Ron Paul on Israel
El_Kabong
Posts: 4,141
i may not agree w/ him on everything, but he's dead on w/ this...it'd be nice if more ppl would get the stones to say it
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul335.html
Before the U.S. House of Representatives, July 20, 2006
I rise in opposition to this resolution, which I sincerely believe will do more harm than good.
I do agree with the resolution's condemnation of violence. But I am convinced that when we get involved in foreign conflicts and send strong messages, such as this resolution will, it ends up expanding the war rather than diminishing the conflict, and that ultimately comes back to haunt us.
Mr. Speaker, I follow a policy in foreign affairs called non-interventionism. I do not believe we are making the United States more secure when we involve ourselves in conflicts overseas. The Constitution really doesn't authorize us to be the policemen of the world, much less to favor one side over another in foreign conflicts. It is very clear, reading this resolution objectively, that all the terrorists are on one side and all the victims and the innocents are on the other side. I find this unfair, particularly considering the significantly higher number of civilian casualties among Lebanese civilians. I would rather advocate neutrality rather than picking sides, which is what this resolution does.
Some would say that there is no room to talk about neutrality, as if neutrality were a crime. I would suggest there should be room for an open mind to consider another type of policy that may save American lives.
I was in Congress in the early 1980s when the US Marines were sent in to Lebanon, and I came to the Floor before they went, when they went, and before they were killed, arguing my case against getting involved in that conflict.
Ronald Reagan, when he sent the troops in, said he would never turn tail and run. Then, after the Marines were killed, he had a reassessment of the policy. When he wrote his autobiography a few years later after leaving the Presidency, he wrote this.
Perhaps we didn't appreciate fully enough the depth of the hatred and the complexity of the problems that made the Middle East such a jungle. Perhaps the idea of a suicide car bomber committing mass murder to gain instant entry to Paradise was so foreign to our own values and consciousness that it did not create in us the concern for the marines' safety that it should have.
In the weeks immediately after the bombing, I believe the last thing that we should do was turn tail and leave. Yet the irrationality of Middle Eastern politics forced us to rethink our policy there. If there would be some rethinking of policy before our men die, we would be a lot better off. If that policy had changed towards more of a neutral position and neutrality, those 241 marines would be alive today.
It is very easy to criticize the Government of Lebanon for not doing more about Hezbollah. I object to terrorism committed by Hezbollah because I am a strong opponent to all violence on all sides. But I also object to the unreasonable accusations that the Government of Lebanon has not done enough, when we realize that Israel occupied southern Lebanon for 18 years and was not able to neutralize Hezbollah.
Mr. Speaker, There is nothing wrong with considering the fact that we don't have to be involved in every single fight. That was the conclusion that Ronald Reagan came to, and he was not an enemy of Israel. He was a friend of Israel. But he concluded that that is a mess over there. Let me just repeat those words that he used. He said, he came to the conclusion, "The irrationality of Middle Eastern politics forced us to rethink our policy there.'' I believe these words are probably more valid now even than when they were written.
July 21, 2006
Dr. Ron Paul is a Republican member of Congress from Texas.
Ron Paul Archives
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul335.html
Before the U.S. House of Representatives, July 20, 2006
I rise in opposition to this resolution, which I sincerely believe will do more harm than good.
I do agree with the resolution's condemnation of violence. But I am convinced that when we get involved in foreign conflicts and send strong messages, such as this resolution will, it ends up expanding the war rather than diminishing the conflict, and that ultimately comes back to haunt us.
Mr. Speaker, I follow a policy in foreign affairs called non-interventionism. I do not believe we are making the United States more secure when we involve ourselves in conflicts overseas. The Constitution really doesn't authorize us to be the policemen of the world, much less to favor one side over another in foreign conflicts. It is very clear, reading this resolution objectively, that all the terrorists are on one side and all the victims and the innocents are on the other side. I find this unfair, particularly considering the significantly higher number of civilian casualties among Lebanese civilians. I would rather advocate neutrality rather than picking sides, which is what this resolution does.
Some would say that there is no room to talk about neutrality, as if neutrality were a crime. I would suggest there should be room for an open mind to consider another type of policy that may save American lives.
I was in Congress in the early 1980s when the US Marines were sent in to Lebanon, and I came to the Floor before they went, when they went, and before they were killed, arguing my case against getting involved in that conflict.
Ronald Reagan, when he sent the troops in, said he would never turn tail and run. Then, after the Marines were killed, he had a reassessment of the policy. When he wrote his autobiography a few years later after leaving the Presidency, he wrote this.
Perhaps we didn't appreciate fully enough the depth of the hatred and the complexity of the problems that made the Middle East such a jungle. Perhaps the idea of a suicide car bomber committing mass murder to gain instant entry to Paradise was so foreign to our own values and consciousness that it did not create in us the concern for the marines' safety that it should have.
In the weeks immediately after the bombing, I believe the last thing that we should do was turn tail and leave. Yet the irrationality of Middle Eastern politics forced us to rethink our policy there. If there would be some rethinking of policy before our men die, we would be a lot better off. If that policy had changed towards more of a neutral position and neutrality, those 241 marines would be alive today.
It is very easy to criticize the Government of Lebanon for not doing more about Hezbollah. I object to terrorism committed by Hezbollah because I am a strong opponent to all violence on all sides. But I also object to the unreasonable accusations that the Government of Lebanon has not done enough, when we realize that Israel occupied southern Lebanon for 18 years and was not able to neutralize Hezbollah.
Mr. Speaker, There is nothing wrong with considering the fact that we don't have to be involved in every single fight. That was the conclusion that Ronald Reagan came to, and he was not an enemy of Israel. He was a friend of Israel. But he concluded that that is a mess over there. Let me just repeat those words that he used. He said, he came to the conclusion, "The irrationality of Middle Eastern politics forced us to rethink our policy there.'' I believe these words are probably more valid now even than when they were written.
July 21, 2006
Dr. Ron Paul is a Republican member of Congress from Texas.
Ron Paul Archives
standin above the crowd
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
The majority of Americans don't seem to be able to comprehend the ability of common sense, or even know what it is for that matter. They have no clue of history, or what it means to know anything about it. Their memory span is that of a couple of weeks at best....approximately the same as that of a fish, or a rabbit, or any other four legged animal.
They don't want to read, or learn anything about history. Why bother...right? It's America after all. They are content to be stupid, lazy, and blind about world issues. For them...America is the world...why look any further?
This is the the sad reality for a lot of Americans. It's become quite epidemic in a lot of the United States.
I suggest mandatory IQ testing for American voters in the upcoming 2008 election. If you're too stupid...sorry...with power comes responsibility. If you're too dumb...get a clue first...then come back and try again later.
Anyone that applauds Bush and the war on terror...congratulations.... you're it. You're exactly what the rest of the world is laughing at and considers pathetic.
It's time to break up this little perpetual witch hunt...it's time to start thinking and acting responsibly for a change.
Wow...what a concept...
.
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
www.myspace.com/jensvad
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
Democratic
186 yes
7 no
4 not voting
4 present
Independent
1 yes
0 no
0 not voting
0 present
Republican
223 yes
1 no
6 not voting
0 present
Total
410 yes
8 no
10 not voting
4 present
NAYS:
Abercrombie
Conyers
Dingell
Kilpatrick (MI)
McDermott
Paul
Rahall
Stark
Fence-sitters:
Kaptur
Kucinich
Lee
Waters
No voters:
Davis (FL)
Davis, Jo Ann
Duncan
Evans
Fortenberry
McKinney
Northup
Nussle
Sanchez, Loretta
Westmoreland
Hilarious!
I agree.
It's about time someone said it and it's about time the United States started focusing on correcting the mess we have here in our own country.
It is dispicable how this administration routinely and consistently divides and typecasts the extremist muslims as the "terrorists" and Israel as the 'innocent victims".
Wonder how soon before someone will accuse Paul of being anti-semitic?:rolleyes:
Racist? How was anything he said.......racist?
There ya go. Read it again...slowly. It'll come to you. Just give it time to sink in.
That's what's wrong with America today...
I don't believe you know the definition of "racisim ".
Right, so labeling all Arabs as irrational isn't racism?
It's actually a crippling disease of the mind in America called Bushitis...otherwise known as caveman syndrome...
the backwoods folk are most susceptible...
.
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
That's your won interpretation of what he said. But that's not what he said.
He didn't label all Arabs as irrational. His comments were directed at the Middle Easterners who have been and continue to, today- to bomb, slaughter, torture and kill the shit of each other; in this neverending conflict.
You are grasping at straws and trying to find something that wasn't there, to begin with.
Are all Middle Easterners....Arabs?
I think labeling all Middle Easternerns as 'Arab' is worse, and then even, all Arabs as Muslim.
And that's what you seem to be doing.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
Middle Easterners? This thread is about the Palestine-Israel situation. He mentioned leaving all the irrational people to send themselves to Allah. Last time I checked, Jews don't believe in Allah. Therefore he was talking about Arabs. 1 + 1 = 2. Black is black. e.t.c, e.t.c.
Wow, the irony.
wonder what would happen if they had a few occupations...hmm...would probably be so peaceful....
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
So it's me that should be on the back foot here is it? Wow, the irony!
Edit: And please point out where I labeled all 'Middle Easterners' as Arab, or even Muslim.
Yeah keep dropping your bombs...you must be one of them bonafide world geniuses..
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
His comments were directed at the muslim extremists who have commited the killing and destruction and they are accurate.
That's not racism. It may have been biased or his preference to direct his comments at the muslim extremists; but that's not racism.
He alluded to the oil as well, correctly i might add.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
The fact you don't see it and can't admit it, is fairly funny.
You're a racist because unless someone submits a highly detailed disclaimer before and after each sentence, you interpret what is said in your own twisted way and condemn someone for not thinking the way you do:D
We live in a sick country.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
No they weren't. He said nothing about Muslim extremists:
And Palestinians aren't in possession of 'that lovely black gold we need so bad'.
Which of course was his subtle way of criticizing the United States, this Administration and the corporate interests involved.
But some of these guys will ignore that and continue with their overly-sensitive, Hyper-PC agenda.
Wow, the irony!
Wasn't the 'Allah" reference enough for you?
Certainly it is clear he was directing his comments at them (muslim extremists), since "Allah" was mentioned. Seems rather clear to me.
lol...I think I saw that at the zoo once...
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
I think any more interpretation on your behalf would involve tea leaves, water, and tarot cards...
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
Not everyone writes in a perfectly suitable manner, which fits in with your perceptions. Some people structure their sentences in a way which does not coincide with your approach.
Maybe you can get off your high-horse, remove that big stick from your ass and try reading what is said; rather than creatively reading-in.
Oh, shit, yeah, sorry. Thanks for the lesson. Allah = Muslim extremists. How did I fail to miss that obvious equation?