FORUM QUICK LINKS > News | Economy | DP Liberty Forum | Activism | DIGG! | Books | Videos | Events | RP Repubs | Rand Paul 2010

   

Surrender Should Not Be an Option

Surrender Should Not be an Option
by Ron Paul
Sep 04, 2007

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.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Bush was Right in 2000!

Look at You Tube video called "Bush Lying in Election 2000" to see Bush rightfully condemning the Clinton administration for Haiti, Somalia, and other nation building adventures. Bush said we should have a humble foreign policy. Bush was right back then and Ron Paul is right,now. 911 changed nothing because Saddam Hussein didn't attack us. It would make more sense to invade Cuba because we know Fidel Castro is a brutal dictator who oppresses his people and he's right here in our own hemisphere. It's really sad that some people oppose Ron Paul for being anti-war unless, of course, they opposed Bush for being anti-war back in 2000 and loved Clinton for favoring a policy of foreign interventionalism.

Bush got us into a mess over there and now the news media and the other Repulicans feel they have to go along with him and pretend we're on the right course. Bush keeps sying it would be a sign of weakness and it would send the wrong message to the terrorists if we were to back out now. What about sending Bush's election 2000 message where he said, "We don't walk into a country and tell people what to do."

This is what I want to hear.

This is the type of tough talk I want to hear coming from Ron Paul.

Keep it up Dr. Paul.

Mission accomplished

We should counter this "surrender" argument with the picture of the president in front of the Mission accomplished banner. And say "foreign occupation is un-American. Time to come home!"

Bravo!

This article is absolutely the most powerful, direct, and Presidential statement I have ever read from Dr. Paul. There is hope for America! I want Dr. Paul to be my President!

It's all about the oil

Our whole motivation for being there at all is to keep the oil reserves under our control, instead of others. There are massive, unexplored reserves there and Cheney/Halliburton et al are well aware of them. "W" is only way too happy to enlist the help of the US forces to keep them under our thumb. That may be construed as National Security, but it's also kindof like "stealing". You'll have to make the call for yourselves.

And we're not about to leave the oil reserves. We could actually care less about democracy in the area, as long as we're running the show. Take a look at the foreign embassy we're building in Iraq......it's the largest in the history of the US. Now, go figure.

"Our" control?

Do you get a check from an oil company? Do you get gas for free?
Who's control is the oil under? Ours?

Natural resources? Perfect.

I don't really favor democracy for anyone else but Americans.

If there was EVER an actual "legitimate" reason for going to war, oil would be it. I never understood why these crazy lefties acted like using force on behalf of acquiring natural resources was some how insane--it's downright human and pragmatic. Unfortunately, it's hardly constitutional, and war in all cases is the health of the state. Too bad for America.

Indeed

At the TX straw poll the people sitting around me during the candidate speeches ACTUALLY ARGUED that we needed to be in Iraq FOR OIL.

I was so shocked. Usually a neocon will claim virtuous reasons for invading Iraq but these people shamelessly admitted it was for oil. They even made it sound like anyone who didn't know it was for oil from the very beginning was an idiot. They also seemed completely unapologetic about it as though we are justified in taking it from them.

Profit sharing plan

Did you ask them if the troops get to split the profits?

oil

that is funny, one of the speakers said that too. Talk about making left wing democrats correct.

Right On!

This should be used as part of his speech in California (USC).