Support the Troops by Ending the War

Discussion in 'Politics' started by KenH, Feb 1, 2007.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. KenH

    KenH
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    32,485
    Likes Received:
    0
    HON. RON PAUL OF TEXAS
    Before the U.S. House of Representatives

    January 18, 2007

    Everybody Supports the Troops


    I have never met anyone who did not support our troops. Sometimes, however, we hear accusations that someone or some group does not support the men and women serving in our armed forces. This is pure demagoguery, and it's intellectually dishonest. The accusers play on emotions to gain support for controversial policies, implying that those who disagree are unpatriotic. But keeping our troops out of harm's way, especially when war is unnecessary, is never unpatriotic. There's no better way to support the troops.

    Since we now know that Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction and was not threatening anyone, we must come to terms with 3,000 American deaths and 23,000 American casualties. It's disconcerting that those who never believed the justifications given for our invasion, and who now want the war ended, are still accused of not supporting the troops! This is strange indeed!

    Instead of questioning who has the best interests of our troops at heart, we should be debating which policy is best for our country. Defensive wars to preserve our liberties, fought only with proper congressional declarations, are legitimate. Casualties under such circumstances still are heartbreaking, but they are understandable. Casualties that occur in undeclared, unnecessary wars, however, are bewildering. Why must so many Americans be killed or hurt in Iraq when our security and our liberty were not threatened?

    - the rest of these excellent remarks in the House of Representatives can be found at: http://tinyurl.com/ytpn6s


     
    #1 KenH, Feb 1, 2007
    Last edited: Feb 1, 2007
  2. Phillip

    Phillip
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2001
    Messages:
    6,708
    Likes Received:
    0
    Interesting

    I must say that I agree with you somewhat in principle; but, most of our troops do not agree that we should stay long enough to bring a level of security to the area. The more terrorists we get rid of the less we will have to worry about in the future.

    There is also the fact that some information has to be held in confidence by the military and therefore they often do not do a very good job of presenting their case of why they need the warfighters in place.

    Our efforts in Iraq and other countries have gone a long way in hitting terrorism at the source (regardless of what you might hear on CNN).

    There are other "long term" strategic reasons that we are in Iraq that I cannot go into here, but suffice it to say that there are long term plans and pulling out now can harm our strategic security in the long run.

    Yes, we have casualties and I salute every single one of our warfighters. We work hard at technology to keep our warfighters safe and out of harms way, but for now casualties are going to occur.

    I would say that we should start by eliminating all cars and make everybody use mass transportation to lower the incidence of auto accidents that kill people every day, or outlaw cigarettes that have been proven to either kill or ruin people's health, or maybe we should stop selling liquor or hamburgers with 500 grams of fat. There's lots of things we can do to keep people alive.

    Just my thoughts on the matter. I still respect your opinion; however; and based on most civilians knowledge of what is occuring, I would probably be agreeing with the "get out now" crowd.
     
  3. Dragoon68

    Dragoon68
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2003
    Messages:
    4,511
    Likes Received:
    0
    I like much of want Senator Paul usually has to say. I respect him because he not afraid to "tell it like he see's it".

    However, I don't agree with him on this issue.

    True support for troops requires support for the cause to which we've committed them. What warriors want to hear most is that what they're doing is right and worth the potential cost they may have to pay. No one wants to fight in a war their country doesn't support and doesn't want them to win. This was true for my Father, for me, and for those serving now.

    Here are recent comments one a warrior currently in harms way that illustrate my point:




    I guess I'm not afraid to "tell it like I see's it" either.
     
  4. Salty

    Salty
    Expand Collapse
    20,000 Posts Club
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2003
    Messages:
    22,130
    Likes Received:
    221
    Many people say they support the troops, but they are against the war.

    I have always wondered on thing. Suppose you lived in WWII Germany. You know your country invaded other countries without cause. Beacuse of this you are against the war effort (of Germany) as well as Adolf Hitler. Would you still be able to support the (German) troops, especially the SS troops?

    Salty
     
  5. KenH

    KenH
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    32,485
    Likes Received:
    0
    I really can't blame you, Phillip, for trying to lead the debate off into the absurd, or for using the "secret" information tactic.

    Invading Iraq was a mistake and most of us went along with the idea because we trusted our leaders to present us accurate information on the reasons for doing so. We now know without a doubt that we were misled. The result is the debacle in Iraq.

    Short of the Congress using its constitutional authority to declare war and sending in at least 200,000 additional troops, we will not succeed in securing the peace in Iraq - and even then it would not be a sure thing.

    The Iraqis did not fight for their freedom. Our military did and then handed it to them. That in itself was a recipe for disaster. For freedom to succeed the people must want it and be willing to lead the fight in securing it - in this case deposing Saddam Hussein. The Iraqis did not depose Saddam Hussein. Our military did so - alone.
     
  6. KenH

    KenH
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    32,485
    Likes Received:
    0
    That is why it is important to follow the constitutional procedure of having the U.S. Congress declare war - something that hasn't happened since December 1941. Our Congress has abdicated its responsibility in this area since then and we had the Vietnam debacle and now the Iraq debacle. I hope the Congress learns it lesson.
     
  7. Petra-O IX

    Petra-O IX
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2006
    Messages:
    1,086
    Likes Received:
    0
    Sadly the only reason for continuing this war is to save face at the cost of our brave sons and daughters. George Bush will never have the victory he desires.

    This is from Ron Paul speech on floor of Congress 6 months ago :

    http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=172854[QUOTEChristian teaching of nearly a thousand years reinforces the concept of “Just War Theory.” This Christian theory emphasizes six criteria needed to justify Christian participation in war. Briefly the six points are as follows:

    1. War should be fought only in self-defense;
    2. War should be undertaken only as a last resort;
    3. A decision to enter war should be made only by a legitimate authority;
    4. All military responses must be proportional to the threat;
    5. There must be a reasonable chance of success; and
    6. A public declaration notifying all parties concerned is required.

    The war in Iraq fails to meet almost all of these requirements. This discrepancy has generated anger and division within the Christian community.

    ][/QUOTE]
    Our President has embarrased our country, it is time to do the brave thing and put an end to his madness.
     
  8. Dragoon68

    Dragoon68
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2003
    Messages:
    4,511
    Likes Received:
    0
    I'm glad we passed all of Ron Paul's tests. See the Congressional resolution of October 2002.
     
  9. Petra-O IX

    Petra-O IX
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2006
    Messages:
    1,086
    Likes Received:
    0
    While yet many Americans believed they were lied to in order to gain support for the Iraqi invasion from the beginning. While many war supporters have ducked military service themselves while others fought and died to fight the unjust war, still more casualties must be sustained to prove a false premise. War supporters are in denial that Bush's failed polices will work if he is allowed to keep failing over and over again

    Our Military has helped establish a democracy in Iraq and rid the world of an evil dictator we cannot force peace in this country that will be up to the Iraqi people irregardles of the high cost of thier own bloodshed.
    Our troops have fought well and have made great accomplisments, our President should do the right thing and bring our troops home. This should be done on his watch, it would be dishonarable to leave it to anyone else.
     
  10. KenH

    KenH
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    32,485
    Likes Received:
    0
    The invasion of Iraq was not done in self-defense.

    The invasion of Iraq was not a last resort.

    Congress never declared war against Iraq.

    The planning for a post-Saddam Hussein Iraq was either not done or was done very, very, very poorly and very, very, very haphazardly.

    A mere Congressional resolution is not even a poor substitute for a constitutionally-mandated declaration of war and is an insult to our military personnel who place their lives on the line in defense of the U.S. constitution. I realize that many people in our nation don't know what is in the U.S. constitution and don't care if the procedures listed therein are followed.
     
  11. redbelt

    redbelt
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2006
    Messages:
    92
    Likes Received:
    0
    Saddam gassed the Kurds and threatened the use of weapons of mass destruction. The French, the Russians, the British and other intelligence agencies believed the same thing we did about Saddam's weapons of mass destruction. So when I continually hear that the President lied about going into Iraq, I guess all these others were intentionally lying too.

    Saddam was given every opportunity to allow inspections and he chose to hold out. Perhaps he figured we wouldn't do anything. He failed by not complying with 17 UN resolutions. When he violated one resolution, the UN would simply issue another one. How many times do you tell someone who has killed thousands to stop or else?
    How many times did he allow our aircraft to be shot at while we were enforcing the no fly zone?

    I have never heard of a war that didn't have difficulties or problems. I sometimes wonder... if the press of today expressed these same opinions and if the congress were as divided about just leaving the War when we were fighting World War II as we hear now, would we have ever won? I'm afraid we would probably be speaking German.

    I have personally seen the smiling Iraqi faces of people who were excited that they were free. I have talked to them. I know of some who were killed simply because they desired freedom. I know Soldiers who were killed fighting to give these people an opportunity for what we have... FREEDOM.

    Every American has the freedom to express their opinion about the war... That's America. I just believe at the same time, those opposing the war must understand that there are consequences to every action.

    Giving the enemy hope, denegrating our commander in chief, sending our enemies the message that we are divided about winning is very chilling.

    I know some say, 'We support the troops' but then slam our mission and hurt our morale. That's your choice. Just understand that those things place our Soldiers and Marines in greater harm because they give our enemy hope.

    The Viet Cong admitted that Jane Fonda's appearance and support led to increased morale for their cause. It led to greater torture of our POW's and demoralized our America troops.

    This is America. I served in Iraq for one year. I knew Soldiers who had died and knew of Iraqis who were killed. Feel free to attack our commander in chief, feel free to tell our congressional leaders to send all the Soldiers home... Just understand that with your freedom also comes responsibilities. If the division seen in our country leads to one more IED or one more mortar or rocket attack on American troops... you are partially responsible.

    Believe me, I don't want Soldiers there a day longer than they need to be. Soldiers above every else, hate war. We see it, feel it, smell it, taste it and experience it.

    Bottom line... express your views, but be ready to take responsibility for your actions. Freedom is more that speaking ones mind... it's being willing to understand that there are consequences for what one says...That's Freedom!
     
  12. Dragoon68

    Dragoon68
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2003
    Messages:
    4,511
    Likes Received:
    0
    Excellent post!
     
  13. Dragoon68

    Dragoon68
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2003
    Messages:
    4,511
    Likes Received:
    0
    This is like saying I don't have a "license" because I have a "permit".

    The term "Declaration of War" is not, in fact, used in our Constitution. It reads, nstead, that "Congress shall have the power to ... declare War, ..." and leaves it at that. The exact form and manner of such declaration isn't specified.

    Here's an extract of what was written regarding Germany in 1941:

    "... Therefore, be it Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, that the state of war between the United States and the Government of Germany which has thus been thrust upon the United States is hereby formally declared; and the President is hereby authorized and directed to employ the entire naval and military forces of the government to carry on war against the Government of Germany; and to bring the conflict to a successful termination, all of the resources of the country are hereby pledged by the Congress of the United States"

    Here's an extract of what was written regarding Iraq in 2002:

    "... Now, therefore, be it Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, ... The Congress of the United States supports the efforts by the President ... The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to (1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
    (2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq. ..."

    Both documents are "mere" joint resolutions of Congress.

    Congress put a lot more words into this "Authorization for the Use of Military Force Against Iraq" than they did in previous times including many preceding points justifying why they made this declaration.

    This war is every bit as legal, with respect to our Constitution, as any other we've ever fought.

    Our warriors deserve to know that the war they're fighting is legal, was authorized by the people of this nation through their elected representatives according to the requirements of our Constitution, is for just causes, the orders of their Commander-in-Chief - not Senators-in-Chief are the ones they need to continue following, can indeed be won, has and is bringing about positive results, and is worth the sacrifices they are making
    as they execute their duty to our nation.

    That is the support they need for the people!

    Indeed, many people have no idea what's in our Constitution.
     
  14. KenH

    KenH
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    32,485
    Likes Received:
    0
    When did the U.S. military become a part of the United Nations?
     
  15. KenH

    KenH
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    32,485
    Likes Received:
    0
    1) When did the U.S. military become the enforcement force for the U.N.?

    2) True. And those who continue to support the Iraq conflict also must understand that there are consequences to every action.

    3) The persons responsible for placing our troops in harm's way are George W. Bush and the members of Congress who voted to allow him to do so - period. The persons responsible for failing to finish the job in Afghanistan(which we had clear justification for attacking) are also George W. Bush and the members of Congress who enabled him to remove our focus from where it should have been.
     
  16. pinoybaptist

    pinoybaptist
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2002
    Messages:
    8,123
    Likes Received:
    1
    True. Which is why I don't believe Bush went into Iraq for the sole purpose of freeing the Iraqis, deposing Saddam, and teaching Iraqis democracy.
    There had to be strings attached.
    There are always strings attached.
    Like economic and military treaties with the stronger power getting the bigger part of the treaty cake.
     
  17. carpro

    carpro
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    Messages:
    20,940
    Likes Received:
    296
    That's because, like liberals everywhere, he believes he can actually support the troops without supporting the mission and that is...

    impossible.

    By not supporting their mission, he is telling them that their sacrifice is useless and needless. That message provides no "support" at all to our troops. Since they are all volunteers, that's the same as telling them they are stupid.
     
  18. The Galatian

    The Galatian
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2001
    Messages:
    9,687
    Likes Received:
    0
    Carpro, when it comes to conservatism, Ron Paul makes you look like Rosie O'Donnell.

    But to a neocon, real conservatives are "liberals."
     
  19. Dragoon68

    Dragoon68
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2003
    Messages:
    4,511
    Likes Received:
    0
    I agree with Carpro's comment!

    The point I took from it was that Ron Paul, when it comes to the matter of the war in Iraq, shares the viewpoint of liberals that supporting the troops does not require supporting the war.

    The truth is that true support for our warriors means supporting the cause for which our nation has sent them to fight. They understand that and so should we.

    Ron Paul claims the war is un-Constitutional by saying there's no declaration of war. He's wrong! Congress did their duty and authorized the war the President has carried. That Congressional resolution of 2002 was a declaration of war. Now they could stand by their own words and truly support the President and those he commands.
     
  20. Dragoon68

    Dragoon68
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2003
    Messages:
    4,511
    Likes Received:
    0
    It isn't subordinate to the UN! It's under the command of our President.

    When Congress decides, by it's own resolutions, that it's in our national interests to enforce specific resolutions of the UN with our military power, as so stated for Iraq, then it becomes the duty of the President and those he commands to do so.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

Loading...