T Nation

Troop Money to Anti-War Candidates

http://thespinfactor.com/thetruth/2007/07/17/ron-paul-leads-all-08-candidates-with-one-third-of-military-contributions-for-q2/

A new report shows over 70% of money donated by serving troops to Presidential candidates went to anti-war candidates, the most going to Ron Paul. The report was compiled by a group called Phreadom (who have an interesting blog as well).

Though McCain still got plenty of support from our troops (18.31%), the overall majority still went to anti-war candidates. Obviously, ‘the troops’ aren’t a single entity, and shouldn’t be treated as such.

And by the way, did anyone hear the clip of Sean Hannity being bitched with this knowledge by a clever caller? Funniest thing I’ve heard all week.

I think you’re reading this backwards. Ron Paul isn’t getting all that money because he is anti-war. Rather he is getting it because he is pro-constitution, something military members swear to uphold and protect. I suppose this statement is conjecture by me, but that is at least where my pro-paul opinion is as a vet. Frankly, the only thing about the guy that I DON"T like is his war stance, yet he is getting my support.

mike

Ron Paul is not anti-war. He is anti-Iraq war and in general anti-preemptive war. I think a vast majority of the military understands that preemptive wars are illogical and feel their best interests are served actually protecting the “homeland” not causing new problems abroad.

Mike,

If you supposedly like Paul because of he defends the constitution, you certainly shouldn’t be supporting a war of aggression that was concocted on false pretense.

Off the Wiki:

The UN Charter prohibits any war unless it is out of self-defense or when it is sanctioned by the UN security council. If these requirements are not met international law describes it a war of aggression. Article VI of the U.S. Constitution, Senate-ratified treaties such as the U.N. Charter are “the supreme Law of the Land.” John Conyers, Robert Parry and Marjorie Cohn�?? professor at Thomas Jefferson School of Law, executive vice president of the National Lawyers Guild, and the U.S. representative to the executive committee of the American Association of Jurists �?? assert that the Iraq war was not a war in self-defense but a war of aggression contrary to the U.N. Charter (a crime against peace) and therefore a war crime. Also, Kofi Annan called the war in Iraq a violation of the UN Charter and therefore “illegal”.

One question though: If you had to pick a single issue which would determine the way you’ll vote, which would it be? Surely there can be no issue that supersedes the lives of thousands American soldiers and Iraqi innocents. Not to mention the hundreds of billion Dollars of your (hard-earned?) tax money poured into the Gulf’s sands.

[quote]lixy wrote:
Mike,

If you supposedly like Paul because of he defends the constitution, you certainly shouldn’t be supporting a war of aggression that was concocted on false pretense.

Off the Wiki:

The UN Charter prohibits any war unless it is out of self-defense or when it is sanctioned by the UN security council. If these requirements are not met international law describes it a war of aggression. Article VI of the U.S. Constitution, Senate-ratified treaties such as the U.N. Charter are “the supreme Law of the Land.” John Conyers, Robert Parry and Marjorie Cohn�?? professor at Thomas Jefferson School of Law, executive vice president of the National Lawyers Guild, and the U.S. representative to the executive committee of the American Association of Jurists �?? assert that the Iraq war was not a war in self-defense but a war of aggression contrary to the U.N. Charter (a crime against peace) and therefore a war crime. Also, Kofi Annan called the war in Iraq a violation of the UN Charter and therefore “illegal”.

One question though: If you had to pick a single issue which would determine the way you’ll vote, which would it be? Surely there can be no issue that supersedes the lives of thousands American soldiers and Iraqi innocents. Not to mention the hundreds of billion Dollars of your (hard-earned?) tax money poured into the Gulf’s sands.[/quote]

Lixy,

Before you begin to lecture me about what the Constitution says, I recommend you look into Ron Paul’s stance on treaties and his more importantly his stance on the foppishly obscene United Nations. Secondly, we can argue the legality of the Iraq war till the cows come home. You can show me plenty of people saying it is illegal and I can show you just as many who say it is. For the most part neither is looking at the facts and making a legal opinion. They are both trying to legally prove the conclusion in which they want. This isn’t hard to do in our legal system.

That said, being a member nation of the UN does not make us subjects of it. How does this qualify as a treaty? And if so, you’re stuck with a treaty contradicting a congress approved war powers act. Mind you I have a serious issue with the war powers act, but that is another post.

Now, to answer your question. Yes, there is something that supercedes Iraq. It is called liberty. I can not and will not support someone who does not honor the bill of rights. I do believe in living free or dying in the attempt. Such is genuine with me and not merely false bravado. An adherence to the Bill or Rights would have prevented 9/11. Paul himself stated that a protected 2nd amendment would have prevented 9/11. Imagine for a moment that the hijackers all pulled out knives, or hell, pistols. Then 10-15 good armed citizens (as is the duty of the citizen in protection of the state) all were to get up and shoot the hijackers.

Anyways, I digress. Secondly, if you were concerned for Iraqi innocents you would be defending the US military. I’ve now been in 2 wars and have yet to do anything but make lives of civilians much better. What sir have you done for Iraqi civilians? Paul is WRONG about Iraq. But his stance is not anti-freedom (though it shows a lack of concern for Iraqi citizens) and is thus forgivable. Finally what with the (hard-earned?) before money. Are you assuming that because I am pro-Iraq I am some rich kid with soft hands that never had to work for a dollar?

mike

[quote]Mikeyali wrote:
Before you begin to lecture me about what the Constitution says, I recommend you look into Ron Paul’s stance on treaties and his more importantly his stance on the foppishly obscene United Nations. Secondly, we can argue the legality of the Iraq war till the cows come home. You can show me plenty of people saying it is illegal and I can show you just as many who say it is. For the most part neither is looking at the facts and making a legal opinion. They are both trying to legally prove the conclusion in which they want. This isn’t hard to do in our legal system. [/quote]

Thanks for the prompt reply. It wasn’t my intention to lecture you on anything. It’s just that for me (and apparently the majority of the people on this planet), the Iraq war was unnecessary. Make of it what you will.

I salute that attitude. I subscribe to the same line of thinking myself. Of course, I’m much less likely to die defending my liberty than a Palestinian kid, but that’s another story…

I watched Ron Paul make that point in an @Google interview. Unless you’re building your aircraft out of titanium, firing shots inside a plane are likely to bring it down. I’m all for “the great equalizer”, but your scenario is seriously flawed.

You’d think. The fact of the matter is that there was no Al-Qaeda and no cars exploding in markets before the invasion. So, defending the US military is out of the question. But don’t take it personally. I’d have said the same had it been a Swedish, French, Congolese or Egyptian army.

Not much.

For the sake of argument, and assuming you’re indeed doing more good than harm there, why would you send your son or daughter to die for the welfare of Iraqis? Don’t give me the “war on terror” line. We all know terrorists have proliferated post-2003.

Heh. I put in hard-earned initially, then realized that, for all I know, you could be the state lottery winner. Hence the parentheses and question mark. I now realized the former would have sufficed.

[quote]lixy wrote:
An adherence to the Bill or Rights would have prevented 9/11. Paul himself stated that a protected 2nd amendment would have prevented 9/11. Imagine for a moment that the hijackers all pulled out knives, or hell, pistols. Then 10-15 good armed citizens (as is the duty of the citizen in protection of the state) all were to get up and shoot the hijackers.

I watched Ron Paul make that point in an @Google interview. Unless you’re building your aircraft out of titanium, firing shots inside a plane are likely to bring it down. I’m all for “the great equalizer”, but your scenario is seriously flawed.
[/quote]

Explain to me how this scenario is seriously flawed. This idea of explosive decompression caused by a gunshot is an urban myth perpetuated by Hollywood.

There is a show here in the US called Mythbusters where two guys test a lot of these urban myths. They pressurized a plane on the ground to a high altitude and shot a hole in it. No explosive decompression. Besides, if such a thing would happen, then why would we start allowing armed air marshals on planes? Hell, I think this idea is bad because you’re guaranteeing one gun on a plane while leaving everyone else disarmed.[quote]

Secondly, if you were concerned for Iraqi innocents you would be defending the US military.

You’d think. The fact of the matter is that there was no Al-Qaeda and no cars exploding in markets before the invasion. So, defending the US military is out of the question. But don’t take it personally. I’d have said the same had it been a Swedish, French, Congolese or Egyptian army.[/quote]

I trust you would have. But we again must look at what is valuable. To me, getting Saddam out is worth a few hundred carbombs. I’d personally rather live in a chaotic environment than under an iron fist. Perhaps there were no exploding cars in markets under Saddam, but there were airplanes dropping chemical weapons on civilian cities. There hasn’t been much of that since. There’s been more of some kinds of death and less of others. Unfortunately no one can be trusted to give an accurate number of which one was worse.

I really hate when people talk about sending their children to die. Here in America, believe it or not, society tries its best to steer you away from military service. My parents and many of those like me tried to talk me out of the military. My guidance counselor at school did the same. You’re expected to graduate high school, go to college then make lots of money when you get out. MANY veterans have dealt with this. Most parents try to keep you OUT of the military.

Regardless, I would never SEND my kids to do anything. As free and able citizens I would expect them to do as they wish. so let us rephrase the question to something more palatable. Why would I be proud to see my son or daughter fight and possibly die for the welfare of Iraqis? For the very same reason I volunteered to go. I did not fight for America. I fought for freedom, the freedom of Iraqis.

I take Jefferson’s words very seriously. “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” I believe these words, and I would die in defense of these words. All men, not just Americans. Iraqis are entitled to these rights as well. I am not afraid of Jihadis. I am more afraid of my own government than I am of those jokers.

mike

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Ron Paul is not anti-war. He is anti-Iraq war and in general anti-preemptive war. I think a vast majority of the military understands that preemptive wars are illogical and feel their best interests are served actually protecting the “homeland” not causing new problems abroad.[/quote]

That’s what I meant, but thanks for clearing it up.

[quote]Mikeyali wrote:
Explain to me how this scenario is seriously flawed. This idea of explosive decompression caused by a gunshot is an urban myth perpetuated by Hollywood.

There is a show here in the US called Mythbusters where two guys test a lot of these urban myths. They pressurized a plane on the ground to a high altitude and shot a hole in it. No explosive decompression. Besides, if such a thing would happen, then why would we start allowing armed air marshals on planes? Hell, I think this idea is bad because you’re guaranteeing one gun on a plane while leaving everyone else disarmed. [/quote]

I’m not fond of popular science shows, particularly not Mythbusters. Anyway, I’m unaware of the specifics of the episode, but I’m guessing firing a .45 at a plexiglass windows will blow it out causing major disturbance to the plane. I didn’t talk about “explosive decompression”.

Rather, I pointed out that firing shots inside a plane [are] likely to bring it down. I mean, did you ever check the temperature outside a plane at high altitude. It’s insanely cold!

As for why you’d allow armed air marshal on planes, I don’t have a clue. Just don’t try to pass it as proof that gunshots inside a plane are harmless.

Secondly, if you were concerned for Iraqi innocents you would be defending the US military.

When you look at figures from last year’s Lancet report, the price for getting Saddam out (of this world) is undoubtedly too high. Of course, you and me would reason in those terms. The only thing we might disagree on is the number of civilian lives deemed “too high”. The administration in Washington don’t give too shits about civilians (remember Vietnam?).

For them, like it or not, installing a US-friendly regime and getting military bases on the ground was the ultimate goal all along. Saddam was just an inconvenience that stood in the way of doing so. How do I know? Well, look at history…

[quote]I really hate when people talk about sending their children to die. Here in America, believe it or not, society tries its best to steer you away from military service. My parents and many of those like me tried to talk me out of the military. My guidance counselor at school did the same. You’re expected to graduate high school, go to college then make lots of money when you get out. MANY veterans have dealt with this. Most parents try to keep you OUT of the military.

Regardless, I would never SEND my kids to do anything. As free and able citizens I would expect them to do as they wish. so let us rephrase the question to something more palatable. Why would I be proud to see my son or daughter fight and possibly die for the welfare of Iraqis? For the very same reason I volunteered to go. I did not fight for America. I fought for freedom, the freedom of Iraqis. [/quote]

I respect your reasons very much. They are evidently noble but I doubt that every American in Iraq is motivated by the same reasons. How about the teenager (from a low-income household) who couldn’t graduate high school and saw enlisting as his only “way out”?

How about the criminal who got a deal for joining the troops? How about the illegal immigrants promised naturalization after a few tours in Iraq? Do they give a damn about the freedom of the Iraqis?

Sending your kids to die doesn’t mean enlisting them. It means supporting and voting for a government who wages unnecessary wars.

Those words resound loudly for me as well. I would have probably bought the “war for democracy” had it not been for your traditional support of tyrannies and dictatorship around the world when it best suited US interests.

I believe in the right to self-determination, and there is absolutely no doubt in my mind that Iraqis want a withdrawal timetable that’ll get you the hell out of there before next year. How about letting them decide through a referendum? That oughta shut me and the opposition up. But that won’t happen because Bush knows the inevitable result from such a popular vote. What do you think?

And you shouldn’t be. You’re the world’s sole superpower up against sword waving cavemen. Trouble is that there were virtually no Jihadis in Iraq before you invaded. So, forgive me for laying the blame on you.

[quote]Beowolf wrote:

http://thespinfactor.com/thetruth/2007/07/17/ron-paul-leads-all-08-candidates-with-one-third-of-military-contributions-for-q2/

A new report shows over 70% of money donated by serving troops to Presidential candidates went to anti-war candidates, the most going to Ron Paul. The report was compiled by a group called Phreadom (who have an interesting blog as well).

Though McCain still got plenty of support from our troops (18.31%), the overall majority still went to anti-war candidates. Obviously, ‘the troops’ aren’t a single entity, and shouldn’t be treated as such.

And by the way, did anyone hear the clip of Sean Hannity being bitched with this knowledge by a clever caller? Funniest thing I’ve heard all week.[/quote]

I saw an interview with Paul’s campaign on this – this is largely due to a couple big donations rather than from getting small donations from a lot of the troops… I’d wager that the same holds for any other anti-war candidates who have significant donations.

Also, let’s be clear about how small are the amounts we’re discussing – and note how early this is in the campaign season.

Here are the numbers, from Ron Paul’s website:

http://www.ronpaulonline.com/content/view/124/127/

All 2008 Presidential Candidates ($)
Name Total Army Navy Air Force Veteran
Ron Paul 24,965 6,975 6,765 4,650 5,075
John McCain 17,425 6,925 6,305 1,795 800
Hillary Clinton 10,550 0 3,550 400 6,600
Bill Richardson 5,325 425 750 2,400 1,750
Barack Obama 5,195 0 0 5,195 0
Mitt Romney 3,551 2,051 0 1,500 0
Rudy Giuliani 2,320 1,450 370 250 250
John Edwards 2,254.06 250 1,359.53 644.53 0
Tom Tancredo 1,400 100 0 300 1,000
Duncan Hunter 1,000 0 1,000 0 0
Joe Biden 800 0 500 0 300
Mike Huckabee 750 250 0 500 0
Mike Gravel 150 0 0 150 0
Sam Brownback 71 71 0 0 0
Dennis Kucinich 50 0 0 0 50

Source: Finance Reports for the 2007 July Quarterly.