PDA

View Full Version : RP and the war: a suggestion




1000-points-of-fright
07-19-2007, 10:28 AM
We all know RP is against "the action" in Iraq and says he will bring the troops home immediately if he is elected. However, there are many pro-war people who otherwise agree with him on everything else. They just truely believe that the war on terror is the defining struggle of their generation and overshadows all other issues.

I think it would help win those people over if during the debates or interviews he said something like the following when asked about immediately withdrawing the troops:

"Unless Congress definitively votes to declare war, I would bring everyone home. If, however, they declare war, as the Commander in Chief I would be duty bound do everything in my power to achieve the objectives set forth in that declaration and win."

This would show that he's just not some anti-war hippie. He is pro-military and serious about national defense AND the rule of law, that not even the President is above the law.

Kuldebar
07-19-2007, 10:30 AM
We all know RP is against "the action" in Iraq and says he will bring the troops home immediately if he is elected. However, there are many pro-war people who otherwise agree with him on everything else. They just truely believe that the war on terror is the defining struggle of their generation and overshadows all other issues.

I think it would help win those people over if during the debates or interviews he said something like the following when asked about immediately withdrawing the troops:

"Unless Congress definitively votes to declare war, I'm bringing everyone home. If, however, they declare war, as the Commander in Chief I am sworn to, and will, do everything in my power to achieve the objectives set forth in that declaration and win."

This would show that he's just not some anti-war hippie. He is pro-military and serious about national defense AND the rule of law.

Problem with doing this now is the simple fact that we are not at war with Iraq, the Iraqi government is our friend...

So, there can be no declaration of war against the nation of Iraq...unless we want another :regime change" there ...lol.

1000-points-of-fright
07-19-2007, 10:32 AM
True, I hadn't thought of that.

TheEvilDetector
07-19-2007, 10:32 AM
There is no such thing as war on terror, it is simply a cover for the pursuit of global US primacy.

The ultimate target being the deconstruction of Russia and that is why amongst other things, all the activity is occurring near to Russia.

The war in Iraq, if there is such a thing, is more of a civil war with the US stuck in the middle performing policing actions.

There is not much of a conventional force that a regular army can fight.

If you are keeping yourself aware of the US casualty metrics, then you surely know that there is no sign of slowing down in the US troops' death rate and so it can definitively be said that the US presence in the country is not helping themselves or Iraq in the sense that peace is no closer and is in fact much farther away.

However this information is not required to convince someone that in general the current policy in Iraq is not in the best interests of the voting public.

The economy is having its life sucked right out of it. That and the general themes of Ron's candidacy should be sufficient to form an effective rallying call to action.

1000-points-of-fright
07-19-2007, 10:39 AM
Yeah, whatever. That has has nothing to do with it. You know what I mean. Quit being damn literal and, quite frankly, snotty.

THOSE people BELIEVE there is the war on terror and that it is necessary. I never said they were right. Whether they are or not is immaterial to the discussion of how to get them to support Ron Paul.

TheEvilDetector
07-19-2007, 10:43 AM
Yeah, whatever. That has has nothing to do with it. You know what I mean. Quit being damn literal and, quite frankly, snotty.

THOSE people BELIEVE there is the war on terror and that it is necessary. I never said they were right. Whether they are or not is immaterial to the discussion of how to get them to support Ron Paul.

I was trying to illustrate some basic fundamental issues going on, sorry if you got offended by it.

I believe I did address your points, by saying pointing out that the economy is being destroyed and focussing on Ron Paul's issues should be sufficient to convert those that have an open mind.

1000-points-of-fright
07-19-2007, 11:13 AM
I wasn't offended. I guess that did come off a little harsh. Sorry.

I just assumed it was clear that the people I was referring to are for the most part single issue voters at the moment (like Glenn Beck) and they are likely to support a strong defense/pro-military candidate who is weak on everything else but makes them feel safe over someone who will really fix the country but doesn't, in their mind, take the perceived "Islamo-fascist threat" seriously. Their logic is "you can't fix the country if there isn't one to fix".

These people are mostly Republican voters. If RP could prove that he's not anti-defense in simple terms that appeal to these types of people (intellectually AND emotionally), they'll be more likely to listen to the rest of his ideas and then they'll be crazy for him.

TheEvilDetector
07-19-2007, 11:30 AM
I wasn't offended. I guess that did come off a little harsh. Sorry.

I just assumed it was clear that the people I was referring to are for the most part single issue voters at the moment (like Glenn Beck) and they are likely to support a strong defense/pro-military candidate who is weak on everything else but makes them feel safe over someone who will really fix the country but doesn't, in their mind, take the perceived "Islamo-fascist threat" seriously. Their logic is "you can't fix the country if there isn't one to fix".

These people are mostly Republican voters. If RP could prove that he's not anti-defense in simple terms that appeal to these types of people (intellectually AND emotionally), they'll be more likely to listen to the rest of his ideas and then they'll be crazy for him.

Its sad to see that the public bought into these invented terms "War On Terror", "Spreading Democracy" and "Islamo-fascist threat". Those that made these terms up are laughing uncontrollably at the gullible public.

It's not all the public's fault, for there was 9/11 negligence and cover-up and the complicit media to stand in the way of the truth. The truth is actually really simple. US wants total domination and the only country that stands in the way is Russia. That is the master plan, to control the world by breaking down Russia bit by bit. The most visible conflicts with Iran and Iraq and the many others less visible are just minor pieces in this game. Cold war did not end, it simply became less visible with the surrounding policies having been adjusted. We've had 61 years of it now and I fear the showdown is dangerously close if a drastic change in policy doesn't come about, namely a switch from trying to tear Russia down, to an acceptance of an enduring multi-polar world so that human kind can live in peace. This policy, by necessity, requires abandonment of the misguided notion that the rabidly insane oligarchs seem to have that One-World-Government is the way to go.

LOL, truth is stranger than fiction. There are people who privately wish to control the world, and then there are people who actually have the means and the insanity to go for it. However, in those people's mind it is not insanity, it is simply their birthright, their destiny if you will.

--
Food for thought:

The basic argument of the Mackinder`s geopolitics is still relevant: ‘The great geographical realities remain: land power versus sea power, heartland versus rimland, centre versus periphery...’ This Russia understands every bit as much as Washington.