2001 Ron Paul 110:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself
such time as I may consume.
2001 Ron Paul 110:2
Mr. Speaker, the emphasis in this
H.J. resolution is that resolutions have
been passed, and one in particular, a
U.N. resolution against Iraq, must be
enforced. I made the point earlier that
there are many resolutions that are
not enforced, so this one is special and
has to be enforced; and the assumption
is that it is the responsibility of the
United States to do the enforcing.
2001 Ron Paul 110:3
Everybody knows that I am not too
keen on the United Nations, but I am
not too keen on the idea that we can
use the United Nations as we please.
Sometimes we follow the rules, and
sometimes we do not. I think if we are
participating, the argument should be
that we should follow the rules.
2001 Ron Paul 110:4
There is no U.N. authority for us to
use force against Saddam Hussein
without a new U.N. resolution. It would
be very difficult to legally mount another
invasion of Iraq right now without
a U.N. resolution. It would not go
along with UN rules.
2001 Ron Paul 110:5
The other question I have about the
rule of law and trying to follow the
rules of the United Nations would be:
Where have we gotten the authority to
enforce the no-fly zones? The no-fly
zones are really a contention in the
Middle East, and have been a contention
for a long time, because that, in
combination with the embargoes and
the sanctions against the Iraqi people
is what the Arabs believe to be so detrimental
to the children who have died
in Iraq.
2001 Ron Paul 110:6
Whether Members agree with that or
not, or they want to put all the blame
on Saddam Hussein, is beside the point.
Millions if not billions of Muslims and
Iraqis happen to wonder about that
policy: Where did we get the authority
to continue bombing for now going on
12 years?
2001 Ron Paul 110:7
This legislation says that we know
exactly what is going on in Iraq. I
pointed out that the International
Atomic Energy Agency has been in
Iraq this year and found out that there
is no evidence of nuclear weapons being
built.
2001 Ron Paul 110:8
But there is one gentleman who has
been in Iraq many times under the
U.N., as a U.N. inspector, Scott Ritter.
He has been there 30 times. Probably
even the best junketeer in Congress I
will bet has not been over there 30
times, but he has been there 30 times
inspecting.
2001 Ron Paul 110:9
He was on a television interview the
other day, and had an opinion as to
what is going on in Iraq. I do not think
Members can jump up and say Scott
Ritter is not a true American, that he
is not a true internationalist, that he
does not know what he is talking
about. But this is what he said on television
when they asked about whether
or not he thought Saddam Hussein and
Iraq was a threat to our national security.
2001 Ron Paul 110:10
He said, “In terms of military threat,
absolutely nothing. His military was
devastated in 1991 in Operation Desert
Storm, and Iraq has not had the ability
to reconstitute itself in terms of weapons
of mass destruction. We know that
we achieved a 90 to 95 percent level of
disarmament. Diplomatically, politically,
Saddam is a little bit of a threat.
In terms of a real national security
threat to the United States, no, none.”
2001 Ron Paul 110:11
Because he is a little bit of a political
and a diplomatic threat, we are
making these plans to pursue war or in
reality continue the war because the
Persian Gulf war has not really ended.
2001 Ron Paul 110:12
So once again, I ask my colleagues
who are going to be voting on this
shortly to think about it. If it is unnecessary
and does not have any effect,
why bring it to the floor? There would
be no purpose. If Hussein is aligned
with the terrorists, the President already
has authority to do something
about it. So what really is the reason
for this, especially when it was first
announced that this would be an act of
aggression, which is really what they
feel in their hearts, in their minds,
what they want this to be? It has been
toned down a little bit. But this resolution
is a support for expanding the war
and continuing what has been going on
for 12 years.
2001 Ron Paul 110:13
Quite frankly, I think there is a better
diplomatic way to handle things. I
think it is a shame that our Secretary
of State has not been given more authority
to have his way on this issue,
rather than being overruled by those
and encouraged by many Members here
in the Congress who want to prepare
for war against Iraq, because of this
fantastic success in Afghanistan, a
country, probably the poorest country
in the world that did not even have an
airplane; and now, because of this tremendous
success, we are ready to take
on the next country.
2001 Ron Paul 110:14
But one thing that we have to realize
is that there is a great chance, and
there is some evidence, and I may get
a chance to quote this later, that China
may well have been involved. Now, the
gentleman from California said, OK, so
let us go after China. Everyone knows
we are not going to go after China in
the same manner we are planning to go
after Iraq.
2001 Ron Paul 110:15
We are going into Iraq for other reasons,
other than reasons of national security.
That is my firm belief. It has a
lot to do with the announcement when
our government propagandized to go to
war in the Persian Gulf War and it was
to go to defend our oil. I still believe
that is a major motivation that directs
our foreign policy in the Middle East.
