Boots on the Ground in SC - FP is the Issue that is Holding Us Back

[Brett85]

That's never been Ron's position. He has always advocated the Just War Theory. If you know anything about it, one of the planks calls for a PROPORTIONATE response. He certainly wouldn't wage war like the IDF where one or two Israeli's are killed, and in response level the entirity of Palestine and kill tens of thousands. How is waging war that way justified? Certainly is not.

Sometimes ending a war early through overwhelming force can save lives in the long run. There's usually more casualties in the long, endless wars.

 

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Peaceniks are what's on the menu, if you get my drift. In our world, you cannot marry yourself to one credo, because you will get yourself as well as your loved ones killed. And this judicious approach applies to wanton belligerency as well. Extremes don't work out too well. As human beings we must look at each potential confrontation uniquely, analyzing the facts as best as possible and arriving at a decision. Some situations call for a violent response, while others lead to a peaceful outcome.

How are peaceniks on the menu when they own military hardware? The only justified defense is a Militia. Standing Armies are like a bull in a china shop -- they're designed for one thing and one thing only invasion, enslavement, and enforcement of State-dictates. Anyone who desires, pushes, or advocates war is a danger to civil society, Civilization, liberty, and property rights. If you desire security above all else, then rest lightly in your chains of servitude. I'll brave the turbulence of liberty. (In any event, I still hold that Militia's are better deterrence than Standing Army)

 

[kylejack]

There's nothing wrong with non intervention overseas, which means that we shouldn't just go around the world starting different wars. But the term "peacenik" makes it sound like Ron wouldn't defend the United States in the event of an attack or an imminent threat to our national security. Ron should make it clear to voters that he believes in defending our country in the case of an attack or an imminent threat to our security.

He does. He virtually always follows his comments in debates or interviews with "Now if there's an imminent attack, then yes, but that's never happened in our country in 230 years."

 

[EBounding]

What's wrong with being a peacenik? Peace is Civilization. War is the enemy of Civilization, Property Rights, and Liberty.

Because a lot of Republicans think Peacenik = Weak.

If he just explained his National Defense policy, it wouldn't be left up to interpretation. That's all he has to do. But for some reason he won't in debates.

I mean, I remember an interview where he said submarines are worthwhile weapons. What do submarines do? They patrol under international waters so they can deploy at any time and strike with stealth. I remember reading that some subs have firepower that exceeds what was dropped on all of Japan during WWII. If he would just state facts like these, it would be clear that he is not weak on National Defense.

 

[AuH20]

How are peaceniks on the menu when they own military hardware? The only justified defense is a Militia. Standing Armies are like a bull in a china shop -- they're designed for one thing and one thing only invasion, enslavement, and enforcement of State-dictates. Anyone who desires, pushes, or advocates war is a danger to civil society, Civilization, liberty, and property rights. If you desire security above all else, then rest lightly in your chains of servitude. I'll brave the turbulence of liberty. (In any event, I still hold that Militia's are better deterrence than Standing Army)

I meant peaceniks who openly advertise their non-aggression principles and who don't own any weapons. Pure peaceniks who will leave themselves susceptible to conquest.

 

[Brett85]

He does. He virtually always follows his comments in debates or interviews with "Now if there's an imminent attack, then yes, but that's never happened in our country in 230 years."

I've certainly never heard him say that in the debates.

 

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Sometimes ending a war early through overwhelming force can save lives in the long run. There's usually more casualties in the long, endless wars.

Sometimes? Care to prove the case? Even if it is the case, killing innocents purposefully is never justified no matter what rationalization you use to try and justify those atrocities. Whether it be the bombing of Dresdon, or the fire-bombing of Japanese cities that killed hundreds of thousands of innocents, it is never justified. This whole idea of Democracy brought about Total War. Sickening, sad, and so destructive.

In any event, proportionate response does not = endless wars. In fact, the argument can be made that proportionate response end conflicts sooner with less cost in lives, property and liberty than your idea of Total War and 'overwhelming force'. I guess it was justified for Sherman to burn, rape, and pillage the South in the War of Northern Aggression because it ended the war sooner. Posh.

There are codes of conduct, honor, and justice to uphold when waging war.

 

[Brett85]

Sometimes? Care to prove the case? Even if it is the case, killing innocents purposefully is never justified no matter what rationalization you use to try and justify those atrocities. Whether it be the bombing of Dresdon, or the fire-bombing of Japanese cities that killed hundreds of thousands of innocents, it is never justified. This whole idea of Democracy brought about Total War. Sickening, sad, and so destructive.

In any event, proportionate response does not = endless wars. In fact, the argument can be made that proportionate response end conflicts sooner with less cost in lives, property and liberty than your idea of Total War and 'overwhelming force'. I guess it was justified for Sherman to burn, rape, and pillage the South in the War of Northern Aggression because it ended the war sooner. Posh.

There are codes of conduct, honor, and justice to uphold when waging war.

So I guess a "proportionate" response to 9-11 would've been to knock down a building with 3,000 innocent people in it? That doesn't make any sense either. I've never seen a situation where a country had a response that was "proportionate" to the attack that occurred in their country.

 

[RP4Peace]

Very good discussion and questions. I'm just wondering why one of us could ask these questions to Dr.Paul directly in one of those town halls?

 

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

I meant peaceniks who openly advertise their non-aggression principles and who don't own any weapons. Pure peaceniks who will leave themselves susceptible to conquest.

There's a difference between a peacenik (one who desires or advocates peace) and a pacifist. I have nothing against pacifists and in certain circumstances I think their approach is vastly superior to meeting force with force. I'd rather have a pacifist than a hawk though any day of the week. I suppose it is my nature as a lover of liberty to err on the side of peace than war, liberty than enslavement, and inquisition than barriers.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

Ron Paul Presidential Campaign Committee PCC keyword Matt Collins Jesse Benton Doug Wead search

"My foreign policy is if we are actually threatened or attacked, we declare war and destroy the enemy worse than any enemy has ever been destroyed before, and leave them to rebuild themselves so they no longer pose a threat to us or anybody."

Reposted so as to increase the chance that the campaign sees this. Great idea Gunny

Just stop it already. Ron Paul does not agree with that position, so stop trying to put words in his mouth? Would he attack if we were attacked? Yes. But, Ron Paul disagrees philosophically with saying things in a way that makes interventionists think he is one of them. He will not say it because he doesn't want to be deceptive and give people the impression that he is a pro-war candidate when no known situation even calls for that kind of language. You CANNOT tell Ron Paul to advocate he doesn't agree with.

Terrible idea, Gunny, and shame on everyone who thinks they can just repost this stupid bullshit and get the campaign to say, "oh we never thought of that before, now let's try to force this down Ron's throat."

FFS

 

[kylejack]

I've certainly never heard him say that in the debates.

Q: If you were president, would you need to go to Congress to get authorization to take military action against Iran’s nuclear facilities?

ROMNEY: You sit down with your attorneys and tell you what you have to do.

HUNTER: It depends on one thing: the president does not need that if the target is fleeting.

PAUL: Absolutely. This idea of going & talking to attorneys totally baffles me. Why don’t we just open up the Constitution & read it? You’re not allowed to go to war without a declaration of war. Now, as far as fleeting enemies go, yes, if there’s an imminent attack on us, we’d never had that happen in 220 years. The thought that the Iranians could pose an imminent attack on the US is preposterous. There’s no way.

HUNTER: Not an imminent attack a fleeting target.

PAUL: This is just continual war propaganda, preparing this nation to go to war and spread this war, not only in Iraq but into Iran, unconstitutionally. It’s a road to disaster if we don’t read the Constitution once in a while.

10/9/2007

And he does it plenty this cycle as well.

 

[kylejack]

So I guess a "proportionate" response to 9-11 would've been to knock down a building with 3,000 innocent people in it? That doesn't make any sense either. I've never seen a situation where a country had a response that was "proportionate" to the attack that occurred in their country.

When people make a plan and kill your people, you kill or capture the people that planned it and carried it out. That doesn't necessarily require a full-scale invasion of a country and a regime change.

Indeed, the Taliban had offered to turn Bin Laden over if Washington would just show them the evidence that he was responsible.

 

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

So I guess a "proportionate" response to 9-11 would've been to knock down a building with 3,000 innocent people in it? That doesn't make any sense either. I've never seen a situation where a country had a response that was "proportionate" to the attack that occurred in their country.

I would say how we handled the Barbary Pirates was pretty close to adherence to the Just War Theory. A proportionate response to 9-11 were the letters of Marque and Reprisal which would have meant targetting those who committed/plotted those acts. Your idea is the exact idea that Bush went with. What we got was a full-frontal invasion of an entire country, ended up losing Bin Laden in Tora Bora because of it, and we paid the cost in liberty lost at home through wealth confiscation to the war-profiteers & the destruction of our civil liberties with bills like Patriot Act. No, sir, Total War is not only destructive of the liberties of the innocence overseas, but of us at home. It is the creed of the Democrat (Not the political party), of the warmonger, and profiteers, and the State.

You should really read Aquinas Just War Theory & Hoppe's Democracy: The God that Failed.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

Sometimes ending a war early through overwhelming force can save lives in the long run. There's usually more casualties in the long, endless wars.

You're making a lot of assumptions with that statement.

 

[Brett85]

Just stop it already. Ron Paul does not agree with that position, so stop trying to put words in his mouth?

How do you know that Ron Paul doesn't agree with that position? I believe I've heard him say before in debates that when we go to war we should use overwhelming force in order to end it quickly. It's just that he doesn't say it nearly often enough.

 

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

How do you know that Ron Paul doesn't agree with that position? I believe I've heard him say before in debates that when we go to war we should use overwhelming force in order to end it quickly. It's just that he doesn't say it nearly often enough.

He's never said overwhelming force. He has said to end the war quickly, which does not necessitate 'overwhelming force', and further you couldn't even remember him talking about imminent attacks (which I agree are preposterous), but you can about him saying something he's never said. Ron advocates the traditional Classical Liberal position -- the same of Ludwig von Mises, Richard Cobden, Henry Bright, Frederic Bastiat, Thomas Paine, and the rest.

You simply disagree to the degree of which he is not as hawkish as you. Fine. It's silly however to think he will ever change his position to pander for votes. That's not who Ron Paul is. I still can't believe the extent of people who have not realized this yet.

Ron is for repealing the AuMF since Bin Laden died, the whole point to Letters of Marque and Reprisal which would have gotten Bin Laden years and years earlier.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

So I guess a "proportionate" response to 9-11 would've been to knock down a building with 3,000 innocent people in it? That doesn't make any sense either. I've never seen a situation where a country had a response that was "proportionate" to the attack that occurred in their country.

I hate to say this, but wow... your view of liberty is so warped. You don't even understand the idea of finding your target and using a justified and proportional response. You can't just knock down a building with 3000 people. WHose building woud it be? As far as I know, Al Qaeda doesn't have any skyscrapers. It's hard to believe you can't even imagine what proportional force would be. Regardless, you must realize that your idea of overwhelming force and total war is not Ron Paul's position, so stop trying to get him to advocate it.

 

[Brett85]

Your idea is the exact idea that Bush went with. What we got was a full-frontal invasion of an entire country, ended up losing Bin Laden in Tora Bora because of it, and we paid the cost in liberty lost at home through wealth confiscation to the war-profiteers & the destruction of our civil liberties with bills like Patriot Act.

Yes, but I never supported the subsequent occupation and nation building effort that we had and still have there. I believe we should've left Afghanistan 6 months after went in there, because we had already displaced the Taliban and had Al-Quada on the run. The letters of marque and reprisal are a good idea as well, but I don't think it's a strong enough response to an attack that killed over 3,000 of our people.

 

[kylejack]

How do you know that Ron Paul doesn't agree with that position? I believe I've heard him say before in debates that when we go to war we should use overwhelming force in order to end it quickly. It's just that he doesn't say it nearly often enough.

Criteria of Just War theory

Just War Theory has two sets of criteria. The first establishing jus ad bellum, the right to go to war; the second establishing jus in bello, right conduct within war.[11]




Jus ad bellum

Just cause
The reason for going to war needs to be just and cannot therefore be solely for recapturing things taken or punishing people who have done wrong; innocent life must be in imminent danger and intervention must be to protect life. A contemporary view of just cause was expressed in 1993 when the US Catholic Conference said: "Force may be used only to correct a grave, public evil, i.e., aggression or massive violation of the basic human rights of whole populations."
Comparative justice
While there may be rights and wrongs on all sides of a conflict, to overcome the presumption against the use of force, the injustice suffered by one party must significantly outweigh that suffered by the other. Some theorists such as Brian Orend omit this term, seeing it as fertile ground for exploitation by bellicose regimes.
Competent authority
Only duly constituted public authorities may wage war. "A just war must be initiated by a political authority within a political system that allows distinctions of justice. Dictatorships (i.e. Hitler's Regime) or a deceptive military actions (i.e. the 1968 US bombing of Cambodia) are typically considered as violations of this criterion. The importance of this condition is key. Plainly, we cannot have a genuine process of judging a just war within a system that represses the process of genuine justice. A just war must be initiated by a political authority within a political system that allows distinctions of justice".<[3]>
Right intention
Force may be used only in a truly just cause and solely for that purpose—correcting a suffered wrong is considered a right intention, while material gain or maintaining economies is not.
Probability of success
Arms may not be used in a futile cause or in a case where disproportionate measures are required to achieve success;
Last resort
Force may be used only after all peaceful and viable alternatives have been seriously tried and exhausted or are clearly not practical. It may be clear that the other side is using negotiations as a delaying tactic and will not make meaningful concessions.
Proportionality
The anticipated benefits of waging a war must be proportionate to its expected evils or harms. This principle is also known as the principle of macro-proportionality, so as to distinguish it from the jus in bello principle of proportionality.

In modern terms, just war is waged in terms of self-defense, or in defense of another (with sufficient evidence).




Jus in bello

Once war has begun, just war theory (Jus in bello) also directs how combatants are to act or should act:

Distinction
Just war conduct should be governed by the principle of distinction. The acts of war should be directed towards enemy combatants, and not towards non-combatants caught in circumstances they did not create. The prohibited acts include bombing civilian residential areas that include no military target and committing acts of terrorism or reprisal against civilians.

Proportionality
Just war conduct should be governed by the principle of proportionality. An attack cannot be launched on a military objective in the knowledge that the incidental civilian injuries would be clearly excessive in relation to the anticipated military advantage (principle of proportionality).

Military necessity
Just war conduct should be governed by the principle of minimum force. An attack or action must be intended to help in the military defeat of the enemy, it must be an attack on a military objective, and the harm caused to civilians or civilian property must be proportional and not excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated. This principle is meant to limit excessive and unnecessary death and destruction.

Fair treatment of prisoners of War
Enemy soldiers who surrendered or who are captured no longer pose a threat. It is therefore wrong to torture them or otherwise mistreat them.

No means malum in se
Soldiers may not use weapons or other methods of warfare which are considered as evil, such as mass rape, forcing soldiers to fight against their own side or using weapons whose effects cannot be controlled (e.g. nuclear weapons).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just_war_theory#Criteria_of_Just_War_theory