A Word on Surrender (Pro Ron Paul)

The Flada Blog ^ | Aug. 9, 2007 | Edmund Snyder

[Badeye]

A great example of why I find myself reading your posts even when they aren’t directed to me.

Thanks.

[MEG33]

CUT N RUN might be more accurate...but we would be surrendering our gains.

[bamahead]

I would absolutely. As a matter of national honor and responsibility, whether or not he agreed with the original premise, or regardless of whether or not he started it himself.

Has nothing to do with the constitutionality of the original premise, nor is it a misquote. Washington was not an isolationist. He felt we shouldn’t be involved in foreign wars unless it directly impacted our security or we were brought in by direct provocation.

Iraq is debateable on those premises. It becomes less debateable depending on the degree to which you believe in the WMD issue....which I do believe Saddam was a viable threat. But those WMD are now likely buried in the Syrian desert somewhere, with or without the Syrian’s knowledge (most likely with).

And I’m not about to start screaming for us to invade another sovereign nation without extreme provocation or direct attack by them upon our soil or our interests.

I also think that we should maintain some sort of presence in the region, but not to the degree that some of you think we should.

[mnehring]

He felt we shouldn’t be involved in foreign wars unless it directly impacted our security or we were brought in by direct provocation.

...or, if you want to be technical about the Constitutionality of it, it could also be something that Congress has defined as an 'offense against the laws of nations' that is in our interest to punish (Article 1, Section 8, Subsection 10)

[George W. Bush]

	Ron's weekly message [5 minutes audio, every Monday] • Podcast • Weekly archive • Toll-free 888-322-1414 •
	Free Republic Ron Paul Ping List: Join/Leave

Geo. Washington, T. Paine on non-interventionism, avoiding entangling alliances

[MEG33]

Thank you!

[mnehring]

(From another thread as a continuation of post #45)

Here are some more ‘Conservative(sic)’ votes by Paul:

Voted NO on federal crime to harm fetus while committing other crimes.

Voted NO on forbidding human cloning for reproduction & medical research.

Voted NO on barring transporting minors to get an abortion.

Voted YES on funding for alternative sentencing instead of more prisons.

Voted NO on more prosecution and sentencing for juvenile crime.

Voted NO on military border patrols to battle drugs & terrorism.

Voted NO on allowing school prayer during the War on Terror.

Voted NO on allowing vouchers in DC schools.

Voted NO on passage of the Bush Administration national energy policy.

Voted NO on implementing Bush-Cheney national energy policy.

Voted YES on barring website promoting Yucca Mountain nuclear waste dump.

Voted NO on speeding up approval of forest thinning projects.

Voted NO on reforming the UN by restricting US funding.

Voted NO on requiring lobbyist disclosure of bundled donations.

Voted NO on prohibiting lawsuits about obesity against food providers.

Voted NO on prohibiting product misuse lawsuits on gun manufacturers

Voted NO on prohibiting suing gunmakers & sellers for gun misuse.

Voted NO on decreasing gun waiting period from 3 days to 1.

Voted NO on emergency $78B for war in Iraq & Afghanistan.

Voted NO on $266 billion Defense Appropriations bill.

Voted YES on more immigrant visas for skilled workers.

Voted YES on providing $70 million for Section 8 Housing vouchers.

Voted NO on promoting work and marriage among TANF recipients.

Voted NO on treating religious organizations equally for tax breaks.

[CenTexConfederate]

Thanks for the flag. Great article. Japan and Korea are both rich. It’s time for us to bring our troops home. Same with Europe, the cold war is over.The war on terror is a joke. 6 years after 9/11 and our great war time President won’t even protect our borders.

We should extend our hand in friendship to all those that want it, and mind our own business. No more meddling overseas. An old America First Foreign policy.

[SJackson]

Has nothing to do with the constitutionality of the original premise, nor is it a misquote.

See post 59, it is not only a widely used misquote, it's impossible for me to believe it's an accidental misquote.

[mnehring]

Ping Post #59 as you use this in your ping list posts..

[bamahead]

Right, but Congress has to formally define that specific offense, and then declare war based on them, which they really should have done with the Taliban regime, and also Iraq.

I certainly don’t have my boxers in a wad over that particular technicality, but I also don’t want to see it become a habit.

Why didn’t they with Iraq? They should’ve. But some of those weasels wanted an ‘out’ in case it went south. Which is pretty disturbing - and says a lot about our ‘leaders’ these days - ie: they don’t want to be committed on paper to finishing what they start, in case it becomes unpopular and affects their electability. Same can be said about a myriad of other issues as well...

[Ultra Sonic 007]

Holy crap, Chuck Hagel's more to the right than Paul?

Chuck Hagel?

Good grief, that's scary.

[mnehring]

See post #67 for a follow-up.

[free_life]

Can’t remember another presidential candidate running his campaign in Palestine. He is doing well apparently in the polls with Hamas, Hezbollia, Syrians, and others who are our enemies. Maybe he will run for president in Palestine next. He might win.

[jveritas]

Even Chuck Hagel is to the right of Lunatic Paul.

[jveritas]

In fact we need Lunatic Paul for amusment. Imagine how much less fun we would have if we do not have lunatic Paulestinians posting stuff about Lunatic Paul.

[bamahead]

Conceded and agreed.

When most people use the quote on isolationists terms, they use the latter half only, which simply states we need not become involved in foreign entanglements that don’t concern us or our interests directly.

If we are already involved by other means, those committments should be fulfilled.

[bamahead]

And if you’ll see # 38, you’ll see the statement by mnehrling that I originally responded to.

And I stand by that post wholeheartedly. That goes directly back to interpretation of constitutional intent and is at the very heart of the terms liberal vs. conservative.

[untrained skeptic]

Quotes by famous people sound nice but are ultimately pretty meaningless, especially when you consider that they lived in a time where isolation was far, far more practical.

All we need to do is look at history to see the multitude of examples of how isolationist and non-interventionist policies in the face of a growing threat have made matters far, far worse.

Where are all the great instances of where non-interventionism has caused growing problems to go away and brought lasting peace and prosperity?

If people want a real world example to open their eyes, I suggest they visit a relatively high crime area, blindfold themselves really well, and then handcuff themselves to a phone pole, and attach a sign to themselves saying "I want to be left alone". They should keep enough food and water on hand for a day or so, and have someone come and free them after that time passes.

The they can see how well non-interventionism works.

They can see if they are left alone.

They can see if no one bothers them.

They can see if no one steals their wallet or other possessions. Maybe even their food and water.

Maybe someone else will take pity on them and take steps to protect them, or bring them something to eat or drink once the stuff they had is stolen.

Maybe they can survive on the generosity of others after they have foolishly lost what they had and refused to adequately defend. You can't defend what is yours when you blindfold yourself and ignore what is happening around you.

Dr. Paul is a fool. He is a fool that refuses to learn from history and a fool that refuses to exercise common sense. He seems to believe that if we ignore problems and wish really hard for them to go away, they will disappear, or maybe someone else will deal with them so we won't have to do so. While our attempts at intervening have not always worked out well, usually due to a lack of will to follow through, failing to act has cost us dearly time and time again.

[SJackson]

I didn't direct the quote to you, just copied you in since you'd commented on quoting the founders.

Personally I've no problem with the Constitutionality of the Iraq war. While I'm supportive, the issue should be whether it was an intelligent decision, and whether we should still be there, not the whirling "there's no declaration of war". The fact is the founders left us with an amazingly flexible document which has stood the time, but also allows us to engage in stupid wars, raise taxes to outrageous rates (as high as 90% in the 50s to 70s), and expand government to our hearts content. Mistakes we make belong to us, and it's much more productive to address the current issues rather ponder whether the founders, actually a diverse group who disagreed fervently with each other, would somehow monolithically object to modern day issues.