the time. It led to many predictions that we would be back there in 10 years and it would be much harder.

If anything that video just proves that Cheney isn't the war monger that many people say he is. After 9/11 he (and Bush) most likely decided that it was finally time to take care of Saddam but underestimated how difficult it would be. Of course for those that think Dick Cheney, Halliburton and the Jews blew up the WTC then none of this argument means much.

I agree it would have been much better the first time, when there was at least some really valid grounds to be there (not looking to start debate on that, but if you want to discuss it via PM or even phone in a cordial manner I'm open to it)

[ChickenHawk]

...you should be able to deflect all the lies told by this administration asto the reason we went into Iraq. That might get them wondering why the hell we are there in the first place.


It is easy to debunk the reasons the administration gave for going to war but some of us supported the war for other much more legitimate reasons. My point is that you don't have to change someones mind on the war to convince them to vote for Ron Paul. I think the war is essentially over at this point and will end up not being much of an issue next year. There will be much bigger fish to fry.

[Shellshock1918]

I agree it would have been much better the first time, when there was at least some really valid grounds to be there (not looking to start debate on that, but if you want to discuss it via PM or even phone in a cordial manner I'm open to it)

We could have just aided the Shiites in the South, they revolted and we didn't help them.

[Hurricane Bruiser]

I'm in the same boat you are or have been. I don't know of any quick way to change minds. The way of presenting what is being done in the middle east as if the same thing was being done here makes people sit back and think of cause and effect. Also many people do not understand the horrible details of some legislation and need education. Videos work well IMO. Watching interviews, debate clips, and custom made videos helped convince my mother in law. The hard people to reach are those who just vote by emotion and really don't think hard about the issues.

[FreedomLover]

If 70% of the U.S. is against the war, are we wasting time trying to win over the 30% who still support it? Would the effort be better spend getting Ron Paul's name out to those who oppose the war but have never heard of him?

I still don't know where this 70% number comes from. I still haven't seen any poll with that number.

I could understand it if the question was "Do you approve of the way Bush has handled the war." Because I would be voting no as well.

But "supporting the war" is more complex than that, because some people may think that immediate withdrawal is a bad idea. Some people may think that the war was right but has gone on too long. Some people just want to tough it out so we don't lose.

Also, considering that Ron Paul is running in the republican primary, It would be best to get a typical republican to vote for him, and the typical republican will most likely be "prowar." he can't rely on independents and former democrats to win, even if it is a very divided field.

[steph3n]

It is easy to debunk the reasons the administration gave for going to war but some of us supported the war for other much more legitimate reasons. My point is that you don't have to change someones mind on the war to convince them to vote for Ron Paul. I think the war is essentially over at this point and will end up not being much of an issue next year. There will be much bigger fish to fry.

Like economy, government bloat, non balanced budgets.....many issues you are very correct

[LBT]

Any suggestions?

.
Wayne,
I think the best approach is to introduce them to the guidelines of the founders like Washington and Jefferson on non-interventionism and to gather quotes from formerly popular Republicans such as Eisenhower, Taft and Garett Garret.

To remind them that Republicans have often been the party through history that has campaigned to end wars (Vietnam and Korea), even including George W who campaigned on No Nation Building.

Then tell them that many of the ideas toward foreign intervention that have become increasingly popular with Republicans in recent years have fomented under the influence of former leftists who joined the Republican ranks since the 50's.

Here are two articles to use as resources:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/tucker/tucker30.html
http://www.lewrockwell.com/gottfried/gottfried46.html

I think a major key to convert pro-war republicans is to convince them that foreign intervention almost invariably leads to big government and less liberty.

With that in their mind, they are less likely to buy into the fear and hate mongering that prompts them toward a pro war position.

It is very hard to make people see that they have let themselves be manipulated into spreaders of hate and fear and for them to see that what they have supported has led to incredible suffering and damage.

So best to let them begin to believe that the ideas of liberty and small government are incompatible with foreign interventionism. And that the idea of foreign interventionism has never before been such a stong issue with Republicans, that in fact, there is an historical strain running through republican ideology that supports the ideas of not getting messed up in foreign countries' problems.

[kotetu]

make sure you keep us updated as to your progress! :)

[Goldwater Conservative]

Look at it this way: we won the Iraq war in May 2003 ("Mission Accomplished"). Now it's just the Iraq occupation. Since the Iraqis have long since adopted a permanent constitution and now have a democratically-elected parliament, the job of regime change is done. Our only reason for staying is to prevent all-out civil war, but recent evidence (violence dropping by 90% after the British left Basra) suggests that our presence is exactly what makes such a conflict seem so probable. Iraq has no incentive to handle its own security, and the insurgents have every incentive to keep fighting, as long as we stay.

Besides, I should hope that the supposedly $50 billion war that would be over by now isn't still going on by the time a President Paul is sworn in, since that would mark almost 6 years since the invasion and nearly as much time in police mode, with a price tag of well over $1000 billion (probably closer to $2000 billion) and total deaths pushing 6000 (and countless more injured for life).

[partypooper]

I still don't know where this 70% number comes from. I still haven't seen any poll with that number.

that number sounds very dubious and the campaign should either find the source of it or drop it before it gets very embarrassed. most statistics floating in the media are bogus.

recently i saw a poll saying that over 50% of people approve of pre-emptive attack on iran. i don't know how reliable that is, but it should not be assumed that just because people are tired of iraq they are against all wars (including premptive attack on perceived threats).

[Goldwater Conservative]

I still don't know where this 70% number comes from. I still haven't seen any poll with that number.

http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm

There are several that show broadly-defined "opposition" to the war at about 2/3, so it's not way off. The 70% does indeed seem to pop up most often in reference to Bush's handling.

[J Free]

I'm asking for the help of the community here. I am a very conservative, right-wing Republican and have been for many years. Earlier this year, I was a pro-Iraq war Republican, and I agreed with Dr. Paul on just about every single issue he stands for, except for the war in Iraq. I did support the mission as outlined by GW Bush at that time. I slowly began to read more and more about Dr. Paul's positions. I found that he agreed with my positions on eroding liberties, the need to run this country on Constitutional ideals, ending the cradle-to-grave programs that are ruining our financial solvency, etc. ......

But it took me a very long time to come to that conclusion...The problem is that I need a much quicker way to convert these types of friends. It took me nearly a year to come to where I am, but most of my conservative friends don't have the time to do the kind of research and reading that I have done.

Any suggestions?

Don't know if this will help but I STILL believe the war in Iraq was justified. My reasons for supporting Ron Paul have to do with being able to separate why we went in -- from why we are still there (or what we will do going forward).

I believe we ACHIEVED our goals in Iraq. We overthrew Saddam. We found out whether or not there were WMD's (turns out there weren't). And we helped the Iraqis choose a replacement government.

The second all those purple fingers went waving in the air, our mission was accomplished. We should have immediately started with the transition out - and it could have been accomplished in a few months - year at the outside.

Instead, we added a whole bunch of missions (mission creep of the worst sort) and found out that Iraqis increasingly began to say - WTF - you said you were leaving - why aren't you leaving? And the mess (poorly-managed from the beginning because of Paul Bremer et al) just got worse.

Our mission is over. We accomplished it. Now we either keep adding missions until we find one that we can't win - or we get out.

If you want a faster way - I put a video on my blog from a veteran saying the same thing - http://ronpaulcolorado.org/wordpress/2007/09/14/veterans-speak/

Tell me if it helps persuade people. I'd like to put it on my new site - http://goprising.com - if it means something to anyone but me.

Oh - and if that doesn't work then sign up on the http://goprising.com/ft/campaigns/newGOP/ and tell others. Maybe a bandwagon effect will work.

[CMoore]

I still don't know where this 70% number comes from. I still haven't seen any poll with that number.

I could understand it if the question was "Do you approve of the way Bush has handled the war." Because I would be voting no as well.

But "supporting the war" is more complex than that, because some people may think that immediate withdrawal is a bad idea. Some people may think that the war was right but has gone on too long. Some people just want to tough it out so we don't lose.

Also, considering that Ron Paul is running in the republican primary, It would be best to get a typical republican to vote for him, and the typical republican will most likely be "prowar." he can't rely on independents and former democrats to win, even if it is a very divided field.

Here is a link:

http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/10/16/iraq.poll/

It is not exactly 70%, but close.

[Eric21ND]

How can we even start to protect this country abroad when our borders are wide open and illegals flood over them everyday?

Ron Paul would work to end illegal immigration and that would protect our national security more than anything. All other candidates give lip service to this issue or out right endorse it like McCain, Rudy, Romney.

[aravoth]

I'm asking for the help of the community here. I am a very conservative, right-wing Republican and have been for many years.

Side note: I am not a neo-conservative (I don't even like that term because it literally means "new conservative"). And those who promote higher taxes or bigger government or more centralized government are in no way conservative-- either old or new (neo). I prefer calling them "fake conservatives".

Earlier this year, I was a pro-Iraq war Republican, and I agreed with Dr. Paul on just about every single issue he stands for, except for the war in Iraq. I did support the mission as outlined by GW Bush at that time. I slowly began to read more and more about Dr. Paul's positions. I found that he agreed with my positions on eroding liberties, the need to run this country on Constitutional ideals, ending the cradle-to-grave programs that are ruining our financial solvency, etc.

Over a period of a few months, I came to the conclusion that the loss of our liberties here at home (due to the USA Patriot Act and other federal efforts) were a greater danger to our Republic than the enemies we were fighting in Iraq.

Don't get me wrong - I still thought that the Iraq war was a just war.

But then, I began reading Dr. Paul's writings. Over time, I became more and more convinced that indeed, we must not allow ourselves to be dragged down into an endless foreign entanglement, such as the one which we now face in Iraq. Dr. Paul changed my mind on that, and I now actively support and campaign for his Presidency.

But it took me a very long time to come to that conclusion.

I have many friends who are just like I was-- pro-Iraq War, but also pro-Constitution, pro-liberty, anti-New World Order, anti-UN, anti-Federal Reserve, and pro-2nd Amendment. The problem is that I need a much quicker way to convert these types of friends. It took me nearly a year to come to where I am, but most of my conservative friends don't have the time to do the kind of research and reading that I have done.

I'm talking about methods to convert the old, mainline Republicans here. (Methods that don't include photos of dead babies that were killed by US bombing runs, videos appealing to the emotions, rather than logic, or videos featuring prominent anti-war liberals, etc. - those types of things are generally rejected as leftist propaganda by most conservatives.)

Any suggestions?

.

We are borrowing 3 billion dollars a day from the chinese to finance that war. Combined with the fact that we have exported most of our manufacturing over to china, and the fact we don't produce anything, and the enormous trade deficit, and the national debt, there is no possible way we can afford it. The war combined with the current economic conditions will throw us in throw us into a depresion, and reward us with a hyperinflated currency. When a barrel of oil costs 400$ a barrel, our war machine will simply stop. It's happening slowly as we speak. The sad thing is, now nothing can stop it.

We can either end it now and try soften the blow, or we can continue, until we are bankrupt and people are rioting in the streets.

If that happens, conservatives are finished. The people will beg for socialistic programs. And we'll all be living in a Clinton-esque nightmare.

[Anti Federalist]

Two points:

Right or wrong, all good points for continuation of the war or for the starting of new ones, are moot.

We are broke and cannot afford it.

If we continue on a course of "preemptive" war, sooner or later somebody is going to preempt US.

Then point them to the news article about the Chinese sub that popped up right next to the USS Kitty Hawk slipping through all the antisub defenses a week ago.

[J Free]

Like it or not, as long as we print money, we aren't broke. Educating people about the Federal Reserve, inflation, and money is far more difficult than convincing a pro-war Republican - we achieved our mission. We don't need to add more missions (especially since they are all dubious at this point).

[JordanL]

I was in the same boat as you, and this is what I have been doing:

1. Make sure you emphasize that RP doesn't point the blame at any voter group per say. He isn't accusing people.

Certainly there are supporters who do, many of them here even, but they are still thinking in partisan politics, and they will change eventually. They want to be able to say "See, see, you're wrong and I was right, and that makes me smarter than you," and that's where you need to emphasize that as much as RP is against the war he has NEVER taken that position on it. He is very much "hope" for America.

2. Point out that the main goal in Iraq to keep us safe could be accomplished cheaper by just focusing on constitutional policing here in the States, and secure borders.

3. Also point out that regardless of who was right and who was wrong, the overarching "moral" argument for the war has been fulfilled. Saddam is gone. So whether or not the war was or wasn't morally justified is completely irrelevent, because the moral justification has already been fulfilled, allowing us to leave. No one has to be wrong in this situtation, (no voter anyway).

[mport1]

This is a VERY important thread because we need to figure out the best strategy to convert these types of people because we will need them to win. I think the best thing to do is not to change their mind on the war but to show them overwhelming evidence in all other areas they agree with on why Ron Paul is the only man for the job. If they are a true conservative, you just need to demonstrate how much better RP is than the rest of the candidates on economic issues. Convince them that this overwhelms his anti-war stance.

Very important to point out is RP's position on getting the people who actually attacked us on 9/11 and show them how he introduced letters of marque and reprisal to obtain bin Laden.