If Ron Paul was for the war, would you still vote for him?

[LibertyOfOne]

The war is costly and we need to axe it and get control of the other fiscal problems too.

 

[American]

The war was secondary for me anyways, I'm more concerned with Illegal immigration, North American Union, High Taxes, Growth of Govt, My civil liberties being infringed upon, The Monetary system, The Economy.

Ron Paul is the only one that talks about those....

I see it as once we harmonize with Mexico and Canada and use a single currency there is no going back. Also the economy, we are in the early stages of a recession by all the experts accounts, we cant keep spending like this or were done.

 

[Green Mountain Boy]

Absolutely not. It's a matter of principle for me...I cannot support anyone who supports such a great evil as the Iraq war.

 

[davidhperry]

If he was for an unconstitutional war, he wouldn't be Ron Paul.

This person makes a great point. The way the poll is worded will make the answers misleading.

We all know Ron Paul to be trustworthy and to put principals above above ambition - we wouldn't be on these boards if we didn't. If he were to support the war, then it must be the right thing to do. Otherwise, it wouldn't be Ron. Does that make sense?

 

[American]

WOW, most people say its the war...interesting.

but no comments on why its the most important issue.

 

[Green Mountain Boy]

WOW, most people say its the war...interesting.

but no comments on why its the most important issue.

I don't think it's necessarily the most important issue. It's just that I coudn't trust someone who supported the war to make correct judgements on anything else.

 

[Paulitician]

The hypothetical is not possible because he wouldn't be able to cut spending, cut taxes, limit the size & scope of government, bring our troops to protect our borders, change the monetary system, get rid of the income tax, reform welfare etc. and he wouldn't want to nation build because it goes against his philosophy of personal liberty and would instead try to lead by example (that seems to be the only argument left, if we leave there will be chaos!).

I chose yes but now I realize it was a mistake. If he were for this war then that'd mean he believed that we were over there because they threated our national security or something; he'd have to fall for the neo-con/imperial bullshit.

 

[hells_unicorn]

I voted no because being pro-Iraq War is in direct contradiction with the concept of limited government and fiscal accountability.

 

[speciallyblend]

I think my answer made sense

I VOTED YES,because if we were at war,when Ron Paul is elected,then he would of won after he declared war first,making it legal and he wouldnt of passed the patriot act

I voted yes but gave a good reply on why it would end or at least be legal under Ron Paul,once we declare war . All this debate now should of happened before we ever went into Iraq.

 

[ghemminger]

test

 

[fourameuphoria]

Honestly, if he had a McCain-like stance, I wouldn't mind. McCain was against the gross mishandling of the Rumsfeld-helmed War, and I'm sure he has a somewhat informed stance on the surge, in the same way Ron Paul, as a doctor, has an informed stance on abortion. The most important issue for me is marijuana legalization, this election. Of course, that's why I label it as "the most important issue for me", and not "the most important issue for us" =)

 

[jmdrake]

No for reasons already mentioned. Long before Ron Paul decided to run I made a personal decision only to support a candidate that was anti the Iraq war from the start, against the unPatriot Act and against the department of Homeland inSecurity. Since then I've added being against gun control (which rules out Kucinich) and being agaisnt FEMA (which rules out almost everybody else). There are plenty of other "pro war" candidates someone could chose from.

 

[SWATH]

Yes, because upholding the constitution is more important than the war.

 

[hard@work]

I don't believe you can be "for the war" unless you're a complete idiot or psychotic racist bloodthirsty thug. If Ron Paul was for anything he'd be for a responsible handling of the situation which is what the other candidates try to sell us (as a load of crap with gold plating).

I would not vote for him if he lied to us like they do, which is really the crux of the issue.

 

[smtwngrl]

If Ron Paul was for pre-emptive war, he wouldn't be Ron Paul.

The thing is, increasing aggression abroad and attack of personal liberties at home are two sides of the same coin.

 

[Bossobass]

Having survived the VietNam fiasco, and seeing that we are in the same situation with a couple of nouns changed (Communsits=Terrorists, Southeast Asia=Middle East, Viet Cong=Islamo-Fascists, etc.), I've been able to pull back from the situation and see a bigger picture.

Besides raking in untold profit from sales of arms, reconstruction and interest on debts funded by money that is created out of thin air, there is an effort involved to secure the One World dream of the central bankers.

Japan was conquered by an unconditional surrender. It was then on to Korea, then VietNam, though these were called 'police actions' because Congress would never have declared war on Korea so soon after WWII, and the police action through the UN seemed to work like a charm for these banker pukes.

Europe was conquered by mutually assured distruction, which was simply a scheme to allow the titanic military build up in peacetime with the consent of the people.

After the fall of the USSR and the wall came down, it was rather easy to unite Europe into the EU under one currency (despite all the pundits who proclaimed it would be impossible to imagine let alone accomplish).

The dollar's tie to gold was severed and forced into it's current ties to worldwide oil sales just before the end of VietNam, which allowed the huge deficit spending by Reagan and Bush I, which was almost exclusively spent on building the largest and most sophisticated military organization the world has ever known.

They next secured China by economic means by showing China that if they didn't get with the program, the entire Pacific Rim would eventually dwarf them. Once China was on board, the monopolies of auto making, steel production, ship building, textiles and the rest of the industrial sector moved out of the US and into China.

This industrial base relocation happened at an astounding pace during the Clinton years. The tech bubble kept enough Americans getting rich to distract attention from the move, save for the millions of Americans who lost their factory jobs.

So, now it's on to the final stages of threatening and/or attacking Russia, China, North Korea and the entire ME through permanent bases that are within striking distance of all of those countries.

These permanent bases in Iraq are only part of the strategy. These bastards have begun construction of a 'Missle Defense System' on Russia's border at the same time they've been quietly expanding the bases in South Korea (search YT vids for the rioting by S Koreans against these base expansions...pretty amazing stuff that never gets on the 'News').

While this consolidation of power, industrial base and natural resources takes place in the middle and far east, the US Constitution is quietly dismantled (for one startling example, the continuity of Government section of the Homeland Security Act is not published because it's stamped 'top secret'. The committee on Homeland Security Chair has requested a closed session review the plans and the White House has rejected the request) and it's borders quietly erased while the ports are moved to Mexico (where CAFTA will eliminate all current tarrifs on goods delivered to North America from Central America) and a super highway is quietly being built to expedite the flow of goods.

Sorry for the extremely long (although extremely condensed) answer but it explains why the Iraq war is at the top of my list.

The Iraq war is directly tied to the bankruptcy of the US Treasury, the loss of the US industrial base, the consolidation of the world's energy reserves, the EU, the NAU, CAFTA, the decimation of the US Constitution, the fall of the dollar, illegal alien invasion and NWO.

Nothing else really matters, IMHO. If they are allowed to continue as planned in the ME, there are no other issues on the table that make sense to fight.

Get on the horn to your Congressmen and Senators to STOP THE FUNDING of war in the ME. Money is at the heart of the plan. Cut off the funds and you kill the program. Organize to vote all who vote for war out in 2008, and let them know NOW that you will.

Bosso

 

[Slugg]

If Ron Paul was for pre-emptive war, he wouldn't be Ron Paul.

The thing is, increasing aggression abroad and attack of personal liberties at home are two sides of the same coin.

Yeah, that's why it would be tricky to stay behind him. It all depends

 

[Original_Intent]

I had to say no, because the biggest attraction of RP is his integrity and second is his intelligence. If he was for the war he would be severely lacking in one of those two categories.

 

[PaleoForPaul]

heh

I don't believe you can be "for the war" unless you're a complete idiot or psychotic racist bloodthirsty thug.

What exactly is racist about it?

 

[JMann]

I am by no means anti war but I support a much different direction in domestic and foreign policy and for wars to be declared by congress. Paul's domestic policy is far more important to me than his stance on the war.