I am a lifelong, very conservative Republican. When I first starting hearing about Ron Paul, I agreed with him about almost everything but the war. I bought the administration's position and their snow job on the war on terror hook, line and sinker. I wondered how Ron Paul could be so right about so much but so far off on this very important issue. Because it didn't make sense that Ron Paul could be so wrong about that and so right about to so much, I had to seriously evaluate my own positions. I began to really listen to what he was saying and to consider his words rather than just dismiss them.
Ron Paul has brought me around 180 degrees on the issue of Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, the war on terror and the tens of thousands of troops we have scattered around the globe. I still believe we need a strong military, the best trained, best armed troops on the globe, but we need them here, to defend us, not to violate the Constitution by occupying other people's lands. Ron Paul, you showed me the light! You R-O-C-K!!
Subscribe to this thread- Flag as offensive
- Login or register to post comments
- 211 reads
America violated International Law and violated the Constitution. There should be hell to pay. There should be a war crimes tribunal after Bush is gone to eliminate any pardons.
May they forget they were our countrymen and may the chains set lightly upon them as we tell them to march into the ocean.
woodman. you crazy, man. you crazy.
I can't tell you how many Republican events I went to this past year where that was exactly what I heard from people. We would then have a healthy debate where I would explain how he (Ron Paul) changed my mind on the issue. Glad to hear that some people may have tossed the idea around long enough to come to understand it.
"If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him." ~Voltaire
I went through a very similar change in my personal views on the war, except I'm sure like you it didn't happen overnight. I learned about Paul last year at CPAC and a buddy of mine was a supporter of his at about this time last year. At that time I also couldn't support him because of his view on the war. However, by about August last year my views had changed and I found myself online every day following his campaign. I used to be a big neocon so maybe four months is a little long to flip views but nonetheless I don't think Ron Paul became a household name till between November and December. I still talk to people and they ask who he is. Even so, if someone became acquainted with him in November and it took four months for them as well they wouldn't become a supporter until March, well after Super Tuesday. Once Super Tuesday hit voters realized that Paul wasn't going to secure the nomination and subsequently most likely felt as if they'd be throwing away their vote. Now the question is since you've crossed into the anti-war threshold could you overlook a future candidates pro war stance if the rest of their views were similar to Paul's? Even though I think the Federal Reserve issue is more important than the war I personally doubt I could support a pro-war or even a neutral war candidate, after all war is the health of the state.
It would seem out of whack for someone to support all of Ron Paul's views except those on the war. It comes down to two things:
1. The Constitution - either you believe in it or you don't. There is no picking and choosing which articles are convenient.
2. Simple practicality. Read the history of empires and over-expansion consistently caused financial failure and collapse.
I would venture to view a politician who claimed to agree with Ron Paul on all but the war with some suspicion. It just doesn't track. War is profitable, war is good for big business. How many billion tax dollars are going to contractors in Iraq to build things that are not our business to build? Why is Iraq being forced to buy Monsanto's horrible seeds? Why can we not run a war or occupation without Blackwater breaking all rules of engagement and civil and military law? I have to be very suspicious of exactly who the politicians who support this occupation are really answering to. It clearly is not the people.
As for the military, I believe them to be heroes. Each one of them puts his/her life on the line because the POTUS tells them it is for the security of our nation. That this war is wrong and foolish is no reflection upon our troops, but on their corrupt commanders. It is unconscienable that so many of our best young men and women are being phyisically and mentally destroyed in a war that is really about making Haliburton et al richer than they are.
nwind,
I think the discussion of US foreign policy is an emotional matter to many people, as the military is deified in our country. Hero worship on a grand scale.
The harsh truth is that they are human beings, some quite noble and good, others evil, and most of them with normal flaws and failings. A few of them work on the front lines, most in support positions. The majority of them don't kill anyone, and most of those who do kill do so within the "morality" of war. Some go beyond such bounds and commit atrocities.
Paul makes the very common sense statement that our interventionist foreign policy has given extremist elements in the Middle East (and elsewhere) something to latch onto as a bogeyman that is keeping them down, and thus a target for leaders to convince the people to attack, we are harmed and made less safe. And invading countries that didn't attack us, causing the region to sit on the knife edge of civil war, does not serve our interests.
But for those who worship the idea of the military, such statements are difficult to parse dispassionately - they tend to equate any criticism of the use of the military with disparagement of those in the military. It's something that is best handled on an individual basis - when you come across someone who thinks Paul makes a lot of sense with regard to the Constitution and domestic issues, but is a "truther" when it comes to 9/11 or someone who blames America first, it is important to show them what Paul actually said, and what it means.
Of course there is blowback, that has been known for years. Creating al-CIATA is another thing altogether. They stated that is who attacked on 911. Al-CIATED was created by the US, hence the US government is complicit in the attacks, its quite simple really.
And yes, Ron Paul does support another investigation.
"It's something that is best handled on an individual basis - when you come across someone who thinks Paul makes a lot of sense with regard to the Constitution and domestic issues, but is a "truther" when it comes to 9/11 or someone who blames America first, it is important to show them what Paul actually said, and what it means."---lysander.spooner
Ok, so I invite you to 'show' me what Ron Paul said..
"Ok, so I invite you to 'show' me what Ron Paul said.."
I already have, but I'll do so one more time. He is ok with further investigation and a discussion of root causes (foreign policy) and government ineptness, but he doesn't think 9/11 was an inside job, and you do a disservice to the Revolution by insinuating Ron Paul is a truther like yourself. I even wonder if you care about the bigger message in his platform - a return to Constitutional restraint in the federal government, and the principles espoused by the founding fathers.
Question to all: Is there a way in the forum to place a particular user on ignore? Assuming there is someone who constantly spams the forum with his one topic obsession, no matter what the discussion was originally about, and who is immune to reason or actual (two-way) communication?
Anyway, here again is what Ron Paul said:
http://www.reason.com/blog/show/120338.html
Reason: What did you mean when you told the Scholars that "the [9/11] investigation is an investigation in which there were government cover-ups"?
Paul: I do think there were cover-ups, and I think it was mainly to cover up who was blamed, who's inept. See, they had the information. The FBI had an agent who was very much aware of the terrorists getting flight lessons but obviously not training to be pilots. He reported it 70 times or whatever and it was totally ignored. We were spending $40 billion a year on intelligence. It wasn't a lack of money or a lack of intelligence, it was a lack of the ability to put the intelligence together. Even the administration had been forewarned that something was coming, the CIA had been forewarned. So it was a cover up of who to blame. I see it more that way.
Reason: The position of the Student Scholars is that 9/11 was executed by the U.S. government. Do you agree or disagree with that?
Paul: I'd say there's no evidence of that.
Reason: So what did you mean when you told Student Scholars you'd be open to a new 9/11 investigation?
Paul: Well, I think the more we know about what we went on is good. But I don't think there's any evidence of [an inside job] and I don't believe that. The blame goes to bad policy. And a lot of times bad policy is well-motivated. The people who believe in a one world government are well motivated, but they disagree with me.
But I already destroyed your same argument here.(strike 2) http://www.breakthematrix.com/comment/reply/4119/1763
> Question to all: Is there a way in the forum to place a particular user on ignore?
just vote them down if you feel they're selling crazy. and it's good practise to turn away from a dead end. if you made a point and dude responds with crazy completely dismissing your point then hit the down arrow and leave him be. i voted down every ridiculous comment in this thread. you should always remember to do the same.