Human Events: "Do you see any sort of moral obligation to avoid any sort of Cambodia or Saigon in Iraq, on our part?"

Ron Paul: "I see a lot of moral obligation, it's a moral obligation to our troops, so that no more are killed. So that we don't have 50,000 instead of 30,000 coming back without their arms and legs, and brain injuries. And I have a moral obligation to our taxpayers. I know there is going to be chaos. And there will be. There might be a lot less. Vietnam is now a trading partner. They're westernized. We achieved in peace what the Founders advised, what we couldn't achieve in war. But there was, you know, an up tick in the major problems in there. But it's because we're there. If we leave and there is more trouble, it's not because we left and take my policy, it's because we went in there in the first place, and shouldn't have. So, we do have a moral obligation."
--Ron Paul, Human Events Interview, August 2, 2007

hell we should have remained neutral in ww2, im sure hilter would have loved to be a trade partner with us.

Saying that the threats posed by North Vietnam or Saddam Hussein are ana-logous to the threat posed by Nazi Germany is inaccurate, to say the least. Nevertheless, we did not attack Germany in WWII. Germany and Italy both declared war on us right after Pearl Harbor.

Is Ron Paul just old or is he on some kind of mind altering drugs?

If this guy can't communicate clearly what it is he really means, doesn't matter what his political or social philosophies are, they will be lost in translation.

asdf,

You shouldn't blame Paul's ability to communicate clearly. The postulate that we were wrong in the first place but now have no moral responsibilities to the people hurt by our wrong might be emotionally, or politically, appealing to a large group of people, but any logic to support such a claim would have to be quite convoluted or appeal to principles that our politicains are trying to avoid. No one seems able to adequately explain it in a sound bite. I don't deny it might be possible to explain, but in today's emotion-driven, sound-bite environment no one really even tries.

(If I were convinced that it was never, or no longer, in America's interest to have troops there, I would have no trouble advocating leaving because I believe our actions have been just. I await the coherent moral argument for leaving from those who do not share that belief.) The obvious move would be to say that it would be good for the Iraqi people for us to leave. But that doesn't seem to be an inviting option to the politicians.

DocMcG: So you think that IF we WERE wrong to go (you refuse to admit we were, still), then we would have ALL THE MORE responsibility to stay. Odd.

And you think this is so obvious that you beg someone to explain how they could possibly disagree.

How's this: If we aren't accomplishing or likely to accopmlish any good there, we should leave. We aren't and aren't likely to accomplish any more good there. Thus, we should leave.

I understand what he’s saying even though he didn’t communicate it particularly well. And on its face, he may be correct (two wrongs don’t make a right?). But, I don’t agree with the Vietnam @n@logy and, right or wrong, now that we’re in the soup in Iraq I’m not sure how we get out without wasting all of the capital (economic and human) that’s been invested so far.

Social change takes time and I do agree that might will not bring about social change. But I think it’s safe to say that might will keep the savages at bay until social change can be realized. Vietnam was Westernized over a long period of time, first after a long presence by the French and Brits and then by a comparatively short presence by the Americans and other Westerners. If we want it to be so, I trust it will be similar with Iraq.

Now, the question is what’s in it for us? Are we willing to invest the time and capital necessary to get an ultimate pay off? And, what is that payoff? Strategic presence? Political and/or social stability? Economic gain (oil)? I certainly hope so.

I suppose it all could be as simple as just having us leave. But I think the time for that has passed and the argument that we shouldn’t have gone there in the first place doesn’t matter at this point in time. Hindsight and all of that. As time goes on and we become more invested in the region, we need to make sense of what’s going on there before we move our military out.

Beats me why the filter accepts some of the worst words, i.e. - f$%k, s@#t... but shuts you down with @n@l.

If the only bad word I used was @n@l, my language would be considered clean.

It's really very simple. It was wrong to invade Iraq, wrong to occupy Iraq, and therefore right for us to leave Iraq.

..."now that we’re in the soup in Iraq I’m not sure how we get out without wasting all of the capital (economic and human) that’s been invested so far."

Ever hear of the irrelevance of sunk costs?

Anyone that would say our "Cut&Run" from Viet Nam has a serious Mental Problem!

Millions killed and this is a Positive Out Come?

SHEEH

PS: I was against the Viet Nam War, but it Drafted I would have gone! With that said, to abandon those people to murder and slaughter was Unforgivable and the Reason we are suffering as we ar today in Iraq!

Al Quada understands that the Pols will abandon Iraq as well!

A good thing? I think NOT!

Let me try to be clearer on a complex subject: if we were morally wrong to invade, we now have special responsibilities. And, yes, I find that so obvious I beg someone to disagree.

Eric Wilds assumes his conclusion by conjoining his opinion that it is wrong to occupy Iraq with the opinion that it was wrong to invade Iraq, but they are separate issues.

Skeptic asserts that we are unlikely to accomplish any more good there. At least that is an argument. Many politicians don't usually make that assertion, in part because preventing mass murders and limiting the expansion of terrorism are goods that are likely being accomplished and pulling out will likely convincingly demonstrate the resulting lack of such goods to their constituents and then the politicians' words might be used against them and ruin their careers.

"Let me try to be clearer on a complex subject: if we were morally wrong to invade, we now have special responsibilities. And, yes, I find that so obvious I beg someone to disagree."

Yes, we do have responsibilities. Our responsibility is to immediately withdraw from Iraq in such a way that doesn't endanger the lives of U.S. troops. That's it.

"...if we were morally wrong to invade, we now have special responsibilities. And, yes, I find that so obvious I beg someone to disagree." -DocMcG

(1) Having an ability is a condition of having a responsibility. I deny that we have the ability to help them any more than we have. Their problems are not fixable from the outside. (2) We got rid of Saddam, and have spent billions on their infrastructure. If they can't make something of that gift, so much the worse for them.

"Preventing mass murders and limiting the expansion of terrorism are goods that are likely being accomplished." Doc McG

1) What is asserted without evidence can be denied without evidence.

2) This is a textbook example of Big Government bad reasoning. BG apologists often exaggerate problems so that BG can fix them. BG apologists think BG can do anything. When BG fails (often creating more problems than the ones they initially sought to fix), they claim that they need even more resources, power, and time. Then, when BG expends enormous power and money on a problem that never really materializes, or stays the same, or gets worse, BG apologists can always assert (necessarily without evidence) that without their efforts the problem would have materialized, or gotten worse, or gotten far worse.

Katrina, War on Poverty, illegal immigration, heath care costs, Global Warming, Iraq: all the same BG BS, imo.

More Ron Paul whitewashing by the MM! There running pretty scared now

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Decision2008/popup?id=3436820

http://digg.com/2008_us_elections/ABC_Reset_Republican_Debate_Tally_After_Ron_Paul_Win

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/august2007/050807_b_reset.htm

Having read the entire interview I must say tha I am even more impressed with Dr. Paul than I was before. Dr. Paul is spot on that a withdrawl from Iraq and from Arab holy lands will help us. At a minimum, it should reduce tensions between us and them.

Dr. Paul is also correct about deploying those troops to the border. They can be of better use with regards to US security than they are in Afghanistan and Iraq.

In any event, it is a given that US troops will be fully withdrawing from Iraq very soon. Even if political leaders wanted to keep them there the Army, at its current size, cannot maintain the committment. Since the political situation will not allow for a larger army, there will be no choice but to withdraw whether anyone likes it or not.

After our withdrawl, Al Qaeda, Iran, and Islamic terrorists will be stronger than they were before the invasion of Iraq and we will be weaker. I'm interested in knowing what each candidate plans to do in the aftermath of the withdrawl from Iraq and Afghanistan to ensure American national security. If the election were held now, Dr. Paul would get my vote.

It seems he would work to secure the borders. This is good, however, I would be interested to know if he plans to work to reduce our dependence on the Middle East for our energy supplies. I would suggest drilling for more of our own oil and natural gas, building more refineries, and building more nuclear power plants. I will be interested to find out what Dr. Paul plans to do.

I think Dr. Paul performed quite well in the Human Events interview. He seems to have been very graceful before a somewhat hostile audience.

The twisted nits that lied us into this war have a lot of gumption to then claim we have a "moral responsibility" to stay when they had no clue nor inclination to get a clue to figure out how to successfully execute this unjust war. The "conservatives" I know of Tag em's ilk also only cared about bashing somebody, which we did pretty well in about a month, so they certainly would have had no compunction about just up and leaving at that point.

Could DocMcG or someone explain how "moral responsibility" works on the collective social scale? I think Paul is right that a government is beholden morally to the common good of its people, and I would add to God through the natural law. Since our rulers offended God by violating the natural law in waging an unjust war what sort of "special responsibilities" does that entail for them? Henry II in burlap walking on his knees to Rome begging forgiveness?

I certainly have no special responsibilities forced upon my conscience by the acts of my government in waging an unjust war. I will only have to justify my actions before God, and am beholden in good conscience to support just actions of my government. Since it is in accord w/ our common good to leave Iraq post-haste then I support that position.

Think of this issue in which conservatives have no problem denying collective guilt: slave reparations. Some race hucksters promote the idea of paying reparations to black slave descendants now for the sins of people who lived here generations ago. I would like to know why conservatives immediately see how idiotic a notion collective guilt is in that instance but are now swallowing the assertion that "we" (the collective we) have "special moral responsibilities" to Iraq or its people that demand we keep on killing them.

It really confuses me.