In preparation for the coming elections, including the 2012 election where Ron Paul’s star will shine, there is still a battle to be waged with those on the right and left who love war.
During the 2008 election, I battled it out with the neo-con’s on Michelle Malkin’s site. The moment I mentioned anything about the war, they immediately tried to paint me as a democrat (of course they can’t do that any longer).
I learned that before making comments on these types of neo-conservative sites, I need to write a disclaimer for each reply. The moment I mentioned Ron Paul’s name, the same disclaimer had to be expanded to include; “I’m not a conspiracy nut, don’t wear a tin foil hat, and I’m not a racist, let’s debate the issues.”
With that said, I weeded out 95% of the responders. The other 5% and I had good “discussions” with. Which leads me to the topic of this post; how to approach the neo-cons circa 2010.
Since facebook is more prevalent than it was in 2008, this is a good place to have these types of discussions. The importance here is to keep it as a discussion, and not an argument. Human emotion takes control of us sometimes and a simple reply of malice intent can ruin the whole effort to convert to your point of view.
It is not easy to enlighten some of the neo-cons. I consider the following facebook conversation (see below) with a friend of mine, to be a perfect example. Not too many people reply to his constant, pro-Republican, pro-war, pro-Israel posts. He knows where I stand on things because I do reply. While he tries to spin my comments into a mocking of myself (I’m sure if he were in charge, I would have been accused of being a heretic and burned at the stake if in another era), I try to keep on track and make my points with solid facts. Because of our friendship, I don’t reply to ALL his posts…but pick and choose.
I haven’t won him over, but with some of these neo-conservative types, it won’t be possible to do so. But the important thing is, all of his 100 or so friends are reading what he and I are writing. And that I believe is a good way to win people over…without ever meeting them.
If I choose to make him look like a fool, which I could easily do, it is I who looks like the fool to all HIS friends.
This is the message I’d like to convey moving forward. Keep your cool and have a good discussion. Keep the friendship…and know others are watching (also, when they make a comment like “I’m done,” which has happened with a couple of these people I have spoken with, take it as a silent victory, and don’t gloat!).
Here was my latest conversation – he already knows I’m a Ron Paul supporter from prior conversations – and so do his friends (last names withheld):
Jim (first post):
New UK Prime Minister David Cameron gets it: succeed in Afghanistan, secure economic growth and fight protectionism. Any chance we can trade Obama for Mr. Cameron? We will likely need to throw in some cash and a player to be named later.
Doug:
Succeed in Afghanistan while Rome burns?
Jim:
Isolationism is not a solution.
Doug:
At a cost of over $1 Trillion since the war began, our politicians choose non-declared war interventionism against no country, but a group (al-qaeda). The Russians tried fighting this group and it bankrupted their country. At some point we will walk away from these wars and some in power will claim victory. The question is, will it be before or after said bankruptcy that is hurried along by the Obama administrations spending spree (including increasing the presence of the troops in Afghanistan). Hey…that’s something you and Obama do agree on! lol
Time will tell Jim…
From a Christian standpoint…and the thesis of my second book, I will state the case against the wars despite Billy Kristol’s (not Billy Crystal to anyone reading this) best efforts. The same goes for Warlord Sean Hannity.
Isolationism and non-interventionism are two separate things. I’m all for trading with “all” neighbors…we could use some of them buying our stuff to help out GDP!
Jim
Islamic extremists have declared WWIII. We can ignore them and continue to pay the consequences, or stick our head in the sand because they are an untraditional enemy without defined borders. Losing this war will cost exponentially more in dollars and lives than the cost of fighting back. Semantics aside, your “non-intervention” strategy is a loser on every level.
Doug:
Moving stuff into storage now Jim…obviously we see things differently. But you already know that. Will reply later…
Doug:
Islamic extremism is today what communism was in decades past. The elite always need a cause to “defeat” in order to keep their well funded military industrial complex well oiled (if you get my drift).
We defeated communism without war. All “they” want is the reasoning and people like Billy Kristol, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity from the right and all the folks from the left who forgot what Obama’s campaign promises were are just as guilty.
Be careful what you wish for: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/nick-cle…
Jim:
So your position is that Islamic extremists are the victims of America’s elites? Suicide bombers, terrorist training camps, exploitation of women, 9/11…perpetrated by a conspiracy of Dick Cheney and his ilk…and Sharia Law is as harmless as Communism. Okay, I’m sold.
Doug:
As far as Islamic extremist go, if America wanted to, they would have gone after the 17 out of 19 terrorists who were from Saudi Arabia, part of the most radical Islamic group in the world, the Wahabbis. But instead, Bush took the war to Iraq? This isn’t a conspiracy, it’s fact.
What neoconservatives want to do is take the war everywhere to fight an enemy that is fueled further by the innocent victims seeking revenge (read the book “Blowback” to understand this). They should also study just war theory, especially those who call themselves Christian.
It’s as if these folks never played the game of Risk. Meanwhile, China, if they wanted to, will just wait for America to implode. And implode we will Jim. The right will blame Obama. The left won’t have a leg to stand on. Both the right and the left are complicit. When they come to require the youth to fight their bloody wars, that will be the last straw. The youth won’t go for it. Meanwhile, the police state grows, TSA lackies frisk 12 year old girls and Homeland Security lets gang members cross the borders by the hundreds every day. Don’t you think our priorities are a little ass backwards?
“The victorious strategist only seeks battle after the victory has been won, whereas he who is destined to defeat first fights and afterwards looks for victory.” Sun Tzu
Jim:
The 9/11 terrorists and many others are Saudis, but train in Afgan, Sudanese and Somali camps. Bush’s recognition of the Islamic threat and vision was soundly documented in his National Security Strategy documents of 2002 and 2006, and his Iraq strategy was endorsed by 17 mostly-unanimous UN resolutions over three years. Unfortunately it helps to be right AND execute well. Either way, your NeoCon conspiracy theories (and lingo) are straight out of 1996 and your isolationist solutions date back to 1916, though your extremist appeasement leanings smack of Obama 2010. I am an optimist and I trust the American people to swing the pendulum back to common sense (vs. PC), economic growth (vs. wealth redistribution) and the principles outlined by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution. It’s not rocket science, it is not a conspiracy and the U.S. will not “implode” (whatever that means). Agree to disagree. I’m done.
Doug:
It’s ok Jim… I’ll let my book do the talking… But the wars were not “declared” per the Constitution. Have a good one…
(I could have easily addressed the issues of his last post, but chose to take up the battle, erm, discussion, at a later time, respecting the fact that it is his facebook page I’m commenting on).
Share your thoughts and tactics…would love to hear them…
