Silence the War Drums

by Ron Paul


Before the US House of Representatives, February 16, 2006

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this very dangerous legislation. My colleagues would do well to understand that this legislation is leading us toward war against Iran.

Those reading this bill may find themselves feeling a sense of déjà vu. In many cases one can just substitute "Iraq" for "Iran" in this bill and we could be back in the pre-2003 run up to war with Iraq. And the logic of this current push for war is much the same as was the logic used in the argument for war on Iraq. As earlier with Iraq, this resolution demands that Iran perform the impossible task of proving a negative – in this case that Iran does not have plans to build a nuclear weapon.

There are a few things we need to remember when thinking about Iran and this legislation. First, Iran has never been ruled in violation of its international nuclear non-proliferation obligations.

Second, Iran concluded a Safeguards Agreement more than 30 years ago that provides for the verification of Iran's fulfillment of its obligation to not divert nuclear energy programs to nuclear weapons development. Since this agreement was reached, the International Atomic Energy Agency has never found any indication that Iran has diverted or attempted to divert source or special nuclear materials from a peaceful purpose to a military purpose.

But, this does not stop those eager for conflict with Iran from stating otherwise. As the Washington Post reported last year, "U.S. officials, eager to move the Iran issue to the U.N. Security Council – which has the authority to impose sanctions – have begun a new round of briefings for allies designed to convince them that Iran's real intention is to use its energy program as a cover for bomb building. The briefings will focus on the White House's belief that a country with as much oil as Iran would not need an energy program on the scale it is planning, according to two officials."

This reminds us of the quick move to justify the invasion of Iraq by citing Iraq's "intentions" when actual weapons of mass destruction could not be found.

The resolution's second resolved clause is a real misrepresentation of the Iran/EU3 talks. The "efforts of France, Germany, and the United Kingdom" were not "to seek...suspension of enrichment and reprocessing related activities..." As the EU3-Iran Paris Agreement makes very clear, the suspension of enrichment is a purely voluntary measure taken by Iran and is "not a legal obligation."

This is similar to the situation with Iran's voluntarily observation of the Additional Protocols (allowing unannounced inspections) without legally being bound to do so. Suspending voluntary observance of the Additional Protocols is not a violation of the NPT. But, those seeking to push us toward war with Iran are purposely trying to connect the two – to confuse voluntary "confidence building" measures taken by Iran with the legally-binding Treaty itself.

Resolved clause four of this legislation is the most inflammatory and objectionable part of the legislation. It lowers the bar to initiating war on Iran. This clause anticipates that the US may not be successful in getting the Security Council to pass a Resolution because of the potential of a Russian or Chinese veto, so it "calls upon" Russia and China to "take action" in response to "any report" of "Iran's noncompliance. That is right: any report.

Mr. Speaker, this resolution is a drumbeat for war with Iran. Its logic is faulty, its premises are flawed, and its conclusions are dangerous. I urge my colleagues to stop for a moment and ponder the wisdom of starting yet another war in the Middle East.
February 20, 2006

Dr. Ron Paul is a Republican member of Congress from Texas.

Ron Paul Archives

Find this article at:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul304.html

http://nomorewarforisrael.********.com

Ron Paul is now my favorite living Republican!:w00t:

He makes good points about the inflexibility of the resolution

The last thing the USA needs to do is invade Iran. We can't afford the wars we're already involved in.

I probably don't agree with any of the sentiments by the people who have posted so far, but I do agree that Iran shouldn't be invaded.

Not because we can't, or that we are "stretched too thin", or any of the other liberal whinging over war.

Iran is in its situation right now because of the USA. I don't think a Mullahocracy could have been created without the help of the CIA in overthrowing Mossadegh.

I think that the Iranian people are mostly educated and tired of the rule of the unelected Mullahs.

Even if it means that Iran gets nukes before the people are able to overthrow the repressive theocracy, it is a chance we should take.


It is either that or real "brinksmanship". Which would mean demonstrating to the world that the US is very willing to use nuclear (nukular) diplomacy.

Iran is in its situation right now because of the USA

Bullshit.

There is ANTOHER guy who EXCUSES all everyone ELSE does to go blamming the USA for all ills.

Bullshit.

There is ANTOHER guy who EXCUSES all everyone ELSE does to go blamming the USA for all ills.

No one used the word 'all'. Maybe you wish someone did...

Bullshit.

There is ANTOHER guy who EXCUSES all everyone ELSE does to go blamming the USA for all ills.

Look Mobile I am not a Blame America Firster.

I think that the mullah would have never been able to affect a coup against the popularly elected Mossadegh. If they couldn't have seized power they would have to had tried to achieve power through the ballot box. They, in all likelihood, would not have been successful considering there were too many 'liberal' factions in the country. Khomeni had to pay 'liberal' lip service to the masses until he was able to consolidate power.

Khomeni didn't have the kind of power Khameni has now until quite a bit later in the "revolution".

but, let me ask: Do you deny that it was the CIA that made the overthrow of Mossadeg possible?

Look Mobile I am not a Blame America Firster.

wats a blame america firster? :shrug:

wats a blame america firster? :shrug:


Someone, who like Mobile says, who blames the USA for every single problem that the world faces. Someone, who no matter what, finds some link or reason to blame the USA for everything that happens negative in the world. For example, people who blame the USA for the mudslide in the Phillipines based on the fact that the USA ruled them for a while would be a blame America firster.

I think that it was Jeanne Kirkpatrick who first came up with the term.

Let me be clear: I think that the USA is the GREATEST COUNTRY IN THE HISTORY OF THE WORLD.

That doesn't mean that I don't think that we have made mistakes, and it doesn't mean that I don't think that we should acknowledge those mistakes when and where we can.

It is not positive that the USA created the mullahocracy, that is just my opinion.

I agree, blaming America for all the world's problems isn't exactly the best thing to do.
However, can we also agree that the opposite approach is equally invalid?
Meaning, pretending that all the US does is right and there are no problems is not a good thing either.
Even if you think the US is the greatest country in the world, it could be greater if we would address our problems instead of ignoring them.
To be back on topic though, war requires financing and I really don't think the US has the necessary Capital to launch another invasion.

To be back on topic though, war requires financing and I really don't think the US has the necessary Capital to launch another invasion.
I'm sure they could just print more money. That's how they have been paying for their budget and trade deficits.

BK

who is printing more money?

do you understand the relationship between printing of money and inflation?

do we have rampant inflation?

I would suggest that you look to the example of Germany during the great depression to see what would happen if the government merely printed money willy-nilly to finance ANYTHING.

Nobody is going to invade anybody. The ramifications would be disasterous. We may very well attack them, but we aren't going to invade.

If we must invade something I say we take back Cuba and murder Castro.

I guess no one really. You don't need to print money now, just a few mouse clicks and *poof*.

[QUOTE]do we have rampant inflation?
I'll just check the M3 index.

look to the example of Germany
Post WW1 Germany and modern day US aren't really comparable. It's pretty obvious as to why Germany's money was worthless when they printed an excess, but when the US doing the same now it's not.

But the priniciples behind the rate of inflation and the rate of money printing are still directly correlated.

It doesn't matter that the situation between post-WWI Germany and current day US is the same or not because the result of printing money willy-nilly at ANYTIME will cause inflation similar to that of post-WWI Germany. There are other examples that prove the point.

Why would you check M3? That includes way too much of 'artificial" money that wouldn't prove your thesis that the "government" is printing money.

M3 includes things like demand deposits and in the US credit.

If we must invade something I say we take back Cuba and murder Castro.
What would that accomplish? Better cigars and a nice tropical island to vacation on?

What would that accomplish? Better cigars and a nice tropical island to vacation on?

None of the above, just payback. Think of all the vintage automobiles we could loot!

None of the above, just payback. Think of all the vintage automobiles we could loot!

:nice:

,Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this very dangerous legislation. What legislation is he talking about? It would help to get the facts before we comment on this man's opinion.

Also, you should read the posting guidelines concerning posting entire articles and also highlighting important information

It doesn't matter that the situation between post-WWI Germany and current day US is the same or not because the result of printing money willy-nilly at ANYTIME will cause inflation similar to that of post-WWI Germany. There are other examples that prove the point.
I never said anyone was printing money willy-nilly.

Why would you check M3? That includes way too much of 'artificial" money that wouldn't prove your thesis that the "government" is printing money.
Why put government in quotations, I never said government. Also when I said printing I didn't mean actual notes and coins, obviously billion dollar debts aren't paid in cash.

Can money 'printed' that isn't in circulation affect inflation? So if you could 'print' you're way out of debt knowing the debt owner is going to lock up that money in a bank, you're pretty much safe, atleast until they decide to put in circulation. I'm just guessing though...

Oh and the M3. Does it even exist anymore?

The issue of affordability in regard to US ability to sustain any more conflict is still a real one. As is the issue of military assets and the US ability to support any further expansion of action. In both cases we are somewhat limited. Those limitations need to be acknowledged as they are real. Are they enough to halt any further expansion? Personally I think so but that is really a matter of opinion. I find my self in the unusual position of agreeing with Jimmy. Iran is one of the most educated middle eastern countries and there is the real possibility that the ballot box just might work there if we dont give the fundamentalists a US boogey man to rail against.

An attack on Iran would only strengthen the Iranian governments hold on power since it would cause a wave of nationalism. An attack on Iran would only delay the inevitable fact that they will get the bomb anyway.

The reason Ron Paul (and about 4 others in Congress) is ignored by both political parties and the mainstream media, is that Paul is actually interested in talking about the real world, as opposed to saying things (anything) that will result in campaign contributions.

His interest in reality makes Ron Paul irrelevant.