Congressman Ron Paul and "Why we fight..."

Yesterday, Ron Paul spoke on the floor of Congress. Here's some highlights...

"The resolution, HJ RES 114, explicitly cited the Iraqi Liberation Act of 1998 as one of the reasons we had to go to war. The authorization granted the President to use force against Iraq cited two precise reasons:

1. “To defend the national security of the U.S. against the continuing threat posed by Iraq and”

2. “Enforce all relevant United Nations Council resolutions regarding Iraq.”

Many other reasons were given to stir the emotions of the American public and the U.S. Congress, reasons that were grossly misleading and found not to be true. The pretense of a legal justification was a sham. "


"The legal maneuvering to permit this war was tragic to watch, but the notion that Saddam Hussein-- a third world punk without an air force, navy, and hardly an army or any anti-aircraft weaponry-- was an outright threat to the United States six thousand miles away, tells you how hysterical fear can be used to pursue a policy of needless war for quite different reasons. Today, though, all the old reasons for going to war have been discredited, and are no longer used to justify continuing the war. Now we are told we must “complete the mission,” and yet no one seems to know exactly what the mission is or when it can be achieved. By contrast, when war is properly declared against a country we can expect an all-out effort until the country surrenders. Without a declaration of war as the Constitution requires, it’s left to the President to decide when to start the war and when the war is over. We had sad experiences with this process in Korea and especially in Vietnam. Pursuing this war merely to save face, or to claim it’s a way to honor those who already have died or been wounded, is hardly a reason that more people should die. We’re told that we can’t leave until we have a democratic Iraq. But what if Iraq votes to have a Shiite theocracy, which it looks like the majority wants as their form of government-- and women, Christians, and Sunnis are made second-class citizens? It’s a preposterous notion and it points out the severe shortcomings of a democracy where a majority rules and minorities suffer..."


He went on to say that America is not to be the "policeman of the world" and that it is our intervention that is causing the unrest. He cited the Vietnam as an example on how to deal with a nation. After our military was defeated and kicked out, it was our Trade relations that opened Vietnam to a better relationship with the western world. It was a very good speech and if you have the time, I highly recommend reading it.

http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2005/cr090805.htm

He's opposed to the UN, birth control, workers' rights, human rights, and pretty much everything sane people think of as "progress."

He's speaking truth to the people and truth to power. He stated, clearly and articulately, all of what we've been saying about why we shouldn't be in a war, etc.

I'll worry more about the smaller evils once we've gotten some of the bigger ones off the table.

"He's speaking truth to the people and truth to power."
No he's not...he's a reactiuonary dimwit.

"I'll worry more about the smaller evils "
Geeze, it's hard to see how isolationism, bigotry and ignorance such as Paul has stood for are smaller evils...

But isn't this backward thinking? You know, where you establish a premise and then work backward from it?

I don't know anything about Ron Paul, but what I read made sense. You seem to have decided he is a nut job and therefore anything he says must be crazy. But isn't that faulty, incomplete logic? I mean, couldn't even a isolationist bigot be right about SOME things?

"I don't know anything about Ron Paul"
And yet, you sure seem to want to bitch because someone else does...

"You seem to have decided he is a nut job"
What was the first clue?

"couldn't even a isolationist bigot be right about SOME things"
So? Does that mean you have to jump around shouting "Hooray for isolationist bigots!"

I thought you were just pouting.

you seem to have far more knowledge about Paul than I do ... i think it's great that you point out some of the very anti-progressive views he holds ...

but what i don't understand is why you wouldn't also show support for the fantastic speech he made yesterday about the insanity of the war in Iraq or, if you didn't hear or read the speech, for his position on Iraq generally ...

are people and their views either ALL bad or ALL good? why not give him credit for a great position on the war?

People here often get confused between an idea and the person who supports it and dont try to see his motives.

A perfect example with FEMA. Most of the Republicans that condemned it had an ulterior motive: tell us that the federal govt should not be involved, but that they should give that to faith-based initiatives. Look how many people did not see that and thought these guys had seen the light. NO, they are using the fact that Bush has destroyed our govt institution to finish the job.

Look at the threads about the 11 people voting against the 51b. How many people thought these people were great (Tancredo, Sessenbrenner, ...) and were doing these things for good reasons.

May be it is time that some people get it that some people are not our friends even if they borrow our arguments. They may be our worse ennemies.

you wrote: "we should support the speech, not the person"

the BP wrote that Paul supports "pretty much everything sane people think of as "progress."

the two statements do NOT reconcile ... that was the point i was making ...

my point is NOT that people shouldn't be critical of Paul just because he made a great speech on Iraq ... my point is that they should strongly support what he said on Iraq even if he is otherwise opposed to a progressive vision ...

see the difference?

That was all he was.

Of course, after the tragedy at NOLA, the same could be said about Junior. :)

"May be it is time that some people get it that some people are not our friends even if they borrow our arguments. They may be our worse ennemies."
You're right on the money here...Paul is a disgrace to this country and its ideals. He's a meanspirited shit.

Hitler was a vegetarian...but I don't have to wear a swastika to become one...

"why you wouldn't also show support for the fantastic speech he made yesterday about the insanity of the war in Iraq"
Because I don't think the rancid old loony is worthy of any decent person's support.

is that it is a classic Repuke thing. They like Bush, so everything he does or says is great. They hate Kerry, so everything he does or says is wrong. That is what I meant by working backwards from a premise.

Its supposed to be a sign of a low IQ.

Do you have a link for that.

He's a libertarian and has some pretty extreme views, but he is absolutely and totally dead on about IraqNam

He's a screwloose fuckwit....

As a libertarian, how can he be so closed-minded? And, how is he so right about Iraq? He says:

Pursuing this war merely to save face, or to claim it’s a way to honor those who already have died or been wounded, is hardly a reason that more people should die.

He sounds like Cindy Sheehan!

There's no reason to cheer on the far right lunatic fringe to make a point that millions of Americans (including Ms. Sheehan) are making...

my gf and I kept looking at each other wondering if the "R" next to his name a typo. Then I thought, well, he could be another Pat Buchanan.

Both things in that statement are out and out LIES. Our military was not defeated and we were not kicked out. Blatant LIES

because we grew bored of the food. I guess we also found WMD in Iraq and Saddam was on one of the flights that crashed into the trade center. He simply held onto the magic passport and survived the fiery inferno.

Grew bored with the food!!

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

he is calling out neo-cons better than most dems. Where are our guys shouting to the rafters of this administrations crimes?

We need to put the criminals where they belong with a coalition of law-abiding Americans regardless of political ideology. After that we can argue with the likes of Ron Paul about the future of our country. Until the crooks are behind bars, the crimes will continue.