Rep. Ron Paul's 8 Sept speech before Congress

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

HON. RON PAUL OF TEXAS
BEFORE THE US HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
September 8, 2005

Why We Fight

Many reasons have been given for why we fight and our youth must die in Iraq. The reasons now given for why we must continue this war bear no resemblance to the reasons given to gain the support of the American people and the United States Congress prior to our invasion in March of 2003. Before the war, we were told we faced an imminent threat to our national security from Saddam Hussein. This rationale, now proven grossly mistaken, has been changed. Now we’re told we must honor the fallen by “completing the mission.” To do otherwise would demean the sacrifice of those who have died or been wounded. Any lack of support for “completing the mission” is said, by the promoters of the war, to be unpatriotic, un-American, and detrimental to the troops. They insist the only way .......

I don't have a problem with finishing over there,but this line of reasoning is total dreck.
If you do something wrong you need to finish it to justify having started it.Absolute idiocy!

I think the points made by the article are all valid and compelling.
If you are in Iraq fighting based on lies, completing a mission fabricated on lies doesn't achieve anything. Also, I agree that our presence isn't helping anything.
If our troops were in North America, and we were building new bases here, then we could control immigration into our country. As things stand right now, taxpayers are spending for Iraq's security, rather than security in our own country.

It isn’t only our presidents that deserve the blame when they overstep their authority and lead the country into inappropriate wars. Congress deserves equally severe criticism for acquiescing to the demands of the executive to go needlessly to war. It has been known throughout history that kings, dictators, and the executive branch of governments are always overly eager to go to war. This is precisely why our founders tried desperately to keep decisions about going to war in the hands of the legislature. But this process has failed us for the last 65 years. Congress routinely has rubber stamped the plans of our presidents and even the United Nations to enter into war through the back door.

Amen to that, and I doubt this article will be welcomed by the Administration and/or Congress.

IMO, Ron Paul would make a great president, but I do not think that could ever happen.

QUESTIONS: Would not chaos and anarchy reign supreme in Iraq if we brought all of our forces home asap? If so, is that even a consideration?

Amen to that, and I doubt this article will be welcomed by the Administration and/or Congress.

IMO, Ron Paul would make a great president, but I do not think that could ever happen.

QUESTIONS: Would not chaos and anarchy reign supreme in Iraq if we brought all of our forces home asap? If so, is that even a consideration?

I think a case could be made that chaos and anarchy increased with the arrival of US troops.
I don't think that should be a consideration for the US though. We didn't care about the Iraqi people when we invaded their country, why should we pretend to do so now?
We should what's best for ourselves, and our troops. We're good at being selfish, let's just be honest about it this once.

I think a case could be made that chaos and anarchy increased with the arrival of US troops.
I don't think that should be a consideration for the US though. We didn't care about the Iraqi people when we invaded their country, why should we pretend to do so now?
We should what's best for ourselves, and our troops. We're good at being selfish, let's just be honest about it this once.

Purely selfish reasons for finishing Iraq properly.

1. If we leave now, it will reinforce the idea that America can't handle protracted engagements in the minds of those who wish us dead. That increases the chances of terror warfare within the US, with the terrorists convinced we will give up if they just hold out long enough.
2. If we leave now, it will completely waste the investment we have made in the country. Instead of an ally, paying back both tangible and intangible dividends into the future, we would have a total loss, sucking in anything we have spent and giving nothing back.
3. If we leave now, the Iraqis who risked their lives to create a real Iraq would lose everything as the country sinks into an Iran created cesspool, leaving hard core enemies instead of allies in a crucial part of the Middle East.

So, as is easy to see, finishing the job is what's best for the troops and us.

Purely selfish reasons for finishing Iraq properly.

1. If we leave now, it will reinforce the idea that America can't handle protracted engagements in the minds of those who wish us dead. That increases the chances of terror warfare within the US, with the terrorists convinced we will give up if they just hold out long enough.
2. If we leave now, it will completely waste the investment we have made in the country. Instead of an ally, paying back both tangible and intangible dividends into the future, we would have a total loss, sucking in anything we have spent and giving nothing back.
3. If we leave now, the Iraqis who risked their lives to create a real Iraq would lose everything as the country sinks into an Iran created cesspool, leaving hard core enemies instead of allies in a crucial part of the Middle East.

So, as is easy to see, finishing the job is what's best for the troops and us.

This whole post reflects such a serious detachment from reality it's not even funny.

If the Coalition forces leave Iraq, will FEMA go in to give the Iraqis the help they need? Because it will be like New Orleans all over again if the Iraqis begin to chant, "we need help!" Or...

is the coaliton's presence hurting the Iraqis? :confused:

Quagmire.


Have the Dems proposed any legislation to impeach Bush? I thought Rep. Conyers was working on it?

If the Coalition forces leave Iraq, will FEMA go in to give the Iraqis the help they need? Because it will be like New Orleans all over again if the Iraqis begin to chant, "we need help!" Or...

is the coaliton's presence hurting the Iraqis? :confused:

Quagmire.


Have the Dems proposed any legislation to impeach Bush? I thought Rep. Conyers was working on it?

Quagmire means no progress. There is progress in Iraq, if you listen to the people on the ground and not holed up in a hotel somewhere. If we leave now, it all blows up.

This whole post reflects such a serious detachment from reality it's not even funny.

Try real hard and tell us what's not reality.

Better yet, lets pull up some of the arguments used for staying in VietNam, and substitue "Iraq" for "VietNam". See any similarities?
I admit, I might be dense. But, unless Iraqis are pouring into the USA with bombs and guns, I completely don't get the argument about how we are defending our country by occupying Iraq.
Also, if you study history at all, you will notice that the British helped create the boundaries of what is now Iraq, and tried to occupy the country and its oil reserves after World War I.
The result was a neverending insurgency that didn't end until the British withdrew all their troops.
So, I still claim that the best thing for the United States is a hasty retreat from Iraq. If we're going to invade a Middle Eastern country for economic reasons, how about that dictatorship called Saudi Arabia? Oh, that's right, they're our "friends", aren't they?

Better yet, lets pull up some of the arguments used for staying in VietNam, and substitue "Iraq" for "VietNam". See any similarities?
I admit, I might be dense. But, unless Iraqis are pouring into the USA with bombs and guns, I completely don't get the argument about how we are defending our country by occupying Iraq.
Also, if you study history at all, you will notice that the British helped create the boundaries of what is now Iraq, and tried to occupy the country and its oil reserves after World War I.
The result was a neverending insurgency that didn't end until the British withdrew all their troops.
So, I still claim that the best thing for the United States is a hasty retreat from Iraq. If we're going to invade a Middle Eastern country for economic reasons, how about that dictatorship called Saudi Arabia? Oh, that's right, they're our "friends", aren't they?

You're mixing two separate things, and are confused at the results. We aren't occupying Iraq with the ultimate goal of running the country. We want out of there as soon as they can protect themselves against the Iranian terrorists. As for invading Saudi Arabia, that should nuke any idea that the Iraq war was about oil. If that's all we wanted, we could have had both Saudi Arabia and Kuwait with virtually no American lives lost and at a tenth the cost.

You're mixing two separate things, and are confused at the results. We aren't occupying Iraq with the ultimate goal of running the country. We want out of there as soon as they can protect themselves against the Iranian terrorists. As for invading Saudi Arabia, that should nuke any idea that the Iraq war was about oil. If that's all we wanted, we could have had both Saudi Arabia and Kuwait with virtually no American lives lost and at a tenth the cost.
Oh, I'm not confused in the slightest about what I'm talking about. I am admittedly confused as to how Iraq is a good thing for our country.
If the war was about oil, Iraq is exactly the country you would invade. They have the largest oil reserves in the world. Problem is, oil production has gone down since the US invaded.
However, your statement about invading Saudi Arabia or Kuwait with less cost an no lives lost, indicates you're every so slightly insane.
Saudi Arabia is where Muslims make their pilgrimages to Mecca. If we invade that country, it will be the Crusades all over again.
Anyway, we didn't invade Iraq to protect them from Iranian terrorists. We invaded them for a whole list of reasons that turned out to be false.
Remember, they hate us for our freedom!!

Try real hard and tell us what's not reality.

Are you kidding me? You're the one making predictions like you know something we don't. Share the good news, friend.

Iraq is an anarchic mess on the brink of civil war and it shows no signs whatsoever of abating anytime soon. Furthermore, the very best it will ever "stabilize" to in our lifetime is an Islamic theocracy with strong ties to Iran- in fact the curent Shiite "government" (when they're not dodging constant car bombs and attempted assasinations) already has strong ties to Iran's mullahs.

Iraq is already a stirring hornet's nest, but mark my word it's a class 'A' ****storm waiting to REALLy jump off within three years, tops.

And don't even start with any crap about "liberal this" or "negativity that", because I posted two articles last week that were the only good news to come out of Iraq in about two years and they blipped on and off the screen like the blink of an eye: then straight back to raging anarchy. I have buddies over there and I'd love to see the place stabilize and prosper. Believe me I've never wanted to be wrong so bad.

People need to start facing reality, or reality's gonna face you in a major way. Go back three years in time and we can see quite clearly that the warhawks have absolutely no capacity for prescient thought when it comes to this sort of foreign policy "maneuver". Anti-war people knew this was coming a mile away, and lo and behold: it turns out you really CAN'T bomb a foreign country into being a nice place.

So why don't you save your snide ****ing remarks and you "try real hard" to tell us how the **** this country is going to get out of this ****ing mess. C'mon, you were full of pomp and bright ideas two years ago, now what? You're right about one thing, we can't leave. You and your team have entrenched us thoroughly into a mother****ing tribal war of all things in the middle of the goddamn desert for years into the future, with no payoff in sight. Hell, the anti-war crowd would probably be HAPPY to get a cut of Iraqi oil at this point, if it stopped gas from going over five dollars a ****ing gallon. What's our big reward for "liberating" Iraq into its current state?

I know, I know: now you're going to sit there and calmly say we need to "stay the course" and be patient, and regale us with how hard our glorious forefathers fought to win WW2. make sure you mention Japan and Germany so you don't miss any Hannity/Limbaugh talking points. Ignore the giant ****ing elephant in the living room, I guess that's the advantage of sending troops halfway around the goddamn world, at least you can just pretend its not happening. News ****ing flash: this is NOT world war two, this is not any type of conventional war and it's a conflict that never should have been started. It's a mess, period.

Quagmire means no progress.

No it doesn't.


But good Bush imitation though. :D

Vote Libertarian


http://www.lp.org/images/esad.gif
Click Here (http://www.lp.org/cgi-bin/plan/plan.cgi?action=add_form)

whew...okay, let me try to put this a little more dispassionately:

hadit's assertion that we are training Iraqi forces until they can "protect themselves from Iranian terrorists" reflects the worst sort of 'only-in-America' ignorance about this situation I can think of. There is no cohesive large-scale Iraqi military or police force. And there is no singular cohesive force of "Iranian terrorists". There's some Iraqi police, and probably a *few" "good" ones. And there's definitely a few Iranian terrorists. Probably more than a few.

But there's also a million other groups and individuals vying for their own slice of the pie. See, hadit seems to think this conflict can be viewed in western terms. He apprarently has no clue how foreign their culture really is to ours. Family and tribal ties are everything over there: everything. National borders mean nothing, and that is why nobody has any interest in dressing up in three-piece suits and pretending to be American, unless it's to collect an American check for pretending to be running some Western-style national "government". The Iraqi shiite leadership is consolidating power withthe Iranian mullahs as we speak, people like hadit seem to think that because the two countries end in a different letter that they have some sort of rivalry? That's absurd. they have a beef alright: fanatical Muslim tribalism against any Western powers. They'd sell us out in two seconds and you're insane if you think otherwise.

The borders of Iraq are totally arbitrary and only reflect the total folly of the last "adventure in colonialism" which created the "nation" of Iraq from three rival factions, seventy years ago when Britain tried their hand at "Iraqi Freedom".

Here's what the British general Sir Stanley Maude said to the about-to-be-Iraqi people in 1917:

'Our armies do not come into your cities and lands as conquerors or enemies, but as liberators.'

Sound familiar? Well the rest is history, right up until ol' Gee Dubya decides that he can do things just a little bit better with his American boys. I guess he's not too big on history larnin'- no surprise there.

Sound familiar? Well the rest is history, right up until ol' Gee Dubya decides that he can do things just a little bit better with his American boys. I guess he's not too big on history larnin'- no surprise there.


1917? just who the heck was he liberating them from? lol.

I think the points made by the article are all valid and compelling.
If you are in Iraq fighting based on lies, completing a mission fabricated on lies doesn't achieve anything. Also, I agree that our presence isn't helping anything.
If our troops were in North America, and we were building new bases here, then we could control immigration into our country. As things stand right now, taxpayers are spending for Iraq's security, rather than security in our own country.
I fully agree, Groff200. (Again, :cool: )

whew...okay, let me try to put this a little more dispassionately:

hadit's assertion that we are training Iraqi forces until they can "protect themselves from Iranian terrorists" reflects the worst sort of 'only-in-America' ignorance about this situation I can think of. There is no cohesive large-scale Iraqi military or police force. And there is no singular cohesive force of "Iranian terrorists". There's some Iraqi police, and probably a *few" "good" ones. And there's definitely a few Iranian terrorists. Probably more than a few.

But there's also a million other groups and individuals vying for their own slice of the pie. See, hadit seems to think this conflict can be viewed in western terms. He apprarently has no clue how foreign their culture really is to ours. Family and tribal ties are everything over there: everything. National borders mean nothing, and that is why nobody has any interest in dressing up in three-piece suits and pretending to be American, unless it's to collect an American check for pretending to be running some Western-style national "government". The Iraqi shiite leadership is consolidating power withthe Iranian mullahs as we speak, people like hadit seem to think that because the two countries end in a different letter that they have some sort of rivalry? That's absurd. they have a beef alright: fanatical Muslim tribalism against any Western powers. They'd sell us out in two seconds and you're insane if you think otherwise.

The borders of Iraq are totally arbitrary and only reflect the total folly of the last "adventure in colonialism" which created the "nation" of Iraq from three rival factions, seventy years ago when Britain tried their hand at "Iraqi Freedom".

Here's what the British general Sir Stanley Maude said to the about-to-be-Iraqi people in 1917:



Sound familiar? Well the rest is history, right up until ol' Gee Dubya decides that he can do things just a little bit better with his American boys. I guess he's not too big on history larnin'- no surprise there.

Not so fast. I believe Iran and Iraq to be at odds because they fought a bloody war for 10 years, during which many, many people died. Did you forget about that little detail? The last letter of their names is immaterial, or was that whole thing just a juvenile debating tactic? Iraq IS an arbitrary country, and should have been split into 3, IMO. There is not a large, cohesive Iraqi military or police force YET. That's what we're trying to help them build, the means to protect themselves.

Not so fast. I believe Iran and Iraq to be at odds because they fought a bloody war for 10 years, during which many, many people died. Did you forget about that little detail?

Sorry dude but you're really, really illustrating my point to the .1% of Americans who actually have a comprehensive knowledge of the middle-east. If you want to get a better grasp of what you're talking about I suggest a book called From Beirut to Jerusalem by Thomas Friedman.

See, Iraq has these two Muslim factions called "Shiites" and "Sunnis". You might've heard of them. Well, turns out Saddam was a Sunni. The leadership of Iran is Shiite. That is where a lot of the conflict of the Iraq-Iran war came from (plus of course the usual basic land-control issues)

You may recall that the only people who actually briefly celebrated the "liberation" of Iraq were the Shiites (although they canceled that celebration after about 48 hours). That's because they were the main ones oppressed by Saddam's Sunni-led government (and it was a violent oppression, because numerically Shiites are the majority population).

Now the post-invasion government of Iraq is predominantly Shiite (you should know at least a little about this just from reading the news- if you actually care) and they have basically just switched roles with the Sunnis. That is why the Iraq insurgency was mainly led or supported by Sunnis- at first. Of course now both sects are slowly beginning to unite more and more against a common enemy, the US.

I'm slightly dumbfounded that you lack even this cursory kowledge of the situation. But it only proves exactly what I've been saying. Most Americans are just like you: they have this strange simplistic idea that middle-east "nations" are built on the same ideas of national identity as Western countries just because their borders are drawn the same way on world maps.

Like I said, try reading a book on the subject, because I have niether the time nor inclination to bring you up to speed on an internet message board.

People like you supported the war so now maybe it's time to get a clue as to what you've involved us all in. Iraq has become our 51st state- as Colin Powell said before the invasion: "You're going to own it."

you're probably not going to like what you find out, and you're probably going to wish you had bothered to inform yourself before you blindly supported the invasion of a highly volatile nation of 25 million people of different warring tribes and factions.

Thanks neo-cons.

Sorry dude but you're really, really illustrating my point to the .1% of Americans who actually have a comprehensive knowledge of the middle-east. If you want to get a better grasp of what you're talking about I suggest a book called From Beirut to Jerusalem by Thomas Friedman.

See, Iraq has these two Muslim factions called "Shiites" and "Sunnis". You might've heard of them. Well, turns out Saddam was a Sunni. The leadership of Iran is Shiite. That is where a lot of the conflict of the Iraq-Iran war came from (plus of course the usual basic land-control issues)


Hence my contention that the new Iraq should have been split into 3 nations, combined under one federal government, somewhat like the US used to be. You see, you're really making a lot of assumptions about me that are patently absurd. Of course the religious factions hate each other, and should never have been forced to share the same national identity. Iraq should never have been one nation.


You may recall that the only people who actually briefly celebrated the "liberation" of Iraq were the Shiites (although they canceled that celebration after about 48 hours). That's because they were the main ones oppressed by Saddam's Sunni-led government (and it was a violent oppression, because numerically Shiites are the majority population).


Are you forgetting the Kurds? Are they not on your radar screen?


Now the post-invasion government of Iraq is predominantly Shiite (you should know at least a little about this just from reading the news- if you actually care) and they have basically just switched roles with the Sunnis. That is why the Iraq insurgency was mainly led or supported by Sunnis- at first. Of course now both sects are slowly beginning to unite more and more against a common enemy, the US.


Where is your evidence that the Sunnis and Shiites are uniting against the US?


I'm slightly dumbfounded that you lack even this cursory kowledge of the situation. But it only proves exactly what I've been saying. Most Americans are just like you: they have this strange simplistic idea that middle-east "nations" are built on the same ideas of national identity as Western countries just because their borders are drawn the same way on world maps.

Like I said, try reading a book on the subject, because I have niether the time nor inclination to bring you up to speed on an internet message board.

People like you supported the war so now maybe it's time to get a clue as to what you've involved us all in. Iraq has become our 51st state- as Colin Powell said before the invasion: "You're going to own it."

you're probably not going to like what you find out, and you're probably going to wish you had bothered to inform yourself before you blindly supported the invasion of a highly volatile nation of 25 million people of different warring tribes and factions.

Thanks neo-cons.

Ignoring the personal attacks :nonono:

Again you should check your history. Iran and Iraq fought the war for a couple of reasons. One that I think is the most poignant is that Iraq was a secular muslim society while Iraq was governed by hard line Muslim radicals. Shia in particular. Now the primary economic cause of the war was two fold. Iraq's tenious access to the sea and oil reserves in the North gulf area.

Todays conflict between Shia and Sunni and secular Iraq / Hardline Iran is simply the end of the conflict which I guarantee the Shia hardliners will win and ultimately Iraq will be a fundamentalist Muslim state. That will be the primary outcome of the "liberation" of Iraq by the US/Brit coallition. thousands die to make the region safe not for democracy but for hardline fundamentalists.

Todays conflict between Shia and Sunni and secular Iraq / Hardline Iran is simply the end of the conflict which I guarantee the Shia hardliners will win and ultimately Iraq will be a fundamentalist Muslim state. That will be the primary outcome of the "liberation" of Iraq by the US/Brit coallition. thousands die to make the region safe not for democracy but for hardline fundamentalists.
That is both sad and ironic, Diverlady.. Well said!

Again you should check your history. Iran and Iraq fought the war for a couple of reasons. One that I think is the most poignant is that Iraq was a secular muslim society while Iraq was governed by hard line Muslim radicals. Shia in particular. Now the primary economic cause of the war was two fold. Iraq's tenious access to the sea and oil reserves in the North gulf area.

Todays conflict between Shia and Sunni and secular Iraq / Hardline Iran is simply the end of the conflict which I guarantee the Shia hardliners will win and ultimately Iraq will be a fundamentalist Muslim state. That will be the primary outcome of the "liberation" of Iraq by the US/Brit coallition. thousands die to make the region safe not for democracy but for hardline fundamentalists.

That is yet to be determined. If we pull out now, it's inevitable. If we ensure the Iraqi government can protect itself from the Iranian transplants, it has a chance at developing into something more along the lines of Turkey.