When Does Discretion Equal Cowardice?

I was having a discussion the other day with a fellow who was struggling with some of Ron Paul's views on foreign policy.  This man is very well read, very well connected and very involved in the development of conservative candidates for public office.  He is also a very big Ron Paul supporter.  But he was struggling.

He firmly believes that radical Islam is presents a clear and present danger to our American way of life.  He is convinced that countries like Iran foment hatred for the West and have the capacity to do considerable harm to our economy, to our infrastructure and to the health and lives of our people even if they cannot currently deliver a nuclear weapon to our shores.

And while he agrees with Ron Paul on most things he has a very hard time with the "non-interventionist" rhetoric.

Today I read where Hillary Clinton has said that we cannot take any action against Syria.  Yet by most accounts, if there were any weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, they were moved in the dead of night to Syria, and we all know that Syria is a danger to our interests.

But what has me asking some hard questions today is the news that the Asad regime has murdered tens of thousands of its citizens and yet we sit idly by.

I know the argument: They are a soverign nation and we have no business interfereing with their internal affairs.  Well the same could be said about a married couple, unless of course I see some husband beating the snot out of his wife.  Maybe it is their marriage, maybe it is non of my business but only a coward would stand by and watch some man beat his wife.

When we see brutal dictators murdering their helpless citizens and we just stand by saying "we must be non-interventionists" it makes me want to puke.

No, I'm not if favor of being the world's police force.  But you tell me, when does discretion equal cowardice?

Comments

[Learned Hand, J.]

Would it not be preferable to allow the maintainance of the existance of a fairly stable though repressive regime socially and civilly tolerant in the middle east then actively side with Al Qaeda to overthrow it, establishing in its stead a diaspora of Coptic Christians made destitute by their new Sunni overlords? [Marc's reply: It looks like Mrs. Malaprop is alive, well and hasn't learned to use spell check.]

[Trey]

Americans should only be put in harms way for the interest of American Safety.

To use the force of the state to risk American lives for the interest of another nation is the real act of cowardice.

If the regime is a threat to its people then you (as a private citizen) should absolutely work with organizations getting aid and supplies into the region but it is absurd to think that you would put American soldiers in harms way for the interest of another nation.

While we agree that aiding a defenseless people is a good and moral action, I think you should reconsider the notion that you must use the force of the state to do so.

How would you feel if you were to get a call that your son/daughter had been killed in a war that was not in the interest of American safety?

[Mr. Scott Ryan]

WOW!!!

You are pulling out all the stops lately.

And we should all know that if Paul were president, and if war was declared, he would invade Syria.

Would he campaign against the declaration? Absolutely!!!!

Would he execute the war if declared? Absolutely !!!

That, too me, would require the greatest courage of all.

And that is what distinguishes one as a constitutionalist as opposed to a pacifist.

God Bless.