Gallup: 'Most Americans want us out of Iraq'. - Ron Paul supports that, Hillary doesn't. Who wins election?
This question is not whether Ron Paul gets the GOP nomination or not, as Rudy will probably get it. Gallup polls already show that Rudy loses badly against Hillary in an election.
This question considers that both Paul and Clinton would get their party's nomination and would face off in an election.
Note: The war in Iraq is the dominant issue in this election. The Democrats were supposedly given a mandate over the war in the midterm election and have done nothing. So the question ends up being, "Would the public support an anti-war candidate against Hillary?"
Note: Paul said of Hillary a few day ago, “She voted for the war now she says she can’t get the troops out until 2013 and she won’t rule out a military first strike against Iran.”
Clinton 45% - Giuliani 39% July 2007
This is not a question of whether we should pull out of Iraq or not. It is whether a public, supporting an end to the war, would support an anti-war candidate against Hillary.
The same question could have been posed as one of the Democratic anti-war candidates (i.e. Kucinich or Gravel) running against Rudy.
Sorry, but our being in Iraq is not causing stability, by any stretch of the imagination!
If the US has any 'ethical responsibilities', it is to mind our own business, stop trying to police the world, and stop bombing and invading other countries. We wouldn't want other countries bombing or invading us or our neighbors either. The Iraqi people want us out, we went in for no good reasons and we have no reason to be there. Two wrongs don't make a right and most importantly, I don't want to pay for it anymore. Our country is going to suffer tremendous economic harm from borrowing trillions from China to pay for this war. The U.S. troop occupation of Saudia Arabia (holy land) was what spurred bin Laden's Aug. 1996 fatwa against us in the first place. ("Declaration of War Against the Americans Occupying the Land of the Two Holy Places") Our policies abroad have consequences. The CIA calls it blowback.
America needs a more humble foreign policy. We need to take care of our own people and our own problems, and leave the rest of the world to theirs.
- Anonymous1 decade agoBest Answer
I would select Ron Paul, but I can't say the same for the rest of the public.. Most are misinformed and somehow are under the impression that if a democrat comes into office this war will end. For those of you in denial, It is in fact true that she stated she cannot promise to have all troops out by 2013, and she could only GURANTEE to have them out by 2018… Given the financial state of the country, what will happen to our economy if we continue the war for another six years or possibly even longer? And what about Mrs. Clinton’s recent vote labeling the IRG, a sovereign nation’s military a terrorist organization.
Let’s not forget that it was Mrs. Clinton’s vote that approved this war to begin with it.
And fine that’s one vote right, but let’s evaluate her prior judgment..
“Clinton voted against the Levin Amendment to the Resolution, which would have required the President to conduct vigorous diplomacy at the U.N., and would have also required a separate Congressional authorization to unilaterally invade Iraq.She did vote for the Byrd Amendment to the Resolution, which would have limited the Congressional authorization to one year increments, but the only mechanism necessary for the President to renew his mandate without any Congressional oversight was to claim that the Iraq War was vital to national security each year the authorization required renewal.) Clinton later said that she did not read the full classified National Intelligence.”
Do we really want to elect someone in office with such bad judgment? Don’t forget Paul was a republican but he voted against this measure, he had already predicted this outcome and his CURRENT position hasn't changed.
"If we can't or won't define the enemy, the cost to fight such a war will be endless. How many American troops are we prepared to lose? How much money are we prepared to spend? How many innocent civilians, in our nation and others, are we willing to see killed? How many American civilians will we jeopardize? How much of our civil liberties are we prepared to give up? How much prosperity will we sacrifice?"- Ron Paul
Another thing to consider? Has anyone been watching the news lately? WHAT HAVE MANY OF THE GENERALS BEEN STATING?
From MSNBC: We have defeated Al Qaeda on a strategic and economic level.. They are still dangerous, but most violence is due to the civil war.. Which the United States CANNOT RESOLVE… It’s a RELIGIOUS CONFLICT!! (See India vs. Pakistan, and tell me if any government interference will ever calm that situation down)
This reinforces Paul's argument:
I have no objection to fighting terrorism, measures should be taken, but there are other alternatives.. And from many of the reports I’ve seen it’s become obvious that the surge is not working. We need to shift our direction to make sure that we are secure here. And he has said so himself that IT IS A PROCESS, REALISTICALLY IT WON’T HAPPEN IN ONE DAY OR EVEN THREE MONTHS.. BUT HE INTENDS ON WITHDRAWING OUR TROOPS FROM IRAQ WHEN HE GETS INTO OFFICE, AND MAKING SURE PEACE CRP IS SEND IN TO LEGALLY NATION BUILD AND STABLIZE THE COUNTRY..
- JudithLv 44 years ago
Adam B, Libertarianism isn't a bad thing in the Republican Party. The Libertarian Party is filled with disgruntled Republicans. Back to the question, Ron Paul was kept out because he represented a policy that was very traditional and very wise that was based on advice of the Founders of America, like no entanglements in foreign alliances, no central banks that was strongly advised by Jefferson, no "big brother" control that Benjamin Franklin opposed, and no laws that were are mentioned in the Constitution. The media is very biased, and only appeal themselves to politicians that violate the Constitution, and those who screw the people. Not too forget, Ron Paul is an economist, he likely knew were going to enter a heavy recession since 2002, and has advocated a foreign policy where we don't send men into quagmires like Iraq, not to go to war so military companies grow filthy rich, and a society that is based on sound money like gold/silver, a society where States have more rights, and the government should remain small and transparent.
- 1 decade ago
Your point is valid, however the fact that most americans oppose the war has little or nothing to do with how they will vote. Only 30-40% of americans actually vote, and of those who do, the ones who oppose the war don't necessarily want the troops out right away.
I'd like to see Ron Paul win, although I'd rather see him run as an independent because there are tons of people out there (myself included) who wouldn't vote for a republican if they had Elvis and Santa on the ticket.
- Anonymous1 decade ago
neither of the above. its just silly to pull out of iraq immediately. they arent stable yet, its going to be a couple more years. even if you didnt support going in, you should beleive we now have an ethical responsibility to leave them with atleast some stability. we made the mess, we should clean it up rather than running from it. ron paul will tell you whatever you want to hear, judging from all of his radical stances, he's a guy desperate for votes IMO. and incase you hadnt noticed, the average american is an idiot and just because the majority say we should do something doesnt mean it is a good idea. a few years ago 80% of americans were in favor of the war. and there was a survey on CNN about how less than half of americans can even find iraq on a map
- How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
- Ash'ari MaturidiLv 51 decade ago
Nah! I still believe that Americans aren't dumb enough to let Ron Paul lose the elections. For GOD's sake he's our only hope. Just imagine how America would be if he were to become president in 2009-2017; I bet people will weep over his departure in 2017 very warmly.
Go Ron Paul!
- Mary WLv 41 decade ago
Ron Paul is a politician - just as is Hillary. NEITHER can end a conflict that has been going on for centuries and neither can do it without congressional approval - which neither has. Both are pathological liars. The question here is will America listen to either candidate?
- mstrywmnLv 71 decade ago
Hillary does want to pull out of Iraq. What she has said is that she cannot promise to do it immediately & can't make a commitment as to an exact date without considering all the facts & the best strategy. She is correct. That's the difference between some that will promise anything to get elected, wether they can do it or not, & someone that's a thinking, honest person. Of couse, her words are always twisted no matter what, and the ignoramuses always repeat them.
- Anonymous1 decade ago
Ron Paul is spouting things that he knows he will not be able to do if elected. Populism at its best.
Hillary is looking at the situation in the Middle East in a realistic manner. Bush has made such a mess of things there that it would be impossible to withdraw soon.
Anyway, Clinton has never said that she intends withdrawing all troops when (not if) she becomes President.
I really pity the Republicans.
Ron Paul on one soapbox spouting incoherent idiocies, and Fox News, Limbaugh, Coulter at the other end of the park shouting even more incoherent rubbish.
Who is going to lead the 'Israelites' out of the desert?
Decisions, decisions, decisions!
(By the looks of things, the 'Israelites' are doomed to perish in the desert.)
- 1 decade ago
I have mixed feelings about Iraq.
To begin with, the USA should have never been the world power, let the rest of the world become communists if they are too stupid to see how successful capitalism works in the USA(even modern Democrats are too stupid to see that).
But since both Republicans and Democrats want big government, both want a Marxist income tax to pay for big government, then if our military is going to be put to use at least we used it to overthrow a dictator. Help stabilize Iraq then come home.
But if we left immediately and the Muslims start killing each other again, it wouldn't bother me much, they are a bunch of medieval savages who aren't worthy of living in modern civilization.
- 3 years ago