Sunday, September 09, 2007

Where the presidential candidates line up on war in Iraq

Where the presidential candidates line up on war in Iraq Mr. Paul, the most passionate opponent of the war among the GOP candidates, unsuccessfully proposed legislation that would have removed all troops from Iraq by the spring of this year.
If you care about peace, you'll hang a Ron Paul sign in your window. Make one yourself.


Anonymous said...

John K. says: Actually don't care about peace. Care about victory. Not winning but victory. We had peace in the 1990's and what did it get us? We need victory like we had in 1945. That ensures peace. Ron Paul is nuts. He would propose a return to a period of time in this country that never existed except for the first two months of the Washington admin. Jefferson sent four warships and 8 Marines onto the Barbary coast to ensure peace. He did it thru victory. And he did it without an act of congress. So much for Ron Paul and his return to the thrilling days of yesteryear.

Mark Rauterkus said...

You are at odds with the truth.

Your "victory" is a false hope, should it arrive, but, it won't even be possible. So, it is like false hope squared.

Talk about a time that "never existed" is funny.

You seem to want to be the one to make oppression.

Anonymous said...

John K. says: "At odds with the truth" What does that mean? You are the sole arbitrator of truth? The Jefferson analogy did in fact exist. And if Ron Paul is going to be a strict constitutionist, then that is the references I will use.
Yes, we are playing not to lose in Iraq. And the results are predictable. We should be playing for total victory. Much the same as Grant and Sherman fought the war in 1865. Total victory brings the peace. I have no clue what you ment in your last line, "you seem..."
Ron Paul proposes total withdrawal. And have we found out in the 1990's as well as the 1930's, the enemy will follow us home.

Mark Rauterkus said...

Ron Paul aims to be President in 2008. He'll be as strict as possible given today's world.

You look to Jefferson as a reference. However, don't overlook the lack of victory since 1945.

Playing for total victory is a bogus wish. It isn't 'play' for starters. Dropping a NUKE on a couple of Iraq trouble spots isn't okay with me, nor is it okay with the rest of the world. That's how you'd have to play for 'total victory.'

Those who said it would be an easy win were the one's who rushed into it. They were wrong. Those who want to play for victory now are wrong as well. It won't come there with that strategy.

Inserting more insanity is going to deliver more insanity.

In the 1990s, the USA was everywhere.

Plus, the enemy of 9-11 -- have they been caught yet????

The Soviets tried for total victory in Afghanistan. Did it work for them?

Anonymous said...

John K. says: Did not overlook the lack of victory since 1945. Notice I stopped with that year. Total victory can be obtained without use of nuclear weapons. Would not recommend that at all. Instead I would recommend a war conducted in the manner of Gen Sherman and Grant in 1865. The soviets did try for total victory in Afghanistan but we helped thwart that. I fail to see any comparison between the Soviets and us.
Total victory in Iraq is the only way to go. The surge is working. Al queda morale is sagging and Bin Laden has been reduced to hoping the Democrats in this country bail him out.
But, Ron Paul's problem is that he cherry picks the Constitution when it comes to foreign policy. He hopes that is we just return all troops to the US the bad guys will go away. I reference the past (1990's and 1930's) to prove my case. Chamberlain had peace also. Up to, I might add, May 1940.

Anonymous said...

Confounding critics who deride his international policy approach as naïve or
simplistic, the prestigious Johns Hopkins Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced
International Studies (SAIS) in Washington, D.C., has invited Ron Paul to make
a keynote policy address on September 11.

Ron Paul will be speaking on “A Tradtional Non-Intervention Foreign Policy”
– topic that has likely languished in most US international schools and
think tanks in the modern era. Says one source close privy to the negotiations
surrounding the invitation, “This school is engaged in a 20th century,
interventionist, foreign policy approach. For them to invite him to make a major
address like this shows how seriously his views are being taken by the
educational establishment and by the political establishment in general.”

And he adds, “This election has come down to Ron Paul versus the rest of the
Republican candidates. He has set the party on its ear, and anyone who
thinks that he is a so-called fringe candidate at this point is not grasping

The announcement reads as follows:

"A Traditional Non-Intervention Foreign Policy"
11 a.m. to Noon - Kenney Auditorium, Nitze Building

Ron Paul, Republican congressman and 2008 presidential candidate, will
discuss this topic. For more information and to RSVP, contact or
202.587.3237. Media who want to cover this event should register with Felisa
Neuringer Klubes in the SAIS Communications Office at 202.663.5626 or

SAIS is one of the most prestigious American schools for international
studies. The website describes the school as follows:

“The Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS) in
Washington, D.C., is a leading graduate school of international affairs, educating
students for professional careers in government, business, journalism,
international law and non-profit organizations. Founded in 1943 by Paul Nitze and
Christian Herter, SAIS has been a division of The Johns Hopkins University
since 1950.”

Mark Rauterkus said...

The Soviets were thwarted, in part, because others stepped up and helped the locals.

Likewise, should the US go for total vicotry, others are sure to step up and help the locals. Others are already standing up to help them and to help beat us back.

It does NOT make sense to take on the world so as to have a victory in Iraq and a victory in Afghanistan.

This victory effort is a bully move so as to save face.

We'll have increased "blow back" directed at the US for generations to come.

It is okay to cherry pick the constitution. There are lots of great points to pick from in that domain.

Should the opposite hold by NOT pick cherry's from the constitution, go to the other end -- picking shrapnel out of your butt.

Anonymous said...

John K. says: Just remember when dealing with Ron Paul and his philosophy of non-intervention. Jefferson did not follow that line and won. Lincoln beat back the 1864 Democrats (copperheads) and won. FDR ignored played lip service to the idea and won. The idea of non-interventionalism went out in 1939. We are too big, we represent too much to the world and we should act like it. Fight to total victory.