LSUiLike
01-18-2008, 03:45 PM
I'm trying to write a letter that will help connect mainstream voters to Ron Paul's message. I'd like any advice on making this more effective. This is the first draft and I will be working more on it, and I plan to address a few other topics as well, but the main theme of this paper is Ron Paul's opposition to the Iraq War, since that is a key point of contention with many Republicans. It probably needs to be shortened, but I really want to make a strong case on why what we're doing is wrong and why Paul is right.
I think some of my arguments could be stronger, so I welcome input. I am doing this because I feel like Paul's campaign isn't doing a good enough job appealing to mainstream voters.
---
Ron Paul has been accused of being soft on terror because he doesn’t support the current war in Iraq. Let me state clearly that Ron Paul is not soft on terror. He voted for US action against Al-Qaeda after the attacks on September 11, 2001. Military action in Afghanistan started on October 7, 2001 and by December 17, 2001 the US had completely removed the Taliban and Al-Qaeda from Afghanistan, forcing their remaining numbers to retreat across the border to the mountains of Pakistan. No US deaths were reported at this time. This is what Ron Paul supported, and it was successful up to this point.
Pervez Musharraf, president of Pakistan, played a positive role in the US campaign in Afghanistan, but refused to allow US troops to follow Al-Qaeda into Pakistan. Despite receiving approximately 4.2 billion dollars from the US in the three years after agreeing to aid our campaign against Al-Qaeda, and more money since then, Musharraf’s government was unable to keep Al-Qaeda from quickly regrouping within the borders of Pakistan. Since regrouping in early 2002, Al-Qaeda has been able to carry out guerilla attacks against US forces in Afghanistan and is now stronger than they’ve been since 9/11. Recent reports question whether the billions of dollars of aid given to Pakistan were well spent considering the complete resurgence of Al-Qaeda.
In addition to the political barrier with Pakistan, which tied the hands of the US forces, the US started a preemptive war against Iraq on March 20, 2003, which diverted the full focus of US armed forces from the campaign against Al-Qaeda. Ron Paul opposed this diversion from the start and did not believe the administration’s claims that Iraq posed an imminent, urgent, and immediate threat to the US, its people, allies, and interests.
Approximately 474 billion dollars has been spent on the Iraq War, and the Congressional Budget Office estimates that the total cost of the war in Iraq will be 1.9 trillion dollars. When we have a national debt of over 9 trillion dollars, increasing at a rate 1.4 billion dollars a day, can we afford such an expensive and unnecessary foreign policy? In terms of human lives, the exact numbers are uncertain, but tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of Iraqis have died. Nearly 4,000 US soldiers have died and nearly 8,700 have been seriously wounded.
I find it perplexing that we could not complete our campaign against Al-Qaeda. I find it perplexing that instead of decisively dealing with Al-Qaeda, we decided to enter into a long-term and costly commitment in a separate region of the world – a region full of nations that see our presence as a threat. Ron Paul realized this was a mistake and bravely stood by his convictions from the outset. No other major Republican candidate is committed to a fiscally responsible foreign policy. Ron Paul stands by the Republican ideal of a strong national defense, but has the foresight to realize that an interventionist foreign policy leads to a tangle of conflicting foreign relations and is extremely costly. The founding fathers warned us against entangling foreign alliances and intervention in the internal affairs of foreign nations. Why have so many in the Republican Party adopted a traditionally Democratic policy of policing the world?
The most common argument is now that we are in Iraq and the country is unstable, we can’t afford to leave until it stabilizes because leaving will be a threat to our national security and we have a moral obligation to the people of Iraq. Assuming we are economically able to stay for the long term, which may not be a good assumption, and ignoring the tangle of foreign alliances, which isn’t a good thing to ignore, is this a sound argument?
From a totally selfish perspective, leaving Iraq will strengthen our national defense because our armed forces will not be so engaged in a foreign war. Bringing our troops home would increase border security and save a lot of money. It is often argued that the best offense is a strong defense. Instead of spending so much money on a foreign war, money could go into a sound national defense and intelligence operations.
As for having a moral obligation to the people of Iraq, we have succeeded in removing Saddam Hussein from power and an elected government is now in place in Iraq. Much of the violence is a direct result of our presence and many Iraqis believe our presence is making the situation worse. Iraq’s internal disputes have to be solved by Iraq, and the US presence does little to remedy that. If we continue pumping funds into Iraq there will be little motivation come to a compromise. It is time we give the Iraq people their freedom.
Ron Paul has received more financial support from active military and veterans than any other candidate. Paul is one of the few candidates who served his country in the armed forces. I find both of these points and Paul’s depth of knowledge of economic philosophy to be very relevant to Paul’s stance on foreign affairs.
Finally, as a Christian nation, I find it strange that so many Christians support the preemptive war policy of the current administration. Ron Paul, a devout Christian who strives to be a moral leader without abusing his faith for political gain, is guided by the Just War Theory, a philosophy advanced by Christian theologians which argues that while war is abhorrent, it is sometimes necessary. The Just War Theory condemns preemptive war.
I wonder what has happened to the Republican Party and the direction most of the candidates want to take us in. I hear a lack of concern about the great debt the nation holds to foreign countries and an interest in getting us further knotted in a tangling web of foreign promises and obligations that will prove to be costly, and not just in an economic sense. I ask you to take a step back and realize that we need to return to conservative values. Sadly, no other candidate will touch these issues, and as a result we will continue to move in the wrong direction. As a proud but concerned fellow American, I ask you to vote for Ron Paul.
I think some of my arguments could be stronger, so I welcome input. I am doing this because I feel like Paul's campaign isn't doing a good enough job appealing to mainstream voters.
---
Ron Paul has been accused of being soft on terror because he doesn’t support the current war in Iraq. Let me state clearly that Ron Paul is not soft on terror. He voted for US action against Al-Qaeda after the attacks on September 11, 2001. Military action in Afghanistan started on October 7, 2001 and by December 17, 2001 the US had completely removed the Taliban and Al-Qaeda from Afghanistan, forcing their remaining numbers to retreat across the border to the mountains of Pakistan. No US deaths were reported at this time. This is what Ron Paul supported, and it was successful up to this point.
Pervez Musharraf, president of Pakistan, played a positive role in the US campaign in Afghanistan, but refused to allow US troops to follow Al-Qaeda into Pakistan. Despite receiving approximately 4.2 billion dollars from the US in the three years after agreeing to aid our campaign against Al-Qaeda, and more money since then, Musharraf’s government was unable to keep Al-Qaeda from quickly regrouping within the borders of Pakistan. Since regrouping in early 2002, Al-Qaeda has been able to carry out guerilla attacks against US forces in Afghanistan and is now stronger than they’ve been since 9/11. Recent reports question whether the billions of dollars of aid given to Pakistan were well spent considering the complete resurgence of Al-Qaeda.
In addition to the political barrier with Pakistan, which tied the hands of the US forces, the US started a preemptive war against Iraq on March 20, 2003, which diverted the full focus of US armed forces from the campaign against Al-Qaeda. Ron Paul opposed this diversion from the start and did not believe the administration’s claims that Iraq posed an imminent, urgent, and immediate threat to the US, its people, allies, and interests.
Approximately 474 billion dollars has been spent on the Iraq War, and the Congressional Budget Office estimates that the total cost of the war in Iraq will be 1.9 trillion dollars. When we have a national debt of over 9 trillion dollars, increasing at a rate 1.4 billion dollars a day, can we afford such an expensive and unnecessary foreign policy? In terms of human lives, the exact numbers are uncertain, but tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of Iraqis have died. Nearly 4,000 US soldiers have died and nearly 8,700 have been seriously wounded.
I find it perplexing that we could not complete our campaign against Al-Qaeda. I find it perplexing that instead of decisively dealing with Al-Qaeda, we decided to enter into a long-term and costly commitment in a separate region of the world – a region full of nations that see our presence as a threat. Ron Paul realized this was a mistake and bravely stood by his convictions from the outset. No other major Republican candidate is committed to a fiscally responsible foreign policy. Ron Paul stands by the Republican ideal of a strong national defense, but has the foresight to realize that an interventionist foreign policy leads to a tangle of conflicting foreign relations and is extremely costly. The founding fathers warned us against entangling foreign alliances and intervention in the internal affairs of foreign nations. Why have so many in the Republican Party adopted a traditionally Democratic policy of policing the world?
The most common argument is now that we are in Iraq and the country is unstable, we can’t afford to leave until it stabilizes because leaving will be a threat to our national security and we have a moral obligation to the people of Iraq. Assuming we are economically able to stay for the long term, which may not be a good assumption, and ignoring the tangle of foreign alliances, which isn’t a good thing to ignore, is this a sound argument?
From a totally selfish perspective, leaving Iraq will strengthen our national defense because our armed forces will not be so engaged in a foreign war. Bringing our troops home would increase border security and save a lot of money. It is often argued that the best offense is a strong defense. Instead of spending so much money on a foreign war, money could go into a sound national defense and intelligence operations.
As for having a moral obligation to the people of Iraq, we have succeeded in removing Saddam Hussein from power and an elected government is now in place in Iraq. Much of the violence is a direct result of our presence and many Iraqis believe our presence is making the situation worse. Iraq’s internal disputes have to be solved by Iraq, and the US presence does little to remedy that. If we continue pumping funds into Iraq there will be little motivation come to a compromise. It is time we give the Iraq people their freedom.
Ron Paul has received more financial support from active military and veterans than any other candidate. Paul is one of the few candidates who served his country in the armed forces. I find both of these points and Paul’s depth of knowledge of economic philosophy to be very relevant to Paul’s stance on foreign affairs.
Finally, as a Christian nation, I find it strange that so many Christians support the preemptive war policy of the current administration. Ron Paul, a devout Christian who strives to be a moral leader without abusing his faith for political gain, is guided by the Just War Theory, a philosophy advanced by Christian theologians which argues that while war is abhorrent, it is sometimes necessary. The Just War Theory condemns preemptive war.
I wonder what has happened to the Republican Party and the direction most of the candidates want to take us in. I hear a lack of concern about the great debt the nation holds to foreign countries and an interest in getting us further knotted in a tangling web of foreign promises and obligations that will prove to be costly, and not just in an economic sense. I ask you to take a step back and realize that we need to return to conservative values. Sadly, no other candidate will touch these issues, and as a result we will continue to move in the wrong direction. As a proud but concerned fellow American, I ask you to vote for Ron Paul.