Victory Delayed is Victory (and Honor) Denied
by Brady Wright
In a recent debate in New Hampshire, former Governor Mike Huckabee told Congressman Ron Paul that bringing the troops home from Iraq now would be a dishonorable homecoming. But Gov. Huckabee did not explain when exactly our troops will have the honor of victory they so deserve.
Regardless of one's opinion of the Iraq War, the truth is that our brave men and women have completed every objective they have been given. Let us recall all they have done and then consider whether they have earned an honorable homecoming.
● They quickly and decisively defeated the military of Iraq in one of our nation's largest and fastest military victories. Yet we are told they cannot come home with honor.
● They were asked to depose the brutal despot Saddam and they achieved that objective within days. Yet they cannot come home with honor?
● They were then asked to track down Saddam and his flunkies so that they could be brought to justice. Done.
● They were then told that we needed only to set up an Iraqi government to take the place of the one we had toppled. Mission accomplished.
● They were told that they needed to stay until democratic elections could be held in Iraq. Objective achieved.
All of these goals were met some time ago, and still our brave men and women are told they cannot come home with the honor they have most assuredly earned for themselves. It is an egregious affront to the service and valor of our fighting men and women that they are told that after all they have fought for, after all they have achieved, after all the battles they have won, that their coming home would be dishonorable.
Yes, there are still some who oppose us in and around Iraq, but this is a fact that is not likely to change no matter how long or hard we fight in the region. For example, Israel has been established for almost sixty years and has not yet exhausted the region of those who oppose her.
The war in Iraq has long since been won and it has been our mistake not to declare this victory. It is therefore time for us to openly declare the victory that our troops have won time and again. Every day we let go by without this declaration cheats them of their hard-won victory. Let us stop moving the goal posts, because victory delayed is victory – and honor – denied
Showing posts with label debate. Show all posts
Showing posts with label debate. Show all posts
Tuesday, October 02, 2007
Sunday, June 03, 2007
Why Aren't Your Views Mainstream?
I recently forwarded a link containing clips of Ron Paul from the first Republican debate to a friend of mine. He in turn forwarded the same email on to his step father with a bit of his own words in the body. He stated that the ideas that Ron Paul put forth were simple, logical, and made about as much sense as anything that he had heard coming out of a politician’s mouth.
My friends step father responded to the email with one point. The response simply stated that if Ron Paul's ideas made so much sense, then why do the majority of our fellow Americans not agree?
I have been thinking about this response for the better part of the day, and I have come up with only one conclusion about it. My conclusion is simply this: how can someone respond to such a position with such a weak and hollow remark? It is exactly this type of thinking that advances the mindlessness of the American citizenry today. Rather than rationally and coherently respond with rebuttals and ideas of their own, those who come to the table with the statist point of view have no real coherent thoughts when it comes to thinking outside the statist box. My friend's father used the same hollow logic that Rudy Giulliani used when he labeled Ron Paul’s views about possible reasons why we were attacked on 9-11 as absurd. Ron Paul listed several sources, including the 9-11 Commission report, as backing for his rationale, but all the apologists of the welfare-warfare state can come up with is, "That is absurd, not in the mainstream!"
Where is the intelligent debate on the statist side? It seems that most of the time someone challenges their conventional way of thinking, all they can do is dismiss that persons views as “outside the mainstream.”
I wonder if these same people would have responded with these same hollow words towards people of pro-abolitionist views during the early 19th century. I can only imagine someone trying to persuade another that slavery is morally wrong and must be abolished, and the other person’s only line of reason for the continuance of slavery being, “If you are so right, why doesn’t the mainstream agree with you?”
My friends step father responded to the email with one point. The response simply stated that if Ron Paul's ideas made so much sense, then why do the majority of our fellow Americans not agree?
I have been thinking about this response for the better part of the day, and I have come up with only one conclusion about it. My conclusion is simply this: how can someone respond to such a position with such a weak and hollow remark? It is exactly this type of thinking that advances the mindlessness of the American citizenry today. Rather than rationally and coherently respond with rebuttals and ideas of their own, those who come to the table with the statist point of view have no real coherent thoughts when it comes to thinking outside the statist box. My friend's father used the same hollow logic that Rudy Giulliani used when he labeled Ron Paul’s views about possible reasons why we were attacked on 9-11 as absurd. Ron Paul listed several sources, including the 9-11 Commission report, as backing for his rationale, but all the apologists of the welfare-warfare state can come up with is, "That is absurd, not in the mainstream!"
Where is the intelligent debate on the statist side? It seems that most of the time someone challenges their conventional way of thinking, all they can do is dismiss that persons views as “outside the mainstream.”
I wonder if these same people would have responded with these same hollow words towards people of pro-abolitionist views during the early 19th century. I can only imagine someone trying to persuade another that slavery is morally wrong and must be abolished, and the other person’s only line of reason for the continuance of slavery being, “If you are so right, why doesn’t the mainstream agree with you?”
Tuesday, May 22, 2007
Bill Maher on Ron Paul: "He is my New Hero"
So I just finished watching last Fridays rerun of Real Time on HBO, and was pleasantly surprised to hear Bill Maher defending Ron Paul's comments at the last Republican debate on Fox.
Maher was interviewing Chris Dodd (D-CT) at the beginning of the show when he made his comments about a man running for the Republican nomination named Ron Paul who has no chance of winning and can therefore speak the truth. He posed Paul's argument about America's foreign policy of interventionism that has served to drastically irritate much of the mid-east to a point where a 9-11 type attack became imminent. Dodd first disagreed on the grounds that he did not believe that 9-11 was a provoked attack, but host Maher quickly interjected by not allowing Dodd to in Maher's words, "do what the Republican's did to Paul." Maher told Dodd that Paul's words had been twisted. He explained that Paul's point was not to say that we were asking for the attack, but that we intervened to a point where someone was eventually going to respond.
Towards the end of the show Maher put together a stringed clip of the candidate's statements on the war on terror. Each candidate from Romney and Giuliani to McCain and on down the line repeatedly called for more use of torture to fight the war on terror. Romney actually suggested doubling the size of Guantanamo Bay. The clip ended with Ron Paul speaking of the Republican Party's tradition of being anti-war in the past. This was followed by the sound of crickets and dumb "dear in the headlights" looks on all of the other candidates faces.
After I finished writing this post, I noticed that Titanium Girl has posted the video clip from Real Time on her blog Titanium Thoughts. Check it out.
Maher was interviewing Chris Dodd (D-CT) at the beginning of the show when he made his comments about a man running for the Republican nomination named Ron Paul who has no chance of winning and can therefore speak the truth. He posed Paul's argument about America's foreign policy of interventionism that has served to drastically irritate much of the mid-east to a point where a 9-11 type attack became imminent. Dodd first disagreed on the grounds that he did not believe that 9-11 was a provoked attack, but host Maher quickly interjected by not allowing Dodd to in Maher's words, "do what the Republican's did to Paul." Maher told Dodd that Paul's words had been twisted. He explained that Paul's point was not to say that we were asking for the attack, but that we intervened to a point where someone was eventually going to respond.
Towards the end of the show Maher put together a stringed clip of the candidate's statements on the war on terror. Each candidate from Romney and Giuliani to McCain and on down the line repeatedly called for more use of torture to fight the war on terror. Romney actually suggested doubling the size of Guantanamo Bay. The clip ended with Ron Paul speaking of the Republican Party's tradition of being anti-war in the past. This was followed by the sound of crickets and dumb "dear in the headlights" looks on all of the other candidates faces.
After I finished writing this post, I noticed that Titanium Girl has posted the video clip from Real Time on her blog Titanium Thoughts. Check it out.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
