Lines in the Sand
Where the candidates stand on Iraq, at least for now
Page 1 of 1 
Sorry but Ron Paul has NEVER ever supported any military intervention - except possibly our entrance into World War 2. He opposes our presence in Afghanistan - never mentioned by any Democrat. Why is he ranked below Kucinich and Gravel? This is absurd!
Our soldiers are fighting in a toxic inviroment without proper protection, due to the military's continuing use of depleted uranium in its munitions. While everyone drives around with "Support the troops!" bumper stickers, our soldiers are being exposed to radiation in toxic levels that are making them sick, will continue to make them sick, and also make it impossible for them to bear children. Since, the start of the war, Iraqi children have been born without brains, without genitalia...with arms sticking out of their faces...just an abomination, a condemnation upon us that can never be made right, an offense to the heart that is so profound it defies words...Do we need to get out of Iraq? Well, it's like this: if we want the oil businesses to continue to make billions, and everyone else that profits from this war in one way or another, then we need to stay. If, on the other hand, we want to avoid killing hundreds of thousands of soldiers, both thru combat and from our own negligence (and when the soldiers do get sick, they can't get help),avoid starting another draft, and not have to start training our children for war in grade school by making ROTC a required course,if we do not wish to continue to destroy the earth's bio-sphere, finish bankrupting our country, and leave at least the fighting possibility of a decent way of life for our children--not just the children of a few filthily rich dominant men---then we need to get out. The gov't's not worried about any "humainatarian disaster" it's worried about losing control of Iraq's oil, the 2nd largest reserves in the world. All domestic U.S. oil is due to run out in 2010...maybe THAT had something to do with why we're so interested in the Persian Gulf...we use "terrorism" as an excuse to go and take a country's resources, which is against International Law.
Ron Paul seems to be a canidate that, if he manages to get elected, and then not get shot, might actually work on turning things around for the better..I'm a Democrat by nature, but I've learned that the Dems and Reps drama is really just a a monkey show to keep us distracted from real issues, issues like the ones Ron Paul wants to address (the "Federal Reserve, fiat currency, the IRS..etc) I don't agree with him on every issue..I'm pro-choice (although I don't take abortion likely..it should be used only as a last resort in extenuating circumstances..but I believe the option should be there. But I believe life starts with the first breath, when the life-esence (soul, spirit, whatever) enters the body...But Ron Paul is a doctor, one that has delivered hundreds of babies, and I might feel differently too if I had done that. There are other solutions..like adoption, that I could live with and concede this issue. Ron Paul is not part of the "Religious' Right", either--he always sides with the Constitution. I'm a Christian, and when Genesis 1:12 reads "I have given you all seed-bearing plants on earth to use.." I take that to heart. Meaning, if I choose to relax by taking something herbal instead of something made by rotting fruit or by a chemical process, I should have that right. And that's what Dr. Ron Paul had to say about the "War on Drugs": 'The gov't can't tell people what they can and cannot put into their own body.' I love that! He's going to try some radical stuff, but if they don't kill him (assuming he gets elected in this day and age when election are bought and sold (ie Al Gore/ Jeb Bush..ie, Bush's 1st term election)I'm willing to change parties to vote for him in the Primary, and if he wins that, to support him in the Presidency. Hilary Clinton will amount to absolutely 0 change. My next choice would be Obama. I guess after the Rep Primary I'll switch to Independent and hope for the best. If Guilinan wins, I plan a suicide party for me and the Bill of Rights (we're both just hanging on anyway!)
That person's right about Paul...he should be at least above Gravel. Now, I think Paul would condone war IF and only if it were necessary. Kucinich seems to believe there is NEVER a reason for war, which is just naive. I wish it were true. Most of our wars were unnecessary, but WW2 definitely was necessary....if for nothing else, we had to stop Hitler...who was a madman, and planned on taking overthe world...Which is, of course, our job.
this is an idiotic chart with no basis in reality. Obama has no right to be anywhere near the "anti-war" hemisphere, with his 22 pro-war votes, and his "withdrawal" "plan" that leaves 60-75000 official troops there indefinitely to take their freaking oil, without even mentioning the 180,000 private contractors. what a disgrace of misperception that a site like motherjones would be so extremely duped. he can talk about how 'dumb' the war is all he wants (what a crass way to put it anyway) but if you look at his actual policy plans and voting record it is simply mendacious to continue to endow him with the progressive halo he in no way deserves. i suspect someone here at motherjones is trying to rally for him.
how is he above Richardson? that's insane.
and much love to gravel and kucinich, but why would ron paul be "below" them?
the person who made up this prekindergartener's diagram should be held responsible for it.
