A Journal for Western Man

 

Surrender Should Not Be an Option

Rep. Ron Paul, M. D.

Issue CXXIV - November 10, 2007

 Recommend this page.

-----------------------------------

Principal Index

-----------------------------------

Old Superstructure

-----------------------------------

Old Master Index

-----------------------------------

Contributors

-----------------------------------

The Rational Business Journal

-----------------------------------

Forum

-----------------------------------

Yahoo! Group

-----------------------------------

Gallery of Rational Art

-----------------------------------

Online Store

-----------------------------------

Henry Ford Award

-----------------------------------

Johannes Gutenberg Award

-----------------------------------

CMFF: Fight Death

-----------------------------------

Eden against the Colossus

-----------------------------------

A Rational Cosmology

-----------------------------------

Implied Consent

-----------------------------------

Links

-----------------------------------

Mr. Stolyarov's Articles on Helium.com

-----------------------------------

Mr. Stolyarov's Articles on Associated Content

-----------------------------------

Mr. Stolyarov's Articles on GrasstopsUSA.com

-----------------------------------

Submit/Contact

-----------------------------------

Statement of Policy

-----------------------------------

 

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.

Congressman Ron Paul of Texas enjoys a national reputation as the premier advocate for liberty in politics today. Dr. Paul is the leading spokesman in Washington for limited constitutional government, low taxes, free markets, and a return to sound monetary policies based on commodity-backed currency. He is known among both his colleagues in Congress and his constituents for his consistent voting record in the House of Representatives: Dr. Paul never votes for legislation unless the proposed measure is expressly authorized by the Constitution.

To learn more about Congressman Ron Paul, visit his Congressional Home Page.

See Ron Paul's official website regarding his run for President in 2008

Recommend this page.

 

This TRA feature has been edited in accordance with TRA’s Statement of Policy.

Click here to return to TRA's Issue CXXIV Index.

Learn about Mr. Stolyarov's novel, Eden against the Colossus, here..

Read Mr. Stolyarov's new comprehensive treatise, A Rational Cosmology, explicating such terms as the universe, matter, space, time, sound, light, life, consciousness, and volition, here.

Read Mr. Stolyarov's new four-act play, Implied Consent, a futuristic intellectual drama on the sanctity of human life, here.