Fixing What’s Wrong With Iraq (By Ron Paul)

Search

RX Senior
Joined
Apr 20, 2002
Messages
47,431
Tokens
"More than four years into that war, Congress continues to avoid its constitutional responsibility to exercise policy oversight, particularly considering the fact that the original authorization no longer reflects the reality on the ground in Iraq."

By Ron Paul

Texas Straight Talk, May 21, 2007

Many of my colleagues, faced with the reality that the war in Iraq is not going well, line up to place all the blame on the president. The president “mismanaged” the war, they say. “It’s all the president’s fault,” they claim. In reality, much of the blame should rest with Congress, which shirked its constitutional duty to declare war and instead told the president to decide for himself whether or not to go to war.

More than four years into that war, Congress continues to avoid its constitutional responsibility to exercise policy oversight, particularly considering the fact that the original authorization no longer reflects the reality on the ground in Iraq .

According to the original authorization (Public Law 107-243) passed in late 2002, the president was authorized to use military force against Iraq to achieve the following two specific objectives only:

“(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq ; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq ”

I was highly critical of the resolution at the time, because I don’t think the United States should ever go to war to enforce United Nations resolutions. I was also skeptical of the claim that Iraq posed a “continuing threat” to the United States .

As it turned out, Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction, no al-Qaeda activity, and no ability to attack the United States . Regardless of this, however, when we look at the original authorization for the use of force it is clearly obvious that our military has met both objectives. Our military very quickly removed the regime of Saddam Hussein, against whom the United Nations resolutions were targeted. A government approved by the United States has been elected in post-Saddam Iraq , fulfilling the first objective of the authorization.

With both objectives of the original authorization completely satisfied, what is the legal ground for our continued involvement in Iraq ? Why has Congress not stepped up to the plate and revisited the original authorization?

This week I plan to introduce legislation that will add a sunset clause to the original authorization (Public Law 107-243) six months after passage. This is designed to give Congress ample time between passage and enactment to craft another authorization or to update the existing one. With the original objectives fulfilled, Congress has a legal obligation to do so. Congress also has a moral obligation to our troops to provide relevant and coherent policy objectives in Iraq .

Unlike other proposals, this bill does not criticize the president’s handling of the war. This bill does not cut off funds for the troops. This bill does not set a timetable for withdrawal. Instead, it recognizes that our military has achieved the objectives as they were spelled out in law and demands that Congress live up to its constitutional obligation to provide oversight. I am hopeful that this legislation will enjoy broad support among those who favor continuing or expanding the war as well as those who favor ending the war. We need to consider anew the authority for Iraq and we need to do it sooner rather than later.
 

Using Proxy IP from Europe
Joined
Oct 28, 2006
Messages
1,554
Tokens
I can't think of any candidate, democrate or republican, who has a better understanding of the issues at hand than Ron Paul.

All his republican collegues are corporate puppets, Hillary, Obama are the same but with a different look and no balls.

Gore cannot be taken seriously after his environement scare tactics.

Paul all the way.
 

Rx junior
Joined
Sep 21, 2005
Messages
2,929
Tokens
EVERYBODY TOGETHER NOW!
RON PAUL FOR PRESIDENT!
willie holla at ya boy...I BE ON THAT KRYPT!
 

Oh boy!
Joined
Mar 21, 2004
Messages
38,373
Tokens
I'm a Libertarian and I have to disagree with Ron here. He said that Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction and no Al-Qaeda activity yet it has been shown that there was evidence of both before the forces invaded.

Also, just because the forces have helped set up a new government in Iraq doesn't mean that the original intent has been accomplished. That original intent not only includes setting up a new government but also includes making sure the new government is stable. To leave without accomplishing that goal would be a huge mistake. That has not been accomplished yet.
 

Using Proxy IP from Europe
Joined
Oct 28, 2006
Messages
1,554
Tokens
He said that Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction and no Al-Qaeda activity yet it has been shown that there was evidence of both before the forces invaded.

Even Rumsfeld conceded in public when grilled by Ray Mc Govern that the administration had " bad information" about the existence of WMD's.
It is a fact all the evidence presented by Colin Powell at the UN was fake and in contradiction with the findings of our own CIA.
Have you heard about the "downing street memo" ? It's an official document proving the US intelligence services were "fixing" the evidence around the policy, which was "invade iraq".

You must have been living in a cave for the last two years.

That original intent not only includes setting up a new government but also includes making sure the new government is stable.

No it doesn't.
(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq ”

Show me where it says "stable governement"
Are you Condoleeza Rice ?
 

Oh boy!
Joined
Mar 21, 2004
Messages
38,373
Tokens
Even Rumsfeld conceded in public when grilled by Ray Mc Govern that the administration had " bad information" about the existence of WMD's.
It is a fact all the evidence presented by Colin Powell at the UN was fake and in contradiction with the findings of our own CIA.
Have you heard about the "downing street memo" ? It's an official document proving the US intelligence services were "fixing" the evidence around the policy, which was "invade iraq".

You must have been living in a cave for the last two years.



No it doesn't.
(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq ”

Show me where it says "stable governement"
Are you Condoleeza Rice ?

The "bad information" wasn't that they never existed. Information came out later that there WAS evidence of WMD.

Leaving an instable government could lead to the reversal of everything that was done to stabilize the country.

Are you Michael Moore?
 

RX Senior
Joined
Apr 20, 2002
Messages
47,431
Tokens
The "bad information" wasn't that they never existed. Information came out later that there WAS evidence of WMD.

Leaving an instable government could lead to the reversal of everything that was done to stabilize the country.

Are you Michael Moore?
Done to stabilize the country?! It's worse now than when we got there.
 

Oh boy!
Joined
Mar 21, 2004
Messages
38,373
Tokens
Here's an excerpt from the DSM:

"Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran."

It never said they were not present nor did it say they couldn't be used. As far as Saddam not threatening his neighbours, he DID in fact threaten Kuwait. To leave him in power would be to encourage other dictators to do the same things Saddam was doing after getting caught. Those things being to agree to let UN inspectors in and then later refuse to let them inspect.

Saddam should have been removed earlier as a result of his invasion of Kuwait.
 

Using Proxy IP from Europe
Joined
Oct 28, 2006
Messages
1,554
Tokens
Leaving an instable government could lead to the reversal of everything that was done to stabilize the country.

1. The governement in place is very stable.
Don't believe all that liberal media says.

2. The USA lived for forty years with the menace of 40000 nuclear warheads on transcontinental Russian missiles , never invaded Russia, and yet managed to defeat communism.

3. Have you yes or not heard about the downing street memo ?
 

New member
Joined
Sep 20, 2004
Messages
5,412
Tokens
Ron Paul's piece above is not an argument for or against war per se. It is an argument that there is no longer any legal basis for the war.

Congressmen are bound by laws regarding what they can and cannot vote on and approve, what procedures and protocols must be followed, and what their obligations are when laws are being blatantly violated.

If what Paul is saying is true, then whether you agree with the war or not, the US presence in Iraq violates US laws at the highest levels. That should be of concern to anyone whose job it is to make and uphold laws, as well as to citizens who believe in law and order, regardless of political orientation.
 

Using Proxy IP from Europe
Joined
Oct 28, 2006
Messages
1,554
Tokens
To leave him in power would be to encourage other dictators to do the same things Saddam was doing after getting caught. Those things being to agree to let UN inspectors in and then later refuse to let them inspect.

I agree wholeheartidly.

When are we invading Israel then ?

1. Iraq invaded Kuwait: Israel has invaded and has occupied territory owned by Lebanon, Syria, and Palestine against international law and countless UN resolutions dating back to 1948. Israel occupied most of the cities in Palestine before May 1948: Tiberias, Haifa, and Jafa in April, and Beisan, Safad, and Acre in May. Israel now occupies 8 of the 9 principal cities in the Palestinian territories. Unlike the aggression in Kuwait, the US did not lead a coalition of nations against Israeli invasion and, consequently, the land now under Israeli dominance approximates 78% of the land formerly owned by the Palestinians. Ironically that resolution provided only 55% of the territory for the Israeli state.


2. Iraq was poised to continue their march to seize other countries and resources and has failed to comply with UN imposed commitments following the Iraq War of 1991: Iraq did not continue its march because of the 1991 war; Israel, however, did march against other countries in 1967 and has continued to defy UN resolutions to withdraw from those illegally occupied lands. Even more brazenly, it has established over 30 settlements since Sharon became Prime Minister, not counting those created before him, with populations now exceeding 400,000, all against international law. No coalition has attempted to stop Israel's aggression and occupation nor has the President raised this defiance of UN resolutions as a threat to peace nor has he demanded that Israel comply with international law and cease occupation of illegally obtained land and remove the illegal settlements from Palestinian territory.


3. Saddam has defied the UN by not complying with 16 UN resolutions: Israel has defied the UN by not responding or complying with 68 resolutions not counting the resolution imposed two weeks ago. The resolutions charged Saddam with repression of his people, especially minorities, and this threatens international peace and security in the region. Israel has been asked to "stop violating human rights in the Arab territories, desist from destroying homes of the Arab civilian population, and respect and implement the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Geneva Conventions of August 1949." Israel's defiance amounts to sadism, it even taxes the Humanitarian supplies brought in to alleviate the suffering of the Palestinian people who are forced to stay inside their homes because of Israeli imposed curfews. Resolutions of like wording, including citation of torture, imprisonment, and wanton destruction of homes, continue to be issued by the UN even now; and Israel defies every one of them.


4. Iraq has failed to return prisoners in numbers reaching approximately 600: Israel has refused to allow the return of over one million Palestinian refugees to their homeland despite UN resolutions demanding that they do so.
 

Oh boy!
Joined
Mar 21, 2004
Messages
38,373
Tokens
1. The governement in place is very stable.
Don't believe all that liberal media says.

2. The USA lived for forty years with the menace of 40000 nuclear warheads on transcontinental Russian missiles , never invaded Russia, and yet managed to defeat communism.

3. Have you yes or not heard about the downing street memo ?

Sorry, but do you have a point to make here?

:ughhh:

I already posted the quote to the contents of the DSM.

As far as #2 is concerned, yes, we never invaded Russia because they proved to be too much of a threat.
 

Using Proxy IP from Europe
Joined
Oct 28, 2006
Messages
1,554
Tokens
Sorry, but do you have a point to make here?

:ughhh:

You might not be very well informed, but you certainly are entertaining today.
( you're right, just ignore point 3. )

:aktion033
 

New member
Joined
Nov 21, 2000
Messages
8,834
Tokens
I'm a Libertarian and I have to disagree with Ron here. He said that Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction and no Al-Qaeda activity yet it has been shown that there was evidence of both before the forces invaded.

This is similar to the 9-11 conspiracy theories so I won't bother arguing it ... believe what you want to, but don't present it as fact.
 

Rx junior
Joined
Sep 21, 2005
Messages
2,929
Tokens
Ron Paul's piece above is not an argument for or against war per se. It is an argument that there is no longer any legal basis for the war.

Congressmen are bound by laws regarding what they can and cannot vote on and approve, what procedures and protocols must be followed, and what their obligations are when laws are being blatantly violated.

If what Paul is saying is true, then whether you agree with the war or not, the US presence in Iraq violates US laws at the highest levels. That should be of concern to anyone whose job it is to make and uphold laws, as well as to citizens who believe in law and order, regardless of political orientation.
HERE! HERE!
RON PAUL FOR PRESIDENT!
 

Oh boy!
Joined
Mar 21, 2004
Messages
38,373
Tokens
This is similar to the 9-11 conspiracy theories so I won't bother arguing it ... believe what you want to, but don't present it as fact.

A more convincing method of arguing against my point would be to refute the reference to the Downing Street Memo that I posted as that was made by a credible source. Comparing my point to a conspiracy theory reduces your argument to an opinion since it was made with no corroborating statements to support it.

Would you rather refute the DSM quote in order to make your statement more credible?
 

New member
Joined
Nov 21, 2000
Messages
8,834
Tokens
A more convincing method of arguing against my point would be to refute the reference to the Downing Street Memo that I posted as that was made by a credible source. Comparing my point to a conspiracy theory reduces your argument to an opinion since it was made with no corroborating statements to support it.

Would you rather refute the DSM quote in order to make your statement more credible?
Screw the memos.

BUSHIE
hasn't provided the country the proof and has never debated it ... unless he does, I will always believe it to be false.

I don't want another 911 conspiracy thread out of this ... I don't try to answer those numbnuts' questions, so I won't answer yours.
 

Oh boy!
Joined
Mar 21, 2004
Messages
38,373
Tokens
Screw the memos.

BUSHIE hasn't provided the country the proof and has never debated it ... unless he does, I will always believe it to be false.

I don't want another 911 conspiracy thread out of this ... I don't try to answer those numbnuts' questions, so I won't answer yours.

Well now isn't that just convenient? Whenever someone disagrees with you just put the "conspiracy" label on it without providing facts or references. I guess you don't have to run the risk of anyone proving you wrong that way.
 

New member
Joined
Nov 21, 2000
Messages
8,834
Tokens
Well now isn't that just convenient? Whenever someone disagrees with you just put the "conspiracy" label on it without providing facts or references.

whatever ...

You're right, I am wrong ...


... aliens killed JFK,
... Bushie put explosives in the WTC
... and Iraq had WMD and Al-Qaeda.

PS: Call me when Bushie or Cheney or Rice or Gates state that Iraq had WMD.
 

Forum statistics

Threads
1,122,624
Messages
13,615,767
Members
101,359
Latest member
mytmofficial
The RX is the sports betting industry's leading information portal for bonuses, picks, and sportsbook reviews. Find the best deals offered by a sportsbook in your state and browse our free picks section.FacebookTwitterInstagramContact Usforum@therx.com