Ron Paul: Surrender Should Not Be An Option

Discussion in 'Politics' started by KenH, Sep 8, 2007.

  1. KenH

    KenH
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    32,485
    Likes Received:
    0
    Surrender Should Not Be an Option

    By Congressman Ron Paul(R-TX)

    Faced with dwindling support of the Iraq War, the warhawks are redoubling their efforts. They imply we are in Iraq attacking those who attacked us, and yet this is not the case. As we know, Saddam Hussein, though not a particularly savory character, had nothing to do with 9/11. The neo-cons claim surrender should not be an option. In the same breath they claim we were attacked because of our freedoms. Why then, are they so anxious to surrender our freedoms with legislation like the Patriot Act, a repeal of our 4th amendment rights, executive orders, and presidential signing statements? With politicians like these, who needs terrorists? Do they think if we destroy our freedoms for the terrorists they will no longer have a reason to attack us? This seems the epitome of cowardice coming from those who claim a monopoly on patriotic courage.

    In any case, we have achieved the goals specified in the initial authorization. Saddam Hussein has been removed. An elected government is now in place in Iraq that meets with US approval. The only weapon of mass destruction in Iraq is our military presence. Why are we still over there? Conventional wisdom would dictate that when the "mission is accomplished", the victor goes home, and that is not considered a retreat.

    They claim progress is being made and we are fighting a winnable war, but this is not a view connected with reality. We can't be sure when we kill someone over there if they were truly an insurgent or an innocent Iraqi civilian. There are as many as 650,000 deaths since the war began. The anger we incite by killing innocents creates more new insurgents than our bullets can keep up with. There are no measurable goals to be achieved at this point.

    The best congressional leadership can come up with is the concept of strategic redeployment, or moving our troops around, possibly into Saudi Arabia or even, alarmingly enough, into Iran. Rather than ending this war, we could be starting another one.

    The American people voted for a humble foreign policy in 2000. They voted for an end to the war in 2006. Instead of recognizing the wisdom and desire of the voters, they are chided as cowards, unwilling to defend themselves. Americans are fiercely willing to defend themselves. However, we have no stomach for indiscriminate bombing in foreign lands when our actual attackers either killed themselves on 9/11 or are still at large somewhere in a country that is neither Iraq nor Iran. Defense of our homeland is one thing. Offensive tactics overseas are quite another. Worse yet, when our newly minted enemies find their way over here, where will our troops be to defend us?

    The American people have NOT gotten the government they deserve. They asked for a stronger America and peace through nonintervention, yet we have a government of deceit, inaction and one that puts us in grave danger on the international front. The American people deserve much better than this. They deserve foreign and domestic policy that doesn't require they surrender their liberties.

    - www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2007/tst090207.htm
     
  2. Petra-O IX

    Petra-O IX
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2006
    Messages:
    1,086
    Likes Received:
    0
    :thumbsup: As usual I agree with Dr. Ron.
     
  3. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    As we have seen all too often, Paul is simply disconnected from reality. He says surrender is not an option, then recommends surrendering by leaving in defeat with the job unfinished. I am telling you, Ken, read what Paul actually says and think about it. He makes no sense either in terms of rhetoric or policy. You have accept that at some point.
     
  4. Petra-O IX

    Petra-O IX
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2006
    Messages:
    1,086
    Likes Received:
    0
    Our objectives have been met in Iraq. Our troops can leave any time knowing they have achieved the victory that they were sent there for. Why stay bogged down in a situation that will only achieve the goals of Al qaeda. Insurgents will continue to fight at the cost of mere pennies compared to our billions and trillions of dollars that we have spent and will continue to spend unless we claim our victory and return our troops home.
    http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&VideoID=17624644
     
    #4 Petra-O IX, Sep 8, 2007
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 8, 2007
  5. KenH

    KenH
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    32,485
    Likes Received:
    0
    1) I have - for over 20 years.

    2) Not really. What you may have to accept is that our positions concerning our federal government's future course in Iraq are irreconciliable. That doesn't make either one of us wrong or a bad person or evil. We simply don't agree what the future course should be.

    Now, I imagine that our positions concerning our federal government's future course in fighting al Qaeda and its allies(particularly in Afghanistan and the western frontier of Pakistan) are pretty close - we should destroy al Qaeda and its allies. That doesn't make either one of us right or a good person. We simply agree what the future course should be concerning al Qaeda and its allies.
     
  6. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    The future course is to establish a secure and functioning government. That was the goal from the beginning and therefore, while we have accomplished a lot, we have not yet won.

    Where we differ is that you are apparently willing to walk out halfway on a job and I don't think we should. We also differ about whetheror not Ron Paul has any connection with reality. If you have been reading and listening to him for twenty years and have not yet figured it out, wel ... then I don't know what to say. I haven't been following him nearly for twenty years and I have figured it out. He has some good things on domestic and foreign policy, and he has some bad thing. This is simply bad. It ignores the definition of surrender.
     
  7. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    Really? I must have missed the news of the functioning government. Can you provide me a link to it?
     
  8. Petra-O IX

    Petra-O IX
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2006
    Messages:
    1,086
    Likes Received:
    0
    All we have to do is stand out of the way Pastor Larry and let this government in Iraq function for better or for worse. It might function much better if we would not interfere in their political process.
     
  9. KenH

    KenH
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    32,485
    Likes Received:
    0
    I disagree with your description of what our military personnel has accomplished as being halfway done. I believe our military personnel have accomplished their mission. What is missing is the Iraqi government stepping up and fulfilling its responsibilities.

    If you can convince me that if our troops stay in Iraq for another year, or another five years, or even another ten years, that our federal government could withdraw them under better conditions than exist today then I would come over to your side, Pastor Larry. At the moment, I don't believe that a year from now or five years from now or ten years from now that keeping our troops in Iraq will improve the conditions under which they would be withdrawn. I see nothing on the horizon that indicates that the Iraqi government, under the current policy, will get its act together.
     
  10. 2 Timothy2:1-4

    2 Timothy2:1-4
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2006
    Messages:
    2,879
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ronnie continues to show why he is not prepared to be President
     
  11. Petra-O IX

    Petra-O IX
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2006
    Messages:
    1,086
    Likes Received:
    0
    Would you rather have a cross dressing ex mayor from New York?
     
  12. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    So since the mission was to establish a self-sustaining government in Iraq that is stable, please point me to a news source that says that has happened. You apparently believe it has since you think we accomplished what we went there to do. So far as I have read, the government is still trying to work out the details and as of now is not self-sustaining. Perhaps you are familiar with more recent news than I am.

    You were already on my side and you left. It probably woudln't take much to get you back, but that's beside the point.

    But the truth is that you are not there, that you know nothing besides what you read in the news and choose to believe, and that you can't tell what will happen in the future.

    Historically, when you look at places that we have stayed to help (Germany, Japan), you see a stable functioning growing first world country. When you look at places we have left prematurely because of political conflict, you see a weak, second world type of country (Vietnam).

    Which should we strive to attain in the middle east? I think the former. And I think our job is to kill all those who foment violence that would prevent a stable government while training the Iraqis to take over.
     
  13. KenH

    KenH
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    32,485
    Likes Received:
    0
    1) The current Iraqi government has been in place for a couple of years now. It appears to be stable and sustaining itself. It is just not doing a good job of stabilizing the rest of the country and, frankly, at this point, short of installing a dictator I seriously doubt that the rest of the country can be stabilized.

    2) Germany and Japan did not have ongoing civil wars. The people were united in rebuilding their respective countries. After we left Vietnam the civil war there ended and the government and the country stabilized. I didn't like the government there but apparently it was what the majority of Vietnamese wanted.

    3) I simply cannot go along with the idea of involving the military of these United States in another country's civil war.
     
  14. KenH

    KenH
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    32,485
    Likes Received:
    0
    Congressman Ron Paul has chances of becoming president are next to nothing. Therefore, whether he is prepared or not is irrelevant.
     
  15. 2 Timothy2:1-4

    2 Timothy2:1-4
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2006
    Messages:
    2,879
    Likes Received:
    0
    And the United States of America is blessed because of this.
     
  16. KenH

    KenH
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    32,485
    Likes Received:
    0
    I would not disagree with that. These United States are nowhere near prepared for a radical change back to liberty and constitutional government.
     
  17. 2 Timothy2:1-4

    2 Timothy2:1-4
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2006
    Messages:
    2,879
    Likes Received:
    0

    Were you somehow under the impression that I supported Guilliani?
     
  18. Petra-O IX

    Petra-O IX
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2006
    Messages:
    1,086
    Likes Received:
    0
    Not necessarily, but the point is that all the others who are running for the GOP nomination certainly are not as consistant as Ron Paul and many have character flaws galore. We can do topics on Mitt, Rudy , McCain, Thompson, Huckabee and the others and pick away at thier flaws and in the end determine that not a single one of them are worth being a viable canddate. If the GOP wants to lose with grace then Ron Paul should be the GOP candidate as he would be one who has more integrity and morals.But I would rather back up someone like Ron Paul because he advocates a truly constitutional government. As it stands now if the GOP picks any of the other candidates it will be a carnival after all these years of the GOP wanting to put forth that they are the party worthy of support because after all Character Counts doesn't it? But I would suspect that the GOP would rather that we forget that Mantra of the Ninties.
     
  19. saturneptune

    saturneptune
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2006
    Messages:
    13,977
    Likes Received:
    0
    There are some people who would vote for the devil himself if he was running under the Republican ticket.
     
  20. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    So you admit that we have not done what we went there to do, which contradicts yoru previous statement. Japan took more than five years, as did Germany, and that was after a much "easier" war in terms of the lack of religious components.

    Yes, very instructive. With peoplle who agreed, it took five years or more. How much more will it take with those who don't agree. In Vietnam, the majority did not want communism. It was forced on them by weak willed politicians of the time who are being seen now a generation later. They are frightened men who lack the character to stand up to the insurgency and say "We will not tolerate this. You will cease now and come to the table or you will die."

    Fortunately the French didn't agree with you in the 1700s when they stepped in what amounted to a civil war. Furthermore, I would not encourage the US to get involved necessarily. But the fact is that we are there and we must finish. Good leadership skills see that. Bad leadership and short sightedness does not.
     

Share This Page

Loading...