PDA

View Full Version : GOP Congressman Repents Iraq War Vote (Walter Jones of North Carolina)




FrankRep
10-28-2009, 04:36 PM
Walter Jones, a veteran Republican congressman, is conscience-stricken over his vote authorizing war in Iraq. By Jack Kenny


GOP Congressman Repents Iraq War Vote (http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/usnews/politics/2182-gop-congressman-repents-iraq-war-vote)


Jack Kenny | The New American (http://www.thenewamerican.com/)
28 October 2009


A veteran Republican congressman and self-described "Pat Buchanan American" now regrets he "didn't vote my conscience" in the fall of 2002, when he voted to authorize President George W. Bush to take military action against Iraq. As reported in NationalJournal.com (http://www.nationaljournal.com/congressdaily/print_friendly.php?ID=foa_20091026_5206), the "conscience-stricken" Walter Jones of North Carolina, a member of the House Armed Services Committee, is now writing a book he hopes will atone for what he now considers a sinful vote.

Jones is calling his book Daddy's Not Dead Yet, a title he has taken from a statement made in 2007 by a child in a classroom at Camp Lejeune, the large Marine Corps base located in Jones's Third Congressional District in the eastern part of the state. Jones had been invited to read a Dr. Seuss story to the students in a class at an elementary school on the base. When he asked for questions, one little boy said "Daddy's not dead yet." "Daddy's not dead yet," he repeated. Jones told the National Journal that he realized he had played go-along-politics with the life of the little boy's father instead of "listening to God" and voting against the House resolution authorizing the war.

"I profess to be a man of faith," Jones said, "but I didn't vote my conscience." Jones said that money from the book will be donated toward helping Americans wounded in Iraq and Afghanistan. His book will describe the cost in both lives and dollars of America's far-flung military commitments all around the world. The long-term costs of medical care for veterans of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars alone will be staggering, he said.

"The American people have no idea of what's coming as it relates to taking care of those veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan with traumatic brain injuries and Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder," Jones said. Some physicians who have studied the extent and cost of treating the mentally wounded have told him it will overwhelm both the government and private medical systems, he said. He told the magazine that he has also been conferring with retired generals over calls for increasing the number of American forces in Afghanistan. President Obama is still assessing the request of General Stanly McChrystal, America's commander in Afghanistan, for another 40,000 men, in addition to the 68,000 scheduled to be on the ground there by year's end. Jones said several of the retired generals have urged him to vote against sending more troops, arguing that America's all-volunteer armed forces are stretched to the breaking point. One told him both the Army and the Marine Corps are worn out, he said.

"We're trying to police the world," Jones said. "Every great nation prior to America that tried to police the world has failed economically. That's why I tell people that I'm a Pat Buchanan American. I want to stop trying to take care of the world and fix this country. Our problems are so deep that there is no easy way to fix them."

Jones is the son of a Congressman, the late Walter Jones, Sr., a Democrat who became chairman of the Merchant Marines and Fisheries Committee. The younger Jones was also a Democrat, but joined the Republican Party in 1993. He was elected to the House the following year and is now in his eighth term. Prior to his election the U.S. House, he served for 10 years in the North Carolina General Assembly.

According to the biography posted on his congressional website, Jones "has been a strong voice in fighting for an effective, commonsense government that returns power and control back to the people." On the latest "Freedom Index (http://www.thenewamerican.com/files/Freedom_Index_111-1.pdf)" published by The New American (http://www.thenewamerican.com/), Jones's votes on key issues before the House received an 80 percent favorability rating for consistency with the provisions of the U.S. Constitution. In his first term, Jones introduced the War Crimes Act of 1996 that gives former American prisoners of war the right to sue their captors in U.S. courts. The bill was signed into law by President Bill Clinton. The Hill newspaper has ranked Jones among the most bipartisan members of Congress in 2009.

Finally, a survey of Capitol Hill staff members conducted by Washingtonian magazine in 2004 found Jones ranked Number One among the 435 members of the House in the category, "Just Plain Nice."


SOURCE:
http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/usnews/politics/2182-gop-congressman-repents-iraq-war-vote

tajitj
10-31-2009, 09:05 PM
That is a stand up move and something EVERY SINGLE person who voted for it should feel.

How the Republican party can still back the war and blindly follow Bush and Cheney will be looked back as the worst political stance in modern history.

The Iraq War has been a total failure, just because violence is down does not mean it was worth it and necessary.

klamath
10-31-2009, 09:33 PM
I think we may be up to 4 republicans now that are turning against the endless wars. It is a good sign.

georgiaboy
10-31-2009, 10:09 PM
yes, it is a good sign, and this man deserves high praise for this principled stand. looking forward to reading the book.

GunnyFreedom
10-31-2009, 10:38 PM
I have long said that Walter Jones was one of the closest people to Ron Paul we have in Congress today, and this just confirms it. Yeah, everybody can make mistakes. This is wonderful news! Walter Jones is EXTREMELY respected here in these parts, and this stand will make it a LOT easier for me, as an Anti-Iraq-War Republican to speak about my position on this in North Carolina.

Austrian Econ Disciple
10-31-2009, 11:03 PM
I have long said that Walter Jones was one of the closest people to Ron Paul we have in Congress today, and this just confirms it. Yeah, everybody can make mistakes. This is wonderful news! Walter Jones is EXTREMELY respected here in these parts, and this stand will make it a LOT easier for me, as an Anti-Iraq-War Republican to speak about my position on this in North Carolina.

Whenever you talk with Christians ALWAYS cite Christian Just War Theory. It's interesting how they reconcile their support to a war that rips apart every tenent of the CHRISTIAN Just War Theory that Thomas Aquinas espoused. It gets them thinking, which is a good thing.

I'm sure you knew that all ready however. Any word on how you are doing in the campaign so far?

GunnyFreedom
11-01-2009, 12:28 AM
That's a great idea!

with regards to the campaign, I am hooking up with BJ Lawson this week about working together to get Ron Paul to come to Halifax to celebrate the Halifax Resolves of April 12th 1776. I am targeting Saturday, April 10th 2010 as the probable date for his appearance. Oh there is a lot more, of course, but yeah, it's been a lottle slow this last month. Mind you, I started WAY WAY early specifically so that I COULD get a slow start. 8-)

But I'm very encouraged to know that I'll be working at least to some degree with BJ Lawson.

Austrian Econ Disciple
11-01-2009, 12:41 AM
That's a great idea!

with regards to the campaign, I am hooking up with BJ Lawson this week about working together to get Ron Paul to come to Halifax to celebrate the Halifax Resolves of April 12th 1776. I am targeting Saturday, April 10th 2010 as the probable date for his appearance. Oh there is a lot more, of course, but yeah, it's been a lottle slow this last month. Mind you, I started WAY WAY early specifically so that I COULD get a slow start. 8-)

But I'm very encouraged to know that I'll be working at least to some degree with BJ Lawson.

Sounds good. Should be quite a thrill. I'd jump in myself into the electoral process (being a candidate), but I'm currently serving in the military, and secondly I don't want to jump into something that I am not yet educated enough to do so. With age comes wisdom also. I do my best though to contribute whichever way I can.

How is the local support for you? I also find it encouraging that local candidates are open with their views. Hope you do well!

PS: If you do get elected, remember, we'll hold your feet to the fire with a bucket of tar around the corner. :p

GunnyFreedom
11-01-2009, 01:26 AM
OK, since I am currently in the process of arguing with a republican on Facebook who retorted that "Walter Jones should go back to being a Democrat" on the news that he has repented of hs decision to go to war, I have formulated the following argument: (Thanks to Austrian Econ for giving me the idea to argue from Just War Doctrine)

Arthur F. Holmes, "Just-war Theory" in IVP's New Dictionary of Christian Ethics and Pastoral Theology, ed. David J. Atkinson, David F. Field, Arthur Holmes, and Oliver O'Donovan, 1995, pp.521-523.

Bear in mind that for Thomas Aquinas Just War Doctrine, ALL of the points below must be met, not just a majority.

1) A just war can be started only in defense against violent aggression.

The invasion of Iraq was a preemptive attack based on evidence of WMD's that simply did not exist.

Iraq and Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with 9/11 as demonstrated by President Bush's own words here: YouTube - Bush admits that Iraq Had Nothing To Do With 9/11 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f_A77N5WKWM) and Vice President Cheney's own words here: YouTube - Cheney admits no Iraq/9-11 Connection (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QWdq7hg4dLU)

Furthermore, Secretary of State Powell likewise admitted to CNN that the evidence for WMD's was flawed, and that they knew it even when it was presented.

Just War Doctrine point 1 not met.

2) The only just intention is to restore a just peace -- just, that is, to friend and foe alike.

If the invasion of Iraq were solely to restore peace, then first, peace would need to have been broken in the first place, and second, once Hussein was ousted and the WMD's turned out to not exist, the proper course according to Just War Doctrine would have been to leave. Clearly we have not left.

Just War Doctrine point 2 not met.

3) Military force must be the last resort after negotiations and other efforts (e.g, mediation) have been tried and failed.

Mediation was never attempted, and efforts on the part of Iraq to capitulate in advance of the invasion were rejected. Prior to the invasion of Iraq, the Prime Minister of Spain http://politicom.moldova.org/news/report-saddam-was-willing-to-leave-73353-eng.html went to President Bush to offer terms for the exile of Saddam Hussein. They were rejected without the possibility of negotiation. As it turns out, the reason Saddam Hussein did not want the world to know that he DIDN'T have WMD's was because he was more afraid of Iran than the US. http://politicom.moldova.org/news/fbi-releases-details-of-2004-talks-with-saddam-hussein-202170-eng.html

So every attempt had apparently been made by Iraq and the rest of the world to seek a peaceful solution, and such peaceful solutions were rejected by President Bush.

Just War Doctrine point 3 not met.

4) The decision to engage in such a just war must be made by the highest governmental authority.

Just War Doctrine point 4 met.

5) The war must be for limited ends, i.e. to repel aggression and redress injustice.

It has become clear that the ends in Iraq are unlimited. First it was WMD's and when they were not found it was Saddam Hussein, and when he was executed it was terrorists, and when they were all killed it was local elections, and once they were held it was security and stability. Every time we cross one line in the sand it is pulled back further and a new one is drawn.

This clearly demonstrates that there was no limited agenda of specific goals, but rather simply a continuing justification to prosecute war for the sake of war itself.

Just War Doctrine point 5 not met.

6) The means of a just war must be limited by proportionality to the offense.

The means we use to prosecute the Iraq war must be proportional to the original offense. While it has turned out that the original offense was fictitious, and thus there can be no 'proportional' response to an imaginary offense, if we were to assume that the original offense was real, then the offense was mere possession of a weapon, not even the use of said weapon. We went in with overwhelming force, and have actually /documented/ over 102,000 civilian (noncombatant) deaths. Clearly this is a non-proportional response.

Just War Doctrine point 6 not met.

7) There should be no intentional and direct attack on noncombatants.

Although there have been over 102,000 /documented/ civilian noncombatant deaths, as a former Marine who knows US Military doctrine, I will assume that such casualties were purely unintentional. so:

Just War Doctrine point 7 met.

8) War should not be prolonged when there is no reasonable hope of success within these limits.

Clearly, even after it was thoroughly documented that the WMD's were all fictitious, that there was no aggression on the part of Iraq, that the vast majority of points in the Thomas Aquinas Just War Doctrine were not met, we did not withdraw. Therefore there is specifically no hope of success "within these limits" as the limits of Just War Doctrine have long since been surpassed. And yet the war continues to be prolonged.

Just War Doctrine point 8 not met.

There we have it. Only 2 of 8 points of the Thomas Aquinas Just War Doctrine have been met. Thus a principled Christian should reject the justness of the Iraq war.

GunnyFreedom
11-01-2009, 01:42 AM
Sounds good. Should be quite a thrill. I'd jump in myself into the electoral process (being a candidate), but I'm currently serving in the military, and secondly I don't want to jump into something that I am not yet educated enough to do so. With age comes wisdom also. I do my best though to contribute whichever way I can.

How is the local support for you? I also find it encouraging that local candidates are open with their views. Hope you do well!

Local support is pretty good. I have the support of all 3 county GOP orgs (I have mentioned before that the local GOP is a different animal than GOP orgs elsewhere) and already about 20 volunteers for the canvass when it comes time. 20 people is already pretty good for just a State House district. Although I'd really like closer to 50.


PS: If you do get elected, remember, we'll hold your feet to the fire with a bucket of tar around the corner. :p

I would be deeply disappointed if that were not the case. Seriously. The notion that RPF'ers might elect oe of our own and then not hold us accountable is a bit repugnant to me. :)

emazur
11-01-2009, 01:49 AM
YouTube - Washington Watch - March 2009- Rep. Jones interviews Ron Paul (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SJlalxi9HMM)

GunnyFreedom
11-01-2009, 02:14 AM
Outstanding video emazur -- thanks so much for finding it and posting it! This just confirms again and again what I have been saying for a while now, that Walter Jones is one of the very closest Reps to Ron Paul in all of Congress.

emazur
11-01-2009, 03:09 AM
No prob - it was on these forums when I originally encountered it, so I'm just passing it around now

ronpaulhawaii
11-01-2009, 03:45 AM
About the Christian Just War Doctrine. The basic philosophy goes back to Cicero, at least. Augustine and Aquinas both developed it in regards to Christianity. And about Rep. Jones, that is good news for you and I hope you reach out to him. He has said good things about Adam.

Hmmmm...

Maybe we could all pitch in and get something for him, (to show we noticed and appreciate), and you could deliver it?

GunnyFreedom
11-01-2009, 04:46 AM
About the Christian Just War Doctrine. The basic philosophy goes back to Cicero, at least. Augustine and Aquinas both developed it in regards to Christianity. And about Rep. Jones, that is good news for you and I hope you reach out to him. He has said good things about Adam.

Hmmmm...

Maybe we could all pitch in and get something for him, (to show we noticed and appreciate), and you could deliver it?

He is close to my district but not in my district. Although I would be glad to do that. Will even enlist someone to take video of the event. 8-)

Austrian Econ Disciple
11-01-2009, 06:23 AM
About the Christian Just War Doctrine. The basic philosophy goes back to Cicero, at least. Augustine and Aquinas both developed it in regards to Christianity. And about Rep. Jones, that is good news for you and I hope you reach out to him. He has said good things about Adam.

Hmmmm...

Maybe we could all pitch in and get something for him, (to show we noticed and appreciate), and you could deliver it?

Though it may take some time, one recommendation would be for the staff to purchase said flag:

http://americanrevwar.homestead.com/files/culpep3.gif

Each staff member would sign it, and ship it to the next member. Once it reaches the last member he sends it off to Rep. Jones. Along with that, the support of our movement. Perhaps a mini-bomb?

kathy88
11-01-2009, 06:55 AM
I teared up a little when I read that. Good guy, it seems.

klamath
11-01-2009, 07:47 AM
OK, since I am currently in the process of arguing with a republican on Facebook who retorted that "Walter Jones should go back to being a Democrat" on the news that he has repented of hs decision to go to war, I have formulated the following argument: (Thanks to Austrian Econ for giving me the idea to argue from Just War Doctrine)

Arthur F. Holmes, "Just-war Theory" in IVP's New Dictionary of Christian Ethics and Pastoral Theology, ed. David J. Atkinson, David F. Field, Arthur Holmes, and Oliver O'Donovan, 1995, pp.521-523.

Bear in mind that for Thomas Aquinas Just War Doctrine, ALL of the points below must be met, not just a majority.

1) A just war can be started only in defense against violent aggression.

The invasion of Iraq was a preemptive attack based on evidence of WMD's that simply did not exist.

Iraq and Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with 9/11 as demonstrated by President Bush's own words here: YouTube - Bush admits that Iraq Had Nothing To Do With 9/11 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f_A77N5WKWM) and Vice President Cheney's own words here: YouTube - Cheney admits no Iraq/9-11 Connection (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QWdq7hg4dLU)

Furthermore, Secretary of State Powell likewise admitted to CNN that the evidence for WMD's was flawed, and that they knew it even when it was presented.

Just War Doctrine point 1 not met.

2) The only just intention is to restore a just peace -- just, that is, to friend and foe alike.

If the invasion of Iraq were solely to restore peace, then first, peace would need to have been broken in the first place, and second, once Hussein was ousted and the WMD's turned out to not exist, the proper course according to Just War Doctrine would have been to leave. Clearly we have not left.

Just War Doctrine point 2 not met.

3) Military force must be the last resort after negotiations and other efforts (e.g, mediation) have been tried and failed.

Mediation was never attempted, and efforts on the part of Iraq to capitulate in advance of the invasion were rejected. Prior to the invasion of Iraq, the Prime Minister of Spain http://politicom.moldova.org/news/report-saddam-was-willing-to-leave-73353-eng.html went to President Bush to offer terms for the exile of Saddam Hussein. They were rejected without the possibility of negotiation. As it turns out, the reason Saddam Hussein did not want the world to know that he DIDN'T have WMD's was because he was more afraid of Iran than the US. http://politicom.moldova.org/news/fbi-releases-details-of-2004-talks-with-saddam-hussein-202170-eng.html

So every attempt had apparently been made by Iraq and the rest of the world to seek a peaceful solution, and such peaceful solutions were rejected by President Bush.

Just War Doctrine point 3 not met.

4) The decision to engage in such a just war must be made by the highest governmental authority.

Just War Doctrine point 4 met.

5) The war must be for limited ends, i.e. to repel aggression and redress injustice.

It has become clear that the ends in Iraq are unlimited. First it was WMD's and when they were not found it was Saddam Hussein, and when he was executed it was terrorists, and when they were all killed it was local elections, and once they were held it was security and stability. Every time we cross one line in the sand it is pulled back further and a new one is drawn.

This clearly demonstrates that there was no limited agenda of specific goals, but rather simply a continuing justification to prosecute war for the sake of war itself.

Just War Doctrine point 5 not met.

6) The means of a just war must be limited by proportionality to the offense.

The means we use to prosecute the Iraq war must be proportional to the original offense. While it has turned out that the original offense was fictitious, and thus there can be no 'proportional' response to an imaginary offense, if we were to assume that the original offense was real, then the offense was mere possession of a weapon, not even the use of said weapon. We went in with overwhelming force, and have actually /documented/ over 102,000 civilian (noncombatant) deaths. Clearly this is a non-proportional response.

Just War Doctrine point 6 not met.

7) There should be no intentional and direct attack on noncombatants.

Although there have been over 102,000 /documented/ civilian noncombatant deaths, as a former Marine who knows US Military doctrine, I will assume that such casualties were purely unintentional. so:

Just War Doctrine point 7 met.

8) War should not be prolonged when there is no reasonable hope of success within these limits.

Clearly, even after it was thoroughly documented that the WMD's were all fictitious, that there was no aggression on the part of Iraq, that the vast majority of points in the Thomas Aquinas Just War Doctrine were not met, we did not withdraw. Therefore there is specifically no hope of success "within these limits" as the limits of Just War Doctrine have long since been surpassed. And yet the war continues to be prolonged.

Just War Doctrine point 8 not met.

There we have it. Only 2 of 8 points of the Thomas Aquinas Just War Doctrine have been met. Thus a principled Christian should reject the justness of the Iraq war.

Very good Gunny.

GunnyFreedom
11-01-2009, 09:59 AM
Very good Gunny.

Thanks! Update on the argument:

[name redacted]

Iraq agreed to a cease fire during Gulf War I. They violated provisions of that cease fire on a daily basis. That is the only reason needed to bomb them into non-existence.

about an hour ago




Glen Bradley ₢

LOL OK so clearly you do not subscribe to Christian just war doctrine. Thomas Aquinas must be so disappointed.

Now then, since you are using the UN as justification to go to war, then we must proceed under UN mandates for the justification of force.

To begin with, since the cease fire was a UN instrument, then the UN was required to lift the cease-fire to in order to legally resume hostilities from Gulf War 1. I understand you will view that as 'just a technicality' but illegal is illegal, and the reality is that since Gulf War 1 was a UN op, it could not legally be resumed without UN sanction, which they certainly did not grant.

You cannot argue that the UN was good enough to take us into war, good enough to affect the instrument of cease fire, but not good enough to prevent unilateral action to resume hostilities.

Nevertheless, this does not even address the fundamental problem in that Iraq to date has never harmed or even threatened the US. Up until 2001, all the undeclared warmongers in America were always Democrats, and it was Republicans, without fail, that got us OUT of these wars that the Democrats put us into.

So I would say that given the history of Korea and Vietnam, wherein the Democrats got us into them and Republicans had to extract us, perhaps YOU sir should become a Democrat, since they have historically, and remain, the party of random wars.

I am quite horrified at this idea that we should run around the planet bombing whatever countries do not bow down and kiss America's feet. President Eisenhower, decorated war hero of WW2, REPUBLICAN, and President of the United states said:

"I would say a preventive war, if the words mean anything, is to wage some sort of quick police action in order that you might avoid a terrific cataclysm of destruction later.

"A preventive war, to my mind, is an impossibility today. How could you have one if one of its features would be several cities lying in ruins, several cities where many, many thousands of people would be dead and injured and mangled, the transportation systems destroyed, sanitation implements and systems all gone? That isn't preventive war; that is war.

"I don't believe there is such a thing; and, frankly, I wouldn't even listen to anyone seriously that came in and talked about such a thing."

He also likened the notion to the practice of Adolph Hitler, which he in fact would be an expert on -- having actually fought the man in WW2.

I'm sorry [name redacted], but this notion of destroying whole countries who have never attacked or even threatened us "by any excuse necessary" is not a REPUBLICAN idea -- it is actually a Trotskyite idea and therefore a wholly communist idea.

This is why the left has loved all of these undeclared wars throughout history, and why the first Republican such war, was instigated by a 'moderate' leftist George Bush, and promoted by a 'moderate' leftist John McCain. Both of whom were Trotskyites.

As such it is not an American idea at all. In fact, I would go so far as to say it is outright wicked evil, and that you, poor soul, have been deceived if not outright brainwashed by the very leftist media that profits from these wars.

I do not mean to imply that YOU are evil, but rather that you are the victim of the evil, just like the tens of thousands of Germans who supported the invasion of Poland were victims of the propaganda machine which supported it. They did not know any better because their media filtered everything they saw and shaped their opinions, just as our media in America has now for the last 50 years.

On account of that media, you, a right-leaning conservative guy has quite unknowingly been deceived into supporting a radical leftist communist Trotskyite policy of preemptive warfare, global empire, and "exporting 'democracy' at the point of a gun."

That is how Communists operate, not freedom loving Americans! But you do still have a chance to spit the kool-aid out before it poisons your soul, and I sincerely pray to God the creator of heaven and earth in the name of the Savior, that you will.

2 seconds ago

GunnyFreedom
11-01-2009, 10:07 AM
Re: The leaning on the false paradigm of Republican vs Democrat

bear in mind that [name redacted] initiated the argument by saying that "Walter Jones should go back to being a Democrat" out of disgust for his having repented of his decision to authorize the war in Iraq.

I'm trying to demonstrate that warmongering has traditionally come from the 'left' side of the false paradigm, and is therefore more of a "Dem" idea than a "Rep" idea (which is actually true, mind you) in order to shatter his mythos. Until his mythos is shattered, there is no way in hell he will even be capable of accepting that Rep vs Dem is a false paradigm.

Austrian Econ Disciple
11-01-2009, 10:08 AM
Thanks! Update on the argument:

[name redacted]

Iraq agreed to a cease fire during Gulf War I. They violated provisions of that cease fire on a daily basis. That is the only reason needed to bomb them into non-existence.

about an hour ago




Glen Bradley ₢

LOL OK so clearly you do not subscribe to Christian just war doctrine. Thomas Aquinas must be so disappointed.

Now then, since you are using the UN as justification to go to war, then we must proceed under UN mandates for the justification of force.

To begin with, since the cease fire was a UN instrument, then the UN was required to lift the cease-fire to in order to legally resume hostilities from Gulf War 1. I understand you will view that as 'just a technicality' but illegal is illegal, and the reality is that since Gulf War 1 was a UN op, it could not legally be resumed without UN sanction, which they certainly did not grant.

You cannot argue that the UN was good enough to take us into war, good enough to affect the instrument of cease fire, but not good enough to prevent unilateral action to resume hostilities.

Nevertheless, this does not even address the fundamental problem in that Iraq to date has never harmed or even threatened the US. Up until 2001, all the undeclared warmongers in America were always Democrats, and it was Republicans, without fail, that got us OUT of these wars that the Democrats put us into.

So I would say that given the history of Korea and Vietnam, wherein the Democrats got us into them and Republicans had to extract us, perhaps YOU sir should become a Democrat, since they have historically, and remain, the party of random wars.

I am quite horrified at this idea that we should run around the planet bombing whatever countries do not bow down and kiss America's feet. President Eisenhower, decorated war hero of WW2, REPUBLICAN, and President of the United states said:

"I would say a preventive war, if the words mean anything, is to wage some sort of quick police action in order that you might avoid a terrific cataclysm of destruction later.

"A preventive war, to my mind, is an impossibility today. How could you have one if one of its features would be several cities lying in ruins, several cities where many, many thousands of people would be dead and injured and mangled, the transportation systems destroyed, sanitation implements and systems all gone? That isn't preventive war; that is war.

"I don't believe there is such a thing; and, frankly, I wouldn't even listen to anyone seriously that came in and talked about such a thing."

He also likened the notion to the practice of Adolph Hitler, which he in fact would be an expert on -- having actually fought the man in WW2.

I'm sorry [name redacted], but this notion of destroying whole countries who have never attacked or even threatened us "by any excuse necessary" is not a REPUBLICAN idea -- it is actually a Trotskyite idea and therefore a wholly communist idea.

This is why the left has loved all of these undeclared wars throughout history, and why the first Republican such war, was instigated by a 'moderate' leftist George Bush, and promoted by a 'moderate' leftist John McCain. Both of whom were Trotskyites.

As such it is not an American idea at all. In fact, I would go so far as to say it is outright wicked evil, and that you, poor soul, have been deceived if not outright brainwashed by the very leftist media that profits from these wars.

I do not mean to imply that YOU are evil, but rather that you are the victim of the evil, just like the tens of thousands of Germans who supported the invasion of Poland were victims of the propaganda machine which supported it. They did not know any better because their media filtered everything they saw and shaped their opinions, just as our media in America has now for the last 50 years.

On account of that media, you, a right-leaning conservative guy has quite unknowingly been deceived into supporting a radical leftist communist Trotskyite policy of preemptive warfare, global empire, and "exporting 'democracy' at the point of a gun."

That is how Communists operate, not freedom loving Americans! But you do still have a chance to spit the kool-aid out before it poisons your soul, and I sincerely pray to God the creator of heaven and earth in the name of the Savior, that you will.

2 seconds ago


Very good. I am glad I pointed you towards the prevailing direction. You'll make a fine Representative. Still have the tar at the ready though :p. Now, if minarchists could reconcile their Natural Law understanding with the inconsistency found in the State, that would be a real breakthrough :D (I know, I know, giving you shit.)

Austrian Econ Disciple
11-01-2009, 10:12 AM
Re: The leaning on the false paradigm of Republican vs Democrat

bear in mind that [name redacted] initiated the argument by saying that "Walter Jones should go back to being a Democrat" out of disgust for his having repented of his decision to authorize the war in Iraq.

I'm trying to demonstrate that warmongering has traditionally come from the 'left' side of the false paradigm, and is therefore more of a "Dem" idea than a "Rep" idea (which is actually true, mind you) in order to shatter his mythos. Until his mythos is shattered, there is no way in hell he will even be capable of accepting that Rep vs Dem is a false paradigm.

Ask him what the party the President of the US was in, who brought the US in all the Wars we participated in, in the 20th Century.

Ask him if he has heard of the GOP from 1900-1950s. The likes of Charles Lindberg, Howard Buffet, and Robert Taft who were all staunch non-interventionists and were the leaders within the Party.


Tip -

WWI - Democrat
WWII - Democrat
Korean War - Democrat
Vietnam War - Republican, but only for 2 years, until Nixon at the tail end. Nixon won on the foundation that he would end the War.
Enter Neo-Cons in the late 60s and early 70s to prominence (Leftists)
Gulf War - Republican
Iraq / Afghanistan - Republican

What does all this have in common? Every War with the exception of the first 2 years in the Vietnam War were prosecuted by far left and left Politicians. Many of these were under the supervision for the duration by the Democratic Party.

Fail on history.

klamath
11-01-2009, 10:13 AM
Thanks! Update on the argument:

[name redacted]

Iraq agreed to a cease fire during Gulf War I. They violated provisions of that cease fire on a daily basis. That is the only reason needed to bomb them into non-existence.

about an hour ago




Glen Bradley ₢

LOL OK so clearly you do not subscribe to Christian just war doctrine. Thomas Aquinas must be so disappointed.

Now then, since you are using the UN as justification to go to war, then we must proceed under UN mandates for the justification of force.

To begin with, since the cease fire was a UN instrument, then the UN was required to lift the cease-fire to in order to legally resume hostilities from Gulf War 1. I understand you will view that as 'just a technicality' but illegal is illegal, and the reality is that since Gulf War 1 was a UN op, it could not legally be resumed without UN sanction, which they certainly did not grant.

You cannot argue that the UN was good enough to take us into war, good enough to affect the instrument of cease fire, but not good enough to prevent unilateral action to resume hostilities.

Nevertheless, this does not even address the fundamental problem in that Iraq to date has never harmed or even threatened the US. Up until 2001, all the undeclared warmongers in America were always Democrats, and it was Republicans, without fail, that got us OUT of these wars that the Democrats put us into.

So I would say that given the history of Korea and Vietnam, wherein the Democrats got us into them and Republicans had to extract us, perhaps YOU sir should become a Democrat, since they have historically, and remain, the party of random wars.

I am quite horrified at this idea that we should run around the planet bombing whatever countries do not bow down and kiss America's feet. President Eisenhower, decorated war hero of WW2, REPUBLICAN, and President of the United states said:

"I would say a preventive war, if the words mean anything, is to wage some sort of quick police action in order that you might avoid a terrific cataclysm of destruction later.

"A preventive war, to my mind, is an impossibility today. How could you have one if one of its features would be several cities lying in ruins, several cities where many, many thousands of people would be dead and injured and mangled, the transportation systems destroyed, sanitation implements and systems all gone? That isn't preventive war; that is war.

"I don't believe there is such a thing; and, frankly, I wouldn't even listen to anyone seriously that came in and talked about such a thing."

He also likened the notion to the practice of Adolph Hitler, which he in fact would be an expert on -- having actually fought the man in WW2.

I'm sorry [name redacted], but this notion of destroying whole countries who have never attacked or even threatened us "by any excuse necessary" is not a REPUBLICAN idea -- it is actually a Trotskyite idea and therefore a wholly communist idea.

This is why the left has loved all of these undeclared wars throughout history, and why the first Republican such war, was instigated by a 'moderate' leftist George Bush, and promoted by a 'moderate' leftist John McCain. Both of whom were Trotskyites.

As such it is not an American idea at all. In fact, I would go so far as to say it is outright wicked evil, and that you, poor soul, have been deceived if not outright brainwashed by the very leftist media that profits from these wars.

I do not mean to imply that YOU are evil, but rather that you are the victim of the evil, just like the tens of thousands of Germans who supported the invasion of Poland were victims of the propaganda machine which supported it. They did not know any better because their media filtered everything they saw and shaped their opinions, just as our media in America has now for the last 50 years.

On account of that media, you, a right-leaning conservative guy has quite unknowingly been deceived into supporting a radical leftist communist Trotskyite policy of preemptive warfare, global empire, and "exporting 'democracy' at the point of a gun."

That is how Communists operate, not freedom loving Americans! But you do still have a chance to spit the kool-aid out before it poisons your soul, and I sincerely pray to God the creator of heaven and earth in the name of the Savior, that you will.

2 seconds ago

So he thinks we should be taking our marching orders from the UN except when we don't.
Even though Sadamn was a bastard he didn't attack us in '90/91. We had no right to attack Iraq unless we subscribe to the idea that all war should be run through the UN in which case we broke that in '93.

GunnyFreedom
11-01-2009, 10:27 AM
Altogether wonderful points by both of you. Thanks for the material! I'll respond in more detail tonight, as I have been up 20 hrs now and must meet this appointment with the sandman. I fully expect on awakening to encounter either a diatribe or to have been 'unfriended' by this fellow.

anybody who actually has a facebook account and wants to participate first hand, I am at facebook.com/glenbradley so I'm pretty easy to find. If you have to friend req me, then put RPF in the req box so I know to accept via SMS. Something I quite literally can do in my sleep. :D

GunnyFreedom
11-01-2009, 11:08 AM
Seriously, I am nor ordinarily at a loss for response, but I hardly even know where to begin addressing this lunacy. Maybe a reformed Neocon has insight? I'm thinking at this point it may be best to just shrug and walk away. In any case I need a nap before I try and respond to this nonsense:


Dude, we are the USA, we do wtf we want. If you don't subscribe to that philosophy, fine by me.

I don't care under what dipshizzle group GWI was initiated, Iraq was shooting at our planes, that is enough for me to support a communist like Obama declaring war and it had nothing to do with what the media said at the time.

The UN should be abolished.

I have my idea of what the GOP should be and it does not include people like Walter Jones or John McCain.

And preemptive war has nothing to do with empire as I do not subscribe to communist ideology. I am all for obliterating their sorry behinds from the air and letting them rebuild and then doing it again until they submit.
19 minutes ago Delete

klamath
11-01-2009, 11:14 AM
Ask him what the party the President of the US was in, who brought the US in all the Wars we participated in, in the 20th Century.

Ask him if he has heard of the GOP from 1900-1950s. The likes of Charles Lindberg, Howard Buffet, and Robert Taft who were all staunch non-interventionists and were the leaders within the Party.


Tip -

WWI - Democrat
WWII - Democrat
Korean War - Democrat
Vietnam War - Republican, but only for 2 years, until Nixon at the tail end. Nixon won on the foundation that he would end the War.
Enter Neo-Cons in the late 60s and early 70s to prominence (Leftists)
Gulf War - Republican
Iraq / Afghanistan - Republican

What does all this have in common? Every War with the exception of the first 2 years in the Vietnam War were prosecuted by far left and left Politicians. Many of these were under the supervision for the duration by the Democratic Party.

Fail on history.

Actually though we had envolvement in the '50's the real American war started under Kennedy.

Meatwasp
11-01-2009, 12:07 PM
Christians are always saying it is a just war. I am fed up to the gills on that remark and I always will try and respond by saying "wasn't Jesus the prince of peace?"

Meatwasp
11-01-2009, 12:09 PM
I too teared up reading that article

klamath
11-01-2009, 12:37 PM
Seriously, I am nor ordinarily at a loss for response, but I hardly even know where to begin addressing this lunacy. Maybe a reformed Neocon has insight? I'm thinking at this point it may be best to just shrug and walk away. In any case I need a nap before I try and respond to this nonsense:

Save your time for the more sane. :D