Staying or Leaving?

HON. RON PAUL OF TEXAS
BEFORE THE US HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
October 7, 2005

Staying or Leaving

Supporters of the war in Iraq, as well as some non-supporters, warn of the dangers if we leave. But isn’t it quite possible that these dangers are simply a consequence of having gone into Iraq in the first place, rather than a consequence of leaving? Isn’t it possible that staying only makes the situation worse? If chaos results after our departure, it’s because we occupied Iraq, not because we left.

The original reasons for our pre-emptive strike are long forgotten, having been based on false assumptions. The justification given now is that we must persist in this war or else dishonor those who already have died or been wounded. We’re also told civil strife likely will engulf all of Iraq.

But what is the logic of perpetuating a flawed policy where more Americans die just because others have suffered? More Americans deaths cannot possibly help those who already have been injured or killed.

Civil strife, if not civil war, already exists in Iraq-- and despite the infighting, all factions oppose our occupation.

The insistence on using our militarily to occupy and run Iraq provides convincing evidence to our detractors inside and outside Iraq that we have no intention of leaving. Building permanent military bases and a huge embassy confirms these fears.

We deny the importance of oil and Israel’s influence on our policy, yet we fail to convince the Arab/Muslim world that our intentions are purely humanitarian.

In truth, our determined presence in Iraq actually increases the odds of regional chaos, inciting Iran and Syria while aiding Osama bin Laden in his recruiting efforts. Leaving Iraq would do the opposite-- though not without some dangers that rightfully should be blamed on our unwise invasion rather than our exit.

Many experts believe bin Laden welcomed our invasion and occupation of two Muslim countries. It bolsters his claim that the U.S. intended to occupy and control the Middle East all along. This has galvanized radical Muslim fundamentalists against us. Osama bin Laden’s campaign surely would suffer if we left.

We should remember that losing a war to China over control of North Korea ultimately did not enhance communism in China, as she now has accepted many capitalist principles. In fact, China today outproduces us in many ways-- as reflected by our negative trade balance with her.

We lost a war in Vietnam, and the domino theory that communism would spread throughout southeast Asia was proven wrong. Today, Vietnam accepts American investment dollars and technology. We maintain a trade relationship with Vietnam that the war never achieved.

We contained the USSR and her thousands of nuclear warheads without military confrontation, leading to the collapse and disintegration of a powerful Soviet empire. Today we trade with Russia and her neighbors, as the market economy spreads throughout the world without the use of arms.

We should heed the words of Ronald Reagan about his experience with a needless and mistaken military occupation of Lebanon. Sending troops into Lebanon seemed like a good idea in 1983, but in 1990 President Reagan said this in his memoirs: “…we did not appreciate fully enough the depth of the hatred and complexity of the problems that made the Middle East such a jungle…In the weeks immediately after the bombing, I believed the last thing we should do was turn tail and leave…yet, the irrationality of Middle Eastern politics forced us to rethink our policy there.”

During the occupation of Lebanon by American, French, and Israeli troops between 1982 and 1986, there were 41 suicide terrorist attacks in that country. One horrific attack killed 241 U.S. Marines. Yet once these foreign troops were removed, the suicide attacks literally stopped. Today we should once again rethink our policy in this region.

It’s amazing what ending military intervention in the affairs of others can achieve. Setting an example of how a free market economy works does wonders.

We should have confidence in how well freedom works, rather than relying on blind faith in the use of military force to spread our message. Setting an example and using persuasion is always superior to military force in showing how others might live. Force and war are tools of authoritarians; they are never tools of champions of liberty and justice. Force and war inevitably lead to dangerous unintended consequences.
link

 

1. UN= American $$$$$$$$$
2. UN send in 150,000 peacekeepers? No way that will happen
3. The problem with the UN and the 'Western coalition' is the competition over the oil. (see below*)
4. 'Immediately' is probably not the way to leave.
5. However, as long as we have control assures that the UN will one day take over. It is easier for the UN to sit back let us pay the cost of war casualties and then when the bleeding is over we can hand it over to them. Now isn't that better than them stepping up right now while the situation is in chaos?
6. There are no spoils in Iraq- until the Iraq oil industry recovers
7. To wait for oil pay back from Iraq will take far more troops and war than what we have paid for to date. Could even take a military draft unless things start turning around and our current occupation starts to get alot easier.(in other words we can realistically reduce troop commitment and still rebuild and control the oil, gas, and pipeline capacities in the region)

I think our current course of action is to set up permanent military bases (that goal is on track), increase our military commitment (this is difficult and a political nightmare at present) and try to control the energy sector in Iraq; with a base of operation so that we can target Iran and Saudi Arabia if need be (depends of what the neocons can do before the next election). Fact-The industrialized world runs on oil. The remaining majority of oil reserves are in Saudi Arabia, Iran and Iraq. *Europe desperately needs the oil, China desperately needs the oil and the US desperately needs the oil. Those are the three main competitors. Europe doesn't have the military might or unified resolve, and China is the wild card.

In principle I believe we should be working on alternative energy sources as if our very survival depends on it. Pull out of the military conquest for oil policy. And make it our national vision to conserve energy and develop renewable energy sources for our nation's future posterity.

The blood for oil campaign is not pretty and at best is a costly temporary solution to the energy crisis.

It may not seem like a crisis right now, but it will feel more like one in the next 5-10 years.

 

My point is the UN doesn't have the money to rebuild Iraq. Nations have to fund anything the UN does. Often the money trail is through the IMF.

UN dues are not funding all the UN programs around the world.

When the UN wants money to pour into a nation it exploits the Internatinoal Money Fund and World Bank.- guess who backs the largest part of these bad loans? Not the UN.

link
"The recent financial collapse in Argentina provides a perfect example of the folly of IMF "assistance." Although the Argentine economy has been in serious trouble for several years, IMF loans with an incredibly low interest rate of 2.6% kept pouring into the country. According to Congressman Jim Saxton, Chairman of the Joint Economic Committee, this "continued lending over many years sustained and subsidized a bankrupt Argentine economic policy, whose collapse is now all the more serious. The IMF's generous subsidized bailouts lead to moral hazard problems, and enable shaky governments to pressure the IMF for even more funding or risk disaster." Yet unless Congress acts this year, U.S. taxpayers will be forced to pay for even more bad loans to equally unstable countries.

Americans bail out Uruguay-
...This (bailout) money, we are told, is just a "bridge loan" to give Uruguay a little breathing room until it receives its next cash infusion from the International Monetary Fund. In other words, the plan for Uruguay is to pay off one loan by getting a bigger loan, like a hapless spendthrift using one credit card to pay off another. What’s worse is that American taxpayers already fund the IMF with a $37 billion line of credit, so Uruguay will be paying us back with our own money! The same goes for Brazil, which just received a record $30 billion from the IMF to deal with its own looming bank collapse.

Americans bail outs through IMF-
American taxpayers already lend various governments more than $5 billion annually through the IMF, at a yearly cost of over $300 million because of loan defaults and subsidized interest rates. Now the IMF wants to double its pool of funding, which will put (American) taxpayers on the hook for $12 billion in loans at a cost of about $750 million each year. Furthermore, since the IMF creates “drawing rights” accounts that are redeemable in US dollars, it in essence prints US dollars when it increases those drawing rights. This is a clear violation of our national sovereignty, and a vivid example of why we should stop participating in international schemes like the IMF altogether."

Dues have little bearing on what the UN does. The UN uses debt to get money into nations.
Do some research on the IMF and the World Bank and find out how much of their loans American taxpayers are on the hook for.

If the UN is in charge of Iraq I don't think we are off the hook financially.

The UN, the IMF and the World Bank are nice playing partners.

Now which taxpayers in which country are going to take the largest hit on IMF debts? China? France? Germany? Japan? or the US?

I'm for pulling the plug on the IMF and the World Bank.

UN= American $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$- This just means that anything we 'give' to the UN I believe will cost US taxpayers one way or another.

I may be wrong on this but I still don't trust the UN to take Iraq off our hands financially. Anyways we made the mess our $$$$$$$ will probably clean it up if that happens

 

And for the record, I don't have an opinion about what to do in Iraq...

1. I wish we never invaded.
2. I am not sure how we can get out.
3. I don't like Americans being killed for oil.
4. It is a big mess because we are dealing with centuries of Middle East factions in that nation.
5. We never should invade a sovereign nation without provocation.
6. We do need the oil but I'm sad we are bullying and killing to get it.
7. If we stay- there will be chaos and war and if we leave there will be chaos and war.

If I had a good suggestion I would make one. I posted Rep. Paul's speech because it makes ethical sense to get out somehow quickly because we made a mistake to begin with.

I don't know a good answer. We aren't going to win anything by fighting more except getting big military bases for future Middle East campaigns and possibly control of the oil.- The cost of these two objectives is going to be very high in money and lives.