Replies

I just read this: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1914434/posts?page=178#178

It moved me deeply. I agree wholeheartedly with everything said there, except the choice of candidate. Mine is Ron Paul. I’m not a “kook.” I’m a scared citizen who loves his country and is nauseated by where we are headed. As I read that amazing post by an amazing Patriot, I was sure there was a Ron Paul endorsement at the end. There wasn’t, and that’s fine, but I must say it puzzles me.

If I had to guess, I’d say the hostility towards Paul among Freepers is largely based on social values, where Paul is essentially hands-off in favor of the states, as well as a disagreement on the correct solution to the war, which you all know. Well let me tell you, I’m no dope-smoking hippy pacifist. I’ve been a registered Republican since I turned 18 and have voted along party lines in every election — except in local elections with no Republican candidates, when I would write in Ronald Reagan’s name. This is not hyperbole, it is the truth. I voted for President Bush both times, and was a vocal supporter of the war — at first.

I’m supporting Ron Paul this time around. The last few years have transformed me, I feel I’m more conservative than I’ve ever been, because my primary focus has become the Constitution. It is almost surreal to see myself type those words — the Constitution should be every American’s top priority, as every freedom we have starts there. But there it is; our priorities have shifted. It is now considered kooky to endorse the Constitution, especially if it contradicts the current Republican position. Well I’m sorry, but *that* sounds kooky to me. Not just kooky, but *scary*. The kind of scary that makes you revisit history.

Am I completely satisfied with Paul as a candidate? No. I’m uncomfortable with his demeanor at times; he’s not at all polished. But some of our most revered Presidents were not much better. Washington was extremely terse in person, because either his dentures were killing him or he wasn’t wearing them. Jefferson was an awkward public speaker. Yes, Jefferson! Lincoln had a weak, thin voice and did not project well with large audiences. Etc. Yet these men were all eloquent writers and their writing is how we know them. When we read their speeches we envision them being powerfully delivered, but they were not. The point is that appearances are not everything; in an ideal world they would be nothing. If his mannerisms are the basis of your ridicule, you insult many great man of history. I choose to look past the flaws, past the disagreements (such as they are, but few), and vote my conscience. This will be the first time in my life that I do.

Is Paul a radical? Yes and no. Constitutionally, not at all. But when drawn against the backdrop of our current, messed-up society, he sure seems like one. I view this as an asset. Do you actually think he will accomplish half of what he’s calling for? Not a chance, he will be fought tooth and nail. But with a President coming from a position that far “out there,” whatever middle ground is reached will be decidedly less moonbatty.

You may disagree with Paul on the issues, but you may not disagree with his arguments. To do so would be your folly, as all one must do to discredit you is open the Constitution. This is powerful ground to hold, standing in the starkest possible contrast to the communist left. Imagine how exposed they will be, if to oppose the President is to oppose the Constitution. How could they possibly not be disgraced?

Like the writer of that post, I’ve taken a stand. Am I bothered by the name-calling? You betcha. It hurts. The worst ones are those coming from the position I held not long ago. I expect to be attacked from the left, if for no other reason than my desire to keep my own money. But to be thrown under the bus by the right is devastating to me. Have I betrayed them, or is the opposite true? I’ve been called names by strangers, yet when I quiz them on the Constitution they balk. They don’t think Paul is a kook because of his platform, because that is not possible. They say these things because their friends are saying it, the same friends that are going to vote for Guliani just because he’s running as a Republican. If he wins, hide your guns. Mine are in a safe place.

I’m also done following the crowd. The writer and I disagree on our choice of candidate, but we are on the same page in oh so many ways. Thanks for the heartfelt inspiration. I’ll brace myself for the name-calling.

I’ve been a Ron Paul fan for a long time. When he talks of Constitutional matters I’m generally on board. I like his desire to return a lot of our current policy and give-away programs to Constitutional guidelines. On the other hand, I’m sure there are a number of things I’d disagree with Ron on. This war is one of them.

I’ll confine my commnets now to the war in Iraq. We can wax rhapsodic about foreign entanglements as much as we like, the fact is there are still going to be threats out there, and we’ll have to face them. And unfortunately, if we followed Ron’s suggestions about Iraq, it would impact much of our foreign policy today.

If we were to follow Ron’s guidelines, we would almost certainly have to bring much of our military home from over seas. We would need to bring our embassy staff from around the world home. We would also have to give up on any wars other than the ones where we were attacked directly on U.S. soil.

When we pulled our troops and all other presence from around the world, we would also have to forbid our nationals from traveling overseas. We would have to stop all foreign trade, whether free or fair or not.

You see, if we didn’t do these things, it would certainly lead to situations where our military would have to take actions on foreign soil.

If our troops would be needed on foreign soil, it would be necessary to have our troops in postion to do so. And since Ron wouldn’t want us to take those actions, it would preclude us from being prepared to do so.

We can’t post troops around the world if we’re not going to ever be able to use them. We can’t keep troops at the ready if we’re not going to allow them to be involved in a war from time to time. You can teach book smarts all you like. You can train troops on military bases. You can instill the top tactics known to man, but you can’t instill experience in troops and troop leaders. And troops don’t become top troop leaders unless they have experience on the battlefield.

These are of course blanket statements. I’m sure you can understand that, but seriously can you imagine a day forty years from now when we would field the best troops we could on our soil, not having any of those troops ever involved in a conflict on foreign soil? And can you picture those troops being the top military force on the planet?

I don’t think that is possible. You may disagree.

We exert influence around the planet. Under the Paul plan, we would cease to do that. We would opt to only take action to defend our own soil.

How many years to you think it would take for someone to replace us as the world’s leading influence around the planet? Take a look around. Who would you like that to be?

Do you think Russia would be good. How about China? Would you like to see a Middle-Eastern nation jump in? How about the United Nations? Do you want the U.N. to develop a money stream and then field a military force similar to ours? These are the alternatives to our involvement.

Do you see a scenario where any other nation would step in, resolve issues and walk away afterwards leaving nations in tact to govern themselves. Some might, but not that many.

In the 1780s, the world was a different place. It took months to travel places around the planet. Today it takes hours. In the 1780s, our neighbors were close to our borders. Today our neighbors are global. If someone can leave a place and arrive in your nation the same day, they are in effect a neighbor. Just about anyone with funds can come to the U.S. in under 24 hours.

Other nations from around the planet have ships in our ports and on the ocean that are close to our shores. At any time, some of those ships or aircraft could cause an incident involving a foreign power. Within hours our military might need to execute military actions around the world, to prevent actions taking place first on our soil.

Some people realize most of this at once, when they hear Paul talk about the “mistaken actions” we have taken in Iraq. They don’t think the actions are mistaken at all, because they fully understand these dynamics. Since they do, the also instantly find Paul to be incapable of understanding these dynamics and judge him accordingly.

I’ve given Paul a pretty good ribbing on the forum. I realize he’s not polished, but that isn’t all that important to me, if his views were solid. I cannot accept them as solid. IMO, he is woefully wrong as it applies to Iraq and his world view.

If we had the capability to stop millions from dying in 1780 just over our border, do you think our founding fathers would have said, too bad, sure wish we could help but our founding documents won’t let us? I don’t buy into that theory.

Today we do have the ability to stop millions from dying, by using reasoned intervention. That intervention not only saves lives, it makes those lives better, it endears foreign nations to us, and keeps our men and equipment second to none in the world.

I am not embarassed to have advocated our involvement in Iraq. I would be embarassed to have argued against it.

Millions of Muslims in and around the theater of war are finding it better to deal with the United States than Al Qaeda and the Taliban. Even Osama Bin Laden admits his terrorists have alienated Muslims everywhere.

These things could not have happened without our involvement. When the U.S. leaves Iraq, millions of Iraqis will have seen first-hand that a Christian nation could act honorably, compassionately and fairly with an Islamic state. They will also have seen how vicious members of Al Qaeda and Taliban have been and how incapable they were of acting honorably, compassionately and fairly. Tens of millions of them will be living better lives thanks to us. And tens of thousands of them will be alive thanks to us.

I’m glad it was our nation that did this. I am also glad it wasn’t Russia, China or the U.N. that did.

Osama Bin Laden’s heartless bastards were responsible for 09/11. I don’t think any sane person could claim that our efforts haven’t set back Laden and company decades. If appearances in Iraq and Afghanistan are real and idicative of the opinion of the man on the street, Osama is probably out of business.

Would Ron Paul’s policies based on the U.S. Constitution have brought this to pass?

We live in a different age than the one in 1780. I respect the document, but it would be suicidal to conduct foreign policy based on those 1780 guidelines. I don’t take lightly the decision to enter foreign wars. I don’t take lightly the call to allow terrorists safe haven in their lairs either.

You take care.