This is a statement the campaign emailed to me yesterday:
Dr. Paul would rely on the advice of the JCS to develop and implement a withdrawal plan. Far be it for him to micromanage such an operation.
Sunday, January 27, 2008
Ron Paul Campaign on Iraq Withdrawal
One of the objections against supporting Ron Paul some have given in previous post comments is his pledge that he would "immediately withdraw" from Iraq. Their fear is this would cause chaos and death, as withdrawals done with proper attention to details take time.
This is a statement the campaign emailed to me yesterday:
This is a statement the campaign emailed to me yesterday:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
11 comments:
I see no links can you give us an historic example? Who will experience the bloodbath,
american soldiers? They didn't experience a bloodbath in Vietnam and conditions were a lot worse there. Iraqis? The already are experiencinga bloodbath and since we ethnically cleansed their neighborhoods its calming down.
Stop shilling everything you read from the neocons.
I doubt that this will calm their "fears". Not to get another fight started, but I wonder if the resistance to withdrawal is partly because the members of the military have been trained to do this and people have a natural desire to use their training. I'm just wondering.
Oh, yes, the famous brainwashing quotes again. I see you've learned absolutely nothing from our conversations, Kent. For someone who has no clue what our training actually IS, you're sure quick enough to accuse us of being brainwashed by it.
For the record, I've written out my concerns here. I don't expect any more rational discourse from those who are intent on believing the worst about the military, but at least I'm on the record with my concerns.
I am referring to normal human behavior, not brainwashing. All brainwashing is training, but not all training is brainwashing.
Ummmm? What?
Do you honestly believe that because we receive training in marksmanship, survival skills, hand-to-hand combat, etc, that we are just itching to use it on innocent civilians? That claim is something akin to accusing all gun owners, who train relentlessly with their self defense tools, of just itching to cap themselves a thug. Personally, I hope I NEVER have to use my gun defensively, but if I do, I'm glad I have the training to do so.
"Stop shilling everything you read from the neocons"
Anon, I said "in previous post comments" others have stated that, and I have vigorously tried to defend the Paul campaign against this charge.
So don't accuse me of shilling anything.
I'm working on new posts right now that won't get done if I stop and satisfy everybody coming into the conversation late by revisiting posts that are several days old. If you're that interested, do a Ron Paul search on this site before coming out with the insults--that you'd think I shill for neocons just proves you're ignorant and know nothing about this site or my positions, but nonethless somehow "feel" qualified to render a spot judgment--and obnoxiously at that.
Anon, you cannot believe what you wrote. If you had not read here, you wouldn't be qualified to have an opinion, if you have read here, then you know you are a liar.
David C. and I have disagreements on occassion, but I can tell you without any reservation that what David says, he believes and has arrived at that belief through much thought and a high moral sense.
Sometimes the interpretation of information differs from one to the other, sometimes the interpretation of that information is similar but different facets of it are weighted differently. However that information is interpreted by David or however he weights its different aspects, he has never done so dishonorably or in any way strayed from his principles. You owe him an apology.
Sorry David, I know you don't need me to defend you, but I really dislike yapping little heel-biters.
Please forgive my presumption to speak on your behalf, but I know you wouldn't speak as highly of yourself as I and others regard you.
Anon, you are a dream come true. Right, American Soldiers did not experience a bloodbath leaving Viet-Nam.Your master at the Kremlin would be proud of your ability to twist things a bit. Uh, we did suffer to the tune of some, oh, 1,200 casualties, mostly wounded, and I'm sure they would agree with you that it wasn't all that bad, except for the ones who lost their lives, arms, legs and such. But of course, you've never experienced such things, have you darling, and we wouldn't want you to. But your masters would really be proud, as Jane Fonda is,(but,strangely, quietly, so) that you were able to omit the little pertinent fact that the Viet-Cong and North Vietnamese Army marched the entire middle class of South Viet-Nam out into the jungle and shot them. About One and One-Half Million People. Every doctor, lawyer, teacher, bureaucrat,plant manager,officer above the rank of lieutenant. Neocons you say? How very distasteful. I have met many people since returning from that war, most of them very pleasant. You dear Anon, are not one of them, and unless you stop regalling others with your mastery of the precepts of Marx, and it's utter disregard for humanity, you never will be. Consider yourself ethnically barren. I would call you a bad name, but I don't even like cursing dogs.
You see, this is why I ask the question: "What happened to the war?" It apparently has served its purpose as a political football, and is rarely mentioned by candidates, the pundits, or the major broadcast media, regardless of their team. Thank God this guy is still over there, or I wouldn't have a clue what's going on. However, I don't discount the possibility that the war will once more be used to sway voters if this Fall's election becomes a struggle.
If you will recall, the Red Team laid down a barrage of war-related fear and doubt beginning in the summer of '06 and peaking right before the Fall election. We know how that one turned out. Once again, the goal posts have moved, so we're supposed to play along and kick in a different direction. Come on, David, get with the program: Gimmi an 'R'! Gimmi an 'E'! Gimmi a 'D'! Red Team, Red Team, rah rah rah!
I was reluctant to comment on this before, but since this point keeps popping up on these pages, as do related concepts, I now feel compelled to discuss another political football: conservatism. I estimate that our gracious host shares my thoughts based on this statement:
"...'conservative' is a relative term based on what it is you're trying to 'conserve'..."
And it is here I admit my embarrassment that I don't exactly know what is a "conservative" based on its current use. This term has been subject to the same amount of redefinition as "liberal", though I shake my head when I hear certain Red Team political commentators, who regularly engage in such redefinition, lament that other players on the same team are attempting to redefine it as well. It should also come as no shock that Huckabee was surprised to find out that he was not a conservative. Political conservatism is preserving the establishment, right? So if the status quo is an overbearing and expensive central government controlled by rigid statists... that's what we want. Right?
My purpose here is to illustrate that both brands contain the same ingredients, and everything is coated in a dense layer of bull. After six (or seven) years, we can look at the job the troops have done so far -- especially the incredible adaptability of the Marine Corps -- but the issue is ultimately in the hands of an extremely paranoid federal government that is operating mostly outside the bounds set by the document from which it receives its power. (And I don't even have the PATRIOT Act or phone trunk monitoring in mind.) This is not an organization that could build a nation, let alone "regulate" one. We have a war effort that could use as much attention and funding as possible. Our Congress is wasting money investigating steroid use by professional entertainers, and elsewhere in the organization they're dispatching the Bundesgendarmerie to protect us helpless victims from the potentially dangerous epidemic of "Twin Falls" abbreviating.
I have my doubts. Considering the amount of waste and illegal behavior of the central government, what makes you think that any one of the presidential candidates won't preside over a permanent, uncontrollable bureaucracy that will eventually screw up the war, classify the papers that illustrate their mistakes, then shred the documents when the people demand an investigation? It would be a challenge to find three examples in the last thirty years where the feds didn't fabricate, alter, lose or destroy evidence when it was time for accountability.
Jeeze - if people don't trust the JCS to manage a safe withdraw of all forces, what's the alternative - to stay there forever? Or stay there until the country is "stabilized" - how ever long that is?
I wonder if the average soldier trusts the Joint Chiefs. If not, that doesn't seem like a very good sign of high morale...
I'm not too worried about the JCS engineering a withdrawal -- or an actual war for that matter. What I'm worried about is the color of the advice coming down to them on how best to build a nation and make a philosophical challenge to fundamentalist Islam.
Post a Comment