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

[apropos]

Paul's domestic policy is far more important to me than his stance on the war.

Same here.

 

[axiomata]

Yes, because I know that because of the way that he reasons to the correct positions on other issues he would eventually come around on the war.

 

[PaleoForPaul]

Yes

Yes. I would be for Ron Paul, if he were supporting the Iraq war.

The war in Iraq isn't even that huge of an issue to me personally. I think it was probably unwise to go in. Most wars where a nation does not attack nor declare war on us end badly for us. Also, at this point the war is like welfare. We are paying for, and fighting for the Iraqi people to gain freedom and democracy while they seem unwilling to work for it themselves.

The key issue with me as a conservative is curtailing the growth of government. None of the other Republicans come close to Ron Paul's stance against entitlements.

The secondary issue for me is immigration. While the war on terror is a politically loaded term at this point, I do think it is silly to get up and give a speech on the 'islamic terrorist threat' but not want to keep track of who is entering and exiting this country.

Futhermore, you can not have unlimited immigration along with unlimited social benefits. That is a path to poverty for any nation.

Finally, what I love about Dr Paul is his strict adherance to the constitution, and his other conservative stances (pro-2nd amendment, anti-abortion, etc) and his freedom message.

While Dr. Paul plays up the Iraq war in his speeches to Republicans, perhaps for differentiation purposes, I often wonder why he doesn't more strongly state his conservative credentials, especially on taxes, abortion, and guns. With Rudolph Thompson McRomney running, he actually out-flanks all of them on the right wing, that is if he ever gets to talk about that in a debate.

 

[JMann]

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.

Well then you are a fool.

 

[maggiebott]

What a bunch morons I see on this thread. You would vote for a man who is FOR the war? We have killed over a million people which not one of you have pointed out, for absolutely no reason.
Over 4 million have been displaced and you would keep this war going?

 

[PaleoForPaul]

What a bunch morons I see on this thread.

Obviously, anyone who doesn't hold your views on the war must be a moron, right?

You would vote for a man who is FOR the war? We have killed over a million people

Were you there counting?

which not one of you have pointed out, for absolutely no reason.

There was reason, it's just a question of if it was good reason.

Over 4 million have been displaced and you would keep this war going?

To vote for Dr. Paul? Yeah I would.

 

[smtwngrl]

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.
Bosso

Wow, excellent post!

 

[LibertyOfOne]

I could not vote for him if he supported the war. The war is just another form of welfare. In this case a type of welfare that kills.

 

[Kregener]

No.

If he couldn't be honest about the "war", then why would I trust him about anything else?

 

[allyinoh]

I don't really like the options and this is my reasoning...

If Ron Paul supported the war then that would mean that the war was justified. He would never support a war like the Iraq war so if he had supported it, then I feel it would mean that the war was right.

So I cant' really choose either one because they don't fit my reasoning.

 

[catwoman]

I don't really like the options and this is my reasoning...

If Ron Paul supported the war then that would mean that the war was justified. He would never support a war like the Iraq war so if he had supported it, then I feel it would mean that the war was right.

So I cant' really choose either one because they don't fit my reasoning.

Exactly!! I agree with the above.

 

[Patriot]

Yes, I would vote for Ron Paul. Ron Paul's main issue is constitutional government. If we had a constitutional government, we would not be in the war to begin with.

 

[Hurricane Bruiser]

I voted yes because I value economic and personal liberties at home very much and no one other than Ron Paul seems to think like I do on those issues. As to the war, Afghanistan initially made logical sense, and initially I supported the Iraq war even though both were not declared properly. I could support Ron Paul if he was for a more nuanced Iraq policy of not immediately pulling out and instead having a more gradual withdrawal. But our troop deployment all over the world in our "empire" I have a real problem with and want a candidate that addresses foreign policy in the future like Ron Paul does.

I do know that if an authoritarian like Ghouliani were to win the Republican nomination I would either write in Ron Paul or hold my nose and vote Democrat or possibly some other 3rd party candidate. Most likely write Ron Paul in because no other vote is worth it.

 

[SWATH]

The alternative would be to vote for the dems, i.e. Hillary (if you assume that she is really anti-war), and that would be to end the war AND the Republic, she would decimate the Constitution and that is not worth any single issue. I would rather have the war but still have our constitutional republic, but the question is loaded because they cannot, in reality, co-exist. It is a good thing that he isn't pro-war because that might create an anti-matter singularity and the very fabric of the space-time continuum would cease to exist.

 

[they walked in line]

No.

Quite simply, if Ron Paul were in favor of the Iraq war, he wouldn't be Ron Paul. The thing that I respect the most about Dr. Paul is his intellectual consistency; his foreign and domestic policies are merely two sides of the same coin.

 

[0zzy]

Like Ron Paul says, everything is connected to foreign policy.

 

[ksuguy]

Yes, his domestic stances are far more important to me than the war. I don't agree with the war, but to be honest it is only a minor concern for me.

 

[Buzz]

Honestly, I would, because I like so many of his other positions so much. However, I wouldn't be nearly as fanatical about him.

 

[they walked in line]

Paul's domestic policy is far more important to me than his stance on the war.

I see a lot of people saying this, but with all due respect, I don't get it.

If someone claims to be in favor of limited, Constitutional government on the domestic front, yet has no problem with running an empire abroad, isn't that a bit... inconsistent? Not only is war the biggest, most expansive government program of them all, but its effects are almost always felt most strongly right here at home.

 

[bobmurph]

I see a lot of people saying this, but with all due respect, I don't get it.

If someone claims to be in favor of limited, Constitutional government on the domestic front, yet has no problem with running an empire abroad, isn't that a bit... inconsistent? Not only is war the biggest, most expansive government program of them all, but its effects are almost always felt most strongly right here at home.

Certainly, if he were for the war then he would lack consistency in his policitcal ideology. The consistency of his positions on all issues with one logical ideology is perhaps his biggest strength. It is logical that if you believe in less domestic government intervention then you should believe in less government intervention in foreign affairs as well. Ron Paul is the only candidate who has a policy that is logical and consistent for every issue.

That being said, if he did support the Iraq war, then his ideology would not be consistent....but none of the other conservative candidates have consistent ideology anyways...so I would still vote for him.

I think most of the people who say YES would tend to be conservatives & people who say NO would tend to be liberal. The way I see it there are 3 main camps of RP supporters. 1. Many of us were attracted Ron Paul at first by his domestic policy, and had to adjust to his non-intervention foreign policy. 2. Another camp are the people who were attracted to him based on his opposition to the Iraq war and I'm sure they had to adjust to his domestic policy. 3. Finally, the libertarian camp is attracted by the overall message and has to adjust to certain policies (i.e. abortion).

1s probably vote yes. 2s probably vote no. 3s are probably split.