What is Digg?Sponsored by Travelzoo
Take Advantage of Ridiculously Low Holiday Airfares view!
travelzoo.com - Flights $52 and up for Thanksgiving, Christmas & New Year. But move on it now.
254 Comments
- jmpeagle, on 10/11/2007, -11/+59Although, I support Ron Paul, the title is misleading as although Ron Paul got more donations than any other candidate from the military (at least in dollar terms not necessarily number of people), the amount of money collected by ALL the other GOP candidates from the military is still larger than the amount Ron Paul got meaning more servicemen gave money to pro-war candidates than to anti-war candidates.
- facebook, on 10/23/2007, -11/+54"The Troops Want To Come Home"
uh no *****. would you want to be in a ***** getting shot at? - DRINKxREDxBULL, on 10/23/2007, -6/+34The reason military people overwhelmingly support Ron Paul is because of his small government/libertarian stance. I am an OIF vet who is at total odds with Paul's foreign policy. Succeeding in Iraq is THE issue for me, but I agree with him 100% on everything else. It was a hard choice, but I decided that there is no point in fighting for freedom in Iraq when we don't have it here. A true libertarian President would do more good domesticity, even if means we have to leave Iraq.
I know that I don't speak for all military vets, I'm sure that there are a large number of who support him because of Iraq. But just remember all of you big government liberals, there are two sides to Ron Paul, and if all we wanted was defeat in Iraq, we would vote for a Democrat. - jrefenes, on 10/11/2007, -6/+23Dugg down as inaccurate and misleading headline.
There are many other things that Ron Paul stands for besides pulling out of Iraq. So these donations could have been because of his stances on many other topics, not just war. - heebeejeebie, on 10/11/2007, -0/+12As a vet with 3 tours in Iraq I can state unequivocally that troops do indeed want to come home in one piece. That doesn't mean there isn't also pride in the mission. Most of us wanted one thing and one thing only and that was to be able to do our jobs. From what my Dad and I have discussed (he's a Vietnam vet) the political handcuffs imposed on soldiers in both wars is near identical and will eventually be one of the primary reasons we won't be successful. That and we shouldn't have been in either place to begin with. But once we commit troops to a situation they should be allowed to fight with every available resource and tactic needed to win.
My family contributed to Ron Paul- not because he's ant-war. It's because he's for smaller government. - Waiting2awake, on 10/23/2007, -2/+14Second time I have seen this post I think. I actually feel very sorry for you. You must be very scared.
- slipgrid, on 10/23/2007, -10/+22Dugg, because it mentions Ron Paul, and I digg most Ron Paul stories. It's important. I don't care if the quality of the article sucks, or if the article is 100% accurate, or if I'll get banned for doing it. The fact is, RON PAUL WILL STOP THE WARS. He won't lie to you. You may not like everything he says, but he's telling you what he believes, and he supports the American idea... I'm not so sure if the other politicians running for President are with us, the American people, or against us.
- BonerMachine, on 10/11/2007, -2/+14I can't believe some of these comments, who are these people? "We want to win the war," etc. Really? Are you serious? How did the 20-some percent of people in the US still delusional enough to think this war can somehow be 'won' get into these comments?
What are we going to do, guys? Kill every last person in Iraq? That's the only way we could possibly 'win'. There is an endless supply of people in and around Iraq who are willing to fight and die to get us the ***** out of there. More are being created by us and by others every day. We are screwed, and it's time we faced up to that reality like adults.
So you say, "but if we leave, the country will go to hell!" It is already *****, even with us there. The people of Iraq want us to leave. Their government has said we can leave any time we want. So LET'S LEAVE. Isn't it possible that, in the aftermath of such an action, terrorists will take the country over?? I guess, but it seems to me like that's the responsibility of Iraq's government. You know, another dictator will probably come to power in the country and succeed admirably at expelling the 'terrorist' presence from Iraq.
The truth is that we never should have gone near Iraq in the first place, and we never again should even think of attacking a country that doesn't pose even a remote threat to us. This war is the fault of the Bush administration, the media outlets who so dutifully repeated and championed their false claims, and the millions of Americans who made it possible by passively supporting Bush's plans. It has become quite clear that the Bush administration will make no attempts to redeem themselves, and our media show no sign of changing their ways. As a result, it's up to the people to redeem themselves by fixing this mistake. If you people posting here continue to fall for delusion, no matter how nice it may sound to you, YOU ARE STILL PART OF THE PROBLEM. Face reality, or reality will run you over. - inactive, on 10/11/2007, -5/+16The troops want to have steak.
- mayhemchaos, on 10/11/2007, -9/+20Ron Paul would have my vote...if voting mattered in this country anymore. Just get a few of your frat brothers (Skull & Bones) on the supreme court and have them appoint you President. Seems to be a working trend for Bush.
- satx, on 10/11/2007, -5/+16That's exactly what I thought. The other candidates can basically be combined into one candidate (the pro-war one) and Ron Oaul gets blown out of the water... :(
- Godwhacker, on 10/11/2007, -6/+17Out troops sign up to defend this nation, not to police oil fields for Exxon-Mobile.
- 0xbaadf00d, on 10/11/2007, -3/+13You're pathetic. The average soldier in the US military is better educated than the average American.
http://www.militaryconnections.com/news_story.cfm?textnewsid=1767 - thcobbs, on 10/11/2007, -2/+12He then said that he wanted the US to stay.
However, I'm a firm believer that when they say "Thanks, we don't need you any more" we get the ***** out asap. - 0xbaadf00d, on 10/11/2007, -1/+10Also, factor in the fact that the majority didn't donate to any candidate at all.
- Godwhacker, on 10/11/2007, -2/+11Get out and vote. Sure, elections can be rigged. But that shouldn't stop you from trying for change.
- scubasteve377, on 10/11/2007, -3/+12I enlisted in '04, one month after my 18th birthday. The truth is I didn't have any idea at the time what I was getting myself into, or how unjust the cause was that I would be supporting, I was just a stupid kid. I joined to get an education and to defend my country. Thanks to my G.I. Bill, I'm starting school in a few months, but as for defending my country, nothing we have done in this war has served the defense of this country.
We serve under the assumption that our leaders will make responsible decisions and not waste our lives frivolously. We serve with an unspoken agreement that we will faithfully work, fight, bleed, and die for a cause while our leaders must faithfully ensure that this cause is just. This president and his administration have violated that agreement at the cost of hundreds billions of dollars and the lives thousands of young Americans.
I feel so sorry for the young people, who are now standing where I was almost four years ago, knowing that many of them won't make it through their enlistments as I have. For God's sake we have got to end this war. It has gone on for 53 months (compare that to the 45 months of American involvement in WW2) and we have nothing but death and destruction to show for it. The guys who are still on the ground over there want to come home, the Iraqis want us out. Its time to leave. We accomplish nothing by staying, just more dead Americans and Iraqi civilians. - djdole, on 10/11/2007, -3/+12It would be the REPUBLICANS saying "We shouldn't have pulled out", not the democrats, you troll.
You seem to be utterly ignorant to the fact that most people understand; that whether or not Iraq can MAINTAIN a democracy depends on the Iraqi PEOPLE, and not whether or not US troops are present. If they don't care enough to maintain their democracy, then no matter how long we're there, it WILL fall apart once we leave. - digger1942, on 10/11/2007, -1/+10Another OEF and OIF vet here. What exactly do you count as "winning"? What things must be completed before you can say "we won!" Are you saying you want to "win" simply because the word "win" sounds better than "lose"? Is leaving Iraq really "losing" anyway? So my question, what is your definition of winning and losing in regards to the preemptive (we attacked first and are on the offense), unjustified (they did nothing to us and had no wmds), mismanaged (terrorist groups were more afraid of Saddam than us), murderous (despite which poll you believe, it's a lot of dead civilians), propaganda-laden (who's an organized terrorist and who is simply defending their country?) war and occupation in Iraq?
- kazamx, on 10/11/2007, -3/+11Your missing their point. If you want to make it into a pro vs against thing, then you need to lump all the pro money together and all the against money together.
- cjackson, on 10/11/2007, -2/+10Ok, then add up all the money donated to anti-war Democratic candidates as well. Of course, this math only works if you assume that EVERY person who donated to a candidate did so with only the war issue in mind.
- satx, on 10/11/2007, -7/+15Iraq's already in hell, buddy. Also, what do you make of the PRIME MINISTER of Iraq saying that they can go it alone?
- novask, on 10/11/2007, -2/+10Sorry but your wrong. In fact more then 70% of money from the troops went to anti war candidates. See link.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/7/19/23533/7690 - TheSavant, on 10/11/2007, -3/+11I am a liberal and I want to lay out something for you right now. I did NOT sign up to go war in Iraq. The only reason I went was a commitment to my fellow soldiers. I wasn't afraid of war. I volunteered to go Afghanistan after 9/11. They denied my request. I tried to go help with clean up and that was denied too. I sat on my ass until we were called up for Iraq years later. I am tired of brainwashed fools questioning the courage and commitment of troops who say this war is unjustified. It is unjustified in every sense of the word. All the reasons for going to war have been proven false. All of them. The reason we are in Iraq is simple. It is a perfect staging point for the Mideast. Iraq is the post-cold-war Germany. From Iraq we can keep an eye on every other country there and mobilize quickly to those countries. We will never leave Iraq. There was never even an intention of leaving Iraq. You won't hear about this on the news. The administration is good at covering tracks. Now couple that with the way troops are treated by the military add that with the unavoidable reasons why war is hell and that's why you have very unhappy troops who want to come home. Argue all you want. You will see.
- painted82, on 10/23/2007, -1/+9By that logic, big government = tyranny.
I'd rather have anarchy over tyranny. At least I have the freedom to do what I want and it's easier to defend myself. - falseleftright, on 10/11/2007, -0/+7He has never voted to raise income taxes, largely because he believes them to be unconstitutional (since they are).
He has never voted for a federal restriction on gun ownership because that too, would be unconstitutional. Furthermore, he isn't naive enough to believe that a restriction on gun ownership will stop criminals from obtaining them, but rather will leave the rest of us defenseless against their whims. Cops tend to be very good in a mass shooting, after it's over they come in a put up yellow tape. - krnldmp, on 10/23/2007, -2/+9Being an anarchist isn't nearly so stupid as suggesting Ron Paul has anything to offer anarchy.
- archiesteel, on 10/23/2007, -1/+8My thoughts exactly. That is one terrified dude.
- diggomaniac, on 10/11/2007, -3/+9When we graduated High School in 2000, my friend joined the Military. There was no September 11th, no Iraq war. I don't think he was expecting on fighting a never-ending war for the rest of his life when he enlisted.
- TheSavant, on 10/11/2007, -1/+7A fake soldier? I spent a ***** year in the *****. What are your creds? Fox News? You should watch your mouth. It will make you look stupid.
- DRINKxREDxBULL, on 10/23/2007, -0/+6And the reason you say this is because you are an ignorant boob that dax was just describing. Anarchy as a philosophy is NOT riots 24/7. If anarchy "has no chance in hell of ever working in the modern world" when would it work?
- scubasteve377, on 10/11/2007, -1/+7First off, go ***** yourself and die davenp35. You have no ***** clue what you are talking about.
Secondly, The Savant, I would like to echo what you said, when I was over there the only motivation I had to do my job was so I wouldn't leave other Americans without the support they needed to make it home alive. Thats it. - DRINKxREDxBULL, on 10/11/2007, -0/+6I said we have unnecessary weapons, I didn't say eliminate them all. For example, we don't need a new tank. The M1 is already better than any next-gen tank that China could produce (I am a tanker).
- murlox, on 10/11/2007, -2/+8Dugg for the homesicknesses...
- scubasteve377, on 10/11/2007, -0/+5The arguments for gun control are simply retarded. When you outlaw guns you MANUFACTURE a situation in which criminals, who don't care about breaking some stupid gun law, will be armed while law abiding citizens will be defenseless. As much as the concept hurts your feeble mind, more guns = less crime. Let me know if you are still confused.
- 0xbaadf00d, on 10/11/2007, -2/+7Again, you're pathetic. The military does not attract a disproportionate number of poor, and they are better educated that the average American.
http://www.militaryconnections.com/news_story.cfm?textnewsid=1767
"In reality, military recruits mirror the U.S. population and are solidly middle class ... Patterns in recent years reinforce this trend, showing a slight dip in recruits from lower socioeconomic groups and a slight increase from upper-class groups." - faskill, on 10/11/2007, -3/+8Heh, without some form of intervention? Not likely.
- Godwhacker, on 10/11/2007, -3/+8"After the Iraq War of 2003, United States and United Kingdom oil giants are certain to gain privileged access to Iraq’s oil resources. Excluded from control over Iraqi oil since the nationalization of 1972, Exxon, BP, Shell and Chevron will now gain the lion’s share of the world’s most profitable oil fields. Few outside the industry understand the huge stakes in Iraq, which amount to tens of billions of dollars in total potential profits per year.
The following tables estimate the magnitude of potential profits in Iraq, using four key variables. They aim to show the possible long-term Iraq profits for all private oil companies, assuming that one or more companies will be involved in all the country’s producing fields. The exact legal status of Iraqi oil is not at issue here, since the same results could accrue for the companies whether the new government: (1) eventually privatizes the industry (which seems unlikely) or (2) maintains a national company which enters into production sharing agreements that offer the companies favorable terms."
Read the rest here: http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/oil/2004/0128oilprofit.htm - falseleftright, on 10/11/2007, -3/+8As a veteran I can tell you the information troops receive is filtered in the extreme (especially during a conflict and for obvious reasons). For the troops to respond to an antiwar candidate like Ron Paul, during a war, tells me that the MSM is not going to be able to keep the lid on this for much longer.
- noamsml, on 10/11/2007, -0/+5Let me guess, you're 13, have never been in the army (duh), and you're not planning on going to the army. Obviously, you're highly qualified to speak here.
- inactive, on 10/23/2007, -0/+5"how bout looking at guliani's contributions, they slaughter Ron Paul"
If you really want to know about Giuliani's "contributions," pick up the August 07 issue of Harper's Magazine. Giuliani's opportunism, racism and ineptness are the focus of cover story. The man is a scheister who is just good at filling people with fear and hatred. - kazamx, on 10/23/2007, -2/+7It just shows that while their are RP spammers, there are also Anti RP spammers. Kinda balances itself out
- Erectile, on 10/11/2007, -6/+11Buried for not knowing the difference between "then" and "than". Back to school you go.
- faskill, on 10/23/2007, -1/+6Many people desire a form of anarchy in several aspects of their life. Let's say you are sitting at home and wish to read a book, it's your favorite book and you haven't read it in a while and wanted a refresher. When you first read the book 20 years ago, it was just that, a book. But in the past 20 years, a lot has changed. Now the book you wish to read is on a list of governmentally banned books. If you are caught reading you suffer the possibility of imprisonment and/or a wide array of other consequences.
If you were to apply simple anarchy (anarchy defined "a state of society without government or *law*"), then you'd be able to read the book without issue. The reason I chose this particular example is due to the fact that people are already suffering this particular type of totalitarian governmental control. How you ask? In the libraries our children attend there are ever growing lists of "banned" books. How you could possibly ban a book is beyond me. Books convey messages depending on how the reader assimilates the information contained within. To ban thought is a very scary avenue to pursue.
The moral of this story is everything is better in moderation, even government. - DRINKxREDxBULL, on 10/11/2007, -0/+5"He has never voted to raise taxes. -great! now how will we fund social welfare programs?"
We don't. Problem solved. - davenp35, on 10/11/2007, -6/+10Ditto from another OIF I and III vet. I consider myself a Neolibertarian and like some of what Paul says, but I would NEVER vote for him due to his lack of understanding regarding our war on Islamic extremism. In fact during my entire time in the Amry I only met two people who thought the Iraq war was wrong and both of them still served honorably, unlike the Watada's of this world. Most soldiers support winning in Iraq, even if it means staying there longer than they would like because they, unlike the poster of this story, understand what is at stake!
- TheSavant, on 10/11/2007, -1/+5That seems to be the way most of us get through it.
- neodorian, on 10/23/2007, -1/+5Why? Ron Paul wants to abolish just about every government agency out there. Sounds like he has something in common with those who would also like to see the government dismantled.
- Erectile, on 10/11/2007, -3/+7Can you please enlighten me as to how you can "WIN" an undeclared war?
- Influsion, on 10/11/2007, -1/+5Not exactly true. Ron Paul got 49.5% of military and veteran contributions to Republicans: http://thespinfactor.com/thetruth/2007/07/16/military-support-for-the-republican-candidates/
And anti-war candidates also did better by a huge margin that reflects current general population polls on the war - Obama is second:
http://thespinfactor.com/thetruth/2007/07/17/ron-paul-leads-all-08-candidates-with-one-third-of-military-contributions-for-q2/
Here is the breakdown:
Anti-war:
Ron Paul 26.23% (R)[near-Libertarian; Navy support]
Barack Obama 24.02% (D) [50% more from Army than Ron Paul]
Hillary Clinton 11.08% (D)
Bill Richardson 5.59% (D)
John Edwards 2.63% (D)
Joe Biden 0.84% (D)
Mike Gravel 0.16% (D)
Dennis Kucinich 0.05% (D)
Chris Dodd 0% (D)
Pro-war:
John McCain 18.31% (R)
Mitt Romney 4.05% (R)
Rudy Giuliani 2.44% (R)
Mike Huckabee 1.84% (R)
Tom Tancredo 1.63% (R)
Duncan Hunter 1.05% (R)
Sam Brownback 0.07% (R)
Tommy Thompson 0% (R)
Jim Gilmore 0% (R)
John Cox 0% (R)
And the total for candidates against the war in Iraq is 70.6% as per comments on that page. Pro-war candidates got 29.4%
Per the comments on the discussion page: "Why do our troops 'hate the troops'?"
BTW, check out Hannity's response: http://thespinfactor.com/thetruth/2007/07/20/sean-hannity-experiences-blowback-live-on-the-radio-at-the-hands-of-ron-paul-supporter/
By the way, check out what Hannity says on the subject. -
Show 51 - 100 of 254 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is