From the Wikipedia entry on surrender:
Posted on 08/09/2007 10:20:23 AM PDT by Equality 7-2521
From the Wikipedia entry on surrender:
"Surrender is when soldiers, nations or other combatants stop fighting and become prisoners of war, either as individuals or when ordered to by their officers. A white flag is often used to surrender, as is the gesture of raising one’s hands empty and open above one’s head.
Surrender may be conditional, if the surrendering party promises to submit only if after the victor makes certain promises. Otherwise it is unconditional surrender; the victor makes no promises of treatment other than those provided by international law. Normally a belligerent will only agree to surrender unconditionally if completely incapable of continuing hostilities.
…
Entire nations can also surrender in an attempt to end a war or military conflict. This is done through the signing of an armistice or peace treaty."
This article is in reply to all of the neo-conservatives who attempt to castigate Rep. Ron Paul for his stance on the Iraq conflict. As most readers already know, Rep. Ron Paul is running for the Presidency as a Republican. In opposition to every other Republican in the race, Paul has taken the principled stance that we should remove our troops from Iraq immediately. His position is supported by those of such greats as Thomas Paine, George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and James Monroe.
In Washington’s farewell address he said:
"The great rule of conduct for us, in regard to domestic nations, is in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible. Europe has a set of primary interests, which to us have none, or a very remote relation. Hence she must be engaged in frequent controversies the causes of which are essentially foreign to our concerns. Hence, therefore, it must be unwise in us to implicate ourselves, by artificial ties, in the ordinary vicissitudes of her politics, or the ordinary combinations and collisions of her friendships or enmities."
In his treatise, Common Sense, Paine established many of the non-interventionist policies that would become the keystones of the American body politic for many years. His arguments are as germane today as they were when he wrote them and are the foundations of conservatism, yet there is only one Republican in all of Congress that still holds to them. Read the rest of this entry »
Horse manure. You cannot offer a single shred of evidence to support that. It is nothing more than robotically regurgitated neocon hysteria.
Two historical events as evidence. What happened after we left after Vietnam. Osama's own words as to his motivation to attack the mainland US.
Anecdote is not evidence. The situations are also completely different. The so-called "insurgents" do not represent a standing army with organized leadership, as was the case in North Vietnam. Given that most of the existing Iraqi government is at least sympathetic to that of Iran, the most likely result is that Iran and Iraq will become one. Since the Iranians have no interest in slaughtering Kurds, who are mostly sypathetic to them as well, I expect that they will either be given autonomy or something close to it.
The fact that we leave does not make the situations in Vietnam and Iraq identical or even similar.
Osama's own words as to his motivation to attack the mainland US.
You're going to have to be a little more specific. Bin Laden has said a lot of things, most of which are also horse manure.
Then what is your evidence that the opposite will happen?
I did not offer that the opposite will happen, and I gave you the evidence of what I believe will happen.
What the neo-cons really fear is a Persian super-state that is hostile to US interests in the Middle East. Such a state would represent no credible threat to the United States itself, but would be a problem for American adventurism in the Middle East. Since that is a subtlety that is lost on the adoring followers of the neo-cons, they simply substitute the hysterical claim that leaving Iraq would result in Sharia in the US almost overnight. It is unfortunate that most of these people don’t bother to question the sublimely ridiculous nature of these claims nor do they examine the evidence to attempt to glean the more likely outcomes.
Just because Ron Paul (or Barack Obama or John Edwards) are in error in their desire for withdrawal does not mean that the present Administration engaged in tactics that were unsuccessful.
As Douglas MacArthur put it, there is no substitute for victory.
Great article, thanks for the post.
Amen to your post.
People seem to forget the reason we are fighting-we were attacked!
Washington was simply saying that no nation has permanent ties to other nations.
We almost went to war with France, a former ally, after the French Revolution and the rise of Napoleon.
Ron Paul is a surrender monkey.
Right, no permanent ties, fulfill obligations. Fair to say the intent was to fulfill obligation which aren't against American interest's since Washington was in no way supportive of honoring our mutual defense treaty with France.
Many (most?) historians consider our conflict with France in the context of the XYZ affair (end of the 1790s), our Navy and theirs engaged in combat off our coast, their coast, and in the Carribean, another of our many undeclared wars.
I think Washington elected in 2008 would recognize our commitments to Iraq.
Do we disagree on anything.
Thank you. My power has been out here in Pensacola in the Navy Corry Station housing for quite some time so unfortunately I haven’t been able to follow the progress of the thread properly.
As a matter of fact, we won the war in Iraq way back when GW Bush flew onto the USS Lincoln and announced that the mission was accomplished. We had ousted Saddam, the purported reason for going there in the first place. Instead of doing the smart thing, announcing our win and establishing reasonable terms for our withdrawal, Mr. Bush instead decided that some nation building was in order. That became our new objective–to establish a pro-Western regime in the region. Although some still claim that we are there to fight a war on terror, fighting against tactics is never going to accomplish much.
Because we didn’t have a Constitutional Declaration of War with a stated objective, President Bush has managed to turn a win that was as quick and easy as all of the cheerleaders said it would be into a complete disaster. Guess who voted against giving the President carte blanche to enter Iraq without a goal or exit strategy? If you said “Ron Paul” you win. Guess who submitted a bill to declare war with a stated objective? Again, that would be Ron Paul. Henry Hyde called Dr. Paul’s Constitutionally-based arguments “anachronistic.”
No, I don't belive those principles are anachronistic. But I will laugh my head off when a Paulophite makes claims for their support when they haven't endorsed any candidate at this point. You guys are always good for a laugh or two every day.
If those men were alive today, they would be rolling over in their graves. ;-D
I’m curious why they would be in graves if they were alive.
You mean that stance where he wants us to run away, right?
I don’t recall Thomas Jefferson issuing a letter of marquee against the Barbary Pirates..
Spoken like a true Armchair General Dope.. I think Binny is dead and even if we did capture him the war is not over...
Plus the fact the dangers faced by Washington was much different than the dangers we face today.
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.