Posted on 07/30/2008 4:27:52 PM PDT by rightwinghour
I watched Ron Paul on Glenn Beck today and as usual I was amazed that he is just about the only politician in Washington talking about the real issues. Neither McCain nor Obama will talk about monetary policy. They are scared to, because they know the system we have is unconstitutional and that the only way to fix things is to go back to constitutional money. But that would hurt, so it wouldn't be prudent to bring it up...
Again, the Constitution does not authorize us to use our military to liberate millions of people from their dictator. Using your rules of engagement, we should invade North Korea, Cuba, a great deal of African nations, etc.
Yea, it's called new trading partners to do business with when we help them dump the tyrannical dictator and they discover capitalism. Which creates jobs here in the US and increases the standard of living for all.
A foreign policy of non-interventionism would accomplish the same thing, only without killing hundreds of thousands of people and causing other countries to look at us as a bully.
Didn't Congress authorize the use of force against Iraq?
Yes, they did, and that is quite different from declaring war. We haven't declared war on anyone since 1941, and I don't think it is a coincidence that we haven't been very successful since then when we have invaded other countries. The only way we were able to attack Iraq was to say we were enforcing UN resolutions. The UN cannot declare war, it can only declare peace. Iraq was in a state of peace for 12 years before we invaded, so I really don't know how this was even justified. Remember, it wasn’t a war in Korea. It was only a police action to bring about peace. But at least in Korea and Vietnam there was fighting going on, so it was a bit easier to stretch the language than it is today regarding Iraq.
Please explain how "millions" of Americans have died because of our wars. Remember, you said "literally". I can't wait to see your math.
Alright not millions, it was only just over one million. So perhaps I should rephrase and say your passion is noble but it has cost just over a million American deaths.
No they don't. They are hopelessly outmatched. The French resistance had no chance against Hitler.
I'm talking about a resistance within a country against the tyrannical rule of its own government, not one country against the occupation of another (the Iraqi insurgents come to mind). Our Revolutionary war is an example of a successful resistance. Only between 3 and 5 percent of our population fought against the British.
That 500,000 figure has been thoroughly discredited and debunked and is only being spouted by left-wing web sites. I challenge you to provide evidence for your claim.
You're absolutely right, I apologize. Only about 100,000 have died since our invasion. That's much better.
No, you support something worse. You support enabling megalomanical dictators to have free run of the planet. You Paulites are the dangerous people. Millions of Jews being killed? You don't care. Saddam has lots of mass graves? You don't care. You Paulites probably wouldn't even fight if Al-Qaeda came to your front door and forced your wife to permanently wear a burka.
Having free run of the planet assumes that no other nation in the world has the capability to defend themselves, and it assumes Saddam had the drive and the means to conquer the world. Where do you get these ideas? I would fight anyone who would try to take my freedoms away.
So, you want to wait until they attack us here in America? Oh wait, they just did a few years ago! In New York! Congress voted to attack, according to the constitution, remember. We first went to Afghanistan and fought them. Al-Qaeda was also in Iraq, we went to Iraq and fought them. Zarqawi was leading their troops. IN IRAQ! REmember? We killed him. We now continue to fight them in Afghanistan. You got a problem with all this sequential logic? Do tell.
The point is not to wait to be attacked, the point is to defend against attack. We were attacked on 9/11 specifically because of our interventions abroad. Like I said before, interventions have consequences, and we reaped the whirlwind. The fact that our interventions spurred the attacks doesn't excuse the attacks though. Al-Qaeda was not in Iraq before we invaded; this has been thoroughly debunked by the Pentagon itself. However, since we've been in Iraq, Al Qaeda does have a presence. And why wouldn't it? We decided to make it easier for them to attack us by coming over to their side of the world. Now they don't even have to worry about crossing our border undetected! Your logic has no credible sequence.
How sad. Nobody cares to look at history and see what made Hitler who he was, and why he made it to power to begin with.
Pacifism means war and violence are never used to solve disputes. I hope you understand what pacifism is now. I agree we didn't go in hard enough, and I believe it was stupid to go into Iraq at the same time we were still in Afghanistan.
I shouldn't have to tell you this, but surrendering means we stop fighting and become prisoners of war. Leaving Iraq and surrenduring to Iraq are two different things.
Yeah, throwing in the towel and just leaving the ring are two totally different things, too. But the result is the same: you lose, your opponent wins.
***Our foreign policy wasn’t destructive enough from the get-go.***
I don’t think a destructive foreign policy is desirable, unless you mean against the enemy.
***I don’t even care if that means turning mecca into the world’s biggest sheet of glass, but surrender is not the answer.***
Firstly, how can you even entertain destroying Mecca? Every muslim in the world would be up in arms and regardless of what religion one is, the idea of destroying the holiest site of any religion should abhor EVERYONE. Our legacy would be completely shattered if we did something like that. No one is advocating surrender, just pulling out. Surrender would mean leaving the troops there and handing them over to the enemy. (Don’t call me a pacifist, I didn’t support one view over the other, I’m just pointing things out.)
Not necessarily. I think we need to finish Iraq because we’re there, but when we “finish” there’s still going to be violence (obviously there can never be 100% peace and stability in any country). We will still have enemies in the country when we leave but that doesn’t mean we’d be “throwing in the towel” because we’re leaving on our terms. Leaving on one’s own terms is not surrendering or throwing in the towel. We have to decide at what point victory is achieved.
From what I understand ahving talked to people that have served in Iraq, the majority of attacks come from people who are paid by operatives (usually Al Qaeda) to shoot at American convoys. THey aren’t really the “terrorist insurgent” one thinks of when watching the news. At this point, I think Iraq is near ready to handle itself, and I for one wouldn’t be sad if we stopped nation building.
Paul will say things that most conservatives can agree on...but his cult followers are just waaaaaaaaaay out there.
Id never vote for him or be seen in public with the Paul supporters I met a few years ago. They claimed to be the top tier..what ever that means.
These are hypotheticals and it’s hard to know when, where, and how someone like Hitler will do what he did. But IF we had stopped them, lives would have been saved. That said, genocide is happening all over Africa and South east Asia and no one does a damn thing. Personally, I don’t think we should because it isn’t our fight, and it invariably costs more money than we have. Some say this is selfish, but I have the same attitude towards the poor. Giving them a handout doesn’t help them.
As with all analogies, yours is simply not adequate to address the issue. Leaving Iraq, as well as bringing our troops home from the over 700 bases we have abroad, does not result in anyone "winning". That would necessitate that we were defeated, but defeat cannot take place unless we actually lose. And I firmly believe we can keep fighting in Iraq for a hundred years without losing, although it would bankrupt the nation in the process. What I believe we need is a basic policy change, one that would give us a strong national defense so that we could actually protect our borders.
It is true Ron Paul attracts the crazies. I guess that’s because the crazies are so anti government and Ron Paul wants to drastically cut government.
I didn't post an article. I'm very glad you have researched the issue. Perhaps now you could stop name calling so a real discussion could take place.
The same argument could have been made (and probably was) regarding our resolve in WWII, Vietnam, and Korea.
The significant differences between those engagements, is that in WWII we made the commitment to defeat our enemies, we did so, and now those nations are among our chief trade partners, we are at "peace" with them. I would consider Italy, Germany, and Japan all to be very treasured allies.
Contrast that with Vietnam and Korea where we chose options other than victory over our opponents, and you have, at least in the case of Korea, the prolonged presence you suggest could result in Iraq (And I believe you are correct that it could - IF we do not succeed in defeating our enemy there).
In the case of pulling out of Vietnam before we had defeated our enemy, that action did in fact equate to us (and the allies we abandoned) losing and our enemy winning.
I agree with that.
By the way, you aren’t just advocating surrender in iraq, you’re doing it for afghanistan too. Iraq is the “popular defeat” but you know that exposing your afghanistan position makes you extremely unpopular with just about everyone who isn’t a nut. So I’ll say it again, I would die before voting for a canidate who would surrender in afghanistan.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.