The Reward For Courage
"Right now, we're building an embassy in Iraq that is bigger than the Vatican. We're building 14 permanent bases. What would we say here if China was doing this in our country or in the Gulf of Mexico? We would be objecting..." -- Ron Paul
I've been watching the net for the past 18 hours or so and marveling at the inability of the neo-cons and their christo-fascist allies to understand exactly why Ron Paul was right when he pointed out the above inconsistency in American foreign policy. There's a huge disconnect going on here. Many of these people who are gutting Ron Paul oppose illegal immigration because they don't want their country "invaded" -- yet they apparently have no qualms about the U.S. going into other people's countries (with guns, no less) and running the show.
But I think Ron's best point that virtually everyone missed was when he pointed out that if this war we're engaged in was such a great idea, why didn't we declare war on Iraq? Now I know a lot of people (like Sean Hannity -- who was a raving lunatic and wouldn't even let Ron talk afterwards) happily say that congressional approval is just as good (I suppose when you've hitched your wagon to Shrub you have to rationalize a bit) … but there's a huge difference between the two. When you formally declare war, you commit yourself to a few things, such as:
A declaration of war is serious business and should not be entered into lightly. And that's precisely the point. The founders had the sense to realize that if we as a nation were going to commit lives and resources to a military undertaking, we should make sure we're all on the same page first. Aside from being constitutionally required, a declaration of war also means that Congress and the Senate commit themselves on paper to the war and its completion.
The difference between a congressional resolution and a declaration of war is the difference between a one-night stand and a marriage. While both result in some initial action, one is much more difficult to walk away from than the other and should require a hell of a lot more forethought.
Unfortunately, most politicians are so frightened of being pinned down on any issue that they always opt for the one-night stand. Sadly, that's what last night's debate really showed: nine blowhards unconcerned with principles, consistency, history, economics or liberty. It was all about pandering to the party base and playing on their fears, prejudices and superstitions. Ron Paul had the courage to be a principled defender of liberty and constitutional government. And that's precisely why he should (but never will) win the Republican nomination.
I've been watching the net for the past 18 hours or so and marveling at the inability of the neo-cons and their christo-fascist allies to understand exactly why Ron Paul was right when he pointed out the above inconsistency in American foreign policy. There's a huge disconnect going on here. Many of these people who are gutting Ron Paul oppose illegal immigration because they don't want their country "invaded" -- yet they apparently have no qualms about the U.S. going into other people's countries (with guns, no less) and running the show.
But I think Ron's best point that virtually everyone missed was when he pointed out that if this war we're engaged in was such a great idea, why didn't we declare war on Iraq? Now I know a lot of people (like Sean Hannity -- who was a raving lunatic and wouldn't even let Ron talk afterwards) happily say that congressional approval is just as good (I suppose when you've hitched your wagon to Shrub you have to rationalize a bit) … but there's a huge difference between the two. When you formally declare war, you commit yourself to a few things, such as:
- A definition of what "victory" means
- A willingness to achieve "victory"
- A definite endpoint (i.e. the unconditional surrender of nation X)
A declaration of war is serious business and should not be entered into lightly. And that's precisely the point. The founders had the sense to realize that if we as a nation were going to commit lives and resources to a military undertaking, we should make sure we're all on the same page first. Aside from being constitutionally required, a declaration of war also means that Congress and the Senate commit themselves on paper to the war and its completion.
The difference between a congressional resolution and a declaration of war is the difference between a one-night stand and a marriage. While both result in some initial action, one is much more difficult to walk away from than the other and should require a hell of a lot more forethought.
Unfortunately, most politicians are so frightened of being pinned down on any issue that they always opt for the one-night stand. Sadly, that's what last night's debate really showed: nine blowhards unconcerned with principles, consistency, history, economics or liberty. It was all about pandering to the party base and playing on their fears, prejudices and superstitions. Ron Paul had the courage to be a principled defender of liberty and constitutional government. And that's precisely why he should (but never will) win the Republican nomination.
posted by DrJDG @ 14:59
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home