Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

A Word on Surrender (Pro Ron Paul)
The Flada Blog ^ | Aug. 9, 2007 | Edmund Snyder

Posted on 08/09/2007 10:20:23 AM PDT by Equality 7-2521

A Word on “Surrender”

by Edmund Snyder August 9th, 2007

White Flag from Surrender of Cornwallis
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 »


TOPICS: Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: blog; bravesirrobin; coward; gutless; paulbearers; paulestinians; paulistas; ronpaul; surrender; wot
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100101-105 next last
To: xjcsa
How about considering that actions have consequences, and the consequences of withdrawal would likely be genocide in Iraq now, and in America later.

Horse manure. You cannot offer a single shred of evidence to support that. It is nothing more than robotically regurgitated neocon hysteria.

81 posted on 08/09/2007 1:43:39 PM PDT by NCSteve (I am not arguing with you - I am telling you. -- James Whistler)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: NCSteve; xjcsa
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.

82 posted on 08/09/2007 1:45:16 PM PDT by mnehring (Ron Paul is as much of a Constitutionalist as Fred Phelps is a Christian)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: mnehrling
Two historical events as evidence. What happened after we left after Vietnam.

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.

83 posted on 08/09/2007 2:08:53 PM PDT by NCSteve (I am not arguing with you - I am telling you. -- James Whistler)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: NCSteve

Then what is your evidence that the opposite will happen?


84 posted on 08/09/2007 2:10:00 PM PDT by mnehring (Ron Paul is as much of a Constitutionalist as Fred Phelps is a Christian)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: mnehrling

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.


85 posted on 08/09/2007 2:18:11 PM PDT by NCSteve (I am not arguing with you - I am telling you. -- James Whistler)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: samtheman
Admittedly, what I am doing is Monday morning quarterbacking. However, Pentagon interference with field commanders to the point of micromanaging did not work in Vietnam and has not worked here. We also hesitated in using our military power to the maximum extent and engaged in something less than full war but something more than civil police activity. The Brits were bogged down in Northern Ireland for almost 40 years in a similar situation, but that was legally a part of their own country. Iraq is 8,000 miles away, and has a radically different religion, culture, and history than we have. The entire Middle East has but one nation, Israel, that has a governmental system similar to ours. The Jewish people have longstanding ties with Western civilization, and the Zionist pioneers of that nation were European, by and large. Expecting to establish a similar government in Iraq, which never was a nation to begin with but an amalgam of different tribes and ethnic groups in ancient Mesopotamia, was the height of foolishness.

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.

86 posted on 08/09/2007 2:24:54 PM PDT by Wallace T.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: Equality 7-2521

Great article, thanks for the post.


87 posted on 08/09/2007 2:36:43 PM PDT by Extremely Extreme Extremist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wastedyears
What did we do in response to unrestricted submarine warfare from Germany? We went to war. What did we do in response to Japan attacked our naval base in Pearl Harbor? We went to war. What did we do in response to Islamic extremists flying aircraft into the World Trade Center? We went to war. I’m all for going back to our isolationist policy again, but if somebody attacks us they will be damn sure we’ll fight back and win.

Amen to your post.

People seem to forget the reason we are fighting-we were attacked!

88 posted on 08/09/2007 3:04:36 PM PDT by fortheDeclaration (We must beat the Democrats or the country will be ruined! - Lincoln)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: SJackson
Amazing what a little context will do to clear up things!

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.

89 posted on 08/09/2007 3:09:41 PM PDT by fortheDeclaration (We must beat the Democrats or the country will be ruined! - Lincoln)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: Equality 7-2521
To walk away from an ongoing conflict with no victory and no plans to regroup is to surrender.

Ron Paul is a surrender monkey.

90 posted on 08/09/2007 3:10:24 PM PDT by P-Marlowe (LPFOKETT GAHCOEEP-w/o*)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Equality 7-2521
You're wasting your time. What makes you think that anything is going to convince the 25% of people left who are so knuckleheaded that, to this day, they believe the Iraqi invasion is a success?
91 posted on 08/09/2007 4:08:31 PM PDT by JTN ("I came here to kick ass and chew bubble gum. And I'm all out of bubble gum.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fortheDeclaration
Amazing what a little context will do to clear up things!...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.

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.

92 posted on 08/09/2007 4:19:02 PM PDT by SJackson (isolationism never was, never will be acceptable response to[expansionist] tyrannical governments)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: Extremely Extreme Extremist

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.


93 posted on 08/09/2007 4:25:41 PM PDT by Equality 7-2521 ("Ron Paul, the only rational Republican" --BadEye)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: George W. Bush
From the article a point I agree with on 100% and is the real heart of the matter proving Ron Paul right and Bush wrong on policy in Iraq.

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.”

94 posted on 08/09/2007 4:49:33 PM PDT by cva66snipe (Proud Partisan Constitution Supporting Conservative to which I make no apologies for nor back down)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: Equality 7-2521
So your opinion is that the principles on which this republic were built are anachronistic because the founders are all dead?

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

95 posted on 08/09/2007 6:56:30 PM PDT by HoustonTech
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: HoustonTech

I’m curious why they would be in graves if they were alive.


96 posted on 08/09/2007 7:08:20 PM PDT by Equality 7-2521 ("Ron Paul, the only rational Republican" --BadEye)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: Equality 7-2521
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.

You mean that stance where he wants us to run away, right?

97 posted on 08/09/2007 7:11:37 PM PDT by humblegunner (Word up!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GulfBreeze; All

I don’t recall Thomas Jefferson issuing a letter of marquee against the Barbary Pirates..


98 posted on 08/09/2007 7:12:39 PM PDT by KevinDavis (Mitt Romney 08)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: ex-snook; All

Spoken like a true Armchair General Dope.. I think Binny is dead and even if we did capture him the war is not over...


99 posted on 08/09/2007 7:15:59 PM PDT by KevinDavis (Mitt Romney 08)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: SJackson; All

Plus the fact the dangers faced by Washington was much different than the dangers we face today.


100 posted on 08/09/2007 7:18:55 PM PDT by KevinDavis (Mitt Romney 08)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100101-105 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson