16 February 2006
Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Madam Speaker,
I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. PAUL), a member of
the International Relations Committee.
(Mr. PAUL asked and was given permission
to revise and extend his remarks.)
2006 Ron Paul 4:1
Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this
time.
I rise to express a note of caution regarding
2006 Ron Paul 4:2
this resolution. I see this resolution somewhat like some of the resolutions
that we debated and passed
prior to our commitment to go into
Iraq. As a matter of fact, some of the
language is very similar. If you substitute
the word Iraq for Iran, you
would find out that these concerns are
very similar.
2006 Ron Paul 4:3
I do not quite have the concern that others have expressed that Iran is on
the verge of having a nuclear weapon.
They have never been found in violation.
There has been a lot of talk and
a lot of accusation, but technically
they have never been found in any violation.
2006 Ron Paul 4:4
My concern for this type of language and these plans is that nothing ever
changes. This is the type of thing that
occurred before. Of course, we went
into Iraq, and yet today the success in
Iraq is very questionable. Fifty-five
percent of the American people say it
was a mistake to have gone into Iraq.
Only forty percent of the people support
staying in Iraq. Attitudes have
shifted now since the success in Iraq
has been so poor.
2006 Ron Paul 4:5
We went into Afghanistan to look for Osama bin Laden, and we sort of got
distracted. We have forgotten about
him just about completely. Instead we
went into Iraq. Though the Iraq war is
not going well, all of a sudden we are
looking to take on another burden, another
military mission. I find some
things in the resolution that are very
confrontational because it invokes
sanctions. People say, well, sanctions
are not that bad. That is no shooting or
killing. But sanctions and boycotts and
embargoes, these are acts of war. And,
of course, many times our administration
has expressed the sentiment that
if necessary we are going to use force
against Iran; we are going to start
bombing. And why do we follow this
policy? Especially since it literally
helps the radicals in Iran. This mobilizes
them. There is an undercurrent in
Iran that is sympathetic to America,
and yet this brings the radicals together
by this type of language and
threats. There is no doubt that our policy
helps the hard-liners.
2006 Ron Paul 4:6
There has been no talk, it has been implied, but there has been no serious
talk that Iran is a threat to our national
security. There is no way. Even
if they had nuclear weapons, they are
not going to be a threat to our national
security. Pakistan, that is not a democratic
nation. It happens to be a military
dictatorship. They have nuclear
weapons. India has nuclear weapons. As
a matter of fact, the nuclear weapons
serve as a balance of power between
two countries. The Soviets, had 30,000
nuclear weapons, and we followed a
policy of containment. We did not say
we have to go into the Soviet Union
and bomb their establishment. No. Finally
that problem dissipated. And yet
we create unnecessary problems for
ourselves. We go looking for trouble,
and I see this as very detrimental for
what we are doing with this resolution.
2006 Ron Paul 4:7
There is one portion of the resolution that concerns me about our urging the
Russians and China to take a firm
stand, and that has to do with the resolved
clause No. 3; it says to the people
of Russia and China to expeditiously
consider and take action in response
to any report of Irans noncompliance
in fulfillment of the mandate
of the Security Council to respond
and deal with situations . . .
2006 Ron Paul 4:8
Any report? I mean, some report in the newspaper? Is it an IAEA report?
Or whatever. That is so open-ended
that this is a risky, risky resolution.