Home | About | Columnists | Blog | Subscribe | Donate
The Neoconservative Empire
by Ron Paul
by Ron Paul
DIGG THIS
Statement on the Iraq War Resolution
Before the U.S. House of Representatives February 14, 2007
Watch Ron Paul's speech on video.
This grand debate is welcomed but it could be that this is nothing more than a
distraction from the dangerous military confrontation approaching with Iran and
supported by many in leadership on both sides of the aisle.
This resolution, unfortunately, does not address the disaster in Iraq. Instead,
it seeks to appear opposed to the war while at the same time offering no change
of the status quo in Iraq. As such, it is not actually a vote against a troop
surge. A real vote against a troop surge is a vote against the coming
supplemental appropriation that finances it. I hope all of my colleagues who
vote against the surge today will vote against the budgetary surge when it
really counts: when we vote on the supplemental.
The biggest red herring in this debate is the constant innuendo that those who
dont support expanding the war are somehow opposing the troops. Its nothing
more than a canard to claim that those of us who struggled to prevent the
bloodshed and now want it stopped are somehow less patriotic and less concerned
about the welfare of our military personnel.
Osama bin Laden has expressed sadistic pleasure with our invasion of Iraq and
was surprised that we served his interests above and beyond his dreams on how
we responded after the 9/11 attacks. His pleasure comes from our policy of
folly getting ourselves bogged down in the middle of a religious civil war,
7,000 miles from home that is financially bleeding us to death. Total costs now
are reasonably estimated to exceed $2 trillion. His recruitment of Islamic
extremists has been greatly enhanced by our occupation of Iraq.
Unfortunately, we continue to concentrate on the obvious mismanagement of a war
promoted by false information and ignore debating the real issue which is: Why
are we determined to follow a foreign policy of empire building and pre-emption
which is unbecoming of a constitutional republic?
Those on the right should recall that the traditional conservative position of
non-intervention was their position for most of the 20th Century-and they
benefited politically from the wars carelessly entered into by the political
left. Seven years ago the Right benefited politically by condemning the illegal
intervention in Kosovo and Somalia. At the time conservatives were outraged
over the failed policy of nation building.
Its important to recall that the left, in 2003, offered little opposition to
the pre-emptive war in Iraq, and many are now not willing to stop it by
de-funding it or work to prevent an attack on Iran.
The catch-all phrase, War on Terrorism, in all honesty, has no more meaning
than if one wants to wage a war against criminal gangsterism. Its deliberately
vague and non definable to justify and permit perpetual war anywhere, and under
any circumstances. Dont forget: the Iraqis and Saddam Hussein had absolutely
nothing to do with any terrorist attack against us including that on 9/11.
Special interests and the demented philosophy of conquest have driven most wars
throughout history. Rarely has the cause of liberty, as it was in our own
revolution, been the driving force. In recent decades our policies have been
driven by neo-conservative empire radicalism, profiteering in the military
industrial complex, misplaced do-good internationalism, mercantilistic notions
regarding the need to control natural resources, and blind loyalty to various
governments in the Middle East.
For all the misinformation given the American people to justify our invasion,
such as our need for national security, enforcing UN resolutions, removing a
dictator, establishing a democracy, protecting our oil, the argument has been
reduced to this: If we leave now Iraq will be left in a mess-implying the
implausible that if we stay it wont be a mess.
Since it could go badly when we leave, that blame must be placed on those who
took us there, not on those of us who now insist that Americans no longer need
be killed or maimed and that Americans no longer need to kill any more Iraqis.
Weve had enough of both!
Resorting to a medical analogy, a wrong diagnosis was made at the beginning of
the war and the wrong treatment was prescribed. Refusing to reassess our
mistakes and insist on just more and more of a failed remedy is destined to
kill the patient-in this case the casualties will be our liberties and
prosperity here at home and peace abroad.
Theres no logical reason to reject the restraints placed in the Constitution
regarding our engaging in foreign conflicts unrelated to our national security.
The advice of the founders and our early presidents was sound then and its
sound today.
We shouldnt wait until our financial system is completely ruined and we are
forced to change our ways. We should do it as quickly as possible and stop the
carnage and financial bleeding that will bring us to our knees and force us to
stop that which we should have never started.
We all know, in time, the war will be de-funded one way or another and the
troops will come home. So why not now?
February 15, 2007
Dr. Ron Paul is a Republican member of Congress from Texas.
Ron Paul Archives
____________________________________________________________________________________
Need Mail bonding?
Go to the Yahoo! Mail Q&A for great tips from Yahoo! Answers users.
http://answers.yahoo.com/dir/?link=list&sid=396546091
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
