Texas Congressman Ron Paul files for GOP presidential bid

Having heard of him before, this is a refreshing changes from the collection of clowns that have announced on both sides, and those in power now. I wish him the best of luck.

 

I saw him on CSpan the other night. I had heard a lot about him on here, and what I saw from him in that speech was disgusting. I was expecting far better. But he went after the troops, after the war, and really, after American ideals on a number of fronts. I hope this was heard perhaps out of context, or perhaps an anomaly. Based on what I heard that night, I have no respect for him.

 

He will make for some interesting political debate and it will, I believe , be good for the Republicans to have his voice heard.

Chances ? 1 in a 1000.

 

I doubt it.

I don't know. As I say, this is the first time I have heard him and I was very disappointed, based on what I had heard about him on here.

But it may be good to have his voice heard. I will look forward to hearing more.

 

HON. RON PAUL OF TEXAS
Before the U.S. House of Representatives

January 11, 2007

Escalation is Hardly the Answer

Mr. Speaker, A military victory in Iraq is unattainable, just as it was in the Vietnam war.

At the close of the Vietnam war in 1975, a telling conversation took place between an NVA Colonel named Tu and an American Colonel named Harry Summers. Colonel Summers reportedly said, “You never beat us on the battlefield.” Tu replied, “That may be so, but it is also irrelevant.” It is likewise irrelevant to seek military victory in Iraq.

As conditions deteriorate in Iraq, the American people are told more blood must be spilled to achieve just such a military victory. 20,000 additional troops and another $100 billion are needed for a “surge.” Yet the people remain rightfully skeptical.

Though we’ve been in Iraq nearly four years, the meager goal today simply is to secure Baghdad. This hardly shows that the mission is even partly accomplished.

Astonishingly, American taxpayers now will be forced to finance a multi-billion dollar jobs program in Iraq. Suddenly the war is about jobs! We export our manufacturing jobs to Asia, and now we plan to export our welfare jobs to Iraq-- all at the expense of the poor and middle class here at home.

Plans are being made to become more ruthless in achieving stability in Iraq. It appears Muqtada al Sadr will be on the receiving end of our military efforts, despite his overwhelming support among large segments of the Iraqi people.

It’s interesting to note that one excuse given for our failure is leveled at the Iraqis themselves. They have not done enough, we’re told, and are difficult to train.

Yet no one complains that Mahdi or Kurdish militias or the Badr Brigade (the real Iraq government, not our appointed government) are not well trained. Our problems obviously have nothing to do with training Iraqis to fight, but instead with loyalties and motivations.

We claim to be spreading democracy in Iraq, but al Sadr has far more democratic support with the majority Shiites than our troops enjoy. The problem is not a lack of democratic consensus; it is the antipathy toward our presence among most Iraqis.

In real estate the three important considerations are location, location, location. In Iraq the three conditions are occupation, occupation, occupation. Nothing can improve in Iraq until we understand that our occupation is the primary source of the chaos and killing. We are a foreign occupying force, strongly resented by the majority of Iraq’s citizens.

Our inability to adapt to the tactics of 4th generation warfare compounds our military failure. Unless we understand this, even doubling our troop strength will not solve the problems created by our occupation.

The talk of a troop surge and jobs program in Iraq only distracts Americans from the very real possibility of an attack on Iran. Our growing naval presence in the region and our harsh rhetoric toward Iran are unsettling. Securing the Horn of Africa and sending Ethiopian troops into Somalia do not bode well for world peace. Yet these developments are almost totally ignored by Congress.

Rumors are flying about when, not if, Iran will be bombed by either Israel or the U.S.-- possibly with nuclear weapons. Our CIA says Iran is ten years away from producing a nuclear bomb and has no delivery system, but this does not impede our plans to keep “everything on the table” when dealing with Iran.

We should remember that Iran, like Iraq, is a third-world nation without a significant military. Nothing in history hints that she is likely to invade a neighboring country, let alone do anything to America or Israel. I am concerned, however, that a contrived Gulf of Tonkin- type incident may occur to gain popular support for an attack on Iran.

Even if such an attack is carried out by Israel over U.S. objections, we will be politically and morally culpable since we provided the weapons and dollars to make it possible.

Mr. Speaker, let’s hope I’m wrong about this one.

- www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2007/cr011107.htm

 

I disagree even more. Isn't it absurd to say a military victory isn't attainable? Does he really mean to say that if we threw the full weight and force of the American military at the Iraqi problem, we couldn't win it? If so, this guy is dumber than anyone might have imagined.

A military victory is attainble. We are simply not willing to pay the price for it, as we were not in Vietnam. And my fear is that, like Vietnam, we will leave in defeat because of the lack of political will from people like Ron Paul. And I am not saying we should pay the price for a full military victory. But to say we can't achieve one is patently absurd. No one, not even Achmedinejad (or whatever his name is) believes that.

Think about it. Why, with American troops so close, and Achmedinijad so hateful of the US, has he not done anything? It's because he knows he can't win. If he provokes America, he will be done, just like Saddam. Because he know military victory is attainable. But he also knows that there are many weak-willed and short-sighted people who are not willing to pay the price for a solution.

Again, I hope this is an anomaly. But it seems misguided at best.

This is not an escalation, although that would be the right thing to do. You escalate in order to bring the end sooner. You raise the ante, and make it impossible with the insurgents to keep up.

But 20,000 troops is hardly an escalation.

 

Compare American war policy with the Brits in Ulster. They been fighting that war for 300 years or so.

Ron Paul is (also) a Libertarian but of the Republican branch. He buys into the goofier parts of right wing economic theory.

 

Free market capitalism is not goofy.

 

That is Ron Paul's point - that just as we were not willing to throw our full weight and force militarily in Vietnam, so we are not willing to do so in Iraq.

 

Thanks. I had to go take care of something before I could get my post straightened out - which I have now done.

Ron Paul's philosophy of government is a throwback to a different era - 1776.

My libertarian friend on the local talk radio show read Congressman Paul's remarks on the air this morning.

 

I think victory has always been pretty clearly defined as removign Saddam and his WMD capacities and establishing a functioning government in Iraq. We are part way there. Right now, there is an insurgent force trying to stop the government from working. They must be defeated.

In spite of all the hullaballloo about not having clearly defined goals and an exit strategy, that has alwasy been political nonsense. People who pay even marginal attention have always known what the goals were, whether they agreed or not. I don't have a secret line to the president but I have always known what the objectives were. If someone didn't know, then perhaps better attention should be paid.

There has been a lot of insurgency, and at times in the past, the Iraqis were scared of them and not willign to bring them to account. It sounds like that is different now. We will see.

The cost hasn't been that great, all things considered, especially in terms of American lives. This has been one of the least bloody wars that America has ever fought in. Every life lost is precious and it is sad to lose any. But let's not kid ourselves. There has been very little loss.

Actually it hasn't. If the insurgents get control of Iraq, they will be a worse threat than Saddam and most any other because they have already demonstated their willingness to destroy innocent lives.

We are training a military in Iraq. But it does take time. It doesn't take much time for a band of hoodlums to wage guerrila warfare through car bombs and the like. They "keep US forces at bay" by looking like everyone else, I imagine.

I didn't go after him. I pointed out the absurdity of saying we can't attain a military victory. Such a statement is patently absurd and is disrespectful to the men and women of our armed forces. We can attain a military victory. The only question is the matter of will. It appears that you and other like you do not have the will. That is sad.

We can have a legitimate debate about the best way to attain victory. We should have no debate about whether or not we must. Pullling out is a bad idea. It cannot be tolerated.

 

"Perpetual war for perpetual peace." - the neocon mantra.

 

In which case we would have been better off leaving Saddam Hussein in power and keeping him contained as we had been doing.

 

To those whom they hate, including America. Have you forgotten how few it took to pull off 9/11? These are the kinds of people in the insurgency. Giving them room to work is irresponsible and short-sighted.

Why, in your mind, are the only two options allowing a brutal dictator with a stated intent to bring harm to America to continue or to allow brutal insurgents with demonstrated capacity to wreak terrorism in pursuit of idealogy?

Ken, you know better. These are not the only two options, nor should they be presented as the only two options.

We were not keeping Saddam contained. Just ask the thousands that were killed by him. He gave reason to beleive that he had WMDs. It turned out to be false, but we don't still don't know whether that is because he was bluffing or because he didn't know that he didn't have them. So to think we were keeping Saddam contained seems to me to be a disrespect for human life.

It would be better to say that we kept Saddam from harming us directly and should have kept doing that. You may have an argument there and in retrospect, I could be persauded of that one.