Surrender Should Not Be an Option

Ron Paul's Texas Straight Talk ^ | 09/02/2007 | Ron Paul

[NapkinUser]

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.

[LdSentinal]

No objective person could look at this exchange and conclude that you are anything but a liar, an idiot or both, so there’s no point in interacting with you any further>

Translation: "Whaahh! I lost. Mommy, wipe away my tears."

Face facts, honey. You lost and your traitor, Ron Turd, believes in a fraudulent study. You had no idea that there was an October 2004 study and can't back up the 1,000+ killed per day claim.

Simply put, you're a hopeless, sad, arrogant and a stupid individual.

Good luck wiping away your tears from your loss.

[JTN]

For those interested in the facts, here are the relevant links. Obviously, neither study makes an estimate anywhere near 1,000 per day. Both are PDFs.

Mortality before and after the 2003 invasion of Iraq: cluster sample survey - This is the paper published in November, 2004, using data acquired during a survey of 33 clusters of 30 households conducted in September of that year. It compares death rates from the months before the invasion to death rates from the months after. "Making conservative assumptions", the estimate is that there were about 100,000 excess deaths in the 17.8 months after the invasion.

Mortality after the 2003 invasion of Iraq: a cross-sectional cluster sample survey - Published in October 2006, using data acquired from surveys of 1,849 households conducted from May to July of 2006, this paper estimates just under 655,000 excess deaths due to the invasion up to that point, 601,027 due directly to violence.