What if Ron Paul was pro-war

[IHaveaDream]

How important is the war issue to you in this election?

[navi]

It's very important to me. If RP was pro-war then he wouldn't be consistent in his message of fiscal conservatism and sound economic policies.

[ctb619]

Very -- I wouldn't support him.

[AlexMerced]

I'll be honest,I wouldn't of given him the time of day if it weren't for his position on the war, it's what made me curious to learn more, cause it was really disruptive to my selective attentionto hear a republican say topull out of Iraq.

If it wasn't for the may debate, I'd probably be Richardson supporter right now

[Mark Rushmore]

nm

[rory096]

Pro-war in general or just not pro-pulling out of Iraq immediately?

[hard@work]

He is "pro-war". He's not against the concept of necessary war between civilizations. He is against stupid war, evil war, and illegal war.

[Mark Rushmore]

It's very important to me. If RP was pro-war then he wouldn't be consistent in his message of fiscal conservatism and sound economic policies.

Agreed.

[AMack]

Yeah if he were pro-war then it would mar his entire record. You can't be simultaneously in favor of small govt and pro-war.

[Hurricane Bruiser]

I would still support him. The foreign policy had to grow on me.

[steph3n]

hrm well economic policy got me here, but since it is all tied at the top, it is sound thinking.

[Paulitician]

We wouldn't be here today. The Iraq War is not representative of "a foreign policy of freedom."

Ron Paul is not opposed to war in general, it just has to be done right, and for the right reasons (to protect ourselves, national security etc.).

[brianbb98]

If he was pro-war it would go against everything else he's said. Another flip flopper that I wouldnt even consider.

[starless]

If he was in favor of remaining in Iraq I wouldn't support him. I would be very sad, as I am a libertarian and it's nice to see a libertarian-minded candidate in the mainstream, but I would have to stick with my principles and I would probably end up voting for whoever the Libertarian Party runs.

[adpierce]

Is the hypothetical that he just changed his mind tomorrow or that from the very beginning of his candidacy he was a pro-war candidate? If he changed his mind tomorrow I couldn't vote for him. It would spoil this image of him in my mind of being a candidate with impeccable integrity. If however he was somehow uninformed and he thought the war in Iraq was actually promoting our national defense I might still vote for the man

[Paulitician]

A Ron Paul who supports the Iraq occupation cannot exist, could never exist. Completely against his principles of liberty.

[Goldwater Conservative]

If that was the only difference, and if he came at it from a Goldwater hawkish perspective instead of a neo-con one and was still more than willing to criticize its execution, then yes.

[TheNewYorker]

I would still vote for him. I'm voting for him because he's an honest man, and no matter of his policies, I think having an honest man in Washington would be better than having a puppet.

Though, if he was pro-war, he would never win. 71% of americans want out of Iraq.

[Mark Rushmore]

Not that I'm telling anyone what to do, but I'm personally against this poll as it is worded. If it gets enough responses that say "I wouldn't vote for him if he was pro-war", other folks are going to run with that as saying "his policies get no general support at all blah blah all his supporters are just glomming on to an anti-war candidate." It needs more nuance IMHO. Something like,

"If Ron Paul was pro-war..."
A) His other policies would seem incompatible
B) All I care about is the war - I'd just as soon vote Kucinich (I think he's anti-Iraq?)
C) I love war, I'd love him more for it
D) I don't think it would matter to me

you get the idea...

[FreeTraveler]

You might as well ask "If elephants were orange" for all the sense this question makes. His anti-war stance is a logical extension of the rest of his views, and he's nothing if not consistent.

[IHaveaDream]

Not that I'm telling anyone what to do, but I'm personally against this poll as it is worded.

Well, I posted this poll and I totally agree with you. I should have worded it differently. The war issue is very important to me, but I also view Dr. Paul as the only candidate running that I trust.

I apologize to my fellow members for not providing more nuance. If someone will tell me how to remove this poll, I will.

[Tina]

The war issue is HUGE for me. It's nothing but genocide IMO>

[Heather in WI]

I would still support him. The foreign policy had to grow on me.

This is where I stand, too. It wasn't the war that first drew me to Ron Paul. It was his stance on privacy rights.

[Ron LOL]

If there's one thing Ron Paul teaches, it's that our prosperity here at home is inextricably tied to our foreign policy.

So no, I couldn't support Ron Paul if he were pro-war.

[Menthol Patch]

I would not vote for any candidate that supports the war in Iraq.

[daikonv]

to me, its all connected. the war in iraq, our current financial un-conservativeness, the drop of the dollar. Without dropping the war in iraq and pulling bases from other nations, I don't see how his free market/fiscal conservative views would match up. all other candidates say they'll stop pork spending, but that still wouldnt add up to anything close to how much we're spending overseas.

[Voluntaryist]

Pro-war????

If Ron Paul were pro-war, I would have instead been urging people to boycott the vote, as I usually do.

[Starks]

Ron's anti-war stance is what got me hooked on him. If he was pro-war, he'd just be another rank and file neocon in my eyes, regardless of his other stances. Besides, a pro-war Ron Paul would undermine those other stances.

[Adamsa]

Ron Paul would be a completely different candidate if he were pro-war.

[quickmike]

If he were for ANY war thats purpose was nation building I couldnt support him even though I agree with the rest of his positions. Being the worlds police just doesnt jive with being for smaller government and cutting spending. As long as you have one, you cant possibly have the other. That would mean he was lying either about being for the war, or lying about smaller government...................... cant have both.

It always amazes me to hear republicans that support other candidates talk about smaller government, and in the same breath talk about expanding our foreign welfare all over the globe.

IDIOTS!!

[silverhandorder]

I support Ron even if he was pro war. Waging a responsible war aka no nation building and approved by congress is something I can stand behind. I understand his foreign policy and support it also because I believe it is far superior then trying to fight it out outside of our borders. We are an economic super power and can control many markets without the use of force.

[pcosmar]

He would not be the consistent Candidate that he is.
Better Question, If Ron Paul was not Ron Paul would you vote for him?

[fluoridatedbrainsoup]

Ridiculous poll. War issue is inextricably tied to the economic issue, and the issues of liberty in general. I would have to be a f@#king moron to consciously vote more for more war, just mo.

[Voluntaryist]

Ridiculous poll. War issue is inextricably tied to the economic issue, and the issues of liberty in general. I would have to be a f@#king moron to consciously vote more for more war, just mo.


FOR THE WIN!