1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Ron Paul - Talking Sense in the House of Representatives

Discussion in 'Political Debate & Discussion' started by KenH, Jun 21, 2007.

  1. KenH

    KenH Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    42,006
    Likes Received:
    1,492
    Faith:
    Baptist
    HON. RON PAUL OF TEXAS



    Statement on H Con Res 21


    June 20, 2007

    Madam Speaker: I rise in strong opposition to this resolution. This resolution is an exercise in propaganda that serves one purpose: to move us closer to initiating a war against Iran. Citing various controversial statements by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, this legislation demands that the United Nations Security Council charge Ahmadinejad with violating the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.

    Having already initiated a disastrous war against Iraq citing UN resolutions as justification, this resolution is like déja-vu. Have we forgotten 2003 already? Do we really want to go to war again for UN resolutions? That is where this resolution, and the many others we have passed over the last several years on Iran, is leading us. I hope my colleagues understand that a vote for this bill is a vote to move us closer to war with Iran.

    Clearly, language threatening to wipe a nation or a group of people off the map is to be condemned by all civilized people. And I do condemn any such language. But why does threatening Iran with a pre-emptive nuclear strike, as many here have done, not also deserve the same kind of condemnation? Does anyone believe that dropping nuclear weapons on Iran will not wipe a people off the map? When it is said that nothing, including a nuclear strike, is off the table on Iran, are those who say it not also threatening genocide? And we wonder why the rest of the world accuses us of behaving hypocritically, of telling the rest of the world “do as we say, not as we do.”

    I strongly urge my colleagues to consider a different approach to Iran, and to foreign policy in general. General William Odom, President Reagan’s director of the National Security Agency, outlined a much more sensible approach in a recent article titled “Exit From Iraq Should Be Through Iran.” General Odom wrote: “Increasingly bogged down in the sands of Iraq, the US thrashes about looking for an honorable exit. Restoring cooperation between Washington and Tehran is the single most important step that could be taken to rescue the US from its predicament in Iraq.” General Odom makes good sense. We need to engage the rest of the world, including Iran and Syria, through diplomacy, trade, and travel rather than pass threatening legislation like this that paves the way to war. We have seen the limitations of force as a tool of US foreign policy. It is time to try a more traditional and conservative approach. I urge a “no” vote on this resolution.

    - www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2007/cr062007b.htm
     
  2. KenH

    KenH Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    42,006
    Likes Received:
    1,492
    Faith:
    Baptist
  3. Ps104_33

    Ps104_33 New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2001
    Messages:
    4,005
    Likes Received:
    0
    Were you a Lyndon LaRouche supporter?
     
  4. KenH

    KenH Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    42,006
    Likes Received:
    1,492
    Faith:
    Baptist
    No way. [​IMG]
     
Loading...