PDA

View Full Version : The biggest hurdle when trying to convert a pro-war conservative




LastoftheMohicans
07-03-2007, 02:28 PM
Many conservatives are for this war, and other wars, for the sole reason that the "liberals" are for it. No reason, no logic. They just think that liberals/Democrats are so bad that anyone who sides with them must be looked upon with suspicion.
This "logic" is not limited to the war issue and its no limited to conseratives. I've heard people countless times take a position on a particular issue solely on what the position of their perceived opponent is. "I can't be for blank bacause so-and-so is for it."

Back to the war issue. There are a lot of conservatives who think that being anti-war is a "liberal" thing. When in fact, "liberals" only became anti-war since the 60's. On top of that, most of the liberal politicians are not even anti-war. They're only against Republican wars.

Scribbler de Stebbing
07-03-2007, 03:04 PM
I have MANY pro-war conservative friends, and they just flat-out view anti-war types as weak pacifists, unwilling to defend themselves. That's why we should emphasize that we are pro-defense (I am careful not to speak FOR Dr Paul unless I am certain of his position), particularly on the borders (they start nodding emphatically here), but against nation-building and intervention in the affairs of other countries who are no threat to us.

SeanEdwards
07-03-2007, 03:13 PM
I think Paul's position, that wars require a war declaration from Congress as is indicated in the Constitution, is a strong argument against the "wars" that the neocons and neolibs embrace.

When the U.S. formally declares war, as we did in WW2, and then lays down the hurt, we win and the wars end.

Tell your pro-war friends that Ron Paul would not start a war and then order Americans to go shopping and take a vacation, as the neocons did. Tell them that if Congress actually declared war as they are supposed to, then Paul would act as a decisive wartime leader. Ron Paul, in his career as a medical doctor, has probably been called on to show more decisive leadership in life threatening situations, than any of the neo-puppet pretenders for the throne.

LastoftheMohicans
07-03-2007, 03:24 PM
I have MANY pro-war conservative friends, and they just flat-out view anti-war types as weak pacifists, unwilling to defend themselves. That's why we should emphasize that we are pro-defense (I am careful not to speak FOR Dr Paul unless I am certain of his position), particularly on the borders (they start nodding emphatically here), but against nation-building and intervention in the affairs of other countries who are no threat to us.

Another thing we can do is emphasize is our support for the 2nd Amendment. Not only will it distinguish ourselves from the stereotypical "liberal", it will also show them that we are not weak pacficists.

If that doesn't work, you can hit them with my favorite Joe Sobran(no liberal) quote, “War is just one more big government program.”

RPR-omaha
07-03-2007, 03:26 PM
Paul voted for Missle Defense. I think that can help convert them.

LastoftheMohicans
07-03-2007, 03:30 PM
Maybe it because I was always anti-war (but not a leftist), that I have a harder time understanding the pro-war position. Those of you who are recovering neocons probably have better insight that I.

angelatc
07-03-2007, 04:08 PM
The biggest argument I've encountered is the position that because we're American we have a right to run the rest of the world.

MGS
07-03-2007, 04:16 PM
The biggest argument I've encountered is the position that because we're American we have a right to run the rest of the world.

Yep. Neo-cons say this and often a step further, saying its not only our right but our responsibility!!!!!!!! Usually i then go off on a tirade about Woodrow Wilson and that they arent real conservatives etc. etc.

People like this are extremely tuff to crack.

LastoftheMohicans
07-03-2007, 04:18 PM
Yep. Neo-cons say this and often a step further, saying its not only our right but our responsibility!!!!!!!! Usually i then go off on a tirade about Woodrow Wilson and that they arent real conservatives etc. etc.

People like this are extremely tuff to crack.


Ask them when are they going to go themselves rather than send someone else.

mikelovesgod
07-03-2007, 07:48 PM
I was big time pro-war. I think I can give a good perception of what to do, and what won me over: THE BORDER

You can't be against terrorism and pro-open border. 4,000 people a day/15% non-Mexican/$$$ drain and loss of security. It sold me, and sold my father. We didn't realize how many people were coming, and then if you point out all the losses of personal liberties for freedom don't apply to illegals you have a sold person 50% of the time.

I really believe most people, when they realize that they don't care about borders, yet they want to fight a $3/bil day war with a country that couldn't have attacked us it makes you wonder. Tell them we get the money from Communist China, and ask them if you have to sell your soul to Communists is worth it to them.

What got me the most is the name OBL isn't even mentioned anymore, but Hussein is. Why? Because the actual enemies have been forgotten about to destroy our liberties in the name of "safety". (I'm thinking about leaving the country permanantly if we get another Bush-type president because I'm sick of Big Brother)

Then, Buchanan's views opened my eyes: what do you do next? Do you invade Saudi Arabia, Syria, Lebanon, Iran, Pakistan (for harboring terrorists) all for the safety of the nation? I just sat there and thought, "Buchanan ain't no pinko commie, yet he points out that we can't fight all those nations very quickly and logically." I was faced with a choice, either I realize all these gov't officials are liars (very hard for me to believe because Bush put in 2 pro-life, pro-moral judges so it was emotional judgment) or I realize the sheer #s points out the fact that we can't take on the world unless we just say "To Hell with it" and start nuking countries because we can't afford to fight them on the ground with 500,000 military soldiers.

Is Iraq worth a whole sectarian war with the draft that will come eventually if we continue with Iran, or do I realize these people never attacked us and diplomacy is the best answer instead of fighting over 6 countries which will bankrupt us worse than what we already are.

cottonmouth
07-03-2007, 07:55 PM
Holy crap Mike. Thanks for the testimony. I sure hope this conversion can happen to a lot more folks.

mikelovesgod
07-03-2007, 08:20 PM
I also should give the background for how "we" used to think. Most of us are Christian conservatives (or so we think) because we love the country, hate taxes (although big gov't doesn't bother us because we don't think about it), and just want to stop immorality in society. This is true of the southerners who are "conservative". All we know is Bush wanted to make us secure, stop the bad guys, and he wanted good justices who agree with us on moral issues.

We don't like illegal immigration, but we don't realize how wide-spread it is with actual #s, we don't realize the double standard of our liberties being restricted (and many of them, and I was one of them, think that this is ok to stop the bad guys) while illegals aren't restricted. We will give up our civil liberties to stop the bad guys for the good of our children. That's why none of you can minimize the danger of Limbaugh and Hannity. I never liked Hannity, I thought he was dumb and inarticulate, but Limbaugh I respected to some degree. These people get you on fear: you will lose the country, the commies will take over, the terrorists are after your children, etc..

Most of "us" listen to the talking heads. We don't agree with them on everything, but we think they are more connected on military matters so who are we to disagree? The difference between me and them is that I wasn't interested in politics for 10 years except on moral matters. After the GOP fought against Buchanan I gave up on politics. The Dems sure, but not the GOP. I was interested in Catholic matters as a seminarian who left because I couldn't stand some of the corruption (I still love my Catholic faith), but I saw politics as the lesser of 2 evils.

I then turned to learn about politics this year after I read this Buchanan article on who we have to fight next. It worried me, I don't want to start an inevitable draft if we fight other nations, which no one is talking about except John Edwards. I was on a traditional Catholic board that mentioned Brownback and Paul. Brownback is closer to me on the moral issues being his focus, but he lost me on loss of my freedoms. I realized only one candidate was against the invasion of our freedoms: Ron Paul

Roxi
07-03-2007, 08:37 PM
You can't be against terrorism and pro-open border.


now thats not really fair...not that im for illegal immigrants but i dont think they are terrorists just trying to get the hell out of their own countries

DavyDuke17
07-03-2007, 08:48 PM
now thats not really fair...not that im for illegal immigrants but i dont think they are terrorists just trying to get the hell out of their own countries

Roxic, I don't think he was applying what you thought he was. He is saying that why would you spend all this money to fight a war overseas with the "fight them over there so they don't fight us here" mantra when all a terrorist has to do is go to Mexico and then walk across our border.

mikelovesgod
07-03-2007, 08:53 PM
now thats not really fair...not that im for illegal immigrants but i dont think they are terrorists just trying to get the hell out of their own countries

It's like what Davy said. You can't proclaim on TV you want to stop terrorists while permitting one to walk across the border, and the potential to do so is easy to do. The people who are against terrorism and fight them in every country even if they don't attack us have a contradiction, that's what I'm saying.

If OBL wanted to come into the US all he would need to do is fly into Mexico and walk over the border. He wouldn't need papers, and he couldn't be arrested if he was caught speeding without a license (as has happened by police admissions) and deny his real identity. Tell me how much sense that makes to a pro-Bush/war/conservative.

EvoPro
07-03-2007, 09:09 PM
mike, I love your account of your transition to the true conservative side. My brother is pro war and I will be trying to persuade him to our side. How were you "out of politics" if you don't mind me asking?

Ira Aten
07-03-2007, 09:20 PM
Okay, here is an idea when talking to supporters of this "war" like I was supporting it previous to waking up.

Most right wingers who support the war (such as I foolishly did at first) were sold upon the idea that the Iraqi people "deserve" freedom. But they have not asked themselves if freedom and democracy should be simply hand delivered to them over the dead bodies of America's youth, simply because Iraq's people allowed an asshole to run their country like Adolph Hitler for twenty five years.

They support it, because they truly believe it is right. But they have not realized "who" they are supporting.

I finally snapped to when I realized that the people I thought we were supposedly trying to "free" were the same people who took Kuwaiti infants out of their incubators when they invaded that country and let them suffocate. And I realized, they did so simply because a lunatic asshole told them to. Kind of like when Hitler told his goons to kill Jews, and they did it because they did not have the moral courage to rebel against the son of a bitch on their own.

I don't recall any country in America's past history coming to the rescue of slaves during the civil war, or sending their young people to die for anyone, while agreeing to break their economy in two while doing it.

So when talking to these folks, just ask them. Does it make good sense to continue to ship our youngsters there to die, for a people so without respect for human life, that they would take an infant from an incubator, rather than risk death fighting tyranny? If they won't do it, why should we do it for them?

If they won't stop living and acting as if a human life is not worth fifteen cents in Mexican change, they probably are not worth too many more American lives.

Just a thought.

Mesogen
07-03-2007, 09:24 PM
I don't like war at all (who does?) but in some cases a war would be necessary.

But the the justifications and reasons given in the run up to the Iraq war were so obviously total bullshit, that there was no way I could support it.

That's what I don't get about neocons or any other Iraq war supporters, how they could actually buy the bullshit and go along so willingly with it.

And I have to keep reminding people that we totally won the war against a weak thrid world country with hardly a military. It's the occupation and nation building that we are "losing."

Mesogen
07-03-2007, 09:27 PM
I finally snapped to when I realized that the people I thought we were supposedly trying to "free" were the same people who took Kuwaiti infants out of their incubators when they invaded that country and let them suffocate. And I realized, they did so simply because a lunatic asshole told them to. Kind of like when Hitler told his goons to kill Jews, and they did it because they did not have the moral courage to rebel against the son of a bitch on their own.

I think that whole story was thoroughly debunked a long time ago.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0906/p25s02-cogn.html
http://www.antiwar.com/orig/cohen1.html

mikelovesgod
07-03-2007, 09:44 PM
mike, I love your account of your transition to the true conservative side. My brother is pro war and I will be trying to persuade him to our side. How were you "out of politics" if you don't mind me asking?

Approach your brother from the stand-point of national security. You aren't going to win with the "we are over there" Paul approach. It's too abstract and sounds wrong to their ears. I've never heard the argument before Paul, but if you could stick my mind-set where it was 2 years ago I would have laughed at you. That's honest.

Show him how 15% of illegals aren't Mexican. Ask him who are they? Why do we allow them if we really care? Why are taking away border patrol and sending them to Iraq? Ask him how Iraq could have attacked us as a country? Show him how illogical this is. This isn't conspiracy theories to them, they know about these things, but haven't put it together. Ask him why the emphasis is on Iraq and not on Osama Yo Mama Laden (my attempt at humor) who actually attacked us. Show him the emphasis is not on terrorists, but on countries and ask him the traditional teaching of national sovereignty. Open his eyes through a guy like Buchanan.

To answer your question I was from upstate NY. I always hated dems on social issues, so I always vote Repub. I loved Buchanan in 96' (I was 20) and then I saw the most appalling thing, the GOP knew Buchanan could kill Dole in an argument, so they sold him out. The media spun him into an anti-semite, which I expected, and no one came to defend him from a blatantly false charge. To me that was the ultimate sin (one I was an idealist even in practical matters which I've long realized isn't possible because of our frailties) to leave your own out to dry. Buchanan is a good man, not a company party man, and he could have argued with Clinton and exposed him as a charlatan. At that point I realized the people had no say in who won, it's who THEY (media and powers that be) wanted to win.

I still would feel that way, but I realize the power of the internet shifts this power tremendously. I still feel sorry that Dr. Paul isn't 10 years younger because his ideas are revolutionary in a static environment of talking points. I hope he wins now, but I know he would win with more exposure in 10 years when the internet becomes the major source of news and discussion.

mesler
07-03-2007, 09:51 PM
Give them an audio CD of the Michael Scheuer interview from antiwar radio. It's the one given by Scott Horton.

http://www.antiwar.com/blog/2007/05/19/former-head-of-cias-osama-unit-backs-up-rep-ron-paul/

Tell them Scheuer is not anti-war and is quite hawkish on defense.

Ira Aten
07-05-2007, 02:18 PM
Quote from Mesogen: I think that whole story was thoroughly debunked a long time ago.


Mesogen, do you have any source to confirm it? I am going on what the CNN team under Michael Wiener stated. They believed that the "debunking" done of the "rumor" was a matter of the Kuwaiti Doctors being interviewed by them feeling somewhat initmidated by the soldiers standing there with guns.

So when you say it was "debunked" do you mean by the statement of the Doctors who were being guarded by the armed Iraqi Army soldiers, or do you mean some credible proof of debunking of that claim?

Be that as it may, I believe there are plenty of other instances of Iraqi cruelty carried out upon orders of Sadam Huessein which SHOULD have been refused by Iraqi soldiers and opposed by Iraq's populalation en masse to halt the tyranny they lived under.

So I think pointing out how long they allowed their country to remain under tyranny WITHOUT DOING ANYTHING THEMSELVES TO HALT IT pretty much demonstrates that they are not willing to go about establishing their own representative republican form of government. So why should we do it for them?
That is my point.

But to date, I believe the soldiers removed those infants from those incubators until I see some credible evidence that it was a "false rumor." I doubt a CNN crew would risk their lives to go to Kuwait under an armed Iraqi contingent if they belived otherwise, and you will note that they did NOT report the incident to be a "debunked rumor."

I would love to see the proof of it being a "rumor" and then I guess I'll reconsider supporting the idea that the Iraqi's were all simply "innocent" victims of Sadaam.

WannaBfree
07-06-2007, 08:23 AM
REPORT: Voters Believe Iraq Is Creating More Terrorists, Distracting From Domestic Priorities
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/july2007/060707Iraq.htm

– 82 percent say people in other countries view the United States unfavorably.

– 71 percent say people in other countries now view the American people unfavorably.

– 53 percent of American believe the largest threat facing the United State is from terrorist organizations.

– 83 percent of Americans believe the U.S. should share a leadership role with allies and other countries around the world.

– 63 percent of voters think the U.S. should focus on domestic problems instead of foreign affairs.

– 56 percent of Americans believe that the war in Iraq is distracting us from the war on terror.

– 67 percent believe the war in Iraq is creating more terrorists.

– 72 percent favor diplomacy to pressure with Iran.

According to a recent LA Times/Bloomberg poll, 68 percent of the American public also wants Bush to withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq.

Bruehound
07-06-2007, 08:26 AM
I respectfully call into question the premise of this thread.

Politics' is more about prospecting than it is about persuasion.

Excercise good time management.

austin356
07-06-2007, 08:30 AM
I have been labeled a "pacifist" (imply) before by a neo-con. I then invited him to join me to the Greater Birmingham Gun Show to help me pick out an assault rifle........ that kinda made him think!

paulitics
07-06-2007, 08:31 AM
I usually ask them 2 questions 1) why do they wllfully keep our borders unprotected? 2) WHy are they not actively pursuing Bin Laden, when Pakistan is actively harbouring Al quada while we continue ti give them weapons?

austin356
07-06-2007, 08:32 AM
I respectfully call into question the premise of this thread.

Politics' is more about prospecting than it is about persuasion.

Excercise good time management.



I think so in most situations, but there is something different about the Ron Paul, Republican party relationship.

klamath
07-06-2007, 09:34 AM
This is the letter I have been writing to newspapers. It shows my conversion from a war supporter.

This letter is hard to write for no one wants to admit they were wrong. My mother has spent a lot of time on antiwar.com and in the not so distant past I nearly gagged that she was reading what I thought was an American hating site. I thought it was of the same stripe as the protesters of the Vietnam War that only opposed the war because they really liked communism and wanted us defeated for that reason.
America is at war but what is the war about? Are we fighting small groups of Islamic radicals? Are we fighting the Islamic religion because as some argue the religion states its goal to kill all non-believers? Are we fighting to protect the flow of oil that our economy is so reliant? Are we fighting to install free democracies in the Middle East? Is it a combination of the above?
As I talk to and listen to individual Americans I have found that there is no consensus on why we are at war. A lot of people try to make it a partisan issue, which is not helpful. History shows that we have been at war in the Middle East under both the Democrats and Republicans. I think it is vitally important for us to figure this out in order to bring this war to its conclusion as soon as possible. As individuals I think we need to truly, objectively, and dispassionately look at what we know of the world and figure why we are at war.

I myself have been thinking about this ever since debate and the exchange between Rudy Giuliani and Ron Paul about 9/11. I have been a life long Republican and have been a supporter of the war which I can back up with a department of defense DD form 214 showing my service in southwest Asia, namely Iraq. After quite a lot of reflection I still hold the same beliefs as to why we are at war. However my beliefs of how we should be fighting the war have somewhat changed.
I voted for Bush in '04 because how could I vote for a guy that openly admitted to committing atrocities in Vietnam while he was an officer and should have had the leadership and moral courage to stop it? I supported the war because both Clinton and Bush told me of the WMD. God help our civil liberties if Saddam drops one of those on a US city, I thought. Though I have not been of an interventionist mind set, as I believe that all US soldiers should have returned to within the US borders since the end of the cold war.
I served my tour after it was decided the WMDs would never be found and stood by my helicopter and saluted with tears in my eyes as the body bags containing the remains of my fellow US GI's (some weighting less than 30 pounds) were loaded on my helicopter.
As I crisscrossed over thousands of square miles of Iraq I had high hopes for the country becoming a free and prosperous country. I was in Iraq for both of the first two Elections and hoped with all my soul that they would quit killing each other and of course us. I wanted so desperately to secure the borders so foreign fighters couldn’t get in and kill wantonly but realized this would never be possible without a huge army. I believe that al least fifty percent of the people supported our presence to protect them from the killings but as we were unable to protect them from the bombings that killed them, hundreds a day, we just became more of a detriment and they now believe we are attracting the killers to their country. There is deep hatred between the three main groups in Iraq and that hate is getting deeper by the day. After I got out of the country I followed the news every day just hoping for a glimmer of hope that the violence was abating. I listened in vain. We cannot install a democracy there I am afraid. The hatred is so deep that I think that we would have as much luck in invading Lebanon, Palestine and Israel making it one country and having them vote in one democracy.
So now I have to fall back to thinking tactically and strategically.
As far as the battle in Iraq I have come to realize that it can't be won. Just strategically look at the numbers. There are a 1.5 billion Islamic people around the world that are over all, now highly critical of us. With those kind of numbers all it takes is a small percentage of them to join the jihad and filter through the Iraq's borders (Which we cannot control) and US troops cannot tell the difference between them and innocent Iraqis. Every great general in history knew when he had lost a battle and had sense enough to withdraw and regroup and rethink his strategy. To do otherwise and the soldiers see that they are dying in vain that general rapidly loses the support of his men and even more so when he is giving orders from the rear. It doesn't help when they know he didn't spend time in the foxholes in his youth.

We lost the moral high ground when we invaded Iraq and found no WMD. It showed the world how inept our intel agencies are and for many it made them question our honesty and motives. I used the argument many times that we gave Saddam so much time he hid the weapons so we couldn't find them but when I reflect on that it only proves we were more wrong. If he had them he would have used them against our armed force as we advanced but he didn't. "Well I used to say he didn't because he knew we would retaliate with even greater WMD." Ok, well wouldn't he have used that same logic in contemplating using them on an American city? So what threat?

If we as Americans believe we are at war with all of Islam or we are at war to keep the oil flowing then we had better buckle down and fight this war all out like WWII. Quit trying to live in a state of denial that we can go on living a peace time life while tossing a few son’s and daughters lives toward a far off battle that is only going to get worse. And if this is the case that we are at war with all Islamic people of the world and not just a radical few, every American Mother and Father with their sons and daughters in tow needs to walk down to the military recruiting station and sign on the dotted line. It is going to take a lot of bodies to kill 1.5 billion Muslims. Nukes in places like India wouldn’t be a good idea or we will end up fighting 1 billion Hindu’s.

If as I believe we are at war with a radical few then we need to get out of the middle East and deprive al Qaeda the rallying and recruitment point of American occupation. If some are thinking I have become an appeaser and pacifist you could not be more wrong. It is my firm belief that all things in this universe are about force and counterforce and the struggle to survive. War and terrorism, which are one in the same, will always be in this universe and I will fight for my freedom and right to live without hesitation however it is a ghastly horrible thing that can bring out the worse elements of human nature. If we can find different strategies that cost less in human life and defuse the constant human struggles where it is possible and where they involve us I believe we should go that route.
So, I feel I was wrong about the war and have to admit my mistake. As I look around for a leader to replace Bush I have to go back in history and see who was making sounder judgments than I during the time of 9/11 hysteria and find it wasn’t any of the “top tier candidates” both Democrat and Republican. That person was Ron Paul.

Scribbler de Stebbing
07-06-2007, 09:40 AM
Here's an email I sent this morning to some pro-war but otherwise conservative friends:


Guys, do you mind doing me a little favor? This is an interview of Ron Paul yesterday by popular Philly talk show host, Michael Smerconish, who said it took him six years to come around on the matter of the war.

I'm not expecting to change your minds with this, but hoping to lend a little understanding of where the conservative get-out-of-Iraq position is coming from. We're not hate-America anti-defense peaceniks, although there are some of those out there on the left.

I do understand where you guys are coming from, as I was there for a long time myself. Wanted revenge on the 9/11 terrorists. Still do. So here's something to give you some understanding on my position:

http://www.thebigtalker1210.com/topic/play_window.php?audioType=Episode&audioId=854924

Fxxxxxx, saw your friend Kxxxx Bxxxxxx last night.

JaylieWoW
07-06-2007, 09:42 AM
With regards to the war and the statement by pro-war advocates that those who oppose the war are weak and pacifist I offer this. Isn't it weak and cowardly to pick a fight with someone who hasn't threatened you and whom you know you can beat handily. I get very "defensive" when people tell me I'm just a "weak-kneed" pacifist. Au contraire! I'm quite strong willed and can see clearly how cowardly our own actions are in attacking a country that can't defend themselves all that well. Although, I'd say based on how poorly we are now doing, maybe they aren't as physically defenseless as the war hawks first thought. A clear case where we overestimated our own strength and underestimated our "enemies" abilities. Makes us look really great don't ya think?

Anyway, I just thought I'd throw this one out there. Being against a war for the right reasons is NOT pacifist, its a MORAL position. I can assure you, if we were attacked I would fight back with everything I've got to repel the enemy from my lands!

WannaBfree
07-06-2007, 10:06 AM
I always ask the pro-war people how we are going to pay for it. Most don't think about the fact that we are borrowing billions of dollars each and every day to fund this war.

micahnelson
07-06-2007, 10:06 AM
Simple talking points for good natured people who love America and Don't like Bush Bashing.

1) Wars are to be declared by Congress. The congress had no right to abdicate this to the executive- the executive on principle should not have asked for the authorization.

2) The US Military should not be used to enforce UN Resolutions. Our sons and daughters enlist to serve the Soverign United States of America- not the UN.

Dary
07-06-2007, 11:19 AM
Tweak this to fit your own style but..,

Start off by agreeing them and sympathizing with them (we are on the same side after all).

"I'm pro war too, and I agree with you that when our nation is threatened, I want to see our enemies defeated as well."

Then begin to point out how it should be done. Maybe ask them what they think about how GWB has carried out this war...

"Do you think President Bush has done a good job and has done everything possible to defeat this enemy?"

Most Neo-Cons would say no, and that they would like to see the place turned into a glass factory.

Then just say something like this...

"Well I can tell you this much, that If Rep. Paul had been President and the Congress had ordered him to war like the Constitution requires through a Congressional Declaration of War, then this fiasco that we are now bogged down in would have been over years ago."

"Ron Paul would have unleashed the U.S. Military and ordered them to kill everything and anything that moved offering any resistance."

"He would have ordered the Marines to find and kill OBL no matter where he may be hiding. We would have not lost almost 4000 of our guys doing it, and it wouldn’t have cost us 2 trillion dollars."

"Our guys would have been home by now and we could have gone on with our lives in peace."

emilysdad
07-06-2007, 12:16 PM
I have this problem with a younger brother (47). Another poster stated "most of us listen to talking heads." Bingo. That is my bro's problem. He works hard and is financially very sucessful. He spends his weekends with his family. His only source of news is talk radio to and from work. Over the course of our conversations it has become obvious he is extemely uniformed. The longer the debate (conversation) the less he can support his position because he can only repeat what he has listened too instead of what he has (hasn't) read or researched. Very, very frustrating because he is set in his ways. I have tried all the suggestions posted here to no avail and for the most part I simply tell him, "remember this converstation when the day comes." He is a classic example of false Patriatism.

He claims this is a WAR to stop the terrorists from coming over here. I usually roll my eyes. I find it odd that some people think innocent women, men and children are terrorists. I find it odd that in this WAR, our brave men and women are considered hero soldiers, yet the enemy fighters are called radical islamic terrorists. Aren't all fighters in a WAR considered soldiers? Okay, so our "enemy" uses IED and car bombs and suicide bombers, but what else to they have? They don't really have an army anymore, a navy, a marine corps, an air force, fighter jets, tanks, du weapons. They fight with what they have. When my bro tells me we are over their to secure their freedom and democracy I just reply, "so why are we building 14 military bases and one of the largest embassy's in the world in downtown Bahgdad?" This sounds like occupation to me, not freedom. Considering the words of Dr. Paul who states more Americans died in their bathtubs last year than at the hands of terrorists, I conclude this so called war is more about oil than Iraqi's freedom.

Broadlighter
07-06-2007, 01:11 PM
I think the first place to start in this conversation is to ask the question: why do you consider yourself to be a conservative? And then listen carefully to his answer. They will likely tell you all you need to know to steer them toward Ron Paul's position.

Different people think to varying depths about their political and social outlook and no one wants to look stupid.

None of us has perfect understanding of all the issues, so for me it boils down to what side do you err on? Conservative? Liberal? Pro-War? Pro-Peace? And how and why did you come to those conclusions? Some have thought about it deeply and some have not - they just gravitated to what seemed right for them. I believe Ron Paul's supporters have thought about it more than most and I can see some, like myself, have changed their minds because of the evidence of priniciple.

We can also better explain why Ron Paul is against the War in Iraq, yet he was all for going after Osama Bin Laden in Afghanistan. He's also for securing our borders, taking care of our vets and strengthening our defense.

Conservatives generally pride themselves on being rational and logical about issues and look at Liberals as being highly emotional about the same things. Use verifiable facts and well-thought out logic to make your case. They are not used to that coming from liberals. Let them ask the challenging questions and give them principled answers. Liberals, generally, have a difficult time talking about issues in terms of principles. They tend more towards the emotional and human fallout from the events and take a stand to oppose the policies behind the opposing party's actions. To Liberals, it's more about actions (There's a healthcare crisis, we need government healthcare. Global-Warming is upon us, we need more regulation of commerce. We need to do something!)

One of the problems conservatives need to look at is this Neo-Con idea that we always have to be at war with someone or something. In Ron Pauls July 2003 address to Congress about the Neo-Con ideology he illustrated how these people ALWAYS have to be fighting a war in order to feel they are doing something meaningful. This is the same idea the Jihadists use to promote their cause. What about Peace, Prosperity and Free Markets? Why can't we ever give that a chance? The Neo-Cons always seem to require this state of agitation and fear. The idea of respecting someone else's sovereignty is equivalent to being a doormat. We gotta get them before they have any chance of getting us. Where does it end?

I believe in peace, prosperity and free-markets as the normative state of things and war only when it's necessary to defend life and liberty. And in the case of war, total war until victory is achieved. What the Neo-Cons believe is that War is the normative state of things and commerce as a necessary ingredient of it, perhaps to provide motivation and a means for paying for the cost of war. Extreme Leftists also love war because they always need an oligargy to fight and an oppressed poor to defend.

I believe Ron Paul represents the true alternative to this ongooing war ideology that no self-respecting, sane person really wants.

Manible
09-09-2007, 01:21 AM
I think Paul's position, that wars require a war declaration from Congress as is indicated in the Constitution, is a strong argument against the "wars" that the neocons and neolibs embrace.

For the record neo-liberals are Libertarians.

quickmike
09-09-2007, 01:30 AM
Yep. Neo-cons say this and often a step further, saying its not only our right but our responsibility!!!!!!!! Usually i then go off on a tirade about Woodrow Wilson and that they arent real conservatives etc. etc.

People like this are extremely tuff to crack.

Hell, Ive even had some of the REALLY bad neo-cons say that "we need the oil over there and weve got the biggest guns, so we just go take it........... simple as that"

What they dont understand, is that THEY arent part of the club that gets the spoils of this kind of theft. They think they are in "the club" but they bitch about high gas prices just like everyone else while the oil companies sit back and declare record profits.

suckers.........

specsaregood
09-09-2007, 01:38 AM
When I run into somebody pro-iraq-war I use information gleaned from this:
http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2002/tst101402.htm
"Why Won't Congress Declare War?"

and this quote, that is treasonous IMHO.
"There are things in the Constitution that have been overtaken by events,
by time. Declaration of war is one of them. There are things no longer
relevant to a modern society. Why declare war if you don't have to? We are
saying to the President, use your judgment. So, to demand that we declare
war is to strengthen something to death. You have got a hammerlock on this
situation, and it is not called for. Inappropriate, anachronistic, it isn't done anymore." ---Henry Hyde to Ron Paul in response to his motion to Declare War on Iraq

Together they make even the most staunch supporter *think*.

SeanEdwards
09-09-2007, 01:39 AM
For the record neo-liberals are Libertarians.

No, libertarians are classic liberals, and neolibs are socialist freakazoids who stole the liberal label. :D