One of the Few Republican Reps. that I like.
Congressman Ron Paul (R) Texas is anti-war and opposed the invasion of Iraq. His speech at that time included these words: "Only tyrants can take a nation to war without the consent of the people. The planned war against Iraq without a Declaration of War is illegal. It is unwise because of many unforeseen consequences that are likely to result.It is immoral and unjust, because it had nothing to do with United States security and because Iraq had not initiated agression against us." Congressman Ron Paul
How true . Here is what he says about the current situation:
Escalation is Hardly the Answer
By Congressman Ron Paul01/11/07
"Information Clearing House" -- --
Mr. Speaker, A military victory in Iraq is unattainable, just as it was in the Vietnam war.At the close of the Vietnam war in 1975, a telling conversation took place between an NVA Colonel named Tu and an American Colonel named Harry Summers. Colonel Summers reportedly said, “You never beat us on the battlefield.” Tu replied, “That may be so, but it is also irrelevant.”
It is likewise irrelevant to seek military victory in Iraq. As conditions deteriorate in Iraq, the American people are told more blood must be spilled to achieve just such a military victory. 20,000 additional troops and another $100 billion are needed for a “surge.” Yet the people remain rightfully skeptical. Though we’ve been in Iraq nearly four years, the meager goal today simply is to secure Baghdad. This hardly shows that the mission is even partly accomplished.
Astonishingly, American taxpayers now will be forced to finance a multi-billion dollar jobs program in Iraq. Suddenly the war is about jobs! We export our manufacturing jobs to Asia, and now we plan to export our welfare jobs to Iraq-- all at the expense of the poor and middle class here at home.
Plans are being made to become more ruthless in achieving stability in Iraq. It appears Muqtada al Sadr will be on the receiving end of our military efforts, despite his overwhelming support among large segments of the Iraqi people. It’s interesting to note that one excuse given for our failure is leveled at the Iraqis themselves. They have not done enough, we’re told, and are difficult to train. Yet no one complains that Mahdi or Kurdish militias or the Badr Brigade (the real Iraq government, not our appointed government) are not well trained.
Our problems obviously have nothing to do with training Iraqis to fight, but instead with loyalties and motivations. We claim to be spreading democracy in Iraq, but al Sadr has far more democratic support with the majority Shiites than our troops enjoy. The problem is not a lack of democratic consensus; it is the antipathy toward our presence among most Iraqis. In real estate the three important considerations are location, location, location. In Iraq the three conditions are occupation, occupation, occupation.
Nothing can improve in Iraq until we understand that our occupation is the primary source of the chaos and killing. We are a foreign occupying force, strongly resented by the majority of Iraq’s citizens. Our inability to adapt to the tactics of 4th generation warfare compounds our military failure. Unless we understand this, even doubling our troop strength will not solve the problems created by our occupation. The talk of a troop surge and jobs program in Iraq only distracts Americans from the very real possibility of an attack on Iran. Our growing naval presence in the region and our harsh rhetoric toward Iran are unsettling.
Securing the Horn of Africa and sending Ethiopian troops into Somalia do not bode well for world peace. Yet these developments are almost totally ignored by Congress. Rumors are flying about when, not if, Iran will be bombed by either Israel or the U.S.-- possibly with nuclear weapons. Our CIA says Iran is ten years away from producing a nuclear bomb and has no delivery system, but this does not impede our plans to keep “everything on the table” when dealing with Iran. We should remember that Iran, like Iraq, is a third-world nation without a significant military. Nothing in history hints that she is likely to invade a neighboring country, let alone do anything to America or Israel.
I am concerned, however, that a contrived Gulf of Tonkin- type incident may occur to gain popular support for an attack on Iran. Even if such an attack is carried out by Israel over U.S. objections, we will be politically and morally culpable since we provided the weapons and dollars to make it possible. Mr. Speaker, let’s hope I’m wrong about this one.
Click on "comments" below to read or post comments
postCount('article16151.htm');
Comments (35)
[WA: If Israel attacks Iran, it will be with the blessings and collaboration of the White House et al. Israel attacked Lebanon in 2005 with our blessings, money and arms, and threw that small nation into chaos. Part of the plan for world domination involves taking control of the Middle East; the conspirators are determined to carry out this phase of the plan regardless of citizen objections and lack of world suport. ]
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
How true . Here is what he says about the current situation:
Escalation is Hardly the Answer
By Congressman Ron Paul01/11/07
"Information Clearing House" -- --
Mr. Speaker, A military victory in Iraq is unattainable, just as it was in the Vietnam war.At the close of the Vietnam war in 1975, a telling conversation took place between an NVA Colonel named Tu and an American Colonel named Harry Summers. Colonel Summers reportedly said, “You never beat us on the battlefield.” Tu replied, “That may be so, but it is also irrelevant.”
It is likewise irrelevant to seek military victory in Iraq. As conditions deteriorate in Iraq, the American people are told more blood must be spilled to achieve just such a military victory. 20,000 additional troops and another $100 billion are needed for a “surge.” Yet the people remain rightfully skeptical. Though we’ve been in Iraq nearly four years, the meager goal today simply is to secure Baghdad. This hardly shows that the mission is even partly accomplished.
Astonishingly, American taxpayers now will be forced to finance a multi-billion dollar jobs program in Iraq. Suddenly the war is about jobs! We export our manufacturing jobs to Asia, and now we plan to export our welfare jobs to Iraq-- all at the expense of the poor and middle class here at home.
Plans are being made to become more ruthless in achieving stability in Iraq. It appears Muqtada al Sadr will be on the receiving end of our military efforts, despite his overwhelming support among large segments of the Iraqi people. It’s interesting to note that one excuse given for our failure is leveled at the Iraqis themselves. They have not done enough, we’re told, and are difficult to train. Yet no one complains that Mahdi or Kurdish militias or the Badr Brigade (the real Iraq government, not our appointed government) are not well trained.
Our problems obviously have nothing to do with training Iraqis to fight, but instead with loyalties and motivations. We claim to be spreading democracy in Iraq, but al Sadr has far more democratic support with the majority Shiites than our troops enjoy. The problem is not a lack of democratic consensus; it is the antipathy toward our presence among most Iraqis. In real estate the three important considerations are location, location, location. In Iraq the three conditions are occupation, occupation, occupation.
Nothing can improve in Iraq until we understand that our occupation is the primary source of the chaos and killing. We are a foreign occupying force, strongly resented by the majority of Iraq’s citizens. Our inability to adapt to the tactics of 4th generation warfare compounds our military failure. Unless we understand this, even doubling our troop strength will not solve the problems created by our occupation. The talk of a troop surge and jobs program in Iraq only distracts Americans from the very real possibility of an attack on Iran. Our growing naval presence in the region and our harsh rhetoric toward Iran are unsettling.
Securing the Horn of Africa and sending Ethiopian troops into Somalia do not bode well for world peace. Yet these developments are almost totally ignored by Congress. Rumors are flying about when, not if, Iran will be bombed by either Israel or the U.S.-- possibly with nuclear weapons. Our CIA says Iran is ten years away from producing a nuclear bomb and has no delivery system, but this does not impede our plans to keep “everything on the table” when dealing with Iran. We should remember that Iran, like Iraq, is a third-world nation without a significant military. Nothing in history hints that she is likely to invade a neighboring country, let alone do anything to America or Israel.
I am concerned, however, that a contrived Gulf of Tonkin- type incident may occur to gain popular support for an attack on Iran. Even if such an attack is carried out by Israel over U.S. objections, we will be politically and morally culpable since we provided the weapons and dollars to make it possible. Mr. Speaker, let’s hope I’m wrong about this one.
Click on "comments" below to read or post comments
postCount('article16151.htm');
Comments (35)
[WA: If Israel attacks Iran, it will be with the blessings and collaboration of the White House et al. Israel attacked Lebanon in 2005 with our blessings, money and arms, and threw that small nation into chaos. Part of the plan for world domination involves taking control of the Middle East; the conspirators are determined to carry out this phase of the plan regardless of citizen objections and lack of world suport. ]
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
2 Comments
Close this window Collapse commentsLabels: Ron Paul -anti escalation of war
posted by Anonymous @ 1/14/2007 02:30:00 AM
Sounds like a lot of common sense, which is a little hard to recognize among government officials since we seem to see so little of it there.
Sunday, January 14, 2007 8:48:29 AM
Very unusual in Washington. Early in Paul's political career he was regarded as "not a team player" and some plain and fancy gerrymandering redefined his district. Prior to that I was in his district at the home I had then.
Once his campaign workers sent out a newsletter to his constituents and for some fool reason asked that the recipients of the letter not reveal its contents to the media nor to his opponent's supporters. (Foolish). Ofcourse the media and opposition got hold of the letter and a mud slinging orgy ensued. All the usual sneers and put-downs were bruited about and pictured Paul as an idiot.
I decided right then that I was a supporter of Ron Paul. If the mud slingers could find nothing more nasty about him, he must be a pretty clean man. The mud slingers can always find something to twist and distort and exaggerate to denigrate an opponent, so if a silly letter by campaign workers was the dirtiest thing they could find, it spoke well for the man. I have follwed his voting record off and on since then and found few items with which I disagreed. He usually votes in favor of his constituents, or votes in favor of something his constituents want even if he personally disagrees with it. I thought that is what Representatives were supposed to do - act to support the will of the people. Stupid me to expect that, but in Paul's case it was usually true. How odd!!
Sunday, January 14, 2007 6:33:52 PM