[traviskicks]

Both of those two have the exact same positions as Ron Paul on the war. Surrender.

The difference in foreign policy views between liberals (sheehan, chavez, pelosi) and so called 'traditional conservatives' (jefferson, taft, buchanan, paul) could not, IMO, be more stark.

Liberals have little understanding of what make this country great, they tend to think we stole our wealth from other nations. They think the world's problems stem from the United States, that things would be better if our sovereignty would be restrained by the ever 'benevolent' United Nations, that Israel is an aggressive and 'warmongering' nation. They kiss up to socialist dictators, and appease the rest, having a near pathological fear any violence whatsoever, are antiwar at any and all cost, and yet favor 'humanitarian' military interventions in backwater hell holes like Somalia, Bosnia, and Darfur. They believe a weak US military will make the world safer, and leave more $$$ for social spending and planning, that we should get weapons out of space, disarm, and discard our nukes. History has not been kind to their bankrupt ideas; they are ideologically and morally adrift.

Traditional conservative, aka noninterventionist, foreign policy, espoused nowadays by paul, buchanan, and others begin with exactly the opposite premises! They believe in the greatest and goodness of the United States, that the United States is the 'shinning city' on a hill. They recognize our strength comes from our liberty, from small, not large government and not from expensive and expansive foreign policy, that government intentions in foreign policy backfire just as frequently as government intentions in domestic wealth redistributions or other socialistic schemes. To hell with the UN they say, to hell with the United States as a policemen or a nation builder, to hell with the billions upon billions in humanitarian and military aid we waste on corrupt dictatorships, and on keeping our troops based all around the world, and to hell with us worrying about the stability, poverty, and democracy, of every third world rotting chunk of earth. They believe that peace in the middle east would likely exist today if Israel was not held back and had not, in effect, abdicated its sovereignty to us. They are ‘ferocious isolationists’, not reckless pacifists like those on the left, they do not favor giving up our nuclear weapons, they favor a strong defense, and a crushing response with a total declaration of war if attacked.

So, IMO, the fact that both liberals and traditional conservatives want us out of Iraq is a complete coincidence, as they are arriving at said conclusion from complete opposite reasonings and disagree on nearly every other aspect of foreign policy.

Thus, while it is certainly understandable to disagree with any and all aspects of the traditional conservative philosophy and its application, I think their views deserve respect. To lump them together with the apt described ‘antiwar moonbat left’, is fallacious.

[governmentstillsucks]

So, IMO, the fact that both liberals and traditional conservatives want us out of Iraq is a complete coincidence, as they are arriving at said conclusion from complete opposite reasonings and disagree on nearly every other aspect of foreign policy.

I have to say that you posted thoughtfully. There is a certain knee-jerk tendency of some on the current right that, by instinct, lumps groups together. Believe me--I'm a Buchananite-Tancredoac-defeatist-ultra-right-wing-left-wing-fascist loon by sheer slander over the years.

If Ron Paul could distance himself enough from his many kook supporters--and I mean genuine kooks, not those who happen to disagree with conservativism d'jour--he would have much better footing today. I know it's hard to tell your supporters to get lost, but the truth is a lot of very crazy and hateful people are backing Dr. Paul right now, and him going on conspiracy-oriented forums doesn't help the cause.

Go back a couple of years and look at the Ron Paul references on the dozens of immigration threads on FR that are accessible. They were all positive.