Home Page
Contents

U.S. Rep. Ron Paul
war

Book of Ron Paul


war
Bombing Iraq Would Be The Result Of Flawed Foreign Policy
27 January 1998    1998 Ron Paul 1:3
There was a time in our history that bombing foreign countries was considered an act of war, done only with a declaration by this Congress. Today, tragically, it is done at the whim of Presidents and at the urging of congressional leaders without a vote, except maybe by the UN Security Council.

war
State Of The Republic
28 January 1998    1998 Ron Paul 2:6
Foreign affairs. Although foreign affairs was not on the top of the agenda in the last session, misunderstanding in this area presents one the greatest threats to the future of America. There is near conformity, uniformity of opinion in the Congress for endorsing the careless use of U.S. force to police the world. Although foreign policy was infrequently debated in the past year and there are no major wars going on or likely to start soon, the danger inherent in foreign entanglements warrants close scrutiny.

war
State Of The Republic
28 January 1998    1998 Ron Paul 2:8
Protecting personal liberties in any society is always more difficult during war. The uniformity of opinion in Congress is enshrined with the common cliches that no one thinks through, like foreign policy is bipartisan; only the President can formulate foreign policy; we must support the troops and, therefore, of course, the war, which is usually illegal and unwise but cannot be challenged; we are the only world’s superpower; we must protect our interests like oil. However, it is never admitted, although most know, our policy is designed to promote the military industrial complex and world government.

war
State Of The Republic
28 January 1998    1998 Ron Paul 2:9
Most recently, the Congress almost unanimously beat the drums for war, i.e., to kill Hussein; and any consideration of the facts involved elicited charges of anti-patriotism. Yet in the midst of the clamor to send our planes and bombs to Baghdad, cooler heads were found in, of all places, Kuwait.

war
State Of The Republic
28 January 1998    1998 Ron Paul 2:14
The fact that of the original 35 allies in the Persian Gulf War only one remains, Great Britain, should make us question our policy in this region. This attitude in Washington should concern all Americans. It makes it too easy for our presidents to start a senseless war without considering dollar costs or threat to liberty here and abroad. Even without a major war, this policy enhances the prestige and the influence of the United Nations.

war
State Of The Republic
28 January 1998    1998 Ron Paul 2:16
There is much to be concerned about with our current approach to foreign policy. It is dangerous because it can lead to a senseless war like Vietnam or small ones with bad results like in Somalia.

war
State Of The Republic
28 January 1998    1998 Ron Paul 2:17
Individual freedom is always under attack; and once there is any serious confrontation with a foreign enemy, we are all required to rally around the President, no matter how flawed the policy. Too often, the consequences are unforeseen, like making Hussein stronger and not weaker after the Persian Gulf War.

war
State Of The Republic
28 January 1998    1998 Ron Paul 2:26
Many resolutions on principle are similar to the Gulf of Tonkin resolution, which became equivalent to a declaration of war and allowed for a massive loss of life in the Vietnam fiasco. Most Members of Congress fail to see the significance of threatening violence against countries like Libya, Somalia, Rwanda, Bosnia, Iraq, Iran, or Haiti. Yet our credibility suffers since our policies can never satisfy both sides of each regional conflict.

war
State Of The Republic
28 January 1998    1998 Ron Paul 2:30
There are more than 25,000 Soviet nuclear warheads that cannot be accounted for, and all we hear about from the politicians is about Iraq’s control of weapons of mass destruction.

war
State Of The Republic
28 January 1998    1998 Ron Paul 2:34
The way we usually get dragged into a shooting war is by some unpredictable incident, where innocent Americans are killed after our government placed them in harm’s way and the enemy provoked. Then the argument is made that once hostilities break out, debating the policy that created the mess is off limits. Everybody then must agree to support the troops.

war
State Of The Republic
28 January 1998    1998 Ron Paul 2:112
National sovereignty designed to protect liberty in a republic is challenged as our foreign operations are controlled by U.N. resolutions, not Congress. Under these conditions, our cities are more likely to be targeted by terrorists for the hatred our policies fuel. Draft registration remains in place just in case more bodies are needed for our standing U.N. armies. The draft remains the ultimate attack on volunteerism and represents the most direct affront to individual liberty. This is made that much worse when one realizes that it is highly unlikely that we will ever see American troops in action under anything other than a U.N.-sponsored war or military operation.

war
State Of The Republic
28 January 1998    1998 Ron Paul 2:137
Political leaders no longer see their responsibility to protect life and liberty as a sacred trust and a concept of individual rights has been significantly undermined throughout the 20th century. The record verifies this. Authoritarian governments, in this the bloodiest of all centuries, have annihilated over 100 million people, their own. Wars have killed an additional 34 million, and only a small number of these were truly in the defense of liberty.

war
America Should Move Cautiously Regarding Iraq
4 February 1998    1998 Ron Paul 3:2
In the next week or two, we may have a resolution coming to this floor endorsing the bombing and, in essence, allowing for a declaration of war. Saddam Hussein does not pose any threat to our national security. We should be going very cautiously. Bombing might cause some accident regarding biological warfare. It may cause an irrational act by Saddam Hussein with one of his neighbors. It is bound to kill innocent lives, innocent civilians in Iraq. It could kill many American flyers as well. It costs a lot of money.

war
Congress Should Move Cautiously On Resolution Regarding Iraq
5 February 1998    1998 Ron Paul 4:4
I urge my fellow colleagues, please, be cautious, be careful, and be wise when it comes to giving this President the right to wage war. Ironically, this President did not respond in the same manner with the Gulf of Tonkin resolution.

war
Three Important Issues For America
11 February 1998    1998 Ron Paul 7:3
In the attempt to help people in a welfare-warfare state, unfortunately the poor never seem to be helped. A lot of money is spent, but due to the monetary system that we have, inevitably, the middle class tends to get wiped out and the poor get poorer, and very often in the early stages the wealthy get wealthier. In the meantime, the corporations seem to do quite well. So we live in an age where we have a fair amount of corporatism associated with the welfare-warfare state in which we live.

war
Three Important Issues For America
11 February 1998    1998 Ron Paul 7:11
Then, once again, we have this potential for going to war in Iraq, again, not because we follow the Constitution, not because we follow the rule of law, but because the United Nations has passed a resolution. Some have even argued that the U.N. resolution passed for the Persian Gulf War is enough for our President to initiate the bombings. Others claim that just the legislation, the resolution-type legislation passed in 1990 that endorsed this process is enough for us to go and pursue this war venture. But the truth is, if we followed the rules and if we followed the law, we would never commit an act of war, which bombing is, unless we have a declaration of war here in the Congress. Somebody told me just yesterday that yes, but that is so old fashioned.

war
Three Important Issues For America
11 February 1998    1998 Ron Paul 7:12
Just look at what we have been able to do since World War II without a declaration of war. Precisely. Why are we doing this? And precisely because when we do it, what generally happens is that we are not fighting these wars, and they are not police actions, these are wars, and we are not fighting them because of national interests. We are not fighting them for national security, and therefore, we do not fight to win, and subsequently, what war can we really be proud of since World War II? We have not won them. We set the stage for more problems later on. The Persian Gulf War has led to the stalemate that we have here today, and it goes on and on. I think this is a very important subject.

war
Three Important Issues For America
11 February 1998    1998 Ron Paul 7:13
War should only be declared for moral reasons. The only moral war is a defensive war and when our country is threatened. Then it is legitimate to come to the people and the people then, through their Members in the House and Senate, and the President then declare war, and then they fight that war to win. But today that is considered very old fashioned, and the consensus here in this Congress is that it will not take much for Congress to pass a resolution.

war
Three Important Issues For America
11 February 1998    1998 Ron Paul 7:14
What worries me, though, somewhat is that this resolution will not be circulated among the Members for days and weeks and have real serious debate. There is always the possibility that a resolution like this will come up suddenly. There will be little debate, and then a vote, and an endorsement for this policy. The first resolution that has been discussed over in the Senate had language very, very similar to the same language used in the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, which endorsed the expansion of the war in Vietnam, where 50,000 men were lost, and it was done not with a declaration of war, but by casual agreement by the Congress to go along.

war
Three Important Issues For America
11 February 1998    1998 Ron Paul 7:15
Congress should have and take more responsibility for these actions. It is only the Congress that should pursue an act of war. Bombing is an act of war, especially if it is a country halfway around the world and a country that has not directly threatened our national security.

war
Three Important Issues For America
11 February 1998    1998 Ron Paul 7:17
This effort that is about to be launched, it has not been endorsed by our allies. It is getting very difficult to even get the slightest token endorsement by our allies to start this bombing. One would think if Saddam Hussein was a true threat to that region, his neighbors would be the first ones to be willing to march and to be willing to go to battle to defend themselves. But they are saying, do not even put your troops here, do not launch your effort from our soil, because it is not in our best interests to do so. Kuwait, the country that we went to war over not too long ago has given some token endorsement, but even their newspapers are carrying news stories that really challenge what the people might be saying about this effort.

war
Three Important Issues For America
11 February 1998    1998 Ron Paul 7:19
A Kuwaiti legislator who was not willing to reveal his name said the use of force has ended up strengthening the Iraqi regime rather than weakening it. Most people realize that. In the Middle East, Saddam Hussein has more credibility among his Arab neighbors than he did before the war.

war
Three Important Issues For America
11 February 1998    1998 Ron Paul 7:22
So one would expect with all this money flowing into that country that they should quickly do exactly what we want. But this Foreign Minister was rather blunt: Egypt, a key member of the Gulf War coalition, is opposed to U.S. military action in Iraq. He said, We believe that military action should be avoided and there is room for political efforts. He said, If such action is taken, there will be considerable fallout in the Arab world, he warned. He said, We are not afraid of Saddam. He added that his country believes the crisis is a result of allegations that have not been proven. Yet, we are willing to go and do such a thing as to initiate this massive bombing attack on this country, and there has been nothing proven.

war
Three Important Issues For America
11 February 1998    1998 Ron Paul 7:23
Moussa also said that Iraq’s possession of chemical and biological weapons must be pursued, of course. But this requires cooperation with Iraq, not confrontation. Even our President admits that more weapons have been removed from Iraq since the war ended than which occurred with the hundreds of thousands of troops in Iraq, as well as 88,000 bombs that were dropped in the whole of World War II, and it did not accomplish the mission.

war
Three Important Issues For America
11 February 1998    1998 Ron Paul 7:33
What about another close ally, an ally that we have had since World War II: Turkey. Turkey is not anxious for doing this. They do not want us to take the bombers and the troops out of Turkey. As a matter of fact, they are hesitant about this. This is an article from the Washington Times by Philip Smucker. He said, “Turkey’s growing fears of a clash in Iraq are based largely on what it sees as the ruinous aftermath of the Gulf War.”

war
Three Important Issues For America
11 February 1998    1998 Ron Paul 7:34
So Turkey is claiming that they are still suffering from the Gulf War.

war
Three Important Issues For America
11 February 1998    1998 Ron Paul 7:35
“The people,” and this is quoting from the Foreign Ministry Sermet Atacanli, “the people have started thinking that Turkey is somehow being punished,” a senior foreign official said. “We supported the war, but we are losing now.” So they are getting no benefits.

war
Three Important Issues For America
11 February 1998    1998 Ron Paul 7:36
He said that since the war, Turkey has suffered economic losses of some $35 billion stemming from the invigorated Kurdish uprising on the Iraqi border and the shutting down of the border trade, including the Iraqi oil exports through Turkey. They used to have trade; now they do not.

war
Three Important Issues For America
11 February 1998    1998 Ron Paul 7:40
The military goals are questioned by even the best of our military people in this country, and sometimes it is very difficult to understand what our military goals are. We do not have the troops there to invade and to take over Baghdad or to get rid of Hussein, but we have a lot of bombs and we have a lot of firepower. Yet, we are supposed to be intimidated and fearful of this military strength of Saddam Hussein. Yet even by our own intelligence reports, his strength is about one-half what it was before the Persian Gulf War started. So there is a little bit more fear-mongering there than I think is justified.

war
Three Important Issues For America
11 February 1998    1998 Ron Paul 7:43
Syria is another close neighbor of Iraq. Syria was an ally in the Persian Gulf War. Syria would like us not to do anything. Iraqi foreign minister Mohammed Saeed Sahhaf went to Damascus to see Syrian President Hafez Assad, marking the first time in 18 years that the Syrian leader met with an Iraqi official. This is one of the consequences, this is one of the things that is happening. The further we push the Iraqi people and the Iraqi Government, the further we push them into close alliances with the more radical elements in that region.

war
Three Important Issues For America
11 February 1998    1998 Ron Paul 7:45
We could end up having lives lost. We still have not solved all the problems and taken care of all the victims of the Persian Gulf War syndrome which numbers in the tens of thousands. Maybe we should be talking about that more than looking for more problems and a greater chance for a serious confrontation where lives were lost.

war
Three Important Issues For America
11 February 1998    1998 Ron Paul 7:47
Just recently Schwarzkopf was interviewed on NBC TV’s “Meet the Press,” and he had some interesting comments to make, very objective, very military-oriented comments. He would not agree with me on my policy or the policy that I would advocate of neutrality and nonintervention and the pro-American policy. But he did have some warnings about the military operation.

war
Three Important Issues For America
11 February 1998    1998 Ron Paul 7:52
Charles Krauthammer, who would be probably in favor of doing a lot more than I would do, had some advice. He said, “Another short bombing campaign would simply send yet another message of American irresolution. It would arouse Arab complaints about American arrogance and aggression while doing nothing to decrease Saddam’s grip on power. Better to do nothing,” Charles Krauthammer in the Washington Post. These are not my views. They are warnings that we should not ignore.

war
Three Important Issues For America
11 February 1998    1998 Ron Paul 7:55
This is Richard Cohen warning us about some of the ramifications of what might happen.

war
Three Important Issues For America
11 February 1998    1998 Ron Paul 7:56
But during these past 8 years since the war has ended, there has been no signs that that is likely to happen. It is more likely to happen that some missile or some accident will occur that will spread this war from a neat little war to something much bigger than we are interested in dealing with.

war
Three Important Issues For America
11 February 1998    1998 Ron Paul 7:57
There are several other points that I would like to mention here. The one thing we cannot measure and we cannot anticipate are the accidents that happen. So often wars are caused by people being in the wrong place at wrong time, and then accidents happen and somebody gets killed, a ship is sunk, and we have to go to war.

war
Three Important Issues For America
11 February 1998    1998 Ron Paul 7:59
But we would all be better off, not so much that we can anticipate exactly who we should help and who we should support; we have done too much of that. We help too often both sides of every war that has existed in the last 50 years, and we have pretended that we have known what is best for everybody. I think that is impossible.

war
Three Important Issues For America
11 February 1998    1998 Ron Paul 7:60
I think the responsibility of the Members of Congress here is to protect the national interest, to provide national security, to take care of national defense, to follow the rules that say, we should not go to war unless the war is declared. If we go to war, we go to war to fight and win the war. But we do not go to war because we like one country over another country and we want to support them.

war
Three Important Issues For America
11 February 1998    1998 Ron Paul 7:65
We obviously knew the oil was important in the Persian Gulf War because it was said that we were going over there to protect our oil. Of course, it was Iraqi oil but some people believe sincerely that keeping this Iraqi oil off the market helps keep the prices higher and they do not need that to happen.

war
Three Important Issues For America
11 February 1998    1998 Ron Paul 7:70
So we have a responsibility. If the responsibility is that Saddam Hussein is a threat to our national security, we should be more honest with the American people. We should tell them what the problem is. We should have a resolution, a declaration of war.

war
Three Important Issues For America
11 February 1998    1998 Ron Paul 7:72
So I see this as really a sad time for us and not one that we should be proud of. I do know that the two weakest arguments I can present here would be that of a moral argument, that wars ought to be fought only for defense and for national security. I have been told that is too old-fashioned and we must police the world, and we have the obligation. We are the only superpower.

war
Three Important Issues For America
11 February 1998    1998 Ron Paul 7:73
Well, I do not think that is a legitimate argument. I do have a lot of reservation that we are so anxious to go along with getting authority elsewhere, and that is through the United Nations. When the Persian Gulf War was started, getting ready to start, it was said that we did not need the Congress to approve this because the authority came from the United Nations resolution.

war
Three Important Issues For America
11 February 1998    1998 Ron Paul 7:74
Well, that to me is the wrong way to go. If we are involved in internationalism, where international financing now is influencing our presidential election, if international finances demand that we take more money from the American taxpayers and bail out southeast Asian countries through the IMF and that we are willing to have our young men and women be exposed to war conditions and to allow them to go to war mainly under a U.N. resolution and a token endorsement by the Congress, I think this is the wrong way to go.

war
Three Important Issues For America
11 February 1998    1998 Ron Paul 7:76
As a matter of fact, I have had a lot of them come and say, why are you guys up there thinking about going to war? I have had a lot of people talk about that. So we should not do this carelessly and casually.

war
Three Important Issues For America
11 February 1998    1998 Ron Paul 7:77
There is no reason in the world why we cannot be willing to look at the rule of law. The rule of law is very clear. We do not have the moral authority to do this. This is, we must recognize, this is an act of war.

war
Three Important Issues For America
11 February 1998    1998 Ron Paul 7:81
We do not have to be the policemen of the world. We have not done a good job and the world is not safer today because of our willingness to do this. One act leads to the next one. We are still fighting the Persian Gulf War, and it sounds to me like we are losing our allies. We must take this under serious advisement. We must not be too anxious to go and do something that we could be very sorry for.

war
Three Important Issues For America
11 February 1998    1998 Ron Paul 7:83
If you are willing to go yourself, if you are willing to send your child, then it is more legitimate to vote casually and carelessly to go marching off with acts of war. But if that individual who is getting ready to vote, if he himself or she herself is not willing to land on that beach and risk their lives, they should think a second time.

war
Three Important Issues For America
11 February 1998    1998 Ron Paul 7:84
In a war for national defense, if this country is threatened, every one of us should participate in it. We should and we can. We could do it our way, to participate in the defense of this country. But once it is being involved in a casual and a careless manner with not knowing what the goals are, not knowing what victory means, not fighting to win, this can only lead to bigger problems.

war
Three Important Issues For America
11 February 1998    1998 Ron Paul 7:105
How many bombs did we drop in South Vietnam? How many men were lost on our side? How many people were lost on the other side? How many innocent people were lost? So the war ends, after a decade. After a decade of misery in this country where we literally had to turn on our own people to suppress the demonstrations. But today I have friends who are doing business in South Vietnam, making money over there, which means that trade and talk works. They are becoming more Westernized.

war
Three Important Issues For America
11 February 1998    1998 Ron Paul 7:112
But none of this could happen. We could never move in this direction unless we asked a simple question: What really is the role of our government? Is the role of our government to perpetuate a welfare-warfare state to take care of the large special interests who benefit from this by building weapons and buying and selling oil? No, the purpose cannot be that.

war
Three Important Issues For America
11 February 1998    1998 Ron Paul 7:113
The welfare-warfare state does not work. The welfare for poor is well-motivated; it is intended to help people, but it never helps them. They become an impoverished, dependent class. And we are on the verge of bankruptcy, no matter what we hear about the balanced budget. The national debt is going up by nearly $200 billion a year and it cannot be sustained. So this whole nonsense of a balanced budget and trying to figure out where to spend the excess is nonsense. It just encourages people to take over more of the responsibilities that should be with the American people.

war
Three Important Issues For America
11 February 1998    1998 Ron Paul 7:118
Foreign policy is very important because it is under the conditions of war; it is under the condition of foreign confrontation that people are so willing to give up their liberties at home because of the fear. We should avoid unnecessary confrontations overseas and we should concentrate on bettering the people here in this country, and it can best be done by guaranteeing property rights, free markets, sound money, and a sensible approach to our foreign policy.

war
Iraq
12 February 1998    1998 Ron Paul 9:3
I would like to remind my colleagues that bombing a country, especially one halfway around the world that is not a direct threat to our security, is not a moral act. A moral war is one that is defensive and a legal war is one that is declared by Congress. We should only pursue an act of war when our national security is threatened.

war
Iraq
12 February 1998    1998 Ron Paul 9:5
Please think carefully before we permit our President to pursue this war adventure.

war
Urging Caution On Action Taken In Iraq
12 February 1998    1998 Ron Paul 11:2
I have a problem with the procedure, which we are pursuing, that we are condoning, encouraging and literally paying for a program which permits the President to go and bomb another nation. There was a time in our history when bombing another country, when that country had not attacked us, was an act of war. But today we do this rather casually.

war
Urging Caution On Action Taken In Iraq
12 February 1998    1998 Ron Paul 11:3
Morally, the only justifiable war is a war of defense, a war when our national security is threatened. A legal war in this country is one that is declared by the Congress acting for the people.

war
Urging Caution On Action Taken In Iraq
12 February 1998    1998 Ron Paul 11:4
We have not declared a war. If we had a declared war even once since World War II, possibly we would have fought for victory. Instead, we get involved too carelessly and we do not fight to victory, and maybe that is why we are standing here today debating the consequence of the Persian Gulf war because we really did not achieve victory and the war continues.

war
Urging Caution On Action Taken In Iraq
12 February 1998    1998 Ron Paul 11:5
It is argued that the legislation passed in 1990 gives legitimacy for the President to pursue this adventure, but this really contradicts everything intended by the founders of this country that we could literally pass legislation which was not a declaration of war and to allow it to exist in perpetuity. And here it is 7 or 8 years later, and we are going to use legislation passed by Congress. Very few of us were even in that Congress at that time that are in the current Congress, but they want to use that.

war
Urging Caution On Action Taken In Iraq
12 February 1998    1998 Ron Paul 11:11
Nothing is going to happen to the world. Saddam Hussein has not threatened his neighbors since the Persian Gulf war, and surely before we get back in 10 days this is unnecessary.

war
The Folly Of Foreign Intervention — Part 1
25 February 1998    1998 Ron Paul 15:2
We have heard very much in the last few weeks about the possibility of a war being started in the Persian Gulf. It looks like this has at least been delayed a bit. There is a temporary victory brought about by Secretary General Kofi Annan of the United Nations in agreement with the government of Iraq.

war
The Folly Of Foreign Intervention — Part 1
25 February 1998    1998 Ron Paul 15:6
We heard a gentleman earlier this evening from North Dakota mention when he was at home essentially nobody was telling him that they were in favor of the war. I think most Members of Congress on this past week on visiting home had the same message. Certainly there was a very loud message in Columbus at a town hall meeting. It was written off by those who wanted to go to war and wanted to drop the bombs by saying, well, no, this was just a very noisy bunch of hippies who are opposed to the war. There are a lot of people in this country who are opposed to the war and they are not hippies. I think to discredit people who oppose going and participating in an act of war and try to discredit them by saying that they belong to a hippie generation, I think they are going to lose out in the credibility argument in this regards.

war
The Folly Of Foreign Intervention — Part 1
25 February 1998    1998 Ron Paul 15:8
It is in this one instance. We did not just invent foreign interventionism in foreign policy. This has been going on for a long time. The worst and the first egregious example, of course, was in Korea where we went to war under the U.N. banner and was the first war we did not win. Yet we continue with this same policy throughout the world. Hardly can we be proud of what happened in Vietnam. It seems like we are having a lot more success getting along with the Vietnamese people as we trade with them rather than fight with them.

war
The Folly Of Foreign Intervention — Part 1
25 February 1998    1998 Ron Paul 15:9
There is a lot of argument against this whole principle of foreign interventionism, involvement in the internal affairs of other nations, picking leaders of other countries. We were warned rather clearly by our first President, George Washington, that it would be best that we not get involved in entangling alliances and that we instead should talk with people and be friendly with people and trade with people. Of course the first reaction would be, yes, but the person that we are dealing with as leader of Iraq is a monster and therefore we cannot trust him and we should not talk to him. There have been a lot of monsters in the world and we have not treated them all the same way. Just think of the tremendous number of deaths to the tune of millions under Pol Pot. At that time we were even an ally of his. Even the inconsistency of our policy where in the 1980s we actually encouraged Saddam Hussein. We sold him weapons. We actually had participated in the delivery of biological weapons to Hussein. At that time we encouraged him to cross the border into Iran. We closed our eyes when poison gases were used.

war
The Folly Of Foreign Intervention — Part 1
25 February 1998    1998 Ron Paul 15:10
So all of a sudden it is hard to understand why our policy changes. But once we embark on a policy of intervention and it is arbitrary, we intervene when we please or when it seems to help, it seems then that we can be on either side of any issue anytime, and so often we are on both sides of many wars. This does not serve us well. A policy design that is said to be pro-American and in defense of this country where we follow the rules and follow the laws and we do not get involved in war without a declaration by the Congress, I think it would be very healthy not only for us as Americans but it would be very healthy for the world as a whole.

war
The Folly Of Foreign Intervention — Part 1
25 February 1998    1998 Ron Paul 15:12
But we used the CIA in Cuba a few decades ago. Now it has just been revealed that our CIA botched the job. Also, those individuals who were trying to restore freedom to Cuba, we let them down by them assuming we would do more and then we did less. We were very much involved in overthrowing a leader in South Vietnam right before the rampant escalation of the war there. That did not serve us well. And then there is another example of our CIA putting a government in charge over in Iran. That is when we put the Shah in. But this did not bring peace and stability to the region. It brought us hostage takings and hostility and hatred and threats of terrorism in this country. So although many will make the moral cause for doing good around the world, there is no moral justification if we are going to follow the laws of this land and try to stick to the rules of providing a national defense for us and a strong foreign policy.

war
The Folly Of Foreign Intervention — Part 2
25 February 1998    1998 Ron Paul 17:2
I have always lamented the fact that we so often are anxious to close down our bases here within the United States because we are always looking for the next monster to slay outside of the country, so we build air bases in places like Saudi Arabia. Then when the time comes that our leaders think that it is necessary to pursue a war policy in the region, they do not even allow us to use the bases. I think that is so often money down the drain. It is estimated now that we have probably pumped in $7 billion into Bosnia and that is continuing. Our President is saying now that that is open-ended, there is no date to bring those troops back. We have already spent probably a half a billion additional dollars these last several weeks just beefing up the troops in the Persian Gulf.

war
The Folly Of Foreign Intervention — Part 2
25 February 1998    1998 Ron Paul 17:9
As a matter of fact, foreign policy, those words do not even exist in the Constitution, and the Congress has all the responsibility of raising funds, spending funds, raising an army, declaring war, so the responsibilities are on us.

war
The Folly Of Foreign Intervention — Part 2
25 February 1998    1998 Ron Paul 17:11
We have to be up for reelection every 2 years, and if we listen to the polls that say that 70 percent of the American people want this war, at the same time if we fail to go home and talk to our people and find out that most Americans do not want this war and there is no good argument for it.

war
The Folly Of Foreign Intervention — Part 2
25 February 1998    1998 Ron Paul 17:12
The whole idea that we can immediately go over there and make sure there are no weapons of mass destruction when we helped build the weapons up in the first place, and if we are really concerned about weapons of mass destruction, why are we not more concerned about the 25,000 nuclear warheads that have fallen into unknown hands since the breakup of the Soviet Union? Our allies in the Middle East have nuclear weapons, and we have China to worry about. What did we do with China? We give them more foreign aid.

war
The Folly Of Foreign Intervention — Part 2
25 February 1998    1998 Ron Paul 17:15
So I think that there is every reason in the world for us to reassess this policy. There is a much more sensible policy. What we need is more time right now. There is no urgency about this. We did the bombing in the early 1990s, and by the way, I can see this as a continuation of that single war. But since that time with inspections, even the President claims that they have gotten rid of more weapons since the war ended than occurred with the war.

war
The Folly Of Foreign Intervention — Part 3
25 February 1998    1998 Ron Paul 18:7
Of course, if you are involved in a war or there is an avowed enemy, declared enemy, that is a different story. For the most part, since World War II, we have not used those terms, we have not had declared words, we have only had “police actions,” and, therefore, we are working in a never-never limbo that nobody can well define.

war
The Folly Of Foreign Intervention — Part 3
25 February 1998    1998 Ron Paul 18:16
So if we bomb first and then the goal of Saddam Hussein is to expand the war, what does he do? He lobs one over into Israel, and Israel comes in, and then the whole procedure has been to solidify the Islamic fundamentalists. Then there is no reason not to expect maybe Iran and Syria coming in.

war
The Folly Of Foreign Intervention — Part 3
25 February 1998    1998 Ron Paul 18:21
If we argue our case correctly, if we argue the more argument, the constitutional argument, and the argument for peace as well, I cannot see how the American people cannot endorse a policy like that, and I challenge those who think that we should go carelessly and rapidly into battle, killing those who are not responsible, further enhancing the power and the authority of those who would be the dictators. They do not get killed. Sanctions do not hurt them. The innocent people suffer. Just as the economic sanctions that will be put on Southeast Asia as we give them more money, who suffers from the devaluations? The American taxpayer, as well as the poor people, whether they are in Mexico or Southeast Asia, in order to prop up the very special interests. Whether it is the banking interests involved in the loans to the Southeast Asians, or our military-industrial complex who tends to benefit from building more and more weapons so they can go off and test them in wars that are unnecessary.

war
Access To Energy
25 February 1998    1998 Ron Paul 19:14
All of us are beneficiaries of science and technology. We live lives that are much longer and are filled with seemingly endless pleasures, experiences, and freedoms that would not be available without technology. Even the “warmers” who gathered in Kyoto to bemoan and attack the world’s hydrocarbon technology dropped in by way of airplanes belching demon carbon dioxide.

war
Recommending An Article By R.C. Sproul, Jr.
25 February 1998    1998 Ron Paul 21:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I would like to recommend to my colleagues the following article by a young writher, R.C. Sproul, Jr., the son of the remarkable theologian and author. While this article is indeed instructive and important in regards to the recent situation with Iraq, I believe that the author does a fine job addressing the much broader topic of following the Constitution in all matters, including those of inciting war and promoting peace. His article was written for CovSyn, which is a publication of the Kuyper Institute, in Oak Ridge, Tennessee.

war
Recommending An Article By R.C. Sproul, Jr.
25 February 1998    1998 Ron Paul 21:4
BOMBING THE CONSTITUTION By R.C. Sproul, Jr. When was the last time the United States went to war? That’s not exactly an easy question to answer. If, however, the Constitution is in fact the law of the land, the answer is December 8, 1941. You see, the Constitution says that only the Congress has the power to declare war on another nation. That would seem to mean that without such a declaration, there is no war. Some kept this pretense the first time the United States went to war after World War II. Some called the Korean War a “police action.” Vietnam, though there was again no declaration of war, was known as a war.

war
Recommending An Article By R.C. Sproul, Jr.
25 February 1998    1998 Ron Paul 21:5
Since Vietnam U.S. soldiers have shot at soldiers from other countries, and been shot at, in Libya, Grenada, Panama, Somalia, the former Yugoslavia, and Iraq. And it appears we’re going to non-war again in Iraq sometime soon. Where, to quote Mr. Dole, is the outrage? How is it that the Constitution can be so brazenly ignored?

war
Recommending An Article By R.C. Sproul, Jr.
25 February 1998    1998 Ron Paul 21:6
Some argue that in an age of intercontinental ballistic missiles, that the requirement for a Congressional declaration is outdated. In none of the above “non-wars” however, have such missiles constituted a treat to American safety. And even if such were the case, why not change the Constitution to reflect the current situation?

war
Recommending An Article By R.C. Sproul, Jr.
25 February 1998    1998 Ron Paul 21:7
Others suggest that we have no need for this old rule since we now have the “War Powers Act” which gives congressional approval for the President to use the military freely within a certain time frame. But that’s not at all the same thing. The Constitution no where gives the Congress the right to shirk their role as declarers of war.

war
Recommending An Article By R.C. Sproul, Jr.
25 February 1998    1998 Ron Paul 21:9
And still some go on insisting that these conflicts aren’t wars. With the U.S.S. Nimitz in the Suez Canal, with 3,000 ground troops being sent to join the 1,500 already in Kuwait, with Stealth bombers lined up and ready to go, this is nonsense. When soldiers shoot at each other, whether they’re in a foxhole, or in a room full of computers, or 35,000 feet in the air, that’s war.

war
Wireless Telephone Protection Act
26 February 1998    1998 Ron Paul 22:4
This radical departure from the long held notion of “innocent until proven guilty” warrants opposition to this bill.

war
Introduction Of The Rice Farmer Fairness Act
5 March 1998    1998 Ron Paul 23:2
Theoretically, the idea of the plan is to “wean” landowners off of subsidies over a transition period. In fact, what this program allows are “something for nothing” subsidies, which is the worst kind of subsidy. Moreover, as a result of this provision there is a very real threat to the agricultural infrastructure. With landowners receiving subsidies in spite of lack of production, the entire warehousing, processing and “value-added” industries are put at risk.

war
Birth Defects Prevention Act
10 March 1998    1998 Ron Paul 24:7
Congress are [sic] authorized to defend the nation. Ships are necessary for defense, copper is necessary for ships; mines, necessary for copper; a company necessary to work the mines; and who can doubt this reasoning who has ever played at “This is the House that Jack Built”? under such a process of filiation of the necessities the sweeping clause makes clean work. [1 c. Warren, The Supreme Court United States History 501 (Rev. ed. 1926]

war
U.S. Obsession With Worldwide Military Occupation Policy
10 March 1998    1998 Ron Paul 25:6
The centuries old ethnic rivalries inherent in this region, and aggravated by persistent Western influence as far back as the Crusades, will never be resolved by arbitrary threats and use of force from the United States or the United Nations. All that is being accomplished is to further alienate the factions, festering hate and pushing the region into a war of which we need no part.

war
U.S. Obsession With Worldwide Military Occupation Policy
10 March 1998    1998 Ron Paul 25:12
Acting as an honest broker, the U.S. may help bring warring factions to the peace table, but never with threats of war or bribes paid for by the American taxpayers. We should stop sending money and weapons to all factions. Too often our support finds its way into the hands of both warring factions and we never know how long it will be for our friends and allies of today to become our enemy and targets of tomorrow.

war
Removing U.S. Armed Forces From Bosnia And Herzegovina
17 March 1998    1998 Ron Paul 26:2
The one tomorrow is offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. CAMPBELL), which I think we should pay close attention to and, hopefully, support. This is H. Con. Res. 227. It is a concurrent resolution directing the President, pursuant to section 5(c) of the War Powers Resolution, to remove United States Armed Forces from the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina.

war
Removing U.S. Armed Forces From Bosnia And Herzegovina
17 March 1998    1998 Ron Paul 26:8
Fortunately, there has been no American deaths in this region, but there is a good reason for those troops to come out. The peace has not been settled, though, there. It is not going to be. And our 16,000 or 20,000 troops that we have had there will not be able to maintain the peace as long as these warring factions exist. They have existed not for months, not for a few years, but literally for hundreds of years if not thousands of years people in this region have been fighting among themselves.

war
Removing U.S. Armed Forces From Bosnia And Herzegovina
17 March 1998    1998 Ron Paul 26:10
So I strongly urge my fellow colleagues to look carefully at this resolution tomorrow and assume congressional responsibility. It is not the responsibility of the President to wage war, to put troops around the world. That is a congressional responsibility.

war
Removing U.S. Armed Forces From Bosnia And Herzegovina
17 March 1998    1998 Ron Paul 26:11
So although there has been no declaration of war, we are sitting ducks for a war to be started. So let us stop the war before it gets started.

war
Bombing Iraq
18 March 1998    1998 Ron Paul 27:2
This is an immensely important constitutional issue and one that we should pay close attention to and obviously support. I would like this same principle, of course, to apply across the board, especially when it comes to bombing foreign countries, like Iraq, because we should not be involved in war efforts without the consent of the Congress.

war
Bombing Iraq
18 March 1998    1998 Ron Paul 27:5
Prior to World War II there were always debates in the House of Representatives any time we wanted to use military force. Whether it was 150 years ago, when we decided to spread our borders southward towards Mexico, or whether 100 years ago when we decided to do something in Cuba, it came here. They had the debates, they had the arguments, but they came to the floor and debated this.

war
Bombing Iraq
18 March 1998    1998 Ron Paul 27:6
Today, ever since World War II, we have reneged on that responsibility. We have turned it over to the President and allowed him to be involved. We have given him words of encouragement that implies that we support his position. We do so often and, as far as I am concerned, too carelessly. But when we do this, the President then assumes this responsibility; and, unfortunately, since World War II, it has not even been for national security reasons.

war
Bombing Iraq
18 March 1998    1998 Ron Paul 27:7
The Persian Gulf War was fought with the assumption that the administration got the authority from the United Nations. If we are to express ourselves and to defend our national sovereignty, we should have the Congress vote positive on this resolution because it is so critical.

war
Illegal Wars
31 March 1998    1998 Ron Paul 30:3
Mr. Chairman, it has been stated that only five times we have declared war in our history. True. But who is going to stand here and say that men that died in Vietnam and in Korea were not in a war? They were illegal. They were unconstitutional. This is a very sound effort to bring back once again the constitutional responsibility of all of us to declare war, and only Congress can do that.

war
Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act
31 March 1998    1998 Ron Paul 31:4
It has become the accepted political notion in this century that war is a Presidential matter in which Congress may not meddle, and certainly never offer dissenting views. Yet, no place in the Constitution do we find a presidential fiat power to conduct war. To the contrary, we find strict prohibitions placed on the President when it comes to dealing with foreign nations. The Constitution is clear: No war may be fought without a specific declaration by the Congress.

war
Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act
31 March 1998    1998 Ron Paul 31:5
I, in fact, introduced H.R. 3208, in an effort to protect US troops from unnecessary exposure to harm and to stop President Clinton from initiating the use of force in the Persian Gulf. As a former Air Force flight surgeon, I am committed to supporting troops and believe the only way to completely support soldiers is to not put them in harms way except to defend our nation. Of course, those drumming for war say they want everyone to support the troops by sending them into battle: a contradiction, at best.

war
Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act
31 March 1998    1998 Ron Paul 31:6
There is absolutely no moral or constitutional reason to go to war with Iraq or further intervene in Bosnia at this time. To go to war to enforce the dictates of the United Nations, or to play the part of ‘policemen of the world,’ offends the sensibilities of all who seek to follow the Constitution. I refuse to participate in (or fund) an action which would possibly expose even one soldier to risk when there is absolutely no immediate threat to the territory of the United States.

war
Random Drug Testing Of House Members And Staff Is Ill-Advised
21 April 1998    1998 Ron Paul 35:8
If we embark on this course to check randomly all congressional personnel for possible drug usage, it might be noted that the two most dangerous and destructive drugs in this country are alcohol and nicotine. To not include these in the efforts to do good is inconsistent, to say the least. Unfortunately, the administration is now pursuing an anti-tobacco policy that will be even less successful than the ill-fated Federal war on drugs.

war
Federal War On Drugs Bad Idea
5 May 1998    1998 Ron Paul 45:3
I have taken this time so I would have adequate time to explain my position and why I oppose this bill. Obviously, this country is facing a serious problem with drugs. As a physician, I can attest to it. We have major problems in this country, something should be done. But I thought it was necessary to take some time to point out that what we have done for 20 to 25 years has not been all that good. And I see this resolution as an endorsement of the status quo, not an introduction of one single new idea about how to approach this problem. And it is for this reason that I have taken this time to try to get people to think about maybe an alternative some day that we might look at, because so far the spending of the money and the abuse of our civil liberties that has occurred with the war on drugs has not accomplished a whole lot.

war
Federal War On Drugs Bad Idea
5 May 1998    1998 Ron Paul 45:9
The evidence quite frankly is not there to show that we are doing a very good job. And even though I commend the individuals who are promoting this legislation, the motivations are there, the desires are there, but I think, in my view, that it is the same old program of the Federal war on drugs that has a lot of shortcomings.

war
Federal War On Drugs Bad Idea
5 May 1998    1998 Ron Paul 45:11
We ought to put the war on drugs in a proper perspective. Yes, it is easy to talk about a heroin addict and a crime committed and people narrowing in on one instance, but we ought to look at this in a proper manner.

war
Federal War On Drugs Bad Idea
5 May 1998    1998 Ron Paul 45:12
There is talk that there are 20,000 deaths with illegal drugs. But that, in the best of my estimates, includes all the violent drugs which, to me, are a consequence of the war on drugs.

war
Federal War On Drugs Bad Idea
5 May 1998    1998 Ron Paul 45:19
To dwell on the drug war and casually and carelessly violate civil liberties, as we so often do, and have confiscation and seizure of property that we just blow it off because we are fighting the drug war, I think we are going in the wrong direction. We need some new ideas and new proposals on this drug war. I hope today to have time to make some of these suggestions on what we might do about the drug war.

war
Federal War On Drugs Bad Idea
5 May 1998    1998 Ron Paul 45:20
Former HEW Secretary Joseph Califano said, not too long ago, he was comparing the drug war to the problem of alcohol, he said: The drug war is a grain of sand compared to alcohol.

war
Federal War On Drugs Bad Idea
5 May 1998    1998 Ron Paul 45:26
Now, there is a lot more that has to be said, especially if we can someday open up the debate and go in a new direction, have some new ideas dealing with the drug program. But I want to pause here for a minute, and I want to emphasize just one thing; that is, that, constitutionally, it was never intended that the Federal Government fight the war on drug. And they never did until recent years. For 25 years now, we have done it. We have spent $200 billion.

war
Wasting Money On War On Drugs
5 May 1998    1998 Ron Paul 46:4
My goal today is just to suggest, just to bring it to the Congress’ attention, that possibly we are not doing the right things. If we would ever come to admitting that, then maybe we will not have to suffer the abuse of how the war on drugs goes awry.

war
Wasting Money On War On Drugs
5 May 1998    1998 Ron Paul 46:5
For instance, we have had this war on drugs, and there is no evidence even that we have been able to keep drugs out of our prisons. So maybe there is something we are doing wrong. Maybe we are treating a symptom rather than the cause of the problem. Maybe the cause is not legislatively correctable. That is a possibility. Obviously there is a problem there, but we need to think about it. We need to take a consideration, and not ever to write off those of us who might say we do not endorse the current approach as being one that might not be concerned about the issue.

war
Wasting Money On War On Drugs
5 May 1998    1998 Ron Paul 46:7
But I do think that we ought to look for a minute at the harm done with the war on drugs. So often there are victims from the war on drugs that go unnoticed. How often have we seen on television, how often have we read in our newspaper of a drug bust with hooded FBI agents and hooded DEA agents barging into the wrong apartment and really tearing the place up, confiscating property of people who have never committed a crime?

war
Wasting Money On War On Drugs
5 May 1998    1998 Ron Paul 46:8
Why are we at the point now that we permit the war on drugs to be fought without due process of law? All they have to be is a suspect. All we have to do is have cash these days, and the government will come and take it from us. Then we have to prove our innocence. That is not the Constitution. We have gone a long way from the due process.

war
Wasting Money On War On Drugs
5 May 1998    1998 Ron Paul 46:11
Yet we carelessly say, well, a little violation of civil liberties is okay, because we are doing so much good for the country and we are collecting revenues for the government. But we cannot casually dismiss these important issues, especially, if anything I suggest, that this war on drugs is, or the problem of drugs in perspective is not nearly what some people claim it to be, and that many people are dying from other problems rather than these.

war
Wasting Money On War On Drugs
5 May 1998    1998 Ron Paul 46:16
Kids go on drugs because they are seeking happiness, they are alone, they are in broken families. This is a problem that will not be solved by more laws and a greater war on drugs. We have 80,000 Federal policemen now carrying drugs. Character is what is needed. Laws do not create character. This does not dismiss us from expressing concern about this problem, but let us not make the problem worse.

war
Wasting Money On War On Drugs
5 May 1998    1998 Ron Paul 46:18
Again, we cannot distract from the serious problem of the drug war, but I do beg and plead for my colleagues to just look at the truth. Let us read the news carefully, let us look at the Constitution, like we do when it is convenient, and let us consider another option. It cannot be any worse than what we are doing.

war
Wasting Money On War On Drugs
5 May 1998    1998 Ron Paul 46:19
We have too many people on drugs, and this resolution makes my point. The war on drugs has failed. Let us do something different. Let us not pursue this any longer.

war
Girl Arrested For Rescuing Classmate In Asthma Attack
5 May 1998    1998 Ron Paul 47:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to point out, once again, that up until just very recently in our history, it was assumed that the Federal Government did not have this authority. To assume that we do have this, I guess that is why we call it a war, to say that this is national defense.

war
Girl Arrested For Rescuing Classmate In Asthma Attack
5 May 1998    1998 Ron Paul 47:3
I am concerned not only about the drug usage, obviously, and the fact that the war has failed, but with those things that are so negative when it comes to violation of liberties.

war
National Police State
12 May 1998    1998 Ron Paul 50:5
Nevertheless, rather than abide by our constitutional limits, Congress today will likely pass H. Res. 423 and H.R. 3811 under suspension of the rules meaning, of course, they are “non-controversial.” House Resolution 423 pledges the House to “pass legislation that provides the weapons and tools necessary to protect our children and our communities from the dangers of drug addiction and violence”. Setting aside for the moment the practicality of federal prohibition laws, an experiment which failed miserably in the so-called “Progressive era”, the threshold question must be: “under what authority do we act?” There is, after all, a reason why a Constitutional amendment was required to empower the federal government to share jurisdiction with the States in fighting a war on a different drug (alcohol) — without it, the federal government had no constitutional authority. One must also ask, “if the general welfare and commerce clause were all the justification needed, why bother with the tedious and time-consuming process of amending the Constitution?” Whether any governmental entity should be in the “business” of protecting competent individuals against themselves and their own perceived stupidity is certainly debatable — Whether the federal government is empowered to do so is not. Being stupid or brilliant to one’s sole disadvantage or advantage, respectively, is exactly what liberty is all about.

war
National Police State
12 May 1998    1998 Ron Paul 50:6
Today’s second legislative step towards a national police state can be found in H.R. 3811, the Deadbeat Parents Punishment Act of 1998. This bill enhances a federal criminal felony law for those who fail to meet child support obligations as imposed by the individual states. Additionally, the bills shifts some of the burden of proof from the federal government to the accused. The United States Constitution prohibits the federal government from depriving a person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. Pursuant to this constitutional provision, a criminal defendant is presumed to be innocent of the crime charged and, pursuant to what is often called “the Winship doctrine,” the prosecution is allocated the burden of persuading the fact-finder of every fact necessary to constitute the crime . . . charged.” The prosecution must carry this burden because of the immense interests at stake in a criminal prosecution, namely that a conviction often results in the loss of liberty or life (in this case, a sentence of up to two years). This departure from the long held notion of “innocent until proven guilty” alone warrants opposition to this bill.

war
The Indonesia Crisis
19 May 1998    1998 Ron Paul 52:21
As the Asian crisis spreads, I would expect Europe to feel the crunch next. Unemployment is already at a 12% level in Germany and France. The events can be made worse and accelerated by outside events like a Middle Eastern crisis or a war between India and Pakistan both now rattling their nuclear weapons. Eventually though, our system of “crony capitalism” and fiat money system will come under attack. Our system of favoring industries is different than the family oriented favoritism of Suharto, but none-the-less is built on a system of corporate welfare that prompts constant lobbying of Congress and the Administration for each corporation’s special interests. We have little to talk about as we preach austerity, balanced budgets and sound money to the current victims. Our day will come when we will humble ourselves before world opinion as our house of cards comes crashing down.

war
United Nations Money Came From Defense Department
20 May 1998    1998 Ron Paul 53:7
So this is absolutely the wrong direction that we are going in today. This is a further extension of the notion that our obligation is to police the world. We are supposed to make the world safe for democracy. Just think, since World War II, we have not had one declared war, but we sure have been fighting a lot. We have lost well over 100,000 men killed. We have lost, we have had hundreds of thousands of men injured because we have a policy that carelessly allows us to intervene in the affairs of other nations, and we allow the United Nations to assume too much control over our foreign policy.

war
The Indonesia Crisis
22 May 1998    1998 Ron Paul 54:21
As the Asian crisis spreads, I would expect Europe to feel the crunch next. Unemployment is already at or approaching 12% in Germany and France. The events can be made worse and accelerated by outside events like a Middle Eastern crisis or a war between India and Pakistan both now rattling their nuclear sabers. Eventually though, our system of “crony capitalism” and fiat money system will come under attack. Our system of favoring industries is different than the family-oriented favoritism of Suharto, but none-the-less is built on a system of corporate welfare that prompts constant lobbying of Congress and the Administration for each corporation’s special interests. We have little room to talk as we preach austerity, balanced budgets and sound money to the current victims. Our day will come when we will humble ourselves before world opinion as our house of cards comes crashing down.

war
Time To Reconsider Destructive Embargo Policies
17 June 1998    1998 Ron Paul 61:5
“Farm Bureau strongly opposes all artificial trade constraints such as embargoes or sanctions except in the case of armed conflicts,” said Ron Warfield, president of the Illinois Farm Bureau. “We believe that opening trading systems around the world and engagement through trade are the most effective means of reaching international economic stability.”

war
Time To Reconsider Destructive Embargo Policies
17 June 1998    1998 Ron Paul 61:8
Warfield, a member of the American Farm Bureau Federation board of directors, told the panel that when sanctions are imposed, agriculture typically bears the brunt through lost sales and gains a reputation as an unreliable supplier. While American agriculture loses through sanctions and embargoes, its toughest competitors win by picking up those markets.

war
Time To Reconsider Destructive Embargo Policies
17 June 1998    1998 Ron Paul 61:9
Warfield noted that when the United States placed a grain embargo against the Soviet Union in the 1980s, American farmers lost $2.3 billion in farm exports. He said the effects continue to be felt.

war
Time To Reconsider Destructive Embargo Policies
17 June 1998    1998 Ron Paul 61:10
“When the United States cut off sales of wheat to protest the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, other suppliers — France, Canada, Australia and Argentina — stepped in,” Warfield said. “They expanded their sales to the Soviet Union, ensuring that U.S. sanctions had virtually no economic impact. Russia still appears to restrict purchases of American wheat, fearing the United States may again use food exports as a foreign policy weapon.”

war
Time To Reconsider Destructive Embargo Policies
17 June 1998    1998 Ron Paul 61:12
Warfield said Farm Bureau supports a bill (H.R. 3654) by Re. Tom Ewing (R–Ill.) that would prevent selective agricultural embargoes. The legislation, he said, would prevent useless embargoes that destroy American export markets while creating opportunities for other countries. Warfield said engagement with other nations, not sanctions and embargoes, should be the preferred option.

war
Time To Reconsider Destructive Embargo Policies
17 June 1998    1998 Ron Paul 61:13
“The United States, as the leader in world trade, has an unprecedented opportunity to promote its values throughout the world by peaceful engagement through trade,” Warfield said, “Reaching out through engagement and trade, not withdrawing behind embargoes, is the best way to achieve positive change — not by denying ourselves access to the markets and creating opportunities for our competitors.”

war
Drug-Free Workplace Act
23 June 1998    1998 Ron Paul 63:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 3853, The Drug-Free Workplace Act. Certainly there are many things the Federal Government can do to minimize the negative impact illicit drug users have upon society. Further expanding a philosophically bankrupt national drug war policy with the creation of yet another costly federally-funded program is not the answer.

war
Every Currency Crumbles
24 June 1998    1998 Ron Paul 65:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, it has recently come to my attention that James Grant has made a public warning regarding monetary crises. In an Op-Ed entitled “Every Currency Crumbles” in The New York Times on Friday, June 19, 1998, he explains that monetary crises are as old as money. Some monetary systems outlive others: the Byzantine empire minted the bezant, the standard gold coin, for 800 years with the same weight and fineness. By contrast, the Japanese yen, he points out, is considered significantly weak at 140 against the U.S. dollar now to warrant intervention in the foreign exchange markets but was 360 as recently as 1971. The fiat U.S. dollar is not immune to the same fate as other paper currencies. As Mr. Grant points out, “The history of currencies is unambiguous. The law is, Ashes to ashes and dust to dust.”

war
Every Currency Crumbles
24 June 1998    1998 Ron Paul 65:2
Mr. James Grant is the editor of Grant’s Interest Rate Observer, a financial publication, and editorial director of Grant’s Municipal Bond Observer and Grant’s Asia Observer. He has also authored several books including the biographical “Bernard Baruch: Adventures of a Wall Street Legend”, the best financial book of the year according to The Financial Times “Money of the Mind: Borrowing and Lending in America from the Civil War to Michael Milken”, “Minding Mr. Market: Ten Years on Wall Street with Grant’s Interest Rate Observer” and “The Trouble with Prosperity: The Loss of Fear, the Rise of Speculation, and the Risk to American Savings”. He is a frequent guest on news and financial programs, and his articles appear in a variety of publications.

war
Every Currency Crumbles
24 June 1998    1998 Ron Paul 65:8
Monetary systems have broken down every generation or so for the past century. The true-blue international gold standard didn’t survive World War I. Its successor, a half-strength gold standard, didn’t survive the Great Depression. The Bretton Woods regime — in which the dollar was convertible into gold and the other, lesser currencies were convertible into the dollar — didn’t survive the inflationary period of the late 1960’s and early 1970’s.

war
Internet Tax Freedom Act
23 June 1998    1998 Ron Paul 66:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express skepticism regarding H.R. 4105, The Internet Tax Freedom Act. The stated goal of H.R. 4105 certainly is noble: “A bill to establish a national policy against State and local interference with interstate commerce on the Internet, to exercise congressional jurisdiction over interstate commerce by establishing a moratorium on the imposition of exactions that would interfere with the free flow of commerce via the Internet, to establish a national policy against federal and state regulation of Internet access and online services, and for other purposes.” The bill’s name, “Tax Freedom,” also expresses a laudable notion. One must always be wary of misnomers in Washington — the Justice Department comes to mind as one quick example. The late economic historian, Murray N. Rothbard, Ph.D., so warned when he stated “when someone in government mentions the word ‘fairness’, grab your wallet and run for the hills.”

war
Internet Tax Freedom Act
23 June 1998    1998 Ron Paul 66:2
I am, nevertheless, always suspicious when a recently-crafted bill comes to the House floor not only having bypassed the Committee process but without any advance warning. Such was the case with this bill. Moreover, this bill comes to the floor under suspension of the rules which does not allow for amendments and which limits the debate time to twenty minutes on each side. I, in fact, was denied an opportunity to speak by those managing the limited time allowable under this process.

war
Internet Tax Freedom Act
23 June 1998    1998 Ron Paul 66:9
These H.R. 4105-established “duties” suggest that the Commission’s real purpose is to design a well-engineered system of taxation (efficient tyranny) rather than keep citizens in a state of “Tax Freedom” as the bill’s name suggests. I encourage my colleagues in this House as well as citizens of this country to be wary of federal and international encroachment upon the privacy and efficiency currently available to individuals around the globe via the internet.

war
POW/MIA Recognition Week In Matagorda County, Texas
10 September 1998    1998 Ron Paul 98:2
This event will be sponsored by Matagorda County Veterans Services as a part of POW/ MIA Recognition Week. Mr. Speaker, as a United States Air Force veteran I am well aware of the sacrifices which brave young men are required to make during times of war. Perhaps no better example of these sacrifices can be found than those endured by Prisoners of War and those Missing In Action. From “Hanoi Hilton” to “Saving Private Ryan” we have seen the dramatic horrors that war brings, but behind the stories, beyond the silver screen, there are real Private Ryan’s who never do make it home. And there are families broken, lives affected and communities touched, by the real sacrifices of the real heroes who fight America’s wars.

war
POW/MIA Recognition Week In Matagorda County, Texas
10 September 1998    1998 Ron Paul 98:4
Mr. Speaker, our nation has suffered a great burden as a result of the wars of this century, in some instances it has nearly been torn apart by these wars, but none have suffered more than those who are missing, and their families, many of whom still hope against hope that they will one day return, either to resume lives or to be granted a proper burial. Our nation still has some 93,000 individuals who are unaccounted for, some of whom are believed to be POW’s even now during a time of relative peace. Mr. Speaker, I believe we owe it to these men, and to their families, to get a full accounting for every person which this nation has sent abroad. I believe we owe it to our nation to bring each and every one of them home.

war
POW/MIA Recognition Week In Matagorda County, Texas
10 September 1998    1998 Ron Paul 98:5
With the opening of archives from the former Soviet Union we have seen evidence of how young American servicemen were allowed to become political chess pieces for a totalitarian regime. It is due to the efforts of groups such as Matagorda County Veterans Services that we can honestly say “You Are Not Forgotten” to those who have sacrificed so much. And it is critical that we keep these memories forever etched in our minds so that we might also recall the mantra “never again.” Never again should Americans be forced to face the brutalities of war, such as those faced in Prisoner of War camps, and never again should we allow brave Americans to go missing in action.

war
Head Start Program
14 September 1998    1998 Ron Paul 99:2
In fact, the founders of this country would be horrified by one of the premises underlying this type of federal program: that communities and private individuals are unwilling and unable to meet the special needs of low-income children without intervention by the federal government. The truth is that the American people can and will meet the educational and other needs of all children if Congress gives them the freedom to do so by eliminating the oppressive tax burden fostered on Americans to fund the welfare-warfare state.

war
The Failed War On Drugs
15 September 1998    1998 Ron Paul 100:2
But I have also concluded that the war on drugs is a failed war and that we should be doing something else. I might point out that the argument for the use of marijuana in medicine is not for pain. To say that it has not relieved pain is not what this is about. Marijuana has been used by cancer patients who have been receiving chemotherapy who have intractable nausea. It is the only thing they have found that has allowed them to eat, and so many cancer patients die from malnutrition. The same is true about an AIDS patient. So this is a debate on compassion, as well as legality.

war
The Failed War On Drugs
15 September 1998    1998 Ron Paul 100:4
The Federal controls on illicit drugs has not worked and it is not working when it comes to marijuana. Once again, we have States saying, just allow the physician the option to give some of these people some marijuana. Possibly it will help. I think the jury is still out about how useful it is. But for us to close it down and say one cannot, and deny some comfort to a dying patient, I do not think this is very compassionate one way or the other. The war on drugs has been going on now for several decades. We have spent over $200 billion. There is no evidence to show that there is less drug usage in this country.

war
Hedge Fund Bailout
2 October 1998    1998 Ron Paul 105:2
STATEMENT OF HON. GREG KAZA, MICHIGAN STATE REPRESENTATIVE, ADJUNCT PROFESSOR OF FINANCE, WALSH COLLEGE Derivatives are financial instruments broadly defined as any contract or convertible security that changes in value in concert with a related or underlying security, fixed-income instrument, future or other instrument, currency or index; or that obtains much of its value from price movements in a related or underlying instrument; or an option, swap, warrant, or debt instrument with one or more options embedded in or attached to it, the value of which contract or security is determined in whole or in part by the price of one or more underlying instruments or markets.

war
Iraq — Part 1
5 October 1998    1998 Ron Paul 107:3
I see this piece of legislation as essentially being a declaration of virtual war. It is giving the President tremendous powers to pursue war efforts against a sovereign Nation. It should not be done casually. I think it is another example of a flawed foreign policy that we have followed for a good many decades.

war
Iraq — Part 1
5 October 1998    1998 Ron Paul 107:4
For instance, at the beginning of this legislation it is cited as one of the reasons why we must do something. It says on September 22, 1980, Iraq invaded Iran starting an 8-year war in which Iraq employed chemical weapons against Iranian troops, very serious problems. We should condemn that. But the whole problem is we were Iraq’s ally at that time, giving him military assistance, giving him funds and giving him technology for chemical weapons.

war
Iraq — Part 1
5 October 1998    1998 Ron Paul 107:5
So here we are now deciding that we have to virtually declare war against this individual. It is not like he is the only hoodlum out there. I could give my colleagues a list of 15 or 20. I do not like the leadership of China. Why do we not do something about China? I do not like the leadership of Sudan. But all of a sudden we have to decide what we are going to give this President to pursue getting rid of Saddam Hussein.

war
Iraq — Part 1
5 October 1998    1998 Ron Paul 107:7
Not too long ago, a few years back, in 1980s, in our efforts to bring peace and democracy to the world we assisted the freedom fighters of Afghanistan, and in our infinite wisdom we gave money, technology and training to Bin Laden, and now, this very year, we have declared that Bin Laden was responsible for the bombing in Africa. So what is our response, because we allow our President to pursue war too easily? What was the President’s response? Some even say that it might have been for other reasons than for national security reasons. So he goes off and bombs Afghanistan, and he goes off and bombs Sudan, and now the record shows that very likely the pharmaceutical plant in Sudan was precisely that, a pharmaceutical plant.

war
Iraq — Part 1
5 October 1998    1998 Ron Paul 107:8
So I say we should stop and think for a minute before we pursue and give the President more authority to follow a policy that to me is quite dangerous. This to me is equivalent to declaring war and allowing the President to pursue this.

war
Iraq — Part 1
5 October 1998    1998 Ron Paul 107:9
Another complaint listed on this legislation: in February 1988 Iraq forcibly relocated Kurdish civilians from their homes. Terrible thing to do, and they probably did; there is no doubt about it. But what did we do after the Persian Gulf war? We encouraged the Kurdish people to stand up and fight against Saddam Hussein, and they did, and we forgot about them, and they were killed by the tens of thousands. There is no reason for them to trust us. There is no reason for the Sudanese people to believe and trust in us, in what we do when we rain bombs on their country and they have done nothing to the United States. The people of Iraq certainly have not done anything to the United States, and we certainly can find leaders around the world that have not done equally bad things. I think we should stop and think about this.

war
Iraq — Part 1
5 October 1998    1998 Ron Paul 107:11
This policy makes no sense. Some day we have to think about the security of United States. We spend this money. We spent nearly $100 million bombing nobody and everybody for who knows what reason last week. At the same time our military forces are under trained and lack equipment, and we are wasting money all around the world trying to get more people, see how many people we can get to hate us. Some day we have to stop and say why are we pursuing this. Why do we not have a policy that says that we should, as a Congress, defend the United States, protect us, have a strong military, but not to police the world in this endless adventure of trying to be everything to everybody. We have been on both sides of every conflict since World War II. Even not too long ago they were talking about bombing in Kosovo. As a matter of fact, that is still a serious discussion. But a few months ago they said, well, we are not quite sure who the good guys are, maybe we ought to bomb both sides. It makes no sense. Why do we not become friends to both sides?

war
Iraq — Part 1
5 October 1998    1998 Ron Paul 107:17
All I do is ask my colleagues to think about it, urge them to go slowly. Nothing is so pressing that we should give the President this much authority to go to war.

war
Iraq — Part 2
5 October 1998    1998 Ron Paul 108:8
So the real question is, why at this particular time, why would we give our President more authority to wage war? He has way too much authority already if the President can drop bombs when he pleases. This of course has occurred not only in this administration but in the administrations of the 1980s as well where bombs were dropped to make some points. But generally speaking, the points are not well made. They usually come back to haunt us.

war
Iraq — Part 2
5 October 1998    1998 Ron Paul 108:12
This is a policy we have been following for way too long. It costs a lot of money. It costs a lot of respect for law because, technically, it is not legal. Waging war should only occur when the Congress and the people decide this. But to casually give more and more authority to the President to do this and encourage him to bump off dictators is a dangerous precedent to set.

war
Iraq — Part 3
5 October 1998    1998 Ron Paul 109:3
There is some merit to that argument, but there is also a very good reason why that does not happen and will not happen. It is because when we fight a war for non-national security reasons, when it is limited to protecting oil or some other interest, then there is a limitation, there is no wanting to expand it.

war
Iraq — Part 3
5 October 1998    1998 Ron Paul 109:4
When we fight a war for national security reasons, we declare the war, the people join, they are willing to support it financially, they volunteer to go into the military, and they fight to win. But we have not done that since World War II, precisely because we have this namby-pamby foreign policy of being everything to everybody and we do not even defend our national security adequately enough.

war
Iraq — Part 3
5 October 1998    1998 Ron Paul 109:14
We should consider this a very serious piece of legislation. This is a vote for virtual war and giving more power to the President. It has an open-ended appropriation, and if we spend one nickel on it, we are going to take it out of Social Security, the way the budget works around here.

war
New Global Economic Plan
9 October 1998    1998 Ron Paul 117:5
Decades ago, the gold standard was abandoned and now our global planners want to take another step to regulate all capital flows throughout the world thus removing the only good indicator left to warn of dangers ahead and the need for sound reform. The rapid transfer of capital around the world is the messenger and not the cause. Killing the messenger will only hide and increase distortions while prolonging the economic pain.

war
Monetary Policy
16 October 1998    1998 Ron Paul 120:4
A world-wide system of fiat money is the root of the crisis. The post-World War II Bretton Woods gold-exchange system was seriously flawed, and free market economists from the start predicted its demise. Twenty-seven years later, on August 15, 1971, it ended with a bang ushering in its turbulent and commodity-driven inflation of the 1970’s.

war
Education Debate
16 October 1998    1998 Ron Paul 121:3
American children deserve nothing less than the best educational opportunities, not warmed-over versions of the disastrous educational policies of the past. That is why I introduced H.R. 1816, the Family Education Freedom Act. This bill would give parents an inflation-adjusted $3,000 per annum tax credit, per child for educational expenses. The credit applies to those in public, private, parochial, or home schooling.

war
Hate Crimes And Individual Rights
16 October 1998    1998 Ron Paul 122:8
Hunter College Professor Wayne Dynes, editor of the Encyclopedia of Homosexuality, notes that hate-crime laws, if they are to be applied in a constitutional manner, must be content-neutral. He notes this example: “Countless numbers of people, aware of the unspeakable atrocities under his leadership, hated Pol Pot. This hate was surely well warranted. If one of the Pol Pot haters had killed him, would this be a hate crime? Why not?”

war
Resolution On Saddam Hussein
17 December 1998    1998 Ron Paul 124:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, as a 5 yr Air Force veteran I rise in strong support of the troops: we all do. Everybody supports the troops. But this resolution is a lot more than supporting the troops. Even by the very nature of our debate today, most of the debate has been about the military action. I see this as nothing more than a rubber stamp on a war that has already been started, and it has not been started in the proper way.

war
Resolution On Saddam Hussein
17 December 1998    1998 Ron Paul 124:2
Mr. Speaker, it is clearly stated in the Constitution that only Congress has the authority to declare war. It is precisely because of the way we go to war these days that we are continuing to fight the Persian Gulf War. We did not win the Persian Gulf War because we did not declare war since there was no justification to because there was no national security interests involved.

war
Resolution On Saddam Hussein
17 December 1998    1998 Ron Paul 124:4
This resolution is an endorsement for war. We are rubber stamping this action.

war
Resolution On Saddam Hussein
17 December 1998    1998 Ron Paul 124:5
We should follow the rule of law. The rule of law says that resolutions, to begin war, should come to the House of Representatives and pass by the Senate. But we have been too careless and too casual for many, many decades, and this is the reason we do not win wars any more.

war
Resolution On Saddam Hussein
17 December 1998    1998 Ron Paul 124:6
We are in essentially perpetual war. We have granted too much authority to our President to wage war. Even under the most unusual of circumstances we permit him to wage war. This is wrong. We, as a House, must assume our responsibilities.

war
Resolution On Saddam Hussein
17 December 1998    1998 Ron Paul 124:7
I cannot support this resolution because it is a rubber stamp, it is an endorsement for an illegal war. We should argue the case for peace. We should argue the case for national sovereignty. We should not allow our President to use U.N. resolutions to wage war.

war
Resolution On Saddam Hussein
17 December 1998    1998 Ron Paul 124:10
One evident outcome of the anti-sovereignty philosophy is our dependence on institutions such as the United Nations. It is an affront to our nation’s sovereignty and our constitution that the President presently launches war on Iraq under the aegis of a UN resolution but without the Constitutionally required authorization by the United States Congress.

war
Resolution On Saddam Hussein
17 December 1998    1998 Ron Paul 124:12
Next, we ought to consider the morality of the means which must be employed to change the government of Iraq. Yesterday I sat on a panel with Harry Summers, a man of considerable military knowledge. Summers stated that it would take ground troops to overthrow Saddam Hussein. Moreover, he unequivocally stated that military history shows that no war has ever been won simply via air strikes. This statement is not only factually accurate, it is also a stark reminder of what the price of this policy will be. Namely, the price of successfully changing the government of Iraq is the blood of many thousands of innocent human beings. And, lest we fool ourselves, many of these people will be American troops, brave young men and women who patriotically agreed to defend the United States but have now been placed like pawns in a chess game, perhaps to remove the leader of Iraq, or perhaps to stave off the removal of the US President. At any rate, these brave young Americans ought not be sacrificed for either of these improper political purposes.

war
Supports Impeachment Of President Clinton
19 December 1998    1998 Ron Paul 125:22
It’s sad but there is another example of a most egregious abuse of presidential power, committed by the President, that has gotten no attention by the special prosecutors or the Congress. That is the attempt by the President to distract from the Monica Lewinsky testimony to the Grand Jury by bombing with cruise missiles both Sudan and Afghanistan, and the now current war against Iraq.

war
Supports Impeachment Of President Clinton
19 December 1998    1998 Ron Paul 125:23
Two hundred million dollars were spent on an illegal act of war against innocent people. The pharmaceutical plant in Sudan was just that, a pharmaceutical plant, owned by a Muslim businessman who was standing up to the Islamic fundamentalists, the same people we pretend to oppose and use as scapegoats for all our Middle-Eastern policies. And now we have the controversial and unconstitutional waging of war in Iraq.

war
Supports Impeachment Of President Clinton
19 December 1998    1998 Ron Paul 125:25
Yes, the President’s tawdry affair and the acceptance of it to a large degree by the American people is not a good sign for us as a nation. But, let’s hope that out of this we have a positive result by recognizing the public’s rejection of the snooping actions of Big Brother. Let’s hope there’s a renewed interest in the Constitution and that Congress pays a lot more attention to it on a daily basis especially when it comes to waging war.

war
How Long Will The War With Iraq Go On Before Congress Notices?
2 February 1999    1999 Ron Paul 3:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I ask my fellow colleagues, how long will the war go on before Congress notices? We have been bombing and occupying Iraq since 1991, longer the occupation of Japan after World War II. Iraq has never committed aggression against the United States.

war
How Long Will The War With Iraq Go On Before Congress Notices?
2 February 1999    1999 Ron Paul 3:2
The recent escalation of bombing in Iraq has caused civilian casualties to mount. The Clinton administration claims U.N. resolution 687, passed in 1991, gives him the legal authority to continue this war. We have perpetuated hostilities and sanctions for more than 8 years on a country that has never threatened our security, and the legal justification comes from not the U.S. Congress, as the Constitution demands, but from a clearly unconstitutional authority, the United Nations.

war
How Long Will The War With Iraq Go On Before Congress Notices?
2 February 1999    1999 Ron Paul 3:3
In the past several months the airways have been filled with Members of Congress relating or restating their fidelity to their oath of office to uphold the Constitution. That is good, and I am sure it is done with the best of intentions. But when it comes to explaining our constitutional responsibility to make sure unconstitutional sexual harassment laws are thoroughly enforced, while disregarding most people’s instincts towards protecting privacy, it seems to be overstating a point, compared to our apathy toward the usurping of congressional power to declare and wage war. That is something we ought to be concerned about.

war
How Long Will The War With Iraq Go On Before Congress Notices?
2 February 1999    1999 Ron Paul 3:4
A major reason for the American Revolution was to abolish the King’s power to wage war, tax, and invade personal privacy without representation and due process of law. For most of our history our presidents and our Congresses understood that war was a prerogative of the congressional authority alone. Even minimal military interventions by our early presidents were for the most part done only with constitutional approval.

war
How Long Will The War With Iraq Go On Before Congress Notices?
2 February 1999    1999 Ron Paul 3:5
This all changed after World War II with our membership in the United Nations. As bad as it is to allow our presidents to usurp congressional authority to wage war, it is much worse for the President to share this sovereign right with an international organization that requires us to pay more than our fair share while we get a vote no greater than the rest.

war
How Long Will The War With Iraq Go On Before Congress Notices?
2 February 1999    1999 Ron Paul 3:6
The constitution has been blatantly ignored by the President while Congress has acquiesced in endorsing the 8-year war against Iraq. The War Powers Resolution of 1973 has done nothing to keep our presidents from policing the world, spending billions of dollars, killing many innocent people, and jeopardizing the very troops that should be defending America.

war
How Long Will The War With Iraq Go On Before Congress Notices?
2 February 1999    1999 Ron Paul 3:7
The continual ranting about stopping Hussein, who is totally defenseless against our attacks, from developing weapons of mass destruction ignores the fact that more than 30,000 very real nuclear warheads are floating around the old Soviet empire.

war
How Long Will The War With Iraq Go On Before Congress Notices?
2 February 1999    1999 Ron Paul 3:9
It is time for Congress to declare its interest in the Constitution and take responsibility on issues that matter, like the war powers.

war
Congress Relinquishing The Power To Wage War
2 February 1999    1999 Ron Paul 4:1
Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, I have great concern for the future of the American Republic. Many Americans argue that we are now enjoying the best of times. Others concern themselves with problems less visible but smouldering beneath the surface. Those who are content point out that the economy is booming, we are not at war, crime rates are down, and the majority of Americans feel safe and secure in their homes and community. Others point out that economic booms, when brought about artificially with credit creation, are destined to end with a bang. The absence of overt war does not negate the fact that tens of thousands of American troops are scattered around the world in the middle of ancient fights not likely to be settled by our meddling and may escalate at any time.

war
Congress Relinquishing The Power To Wage War
2 February 1999    1999 Ron Paul 4:2
Madam Speaker, the relinquishing of the power to wage war by Congress to the President, although ignored or endorsed by many, raises serious questions regarding the status of our Republic, and although many Americans are content with their routine activities, much evidence demonstrating that our personal privacy is routinely being threatened. Crime still remains a concern for many with questions raised as to whether or not violent crimes are accurately reported, and ironically there are many Americans who now fear that dreaded Federal bureaucrat and possible illegal seizure of their property by the government more than they do the thugs in the street. I remain concerned about the economy, our militarism and internationalism, and the systemic invasion of our privacy in every aspect of our lives by nameless bureaucrats. I am convinced that if these problems are not dealt with. The republic for for which we have all sworn an oath to protect will not survive.

war
Congress Relinquishing The Power To Wage War
2 February 1999    1999 Ron Paul 4:3
Madam Speaker, all Members should be concerned about the war powers now illegitimately assumed by the President, the financial bubble that will play havoc with the standard of living of most Americans when it bursts and the systemic undermining of our privacy even in this age of relative contentment.

war
Congress Relinquishing The Power To Wage War
2 February 1999    1999 Ron Paul 4:4
The Founders of this great Nation abhorred tyranny and loved liberty. The power of the king to wage war, tax and abuse the personal rights of the American colonists drove them to rebel, win a revolution and codify their convictions in a new Constitution. It was serious business, and every issue was thoroughly debated and explained most prominently in the Federalist Papers. Debate about trade among the States and with other countries, sound money and the constraints on presidential power occupied a major portion of their time.

war
Congress Relinquishing The Power To Wage War
2 February 1999    1999 Ron Paul 4:5
Initially the Articles of Confederation spoke clearly of just who would be responsible for waging war. It gave the constitutional Congress, quote, sole and exclusive right and power of determining on peace and war. In the debate at the Constitutional Convention it was clear that this position was maintained as the power of the British king was not to be, quote, a proper guide in defining executive war powers, close quote, for the newly formed republic. The result was a Constitution that gave Congress the power to declare war, issue letters of mark and reprisal, call up the militia, raise and train an Army and Navy and regulate foreign commerce, a tool often used in international conflict. The President was also required to share power with the Senate in ratifying treaties and appointing ambassadors.

war
Congress Relinquishing The Power To Wage War
2 February 1999    1999 Ron Paul 4:6
Let there be no doubt. The President, according to the Constitution, has no power to wage war. However it has been recognized throughout our history that certain circumstances might require the President to act in self-defense if Congress is not readily available to act if the United States is attacked.

war
Congress Relinquishing The Power To Wage War
2 February 1999    1999 Ron Paul 4:7
Recent flagrant abuse of the power to wage war by modern-day Presidents, including the most recent episodes in Iraq, Afghanistan and Sudan, should prompt this Congress to revisit this entire issue of war powers. Certain abuses of power are obviously more injurious than others. The use of the FBI and the IRS to illegally monitor and intimidate citizens is a power that should be easy to condemn, and yet it continues to thrive. The illegal and immoral power to create money out of thin air for the purpose of financing a welfare-warfare state serving certain financial interests while causing the harmful business cycle is a process that most in Washington do not understand nor care about. These are ominous powers of great magnitude that were never meant to be permitted under the Constitution.

war
Congress Relinquishing The Power To Wage War
2 February 1999    1999 Ron Paul 4:8
But as bad as these abuses are, the power of a single person, the President, to wage war is the most egregious of all presidential powers, and Congress deserves the blame for allowing such power to gravitate into the hands of the President. The fact that nary a complaint was made in Congress for the recent aggressive military behavior of our President in Iraq for reasons that had nothing to do with national security should not be ignored. Instead, Congress unwisely and quickly rubber stamped this military operation. We should analyze this closely and decide whether or not we in the Congress should promote a war powers policy that conforms to the Constitution or continue to allow our Presidents ever greater leverage to wage war any time, any place and for any reason.

war
Congress Relinquishing The Power To Wage War
2 February 1999    1999 Ron Paul 4:9
This policy of allowing our Presidents unlimited authority to wage war has been in place since the end of World War II, although abuse to a lesser degree has occurred since the beginning of the 20th century. Specifically, since joining the United Nations congressional authority to determine when and if our troops will fight abroad has been seriously undermined. From Truman’s sending of troops to Korea to Bush’s Persian Gulf War, we have seen big wars fought, tens of thousands killed, hundreds of thousands wounded and hundreds of billions of dollars wasted. U.S. security, never at risk, has been needlessly jeopardized by the so-called peacekeeping missions and police exercises while constitutional law has been seriously and dangerously undermined.

war
Congress Relinquishing The Power To Wage War
2 February 1999    1999 Ron Paul 4:10
Madam Speaker, something must be done. The cost of this policy has been great in terms of life and dollars and our constitutional system of law. Nearly 100,000 deaths occurred in the Vietnam and Korean wars, and if we continue to allow our Presidents to casually pursue war for the flimsiest of reasons, we may well be looking at another major conflict somewhere in the world in which we have no business or need to be involved.

war
Congress Relinquishing The Power To Wage War
2 February 1999    1999 Ron Paul 4:11
The correction of this problem requires a concerted effort on the part of Congress to reclaim and reassert its responsibility under the Constitution with respect to war powers, and efforts were made to do exactly that after Vietnam in 1973 and more recently in 1995. Neither efforts were successful, and ironically the President emerged with more power, with each effort being undermined by supporters in the Congress of presidential authoritarianism and internationalism. Few objected to the Truman-ordered U.N. police actions in Korea in the 1950s, but they should have. This illegal and major war encouraged all subsequent Presidents to assume greater authority to wage war than was ever intended by the Constitution or assumed by all the Presidents prior to World War II. It is precisely because of the way we have entered in each military action since the 1940s without declaring war that their purposes have been vague and victory elusive, yet pain, suffering and long term negative consequences have resulted. The road on which this country embarked 50 years ago has led to the sacrifice of a lot of congressional prerogatives and citizen control over the excessive power that have fallen into the hands of Presidents quite willing to abuse this authority. No one person, if our society is to remain free, should be allowed to provoke war with aggressive military acts. Congress and the people are obligated to rein in this flagrant abuse of presidential power.

war
Congress Relinquishing The Power To Wage War
2 February 1999    1999 Ron Paul 4:12
Not only did we suffer greatly from the unwise and illegal Korean and Vietnam wars, Congress has allowed a continuous abuse of military power by our Presidents in an ever increasing frequency. We have seen troops needlessly die in Lebanon, Grenada, invaded for questionable reasons, Libya bombed with innocent civilians killed, persistent naval operations in the Persian Gulf, Panama invaded, Iraq bombed on numerous occasions, Somalia invaded, a secret and illegal war fought in Nicaragua, Haiti occupied, and troops stationed in Bosnia and now possibly soon in Kosovo.

war
Congress Relinquishing The Power To Wage War
2 February 1999    1999 Ron Paul 4:13
Even the Congressional permission to pursue the Persian Gulf War was an afterthought, since President Bush emphatically stated that it was unnecessary, as he received his authority from the United Nations.

war
Congress Relinquishing The Power To Wage War
2 February 1999    1999 Ron Paul 4:14
Without an actual declaration of war and support from the American people, victory is unachievable. This has been the case with the ongoing war against Iraq. Without a legitimate concern for our national security, the willingness to declare war and achieve victory is difficult. The war effort becomes narrowly political, serving special interests, and not fought for the defense of the United States against a serious military threat. If we can win a Cold War against the Soviets, we hardly need a hot war with a third world nation, unable to defend itself, Iraq.

war
Congress Relinquishing The Power To Wage War
2 February 1999    1999 Ron Paul 4:15
Great concern in the 1960’s over the excessive presidential war powers was expressed by the American people, and, thus, the interests of the U.S. Congress after Vietnam in the early 1970’s. The War Powers Resolution of 1973 resulted, but due to shrewd manipulation and political chicanery, the effort resulted in giving the President more authority, allowing him to wage war for 60 to 90 days without Congressional approval.

war
Congress Relinquishing The Power To Wage War
2 February 1999    1999 Ron Paul 4:16
Prior to the Korean War, when the Constitution and historic precedent had been followed, the President could not and for the most part did not engage in any military effort not directly defensive in nature without explicit Congressional approval.

war
Congress Relinquishing The Power To Wage War
2 February 1999    1999 Ron Paul 4:17
The result of the passage of the War Powers Resolution was exactly opposite to its authors’ intentions. More power is granted to the president to send troops hither and yon, with the various Presidents sometimes reporting to the Congress and sometimes not. But Congress has unwisely and rarely objected, and has not in recent years demanded its proper role in decisions of war, nor hesitated to continue the funding that the various presidents have demanded.

war
Congress Relinquishing The Power To Wage War
2 February 1999    1999 Ron Paul 4:21
The 1995 effort to repeal the War Powers Resolution failed because it was not a clean repeal, but one still requiring consultation and reporting to the Congress. This led to enough confusion to prevent its passage.

war
Congress Relinquishing The Power To Wage War
2 February 1999    1999 Ron Paul 4:22
What is needed is a return to the Constitution as a strict guide as to who has the authority to exert the war powers and, as has been scrupulously followed in the 19th century by essentially all political parties and presidents.

war
Congress Relinquishing The Power To Wage War
2 February 1999    1999 Ron Paul 4:25
The message here is that clarification of the War Powers Resolution and a return to constitutional law are the only way presidential authority to wage war can be curtailed. If our presidents do not act accordingly, Congress must quickly and forcefully meet its responsibility by denying funds for foreign intervention and aggression initiated by the President.

war
Congress Relinquishing The Power To Wage War
2 February 1999    1999 Ron Paul 4:26
The basic problem here is that there are still too many Members of Congress who endorse a presidency armed with the authority of a tyrant to wage war. But if this assumption of power by the President with Congress’ approval is not reversed, the republic cannot be maintained.

war
Congress Relinquishing The Power To Wage War
2 February 1999    1999 Ron Paul 4:27
Putting the power in the hands of a single person, the president, to wage war, is dangerous and costly, and it destroys the notion that the people through their Congressional representatives decide when military action should start and when war should take place.

war
Congress Relinquishing The Power To Wage War
2 February 1999    1999 Ron Paul 4:29
A moral commitment to the principle of limited presidential war powers in the spirit of the republic is required. Even with the clearest constitutional restriction on the President to wage undeclared wars, buffered by precise legislation, if the sentiment of the Congress, the courts and the people or the President is to ignore these restraints, they will.

war
Congress Relinquishing The Power To Wage War
2 February 1999    1999 Ron Paul 4:31
Our responsibility here in the Congress is to protect liberty and do our best to ensure peace and trade with all who do not aggress against us. But peace is more easily achieved when we reject the notion that some Americans must subsidize foreign nations for a benefit that is intended to flow back to a select few Americans. Maintaining an empire or striving for a world government while allowing excessive war powers to accrue to an imperial president will surely lead to needless military conflicts, loss of life and liberty, and a complete undermining of our constitutional republic.

war
Congress Relinquishing The Power To Wage War
2 February 1999    1999 Ron Paul 4:35
Emphatically, searches and seizures are prohibited except when warrants are issued upon probable cause supported by oath or affirmation, with details listed given as to place, person and things to be seized.

war
Congress Relinquishing The Power To Wage War
2 February 1999    1999 Ron Paul 4:60
The IRS and the DEA, with powers illegally given them by the Congress and the courts, have prompted a flood of seizures and forfeitures in the last several decades without due process and frequently without search warrants or probable cause. Victims then are required to prove themselves innocent to recover the goods seized.

war
Congress Relinquishing The Power To Wage War
2 February 1999    1999 Ron Paul 4:75
A hint of what can happen when the world gets tired of holding too many of our dollars was experienced in the dollar crisis of 1979 and 1980, and we saw at that time interest rates over 21 percent. There is abundant evidence around warning us of the impending danger. According to Federal Reserve statistics, household debt reached 81 percent of personal income in the second quarter of 1998. For 20 years prior to 1985, household debt averaged around 50 percent of personal income. Between 1985 and 1998, due to generous Federal Reserve credit, competent American consumers increased this to 81 percent and now it is even higher. At the same time, our savings rate has dropped to zero percent.

war
Congress Relinquishing The Power To Wage War
2 February 1999    1999 Ron Paul 4:79
Contributing to the bubble and the dollar strength has been the fact that even though the dollar has problems, other currencies are even weaker and thus make the dollar look strong in comparison. Budgetary figures are frequently stated in a falsely optimistic manner. In 1969 when there was a surplus of approximately $3 billion, the national debt went down approximately the same amount. In 1998, however, with a so-called surplus of $70 billion, the national debt went up $113 billion, and instead of the surpluses which are not really surpluses running forever, the deficits will rise with a weaker economy and current congressional plans to increase welfare and warfare spending.

war
Congress Relinquishing The Power To Wage War
2 February 1999    1999 Ron Paul 4:90
Reconsidering the directives given us in the Constitution with regard to money would go a long way towards developing a sound monetary system that best protects our economy and guides us away from casually going to war. Monetary reform is something that we ought to be thinking about now.

war
Congress Relinquishing The Power To Wage War
2 February 1999    1999 Ron Paul 4:91
Mr. Speaker, let me summarize. We in the Congress, along with the President, will soon have to make a decision that will determine whether or not the American republic survives. Allowing our presidents to wage war without the consent of Congress, ignoring the obvious significance of fiat money to a healthy economy, and perpetuating pervasive government intrusion into the privacy of all Americans will surely end the American experiment with maximum liberty for all unless we reverse this trend.

war
President Should Get Authority From Congress To Send Troops
9 February 1999    1999 Ron Paul 5:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, since World War II, our presidents have been sending troops overseas without Congressional approval. Prior to World War II, it was traditional and constitutional that all presidents came to the Congress for authority to send troops.

war
President Should Get Authority From Congress To Send Troops
9 February 1999    1999 Ron Paul 5:2
Recently, the President has announced that he will most likely be sending thousands of American troops under NATO command to Kosovo. I think this is wrong. I have introduced legislation today that says that the President cannot send these troops without Congressional approval, merely restating what the Constitution says and how we followed the rules up until World War II.

war
President Should Get Authority From Congress To Send Troops
9 February 1999    1999 Ron Paul 5:9
It is also interesting that one of the jobs of the troops in NATO, if they go into Kosovo, will be to disarm the Kosovo Liberation Army. That is hardly good sense. First, it is not good sense for us to give the permission or renege on our responsibility, but it does not make good sense to get involved in a war that has been going on for many years, but it certainly does not make good sense for us to go in for the sole purpose of supporting Milosevic. He is the one that has been bombing the Kosovars and here we are, we want to disarm the liberation forces and at the same time prevent Kosovo from becoming independent.

war
President Should Get Authority From Congress To Send Troops
9 February 1999    1999 Ron Paul 5:11
Troops in Kosovo will not serve the interests of the United States. They will not help our national security. It will drain funds that should be spent on national defense. At the same time it will jeopardize our national security by endangering our troops and raising the possibility of us becoming involved in a war spreading through the Balkans. This should not occur.

war
President Has No Authority To Wage War Without Congressional Approval
24 February 1999    1999 Ron Paul 8:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, the threats of bombing did not bring a peace agreement to Kosovo. The President has no authority to wage war, and yet Congress says nothing.

war
President Has No Authority To Wage War Without Congressional Approval
24 February 1999    1999 Ron Paul 8:2
When will Congress assume its war power authority to rein in the President? An endless military occupation of Bosnia is ignored by Congress, and the spending rolls on, and yet there is no lasting peace.

war
President Has No Authority To Wage War Without Congressional Approval
24 February 1999    1999 Ron Paul 8:4
Congress must assume its responsibility. It must be made clear that the President has no funds available to wage war without congressional approval. This is our prerogative. Therefore, the endless threats of bombing should cease. Congress should not remain timid.

war
President Has No Authority To Wage War Without Congressional Approval
24 February 1999    1999 Ron Paul 8:5
Merely telling the President to reconsider his actions will have little effect. We must be firm and deny the funds to wage war without our consent. We live in a republic, not a monarchy.

war
Federal Communications Commission
25 February 1999    1999 Ron Paul 9:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 514, and in support of the Wilson amendment. The passage of this legislation will, as does so much of the legislation we pass, move our nation yet another step close to a national police state by further expanding a federal crime and empowering more federal police—this time at the Federal Communications Commission. Despite recent and stern warnings by both former U.S. attorney general Edwin Meese III and current U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, the Congress seems compelled to ride the current wave of federally criminalizing every human misdeed in the name of saving the world from some evil rather than to uphold a Constitutional oath which prescribes a procedural structure by which the nation is protected from totalitarianism.

war
War Power Authority Should Be Returned To Congress
9 March 1999    1999 Ron Paul 13:4
The Constitution is clear: Our Presidents, from Washington to Roosevelt, all knew that initiating war was clearly the prerogative of the Congress, but our memories are flawed and our reading of the law is careless. The President should not be telling us what he plans to do, he should be giving us information and asking our advice. We are responsible for the safety of our troops, how taxpayers’ dollars are spent, the security of our Nation, and especially the process whereby our Nation commits itself to war.

war
War Power Authority Should Be Returned To Congress
9 March 1999    1999 Ron Paul 13:5
Citing NATO agreements or U.N. resolutions as authority for moving troops into war zones should alert us all to the degree to which the rule of law has been undermined. The President has no war power, only the Congress has that. When one person can initiate war, by its definition, a republic no longer exists.

war
War Power Authority Should Be Returned To Congress
9 March 1999    1999 Ron Paul 13:6
The war power, taken from the Congress 50 years ago, must be restored. If not, the conclusion must be that the Constitution of the United States can and has been amended by presidential fiat or treaty, both excluding the House of Representatives from performing its duty to the American people in preventing casual and illegal wars.

war
War Power Authority Should Be Returned To Congress
9 March 1999    1999 Ron Paul 13:9
The war powers process was set early on by our Presidents in dealing with the North African pirates in the early 19th century. Jefferson and Madison, on no less than 10 occasions, got Congress to pass legislation endorsing each military step taken. It has clearly been since World War II that our Presidents have assumed power not granted to them by the Constitution, and Congress has been negligent in doing little to stop this usurpation.

war
War Power Authority Should Be Returned To Congress
9 March 1999    1999 Ron Paul 13:10
In the case of Kosovo, no troops should be sent without the consent of Congress. Vague discussion about whether or not the money will come out of Social Security or the budget surplus or call for an exit strategy will not suffice. If the war power is taken from the President and returned to the Congress, we would then automatically know the funds would have to be appropriated and the exit strategy would be easy: when we win the war.

war
Opposing Authorization for Kosovo Intervention
11 March 1999    1999 Ron Paul 17:2
Since World War II we have not been diligent here in the Congress to protect our prerogatives with respect to the declaration of war. Korean and Vietnam wars were fought without a declaration of war. And these wars were not won.

war
Opposing Authorization for Kosovo Intervention
11 March 1999    1999 Ron Paul 17:3
Since 1973, since the War Powers Resolution was passed, we have further undermined the authority of the Congress and delivered more authority to the President because the resolution essentially has given the President more power to wage war up to 90 days without the Congress granting authority. It is to our credit at least that we are bringing this matter up at this particular time.

war
Opposing Authorization for Kosovo Intervention
11 March 1999    1999 Ron Paul 17:5
We should consider the law and the process in the War Powers Resolution and just exactly how we grant authority to the President to wage war. We should be more concerned about the Constitution and how we should give this authority. We should be concerned about this procedure.

war
Kosovo War Resolution
11 March 1999    1999 Ron Paul 18:3
Today we are going to have a vote on whether or not troops should be authorized to go to Kosovo. If we vote in favor of this, we are voting for war. This is not a war resolution in the conventional sense of the Constitution, but in this day and age it is about as close as we are going to come to since we have ignored the Constitution with regards to war powers essentially since World War II. If we vote for troops to go to Kosovo, we are complicit in a potential war and the responsibility should be on the shoulders of those who vote to send the troops.

war
Kosovo War Resolution
11 March 1999    1999 Ron Paul 18:5
It is said that we should not have much to say about foreign policy because the Constitution has given responsibility to the President. The term “foreign policy” does not even exist in the Constitution. The President has been given the authority to be the Commander-in-Chief; to lead the troops after we direct him as to what he should do. He is the commander. We do not have a military commander, we have a civilian commander. But we do not forego our right to debate and be concerned about what is happening on issues of troop deployment and war.

war
Kosovo War Resolution
11 March 1999    1999 Ron Paul 18:7
Where does the President claim he gets his authority? Does he come to us? Has he asked us for this? No, he assumes he has the authority. He has already threatened that what we do here will have no effect on his decision. He is going to do what he thinks he should do anyway. He does not come and ask for permission. Where does he get this authority? Sometimes the Presidents, since World War II, have assumed it comes from the United Nations. That means that Congress has reneged on its responsibility.

war
Kosovo War Resolution
11 March 1999    1999 Ron Paul 18:9
After Vietnam there was a great deal of concern about this power to wage war. First, we had Korea. We did not win that war. Next we had Vietnam. And with very sincere intent, the Congress in 1973 passed the War Powers Resolution. The tragedy of the War Powers Resolution, no matter how well motivated, is that it did exactly the opposite of what was intended.

war
Kosovo War Resolution
11 March 1999    1999 Ron Paul 18:10
What has actually happened is it has been interpreted by all our Presidents since then that they have the authority to wage war for 60–90 days before we can say anything. That is wrong. We have turned it upside down. So it is up to us to do something about getting the prerogative of waging war back into the hands of the Congress.

war
Kosovo War Resolution
11 March 1999    1999 Ron Paul 18:11
It is said that we do not have this authority; that we should give it to the President; that he has it under the Constitution based on his authority to formulate foreign policy. It is not there. The Congress has the responsibility to declare war, write letters of marks and reprisals, call up the militia, raise and train army and regulate foreign commerce. The President shares with the Senate treaty power as well as appointment of ambassadors. The President cannot even do that alone.

war
War Powers Resolution
17 March 1999    1999 Ron Paul 20:2
If last week’s meager debate and vote are construed as merely an endorsement, without dissent, of Clinton’s policy in Yugoslavia, the procedure will prove a net negative. It will not be seen as a Congressional challenge to unconstitutional presidential war power. If, however, the debate is interpreted as a serious effort to start the process to restore Congressional prerogatives, it may yet be seen as a small step in the right direction. We cannot know with certainty which it will be. That will depend on what Congress does in the future.

war
War Powers Resolution
17 March 1999    1999 Ron Paul 20:3
Presently, those of us who argued for Congressional responsibility with regards to declaring war and deploying troops cannot be satisfied that the trend of the last 50 years has been reversed. Since World War II, the war power has fallen into the hands of our presidents, with Congress doing little to insist on its own constitutional responsibility. From Korea and Vietnam, to Bosnia and Kosovo, we have permitted our presidents to “wag the Congress,” generating a perception that the United States can and should police the world. Instead of authority to move troops and fight wars coming from the people through a vote of their Congressional representatives, we now permit our presidents to cite NATO declarations and U.N. resolutions.

war
War Powers Resolution
17 March 1999    1999 Ron Paul 20:5
Today it is erroneously taken for granted that the President has authority to move troops and fight wars without Congressional approval. It would be nice to believe that this vote on Kosovo was a serious step in the direction of Congress once again reasserting its responsibility for committing U.S. troops abroad. But the President has already notified Congress that, regardless of our sense of Congress resolution, he intends to do what he thinks is right, not what is legal and constitutional, only what he decides for himself.

war
War Powers Resolution
17 March 1999    1999 Ron Paul 20:7
If Congress is serious about this issue, it must do more. First, Congress cannot in this instance exert its responsibility through a House concurrent resolution. The President can and will ignore this token effort. If Congress decides that we should not become engaged in the civil war in Serbia, we must deny the funds for that purpose. That we can do. Our presidents have assumed the war power, but as of yet Congress still controls the purse.

war
War Powers Resolution
17 March 1999    1999 Ron Paul 20:8
Any effort on our part to enter a civil war in a country 5,000 miles away for the purpose of guaranteeing autonomy and/or a separate state against the avowed objections of the leaders of that country involved, that is Yugoslavia, can and will lead to a long-term serious problem for us.

war
War Powers Resolution
17 March 1999    1999 Ron Paul 20:13
It was hoped that the War Powers Resolution of 1973 would reign in our president’s authority to wage war without Congressional approval. It has not happened because all subsequent Presidents have essentially ignored its mandates. And unfortunately the interpretation since 1973 has been to give the President greater power to wage war with Congressional approval for at least 60 to 90 days as long as he reports to the Congress. These reports are rarely made and the assumption has been since 1973 that Congress need not participate in any serious manner in the decision to send troops.

war
War Powers Resolution
17 March 1999    1999 Ron Paul 20:14
It could be argued that this resulted from a confused understanding of the War Powers Resolution but more likely it’s the result of the growing imperial Presidency that has developed with our presidents assuming power, not legally theirs, and Congress doing nothing about it.

war
Everybody Supports the Troops
24 March 1999    1999 Ron Paul 21:4
Now, if we really want to support our troops, I think we would defend the sovereignty of this country, we should provide for a strong national defense and we certainly should avoid putting our troops in harm’s way. The real question that comes up is by putting the troops in this region right now, we are invading the sovereignty of a nation which is very questionable. This is not done very often. Yet Serbia is a sovereign nation. They are involved in a civil war, and there are bad guys on both sides. For us here in the Congress to decide who the good guys and who the bad guys are is not possible, nor is it our job.

war
U.S. Military Action Taking Place in Serbia is Unconstitutional
24 March 1999    1999 Ron Paul 22:2
Serbia has not invaded another country but is involved in a nasty civil war, with both sides contributing to the violence. There is no American security interest involved in Serbia. Serbia has not threatened us nor used any force against any American citizen.

war
U.S. Military Action Taking Place in Serbia is Unconstitutional
24 March 1999    1999 Ron Paul 22:4
Our responsibility as U.S. Members of Congress is to preserve liberty here at home and uphold the rule of law. Meddling in the internal and dangerous affairs of a nation involved in civil war is illegal and dangerous. Congress has not given the President authority to wage war.

war
U.S. Military Action Taking Place in Serbia is Unconstitutional
24 March 1999    1999 Ron Paul 22:5
The House resolution regarding Kosovo was narrowly, reluctantly, and conditionally passed. It was a non-binding resolution and had no effect of law. Even if it did, the resolution dealt with sending troops as a peacekeeping force to Kosovo only if a peace agreement was signed. There was no mention of endorsing an act of war against Serbia. Besides, the resolution was not the proper procedure for granting war powers to a president.

war
U.S. Military Action Taking Place in Serbia is Unconstitutional
24 March 1999    1999 Ron Paul 22:6
The Senate resolution, now claimed to be congressional consent for the President to wage war, is not much better. It, too, was a sense of Congress resolution without the force of law. It implies the President can defer to NATO for authority to pursue a war effort.

war
U.S. Military Action Taking Place in Serbia is Unconstitutional
24 March 1999    1999 Ron Paul 22:7
Only Congress can decide the issue of war. Congress cannot transfer the constitutional war power to the President or to NATO or to the United Nations. The Senate resolution, however, specifically limits the use of force to air operations and missile strikes, but no war has ever been won with air power alone. The Milosevic problem will actually get worse with our attacks, and ground troops will likely follow.

war
U.S. Military Action Taking Place in Serbia is Unconstitutional
24 March 1999    1999 Ron Paul 22:8
It has been argued we are needed to stop the spread of war throughout the Balkans. Our presence will do the opposite, but it will certainly help the military-industrial complex. Peaceful and cooperative relations with Russia, a desired goal, has now ended; and we have provoked the Russians into now becoming a much more active ally of Serbia.

war
U.S. Military Action Taking Place in Serbia is Unconstitutional
24 March 1999    1999 Ron Paul 22:10
Our determination to be involved in the dangerous civil war may well prompt a stronger Greek alliance with their friends in Serbia, further splitting NATO and offending the Turks, who are naturally inclined to be sympathetic to the Albanian Muslims. No good can come of our involvement in this Serbian civil war, no matter how glowing and humanitarian the terms used by our leaders.

war
U.S. Military Action Taking Place in Serbia is Unconstitutional
24 March 1999    1999 Ron Paul 22:11
Sympathy and compassion for the suffering and voluntary support for the oppressed is commendable. The use of force and acts of war to pick and choose between two sides fighting for hundreds of years cannot achieve peace. It can only spread the misery and suffering, weaken our defenses and undermine our national sovereignty.

war
U.S. Military Action Taking Place in Serbia is Unconstitutional
24 March 1999    1999 Ron Paul 22:12
Only when those who champion our war effort in Serbia are willing to volunteer for the front lines and offer their own lives for the cause will they gain credibility. Promoters of war never personalize it. It is always some other person or some other parent’s child’s life who will be sacrificed, not their own.

war
U.S. Military Action Taking Place in Serbia is Unconstitutional
24 March 1999    1999 Ron Paul 22:13
With new talk of reinstituting the military draft since many disillusioned military personnel are disgusted with the morale of our armed forces, all Americans should pay close attention as our leaders foolishly and carelessly rush our troops into a no-win war of which we should have no part.

war
Peace
25 March 1999    1999 Ron Paul 23:2
The proposition is peace. Not peace through the medium of war, not peace to be hunted through the labyrinth of intricate and endless negotiations; not peace to arise out of universal discord, fomented from principle, in all part of the earth; not peace to depend on juridical determination of perplexing questions, or the precise marking the shadowy boundaries of distant nations. It is simply peace, sought in its natural course and in it ordinary haunts.

war
Peace
25 March 1999    1999 Ron Paul 23:5
All this, I know well enough, will sound wild and chimerical to the profane herd of those vulgar and mechanical politicians who have no place among us: a sort of people who think that nothing exists but what is gross and material, and who, therefore, far from begin qualified to be directors of the great movement of this nation, are not fit to turn a wheel in the machinery of our government. But to men truly initiated and rightly taught, these ruling and master principles, which in the opinion of such men as I have mentioned have no substantial existence, are in truth everything. Magnanimity in politics is often the truest wisdom, and a great nation and little minds go ill together. If we are conscious of our situation, and work zealously to fill our places as becomes the history of this great institution, we ought to auspiciate all our public proceedings on Kosovo with the old warning of the Church, Sursum corda! We ought to elevate our minds to the greatness of that trust to which the order of Providence has called us. By adverting to the dignity of this high calling, our forefathers turned a savage wilderness into a glorious nation, and have made the most extensive and the only honorable conquests, not by bombing and sabre-rattling, but by promoting the wealth, the liberty, and the peace of mankind. Let us gain our allies as we obtain our own liberty. Respect of self-government has made our nation all that it is, peace and neutrality alone will makes ours the Republic that it can yet still be.

war
Closer To Empire
25 March 1999    1999 Ron Paul 24:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise again today to consider the effect of our current actions in Kosovo, but this time I do not wish to address the folly of war, for attempts to prevent war measures against that nation are now futile. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to address a long term concern, a problem larger even than war. I am referring to the folly of empire.

war
Closer To Empire
25 March 1999    1999 Ron Paul 24:3
I remind those who believe in the Judeo-Christian tradition that opposition to empire is to be found in the warnings found in the book of Ezekiel, warnings against the empowerment of a king. And it is this same principle which is evident in the story of the Tower of Babel, and in that admonition of Christ, which reminds that those things which are of Caesar are not of God.

war
Crisis in Kosovo
14 April 1999    1999 Ron Paul 25:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise this evening to address the crisis that is ongoing now in Yugoslavia. For a war to be moral, we must have a reason to go in. National defense is a moral justification. If we are attacked, it is a moral war. Getting involved in any other kind of war is not considered to be moral.

war
Crisis in Kosovo
14 April 1999    1999 Ron Paul 25:2
A legal war in this country is one that is declared, declared by the Congress. Any other war is illegal. The war in Yugoslavia now pursued by our administration and with NATO is both immoral and illegal and it should not be pursued. We will be soon voting on an appropriation, probably next week. There may be a request for $5 billion to pursue the war in Yugoslavia. I do not believe that we should continue to finance a war that is both immoral and illegal.

war
Crisis in Kosovo
14 April 1999    1999 Ron Paul 25:4
It is totally contradictory. There is a civil war, and it is horrible, going on in Yugoslavia today, but this is no justification for outsiders, and especially United States of America, to become involved without the proper proceedings.

war
Crisis in Kosovo
14 April 1999    1999 Ron Paul 25:5
I believe that our colleague, the gentleman from California (Mr. CAMPBELL), deserves to be complemented because he is making a determined effort to put the burden on the Members of Congress to vote one way or the other. Since World War II we have fought numerous wars, and they have never been fought with a declaration of war, and it is precisely for that reason, because they have not been fought for truly national security reasons, that we have not won these wars. If a war is worth fighting, it is worth declaring, and it is worth winning.

war
Crisis in Kosovo
14 April 1999    1999 Ron Paul 25:9
Yesterday in the Washington Post an interesting article occurred on this subject, but it was not in the news section; it was in the business section. There was a headline yesterday in the Washington Post that said: Count Corporate America Among NATO’s Staunchest Allies. Very interesting article because it goes on to explain why so many corporations have an intense interest in making sure that the credibility of NATO is maintained, and they go on to explain that it is not just the arms manufacturers but the technology people who expect to sell weapons in Eastern Europe, in Yugoslavia, and they are very interested in making use of the NATO forces to make sure that their interests are protected. I think this is not the reason for us to go to war.

war
Crisis in Kosovo
14 April 1999    1999 Ron Paul 25:11
On February 9 of this year I introduced a bill that would have prohibited this by prohibiting any funds being spent on a war in Yugoslavia. I say it is too bad we did not pass that legislation a long time ago.

war
The Bombing in Serbia Must Stop
15 April 1999    1999 Ron Paul 26:1
Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, the bombing in Serbia must stop immediately. Serbia has never aggressed against the United States. Serbia is involved in a bloody civil war of which we should have no part, and have not declared war, as the Constitution requires. That makes this war both immoral and illegal.

war
The Bombing in Serbia Must Stop
15 April 1999    1999 Ron Paul 26:3
There are just too many uncanny accidents. The refugee problem, which was minimal before the bombing, is now catastrophic as a result. Congress should not fund this war and if we do, we have become an accomplice and morally responsible for the killing and the spread of this conflict that will surely occur if this bombing is not stopped.

war
U.S. Foreign Policy and NATO’s Involvement in Yugoslavia and Kosovo
21 April 1999    1999 Ron Paul 29:3
This policy of nation-building and interference in a civil war totally contradicts the mission of European defense set out in the NATO charter.

war
U.S. Foreign Policy and NATO’s Involvement in Yugoslavia and Kosovo
21 April 1999    1999 Ron Paul 29:5
Some specific policy positions of NATO guaranteed that the ongoing strife would erupt into a full-fledged and dangerous conflict. Once it was determined in the early 1990s that outsiders would indict and try Yugoslavian war criminals, it was certain that cooperation with western negotiators would involve risks. Fighting to the end became a practical alternative to a mock international trial. Forcing a treaty settlement on Serbia where Serbia would lose the sovereign territory of Kosovo guaranteed an escalation of the fighting and the forced removal of the Kosovars from their homes.

war
U.S. Foreign Policy and NATO’s Involvement in Yugoslavia and Kosovo
21 April 1999    1999 Ron Paul 29:7
The sympathy shown Albanian refugees by our government and our media, although justified, stirred the flames of hatred by refusing to admit that over a half million Serbs suffered the same fate and yet elicited no concern from the internationalists bent on waging war. No one is calling for the return of certain property and homes.

war
U.S. Foreign Policy and NATO’s Involvement in Yugoslavia and Kosovo
21 April 1999    1999 Ron Paul 29:8
Threatening a country to do what we the outsiders tell them or their cities will be bombed is hardly considered good diplomacy. Arguing that the Serbs must obey and give up what they see as sovereign territory after suffering much themselves as well as face war crimes trials run by the West makes no sense. Anyone should have been able to predict what the results would be.

war
U.S. Foreign Policy and NATO’s Involvement in Yugoslavia and Kosovo
21 April 1999    1999 Ron Paul 29:12
How many refugees, how many children’s death has U.S. policy caused by our embargo and bombing for 9 years of a defenseless poverty-ridden Iraq. Just as our bombs in Iraq have caused untold misery and death, so have our bombs in Serbia killed the innocent on both sides, solidified support for the ruthless leaders, and spread the war.

war
U.S. Foreign Policy and NATO’s Involvement in Yugoslavia and Kosovo
21 April 1999    1999 Ron Paul 29:18
Our policy of intervention in the internal affairs of other nations, and their border disputes is not one that comes from American tradition or constitutional law. It is a policy based on our current leaders’ belief that we are the policemen of the world, something we have earnestly and foolishly pursued since World War II and in a more aggressive fashion since the demise of the Soviet Union.

war
U.S. Foreign Policy and NATO’s Involvement in Yugoslavia and Kosovo
21 April 1999    1999 Ron Paul 29:22
This balancing act between three vicious warring factions was doomed to fail and has only led to more instability and the spreading of the war in the region.

war
U.S. Foreign Policy and NATO’s Involvement in Yugoslavia and Kosovo
21 April 1999    1999 Ron Paul 29:23
Instead of pretending to be everything to everyone, while shifting alliances and blindly hoping for good to come of it, we should reconsider the advice of the Founders and take seriously the strict restraints on waging war placed in the Constitution.

war
U.S. Foreign Policy and NATO’s Involvement in Yugoslavia and Kosovo
21 April 1999    1999 Ron Paul 29:26
War has been used throughout history to enhance the state against the people. Taxes, conscription and inflation have been used as tools of the state to pursue wars not popular with the people. Government size and authority always grows with war, as the people are told that only the sacrifice of their liberties can save the nation. Propaganda and threats are used to coerce the people into this careless giving up of their liberties.

war
U.S. Foreign Policy and NATO’s Involvement in Yugoslavia and Kosovo
21 April 1999    1999 Ron Paul 29:27
This has always been true with military wars, but the same can be said of the war mentality associated with the war on drugs, the war on poverty, the war against illiteracy, or any other war proposed by some social do-gooder or intentional mischief maker.

war
U.S. Foreign Policy and NATO’s Involvement in Yugoslavia and Kosovo
21 April 1999    1999 Ron Paul 29:28
But when a foreign war comes to our shores in the form of terrorism, we can be sure that our government will explain the need for further sacrifice of personal liberties to win this war against terrorism as well. Extensive preparations are already being made to fight urban and domestic violence, not by an enhanced local police force, but by a national police force with military characteristics.

war
U.S. Foreign Policy and NATO’s Involvement in Yugoslavia and Kosovo
21 April 1999    1999 Ron Paul 29:29
Even the war against national disasters led by FEMA, usurps local authority while imposing restraints on movement and controlling recovery efforts that should be left to local police, private insurance, and voluntary groups.

war
U.S. Foreign Policy and NATO’s Involvement in Yugoslavia and Kosovo
21 April 1999    1999 Ron Paul 29:33
Likewise, the legislative history and congressional testimony maintained NATO could not usurp from Congress and the people the power to wage war. We have drifted a long way from that acknowledgment, and the fears expressed by Robert Taft and others in 1949 were certainly justified.

war
U.S. Foreign Policy and NATO’s Involvement in Yugoslavia and Kosovo
21 April 1999    1999 Ron Paul 29:34
United States and NATO, while deliberately avoiding a U.N. vote on the issue, have initiated war against a sovereign state in the middle of a civil war. A Civil War that caused thousands of casualties and refugees on both sides has been turned into a war with hundreds of thousands of casualties and refugees with NATO’s interference. The not-so-idle U.S. threats cast at Milosevic did not produce compliance. It only expanded the violence and the bloodshed.

war
U.S. Foreign Policy and NATO’s Involvement in Yugoslavia and Kosovo
21 April 1999    1999 Ron Paul 29:35
The foolishness of this policy has become apparent, but Western leaders are quick to justify their warmongering. It was not peace or liberty or national security they sought as they sent the bombs flying. It was to save face for NATO.

war
U.S. Foreign Policy and NATO’s Involvement in Yugoslavia and Kosovo
21 April 1999    1999 Ron Paul 29:37
It was soon apparent that bombing was no more a successful diplomatic tool than were the threats of dire consequences if the treaty, unfavorable to the Serbs, was not quickly signed by Milosevic. This drew demands that policy must be directed toward saving NATO by expanding the war. NATO’s credibility was now at stake and how could Europe, and the United States war machine, survive if NATO were to disintegrate.

war
U.S. Foreign Policy and NATO’s Involvement in Yugoslavia and Kosovo
21 April 1999    1999 Ron Paul 29:38
Hopes as expressed by Ron Brown and his corporate friends were not extinguished by the unfortunate and mysterious Air Force crash while on their way to Bosnia to do business deals. Nobody even bothers to find out what U.S. policy condones business trips of our corporate leaders in a war zone on an Air Force aircraft. Corporate interests and the military-industrial complex continues to play a role in our Yugoslavian war policy. Corporate America loves NATO.

war
U.S. Foreign Policy and NATO’s Involvement in Yugoslavia and Kosovo
21 April 1999    1999 Ron Paul 29:39
Most politicians and the public do not know what NATO’s real mission is, and today’s policy cannot be explained by reading its mission statement written in 1949. Certainly our vital interests and national security cannot justify our escalation of the war in Yugoslavia.

war
U.S. Foreign Policy and NATO’s Involvement in Yugoslavia and Kosovo
21 April 1999    1999 Ron Paul 29:42
In spite of the powerful political and industrial leaders’ support behind NATO, and the budgets of 19 Western countries, NATO’s days appear numbered. We shall not weep when NATO goes the way of the Soviet Empire and the Warsaw Pact. Managing a war with 19 vetoes makes it impossible for a coherent strategy to evolve. Chaos, bickering, bureaucratic blundering, waste and political infighting will surely result.

war
U.S. Foreign Policy and NATO’s Involvement in Yugoslavia and Kosovo
21 April 1999    1999 Ron Paul 29:47
Some have wondered how a 1960s generation administration could be so proned to war. The 1960s were known for their rebellion against the Vietnam War and a preference for lovemaking and drugs over fighting, even Communists. In recent months four separate sovereign nations were bombed by the United States. This has to be some kind of a record. Bombing Belgrade on Easter has to tell us something about an administration that is still strangely seen by some as not having the determination to fight a real war. There is a big difference between being anti-war when one’s life is at risk as compared to when it is someone else’s. That may tell us something about character, but there is more to it than that.

war
U.S. Foreign Policy and NATO’s Involvement in Yugoslavia and Kosovo
21 April 1999    1999 Ron Paul 29:48
Many who were opposed to the Persian Gulf and Vietnam Wars are now strongly supporting this so-called just and humanitarian war to punish those who are said to be totally responsible for the Yugoslavian refugee problem. The fact that Serbia is not Communist in the sense of North Vietnam may play a part for some in making the decision to support this war but not the war in Vietnam. But the Persian Gulf War was not at all about communism, it was about oil.

war
U.S. Foreign Policy and NATO’s Involvement in Yugoslavia and Kosovo
21 April 1999    1999 Ron Paul 29:49
Some from the left, if strongly inclined toward internationalism, supported the Persian Gulf War, but for the most part the opposition came from those who chose not to support a president of the opposite party, while today, supporting one’s own party’s position to bomb the Serbs becomes politically correct.

war
U.S. Foreign Policy and NATO’s Involvement in Yugoslavia and Kosovo
21 April 1999    1999 Ron Paul 29:50
The same can be said of those who are opposed to the Yugoslavian war. Where they supported the Persian Gulf War, this administration has not garnered their support for partisan reasons. The principle of interventionism, constitutionality and morality have not been applied consistently to each war effort by either political party, and there is a precise reason for this, over and above the petty partisanship of many.

war
U.S. Foreign Policy and NATO’s Involvement in Yugoslavia and Kosovo
21 April 1999    1999 Ron Paul 29:52
The 1960s crowd, although having a reputation for being anti-war due to their position on Vietnam, has never been bashful about its bold authoritarian use of force to mold economic conditions, welfare, housing, medical care, job discrimination, environment, wages and working conditions, combined with a love for taxes and inflation to pay the bills. When in general the principle of government force to mold society is endorsed, using force to punish Serbs is no great leap of faith, and for the interventionists is entirely consistent. Likewise, the interventionists who justified unconstitutional fighting in Vietnam, Panama, Nicaragua, Grenada, Libya and the Persian Gulf, even if they despise the current war in Yugoslavia, can easily justify using government force when it pleases them and their home constituency.

war
U.S. Foreign Policy and NATO’s Involvement in Yugoslavia and Kosovo
21 April 1999    1999 Ron Paul 29:54
Politicians love interventionism and pragmatism, the prevailing philosophy of our age, a philosophy based on relative ethics. No rigid adherence to law or morality is required. Even the Constitution can be used in this delicate debate of just when and for whom we go to war. The trick is to grab the political moral high ground while rejecting the entire moral foundation upon which the law rests, natural rights, rejection of force and the requirement politicians be strictly bound by a contract for which all of us take an oath to uphold.

war
U.S. Foreign Policy and NATO’s Involvement in Yugoslavia and Kosovo
21 April 1999    1999 Ron Paul 29:57
Our more immediate problem is the financing of the ongoing war in Yugoslavia. On February 9 of this year I introduced legislation to deny funds to the President to wage war in Yugoslavia. The Congress chose to ignore this suggestion and missed an opportunity to prevent the fiasco now ongoing in Yugoslavia.

war
U.S. Foreign Policy and NATO’s Involvement in Yugoslavia and Kosovo
21 April 1999    1999 Ron Paul 29:58
The President, as so many other presidents have done since World War II, took it upon himself to wage an illegal war against Yugoslavia under NATO’s authority, and Congress again chose to do nothing. By ignoring our constitutional responsibility with regards to war power, the Congress implicitly endorsed the President’s participation in NATO’s illegal war against Yugoslavia. We neither declared war nor told the President to cease and desist.

war
U.S. Foreign Policy and NATO’s Involvement in Yugoslavia and Kosovo
21 April 1999    1999 Ron Paul 29:59
Now we have a third chance, and maybe our last, before the war gets out of control. We are being asked to provide all necessary funding for the war. Once we provide funds for the war, the Congress becomes an explicit partner in this ill-conceived NATO-inspired intervention in the civil war of a sovereign nation, making Congress morally and legally culpable.

war
U.S. Foreign Policy and NATO’s Involvement in Yugoslavia and Kosovo
21 April 1999    1999 Ron Paul 29:60
Appropriating funds to pursue this war is not the way to peace. We have been bombing, boycotting and killing thousands in Iraq for 9 years with no end in sight. We have been in Bosnia for 3 years, with no end in sight. And once Congress endorses the war in Yugoslavia with funding, it could take a decade, billions of dollars, and much suffering on both sides, before we put it to an end.

war
U.S. Foreign Policy and NATO’s Involvement in Yugoslavia and Kosovo
21 April 1999    1999 Ron Paul 29:61
Bellicosity and jingoism associated with careless and illegal intervention can never replace a policy of peace and friendship whenever possible. And when it is not, at least neutrality. NATO’s aggressive war of destruction and vengeance can only make the situation worse. The sooner we disengage ourselves from this ugly civil war, the better. It is the right thing to do.

war
Environmental Regulatory Issues
22 April 1999    1999 Ron Paul 31:13
A global warming hysteria, based on speculative computer models instead of actual temperature data, to justify a treaty to impose federal and international taxes, rationing and prohibitions on all U.S. carbon-based energy sources.

war
On Debating War Resolution
28 April 1999    1999 Ron Paul 33:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, I rise reluctantly to oppose the rule, and I do this hesitantly, because it is difficult to write fair rules and I generally support the rules. But today I have to oppose this rule, mainly because we are going to be debating war, a declaration of war, and a full hour is not adequate to debate an issue of that magnitude. I know there was an attempt to provide for a lot of debate today, but, for instance, on the one issue of declaration of war, only one hour was given; that is just not enough.

war
On Debating War Resolution
28 April 1999    1999 Ron Paul 33:2
The other reason is that it does preclude a House Resolution coming up again under an expedited procedure. This is not right. This is undermining the whole purpose of the War Power Resolution of 1973, and we should not be doing this.

war
On Debating War Resolution
28 April 1999    1999 Ron Paul 33:3
This is taking more authority away from the Congress and giving more authority to the President and to the administration and for us not to have a say. The whole issue of war should be decided here in this Congress, and we are here today because we have been negligent on assuming our responsibilities.

war
On Debating War Resolution
28 April 1999    1999 Ron Paul 33:4
I saw this coming, and on February 9 of this year, I introduced a bill that would have prevented this whole problem by making certain that our President could not spend one penny on waging war in Kosovo. That is what we should have done. We have not, and now we are in this mess.

war
On Debating War Resolution
28 April 1999    1999 Ron Paul 33:5
But we do not need to be once again taking more responsibility from the Congress and giving it to the President. We have a policy problem, we do not have a resolution problem. We have a foreign policy that endorses intervention any time, anyplace, assuming that our Presidents know when to insert troops around the world. That is our basic problem. Until we in the Congress take it upon ourselves to assume our responsibility with the issue of war, this problem will continue.

war
Whether, And How, To Go To War
28 April 1999    1999 Ron Paul 34:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, there have clearly been set two goals among a group of us. We have been striving to make sure this Congress follows procedure, that is, if we go to war, that we do it properly. It is pretty difficult to achieve this, especially when a president is willing to go to war and then we have to do this as a second thought. I am pleased that, at least today, we are trying to catch up on this. The second issue is whether it is wise to go to war.

war
Whether, And How, To Go To War
28 April 1999    1999 Ron Paul 34:2
Certainly, under these circumstances, I think it is very unwise for the American people to go to war at this time. The Serbs have done nothing to us, and we should not be over there perpetuating a war.

war
Whether, And How, To Go To War
28 April 1999    1999 Ron Paul 34:4
Today we are trying to deal legally with a half a war. A half a war is something like a touch of pregnancy. You can’t have a half a war. If we do not declare war and if we do not fight a war because it is in our national interest and for national security reasons, we’ll inevitably will not fight to win the war. That has always been our problem, whether it was Korea, Vietnam, or even the Persian Gulf war.

war
Whether, And How, To Go To War
28 April 1999    1999 Ron Paul 34:5
To me, it is so important that you fight war for national security reasons only, you declare a war and you fight to win the war. We are not about to do that today. We are not going to declare war against Serbia. Serbia has done nothing to America. They have been close allies of ours, especially in World War II. We are not going to do that. Are we going to demand the troops be removed? Probably not.

war
Whether, And How, To Go To War
28 April 1999    1999 Ron Paul 34:6
So what are we going to do? We are going to perpetuate this confusion. But what we should do is vote down a declaration of war, vote to get the troops out of Yugoslavia, and vote to stop the bombing. The sooner we do that, the better. That is in America’s interests.

war
Moral And Constitutional Wars Must Be Fought In Self Defense
28 April 1999    1999 Ron Paul 35:2
Today’s legislative process was chaotic, but I think it was chaotic for a precise reason. We are trying to rectify something that has been going on for more than 50 years, and it is not just this President. It is every President that we have had since World War II. We have in the Congress permitted our Presidents too much leeway in waging war.

war
Moral And Constitutional Wars Must Be Fought In Self Defense
28 April 1999    1999 Ron Paul 35:5
But nevertheless the votes were very important today. One of the most significant, if not the most significant: we on this House floor today voted up and down on a war resolution. This is not done very often and under the circumstances that exist today, probably the first time.

war
Moral And Constitutional Wars Must Be Fought In Self Defense
28 April 1999    1999 Ron Paul 35:6
But that was an easy vote. The House overwhelmingly voted not to go to war. This makes a lot of sense. This is a very good vote. Why should we go to war against a country that has not aggressed against us?

war
Moral And Constitutional Wars Must Be Fought In Self Defense
28 April 1999    1999 Ron Paul 35:8
I think there are too many Members in this House who have enjoyed the fact that they have delivered the responsibility to the President. They do not want war, but they want war. They do not want a legal war, they want an illegal war. They do not want a war to win, they want a war that is a half of a war. They want the President to do the dirty work, but they do not want the Congress to stand up and decide one way or the other.

war
Moral And Constitutional Wars Must Be Fought In Self Defense
28 April 1999    1999 Ron Paul 35:9
Today we saw evidence that the Congress was willing to stand up to some degree and vote on this and take some responsibility. For this reason I am pleased with what happened. So voting against the war that has no significant national security interest makes a lot of sense to me.

war
Moral And Constitutional Wars Must Be Fought In Self Defense
28 April 1999    1999 Ron Paul 35:10
Another vote, the vote to withhold ground troops unless Congress authorizes the funding for this; this is not micromanaging anything. This is just the Congress standing up and accepting their responsibilities. So this in many ways was very good. This means that the people in this country, as they send their messages to the Members of Congress, are saying that this war does not make a whole lot of sense. If the people of this country were frightened, if they felt like they were being attacked, if they felt like their liberties were threatened, believe me the vote would have been a lot different.

war
Moral And Constitutional Wars Must Be Fought In Self Defense
28 April 1999    1999 Ron Paul 35:14
Another resolution that was defeated unfortunately, and it was defeated by a two-to-one margin; this would have said that the President would have to cease, we should have told him to cease, because we have not given him the right to wage war. As a matter of fact, even today we said there will be no war, there will be no declaration of war, so we should consistently follow up and say what we should do is withdraw and not fight a war.

war
Moral And Constitutional Wars Must Be Fought In Self Defense
28 April 1999    1999 Ron Paul 35:16
But I think it is a powerful message that the American people have spoke through this House of Representatives today to not rubber stamp an illegal, unconstitutional and immoral war. The only moral war is a war that is fought in self-defense. Some claim that this is a moral war because there are people who have been injured. But that is not enough justification. The moral and constitutional war has to be fought in self-defense.

war
We Must Not Fund This Senseless Bombing
5 May 1999    1999 Ron Paul 39:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, how many innocent civilians must die before we stop bombing Serbia? We rightfully cherish the lives of our three servicemen and rejoice in their return, but how many Serbs will never rejoice because of all the death and destruction we have rained down upon them by casually dismissing as necessary mistakes of war a war that is not real to us yet only too real to those who are needlessly killed.

war
We Must Not Fund This Senseless Bombing
5 May 1999    1999 Ron Paul 39:2
Serb victims are people, too, who love their families and hate the war, yet become the victims of this ill-conceived policy of NATO aggression. It is a strange argument, indeed, that the capture of our three soldiers was illegal and yet our bombing of civilians is not. Violence, when not in one’s own self-defense, can never be justified, no matter how noble the explanation. It only makes things worse.

war
Kosovo War Is Illegal
5 May 1999    1999 Ron Paul 40:1
Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, it is time to stop the bombing. NATO’s war against Serbia left the Congress and the American people in a quandary, and no wonder. The official excuse for NATO’s bombing war is that Milosevic would not sign a treaty drawn up by NATO, which would have taken Kosovo away from the Serbs after the KLA demanded independence from Serbia.

war
Kosovo War Is Illegal
5 May 1999    1999 Ron Paul 40:2
This war is immoral because Serbia did not commit aggression against us. We were not attacked and there has been no threat to our national security. This war is illegal. It is undeclared. There has been no congressional authorization and no money has been appropriated for it. The war is pursued by the U.S. under NATO’s terms, yet it is illegal even according to NATO’s treaty as well as the U.N. charter. The internationalists do not even follow their own laws and do not care about the U.S. Constitution.

war
Kosovo War Is Illegal
5 May 1999    1999 Ron Paul 40:3
The humanitarian excuse for the war is suspect. Economic interests are involved, as they so often are in most armed conflicts. NATO’s vaguely stated goals have not been achieved. For the most part, the opposite has. Let me give my colleagues a few examples.

war
Kosovo War Is Illegal
5 May 1999    1999 Ron Paul 40:9
Number six. This war institutionalizes foreign control over our troops. Tony Blair now tells Bill Clinton how to fight a NATO war, while the U.S. taxpayers pay for it.

war
Kosovo War Is Illegal
5 May 1999    1999 Ron Paul 40:16
Up until now, general defense funds have been spent to wage this war without permission. The President wants to catch up and is asking for $6 billion, but Congress, in its infinite wisdom, wants to give him $13 billion for a war Congress rejects. Once we directly fund the war we will be partners in this mis-adventure. The votes last week were symbolic. They had no effect of law, but appropriations do.

war
Kosovo War Is Illegal
5 May 1999    1999 Ron Paul 40:17
Saying the new appropriations will be used to beef up a neglected defense does not make it so. Defense funds are fungible. The President has proven this by waging a war for a month without any authorization or appropriation. Congress will no more control the next $13 billion than the money the President has already spent on the war.

war
Kosovo War Is Illegal
5 May 1999    1999 Ron Paul 40:18
Appropriating funds to fight a war, even without a declaration, provides a much more powerful legal and political endorsement of the war than the public statements made against it by non-binding resolutions passed by the House last week. Declaring war and funding war are two powerful tools of the Congress to restrain a president from waging an unwise and illegal war. If the President pursues an undeclared war and we fund it, we become partners, no matter what justification is given for the spending.

war
Kosovo War Is Illegal
5 May 1999    1999 Ron Paul 40:19
Only chaos can come from ignoring the strict prohibition by the Constitution of a president unilaterally waging war. If a president ignores the absence of a declaration, and we are serious, the only option left to Congress is the power of the purse, which is clearly the responsibility of the Congress. We should not fund this illegal and immoral NATO war.

war
More Money For War Not The Answer
6 May 1999    1999 Ron Paul 42:2
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule. The rule is far from perfect, but it allows adequate debate, and it will certainly allow us who think that it is unwise to increase the spending to vote against the spending. It certainly allows an opportunity for those who think that we should double the spending to explain why we should spend so much money on a war that we have not declared.

war
More Money For War Not The Answer
6 May 1999    1999 Ron Paul 42:3
Mr. Speaker, we have to realize that this war has been pursued for over a month. We have not appropriated the funds, so whether or not we act today, the war will continue, unfortunately. The war has not been declared, but if we go ahead and fund it, we become partners in this war. I do not think that is a wise policy. We should not provide the funding.

war
More Money For War Not The Answer
6 May 1999    1999 Ron Paul 42:6
But if we are in a quagmire, if we are following a policy that is unwise, the money might just make conditions much worse. I think this is why we must defeat the spending on this program, because the problems with what is happening in Bosnia and Kosovo and Iraq will be compounded as long as the administration has the money to fund the war.

war
More Money For War Not The Answer
6 May 1999    1999 Ron Paul 42:7
Yes, I am for a strong national defense, but if the policy is wrong, it will undermine all the spending. The money will actually be wasted. Funding encourages a policy that is in error. Funding is an endorsement of the war. We must realize that it is equivalent to it. We have not declared this war. If we fund it, we essentially become partners in this ill-advised war.

war
Supporting Istook Amendment
6 May 1999    1999 Ron Paul 43:2
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Istook amendment. I think that this would send a strong message that we do not endorse this war. It was said that this is the same vote that we had last week, but last week’s vote is sitting on the table and it is going to sit there.

war
Supporting Istook Amendment
6 May 1999    1999 Ron Paul 43:4
I think it is interesting, I think we have an interesting constitutional question here, because I agree with the chairman of the committee and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. OBEY) that it is not the prerogative of the Congress to micromanage a war. That is correct. It is the job of the Congress to declare the war. But here we have a Congress involved in diplomacy and micromanaging a war that has not been declared. That is the issue. The issue is not the micromanaging.

war
Supporting Istook Amendment
6 May 1999    1999 Ron Paul 43:5
I can support this amendment because the war has not been declared. The issue is how do we permit the President to wage a war without us declaring the war. Once we declare the war, it is true, we should not be talking about whether or not we use airplanes or foot soldiers or whatever. We do not micromanage. We do not get involved in diplomacy maneuvers.

war
Supporting Istook Amendment
6 May 1999    1999 Ron Paul 43:6
But today we have things turned upside down. We have the President declaring where and we say nothing and the Congress micromanaging the war that should not exist. We need to consider that. And we can straighten this mess out by rejecting these funds.

war
Supporting Istook Amendment
6 May 1999    1999 Ron Paul 43:7
It is suggested that this amendment would go a long way to doing it. I am not all that optimistic. For us to say to the President “thou shalt not use these funds for the ground war,” well, he has not had the authority to wage his air war. Why would he listen to us now?

war
Supporting Istook Amendment
6 May 1999    1999 Ron Paul 43:8
Can we trust him and say that he is going to listen to what we tell him? Of course not. He is already fighting his air war and he will continue to. And he has set the standard, and not he alone, all our Presidents from World War II have set the standard that they will do what they darn well please.

war
Supporting Istook Amendment
6 May 1999    1999 Ron Paul 43:9
This is why I have been encouraged in the last couple weeks that this debate has been going on, because it is an important debate. I have finally seen this Congress at least addressing the subject on whether or not they should take back the prerogatives of war and not allow it to remain in the hands of the President.

war
Supporting Istook Amendment
6 May 1999    1999 Ron Paul 43:14
There is only one thing that we should do, and that is stop this funding and stop the war. My colleagues say, oh, no, we are already too far in that we cannot. It is not supporting the troops. Well, who wants to get down here and challenge me and say that I do not support our troops? I support our troops. I served in the military for 5 years. That is not a worthwhile challenge. We all support our troops.

war
Supporting Istook Amendment
6 May 1999    1999 Ron Paul 43:15
They say, well, no, they are in a quagmire and we have to help them and this is the only way we can do it. So the President comes and asks us for $6 billion and then, in Congress’s infinite wisdom, we give him $13 billion. And yet, we do not declare war.

war
No Billions In Appropriations Can Make Our Foreign Policy Effective
13 May 1999    1999 Ron Paul 46:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I have come forward in the past to suggest that the history of this century has shown us that the foreign policy of so-called “pragmatic interventionists” has created a disastrous situation. Specifically, I have pointed to the unintended consequences of our government’s interventions. Namely, I have identified how World War One helped create the environment for the holocaust and how it thus helped create World War Two and thermonuclear war. And, I’ve mentioned how the Second World War resulted in the enslavement of much of Europe behind an iron curtain setting off the cold war, and spread the international communism and then our own disastrous foray into Vietnam. Yes, all of these wars and tragedies, wars hot and cold, were in part caused by the so-called “war to end all wars.”

war
No Billions In Appropriations Can Make Our Foreign Policy Effective
13 May 1999    1999 Ron Paul 46:6
If we remain unprepared to conduct total warfare across the globe, we should be thankful of this fact. If we are unprepared to police the world or to project power into every civil war, or “to win two different regional conflicts,” this is good.

war
No Billions In Appropriations Can Make Our Foreign Policy Effective
13 May 1999    1999 Ron Paul 46:8
“Preparedness” is a word that has been thrown around a lot recently, but it begs the question “prepared for what?” No nation attacked ours, no nation has threatened ours, no sane leader would do so as it would be the death warrant of his own nation, his own people, and likely his own self. We are prepared to repel an attack and meet force with force but not necessarily to protect our nation and the populace. We are still vulnerable to a missile attack and have done little to protect against such a possibility.

war
Supplemental Appropriations
18 May 1999    1999 Ron Paul 47:2
Congress does not endorse the war. We voted overwhelmingly against declaring war and yet we are giving the President twice the amount he requested to wage the war. It does not make any sense.

war
Supplemental Appropriations
18 May 1999    1999 Ron Paul 47:3
We are asking the President to seek reimbursement from NATO members since we have assumed the financial burden for fighting this war. This has tremendous appeal but cannot compensate for the shortsightedness of spending so much in the first place. The money may well never be recouped from our allies, and even if some of it is it only encourages a failed policy of military adventurism. If this policy works, the United States, at Congress’ urging, becomes a hired gun for the international order, a modern day government mercenary. This is not constitutional and it is a bad precedent to set.

war
Supplemental Appropriations
18 May 1999    1999 Ron Paul 47:4
Reimbursement for the Persian Gulf War has helped to perpetuate that conflict now going on for nearly a decade. It is time to think about a more sensible foreign policy.

war
Supplemental Appropriations
18 May 1999    1999 Ron Paul 47:5
We should not encourage the senseless and immoral NATO aggression against Serbia. The funding of this war should not be approved, no matter what special interest appropriations have been attached to the initial request to gain support for this special spending measure.

war
Supplemental Appropriations
18 May 1999    1999 Ron Paul 47:6
Our bombing continues to complicate the mess we helped create in Yugoslavia. Just about everyone concedes that the war cannot be won without massive use of ground troops, which fortunately no one is willing to commit. So the senseless bombing continues while civilian casualties mount. And whom are we killing? It looks like we are killing as many innocent Albanians for whom we have gone to war as innocent Serbs.

war
Supplemental Appropriations
18 May 1999    1999 Ron Paul 47:7
Why are we killing anybody? There has been no aggression against the United States and no war has been declared. It is time to stop this senseless bombing.

war
Supplemental Appropriations
18 May 1999    1999 Ron Paul 47:13
We should not be in Yugoslavia for obvious constitutional and moral reasons, but the American people should not believe the incessant propaganda that is put out by NATO on a daily basis. NATO’s motives are surely suspect. I meet no one who can with a straight face claim that it was NATO’s concern for the suffering of the refugees that prompted the bombing and demands by some to escalate the war with the introduction of ground troops.

war
Supplemental Appropriations
18 May 1999    1999 Ron Paul 47:14
Even with NATO’s effort to justify its aggression, they rarely demonstrate a hit on a military target. All this fine star wars technology and we see reruns of strikes with perfect accuracy hitting infrastructures like bridges and buildings. I have yet to see one picture of a Serbian tank being hit, and I am sure if they had some classy film like that we would have seen it many times on the nightly television.

war
Supplemental Appropriations
18 May 1999    1999 Ron Paul 47:15
NATO must admit its mistake in entering this civil war. It violates the NATO treaty and the U.N. Charter, as well as the U.S. Constitution. The mission has failed. The policy is flawed. Innocent people are dying. It is costing a lot of money. It is undermining our national security and there are too many accidents.

war
Supplemental Appropriations
18 May 1999    1999 Ron Paul 47:17
There’s nothing America can be proud of in this effort and if we don’t quickly get out of it, it could very well escalate and the getting out made impossible. The surest and quickest way to do this is for Congress today to reject the funding for this war.

war
Opposing Supplemental Appropriation
18 May 1999    1999 Ron Paul 48:2
The President came to us and asked us to fund the NATO war, asked for $7.9 billion, but we in the conservative Congress have decided that not only would we give it to him, but we would bump that up to $15 billion, which does not make a whole lot of sense, especially if Congress has spoken out on what they think of the war.

war
Opposing Supplemental Appropriation
18 May 1999    1999 Ron Paul 48:3
And Congress has. We have had several votes already. We have voted and said that we did not think that ground troops should be sent in. And most military people tell us that the only way we are going to win the war is with ground troops. So we have taken a strong position. We have had a chance to vote on declaration of war and make a decision one way or the other. We have strongly said we are not going to declare war.

war
Opposing Supplemental Appropriation
18 May 1999    1999 Ron Paul 48:4
We have spoken out on the air war. We did not even endorse the air war. And the President has spent a lot of money. They are hoping to get a lot of this money back from the European nations, but all that makes us are professional mercenaries fighting wars for other people, which I do not agree with.

war
Opposing Supplemental Appropriation
18 May 1999    1999 Ron Paul 48:5
But here we are getting ready to fund Europe, fund a war that is undeclared. It does not make any sense. We are giving more money to the President than he asked for in a war that cannot be won and a war that we are not even determined to fight. It just does not make any sense. So in order to get enough votes to pass the bill, of course we put a little bit of extras on there to satisfy some special interests in order to get some more votes.

war
Opposing Supplemental Appropriation
18 May 1999    1999 Ron Paul 48:6
But the real principle here today that we are voting on is whether or not we are going to fund an illegal, unconstitutional war. It does not follow the rules of our Constitution. It does not follow the rules of the United Nations Treaty. It does not follow the NATO Treaty. And here we are just permitting it, endorsing it but further funding it. This does not make any sense.

war
Quietly Restoring Funding For War In Kosovo
27 May 1999    1999 Ron Paul 53:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time. I would like to point out that this is a rule of which I do not believe the authors should be proud. This rule, I believe, strictly limits a serious debate with regards to our national defense and our involvement in war at this particular time.

war
Quietly Restoring Funding For War In Kosovo
27 May 1999    1999 Ron Paul 53:2
Today, the International War Crimes Tribunal decided to indict Milosevic. Milosevic is obviously a character that deserves severe criticism, but at this particular junction in the debate over this erroneous and ill-gotten war in Yugoslavia, this indicates to most of the world that there is no attempt whatsoever on the part of NATO to attempt any peace negotiations. This is a guarantee of the perpetuation of war.

war
Quietly Restoring Funding For War In Kosovo
27 May 1999    1999 Ron Paul 53:3
Milosevic is going to be further strengthened by this. He will not be weakened. It was said the bombing would weaken Milosevic, and yet he was strengthened. This same move, this pretense that this kangaroo court can indict Milosevic and carry this to fruition indicates only that there are some who will enjoy perpetuating this war, because there is no way this can enhance peace. This is a sign of total hypocrisy, I believe, on the part of NATO. NATO, eventually, by history, will be indicted.

war
Quietly Restoring Funding For War In Kosovo
27 May 1999    1999 Ron Paul 53:4
But today we are dealing with this process, and this is related to the bill that is about to be brought to the floor because, specifically, as this bill came out of committee, it said that monies in this bill should be used for defense, not for aggressive warfare in Kosovo, and yet that was struck in the Committee on Rules. That is a serious change in the bill. I think all our colleagues must remember this when it comes time to vote for the final passage.

war
Quietly Restoring Funding For War In Kosovo
27 May 1999    1999 Ron Paul 53:5
We could have had a bill that made a statement against spending this money to perpetuate this illegal NATO war, and yet it was explicitly removed from the bill. I think this is reason to question the efforts on this rule. Certainly it should challenge all of us on the final passage of this bill, because much of this money will not be spent on the national defense, but to perpetuate war, which is a direct distraction from our national defense because it involves increasing threats to our national security. It does not protect our national security.

war
A Positive Spin On An Ugly War
7 June 1999    1999 Ron Paul 54:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, the Yugoslavian civil war, now going on for years, was near ending until NATO chose to enter on the side of the KLA seeking independence. Aggressively entering the fray by invading a foreign nation, in direct opposition to its charter, NATO has expanded the war and multiplied the casualties. The impasse now reached, although predictable, prompts only more NATO bombing and killing of innocent civilians on both sides. It is difficult to see how any good can come from this continuous march of folly, but I am going to try.

war
A Positive Spin On An Ugly War
7 June 1999    1999 Ron Paul 54:2
Number one, the U.N. has suffered a justified setback in its effort to be the world’s governing body of the new world order, and that is good. By NATO refusing to seek a U.N. resolution of support for its war effort, it makes the U.N. look irrelevant. Now NATO is using the U.N. to seek a peace settlement by including the Russians, who agree to play the game as long as additional American tax dollars flow to them through the IMF. The U.N. looks weak, irrelevant, ignored, and used. The truth is winning out.

war
A Positive Spin On An Ugly War
7 June 1999    1999 Ron Paul 54:3
Number two, NATO is on the verge of self-destruction. Since the purpose of NATO to defend against a ruthless Soviet system no longer exists, that is good, NATO, in choosing to break its own rules looks totally ineffective and has lost credibility. The U.S. can get out of NATO, come home, save some money and let Europe tend to its own affairs, and we can then contribute to peace, not war.

war
A Positive Spin On An Ugly War
7 June 1999    1999 Ron Paul 54:5
Number four, more Americans every day are discovering that military spending is not equivalent to defense spending. This is a good start. It is clearly evident that when useless immoral wars are pursued, money is wasted, weapons are consumed, and national security is endangered, opposite to everything that is supposed to be achieved through defense spending. A foolish policy of foreign interventionism, no matter how much money is spent on the military, can never substitute for a sensible, pro-American policy of friendship and trade with all those countries willing to engage.

war
A Positive Spin On An Ugly War
7 June 1999    1999 Ron Paul 54:6
Number five, the ill-gotten war has shown once again that air power alone, and especially when pursued without a declaration of war and a determination to win, serves no useful purpose. Although most military experts have stated this for years, it is now readily apparent to anyone willing to study the issue. Many more Americans now agree that war not fought for the defense of one’s country and for the preservation of liberty is immoral and rarely brings about victory. If we remember that in the future, that would be good.

war
A Positive Spin On An Ugly War
7 June 1999    1999 Ron Paul 54:7
Number six, NATO’s war against Yugoslovia has made it clearly apparent that world leaders place relative value on human life. This is valuable information that should be helped to restore U.S. national sovereignty. According to NATO’s policy, the lives of the Kosovars are of greater value than the Serbs, Rwandans, Kurds, Tibetans, or East Timorans. Likewise, oil and European markets command more bloodshed in support of powerful financial interests than the suffering of millions in Asia and Africa. This knowledge of NATO’s hypocrisy should some day lead to a fair and more peaceful world.

war
A Positive Spin On An Ugly War
7 June 1999    1999 Ron Paul 54:8
Number seven, the issue of whether or not a President can initiate and wage an unconstitutional war without declaration and in violation of the War Powers Resolution has prompted a positive and beneficial debate in the Congress and throughout the Nation. This is a necessary first step to get Congress to regain its prerogatives over the issue of war.

war
A Positive Spin On An Ugly War
7 June 1999    1999 Ron Paul 54:11
Number ten, the 19 nations’ military actions against a tiny state shows that alliances to promote aggression do not work. The moral high ground is not achieved because despite the pronouncements of concerns for the suffering of the innocent, when survival is not at stake and when the defense against an aggressor is not an issue, war by committee is doomed to fail. This is a lesson that needs restating.

war
Opposing Endless War In Kosovo
10 June 1999    1999 Ron Paul 56:2
We are endorsing, if we vote in favor of this amendment, a policy of occupation of Kosovo for an endless period of time. We have now been fighting an undeclared war for more than 70 days. We have endlessly bombed a country the size of Kentucky killing many, many civilians.

war
Opposing Endless War In Kosovo
10 June 1999    1999 Ron Paul 56:3
It is an undeclared war. It is an immoral, illegal war. It violates the Constitution. It violates the War Powers resolution.

war
Opposing Endless War In Kosovo
10 June 1999    1999 Ron Paul 56:8
I think that policy is a bad policy. If we vote for this amendment, we endorse this policy, and we should not. This is not the end of the Kosovo war; it’s only the beginning of an endless occupation and the possibility of hostilities remain. The region remains destabilized and dangerous. Only a policy of non-intervention and neutrality can serve the interest of the American people. The sooner we quit accepting the role of world policemen, the better. We cannot afford to continue our recent policy of intervention to satisfy the power special interest that influences our foreign policy.

war
Only A Moral Society Will Make Our Citizens And Their Guns Less Violent
15 June 1999    1999 Ron Paul 60:16
Number seven, Star Wars technology, casually displayed on our TV screens showing the blowing up of bridges, trains, sewer plants, and embassies all in the name of humanitarianism glibly sanctions violence as a proper tool for bringing about change.

war
Consequences Of Gun Control
16 June 1999    1999 Ron Paul 62:13
Sincerely, Terry L. Anderson, Montana State University; Charles W. Baird, California State University Hayward; Randy E. Barnett, Boston University; Bruce L. Benson, Florida State University; Michael Block, University of Arizona; Walter Block, Thomas Borcherding, Claremont Graduate School; Frank H. Buckley, George Mason University; Colin D. Campbell, Dartmough College; Robert J. Cottrol, George Washington University; Preston K. Covey, Carnegie Mellon University; Mark Crain, George Mason University; Tom DiLorenzo, Loyola College in Maryland; Paul Evans, Ohio State University; R. Richard Geddes, Fordham University; Lino A. Graglia, University of Texas; John Heineke, Santa Clara University; David Henderson, Hoover Institution, Stanford University; Melvin J. Hinich, University of Texas, Austin; Lester H. Hunt, University of Wisconsin- Madison; James Kau, University of Georgia; Kenneth N. Klee, UCLA; David Kopel, New York University; Stanley Liebowitz, University of Texas at Dallas; Luis Locay, University of Miami; John R. Lott, Jr., University of Chicago; Geoffrey A. Manne, University of Virginia; John Matsusaka, University of Southern California; Fred McChesney, Cornell University; Jeffrey A. Miron, Boston University; Carlisle E. Moody College of William and Mary; Craig M. Newark, North Carolina State University; Jeffrey S. Parker, George Mason University; Dan Polsby, Northwestern University; Keith T. Poole, Carnegie-Mellon University; Douglas B. Rasmussen, St. John’s University; Glenn Reynolds, University of Tennessee; John R. Rice, Duke University; Russell Roberts, Washington University; Randall W. Roth, Univ. of Hawaii; Charles Rowley, George Mason University; Allen R. Sanderson, University of Chicago; William F. Shughart II, University of Mississippi; Thomas Sowell, Stanford University; Richard Stroup, Montana State University; Robert D. Tollison, University of Mississippi; Eugene Volokh, UCLA; Michael R. Ward, University of Illinois; Benjamin Zycher, UCLA; Todd Zywicki, George Mason University.

war
Opposing Flag Burning Amendment
23 June 1999    1999 Ron Paul 66:6
It is assumed that many in the military who fought, but I think the gentleman from North Carolina pointed out aptly that some who have been great heroes in war can be on either side of this issue. I would like to read a quote from a past national commander of the American Legion, Keith Kreul. He said:

war
On The United Nations And Embassy Security
19 July 1999    1999 Ron Paul 78:4
There are many in this Congress who readily admit they are internationalists. I readily admit that I am not an internationalist when it comes to political action and warmongering. Therefore, I think much of what we do in foreign policy makes ourselves more vulnerable. If we look at the two most recent bombings in Africa, these were brought about by our own foreign policy.

war
On The United Nations And Embassy security
19 July 1999    1999 Ron Paul 79:7
Generally, we always make our problems worse. Our wars are endless, and our occupations are endless. Someday we are going to have to wake up and design a new policy because this will not stop as long as we capitulate to the use of the United Nations and try to sacrifice our sovereignty to these international parties.

war
Free Trade
27 July 1999    1999 Ron Paul 82:3
Open and free trade with all nations, short of war, should be pursued for two specific reasons. One, it’s a freedom issue; the right of the citizens of a free country to spend their money any way they see fit, anywhere in the world. And two, free trade provides the best deal for consumers allowing each to cast dollar votes with each purchase respecting quality and price. The foreign competition is a blessing in that it challenges domestic industries to do better. The Japanese car industry certainly resulted in American car manufacturers offering more competitive products.

war
Free Trade
27 July 1999    1999 Ron Paul 82:6
Genuine free trade would involve low tariffs and no subsidies. Export-Import Bank funding, OPIC, and trade development subsidies to our foreign competitors would never exist. Trading with China should be permissible, but aid should never occur either directly or through multilateral banking organizations such as the IMF or World Bank. A true free trade policy would exclude the management of trade by international agencies such as the WTO and NAFTA. Unfortunately, these agencies are used too frequently to officially place restrictions on countries or firms that sell products “too cheaply” — a benefit to consumers but challenging to politically-favored domestic or established “competitors.” This is nothing more than worldwide managed trade (regulatory cartels) and will eventually lead to a trade war despite all the grandiose talk of free trade.

war
Free Trade
27 July 1999    1999 Ron Paul 82:7
Trade policy should never be mixed with the issue of domestic political problems. Dictatorial governments trading with freer nations are more likely to respect civil liberties if they are trading with them. Also, it is true that nations that trade are less likely to go to war with one another.

war
Export-Import Bank, Overseas Private Investment Corp. and Trade And Development Agency
2 August 1999    1999 Ron Paul 86:7
I say that we should have free trade. We should trade with our friends and with anybody who would trade that we are not at war with. We should really, really be careful about issuing sanctions. But here we are, last week we had the great debate and a lot of people could not stand the idea of trading with Red China because of their human rights record and I understand that, although I did not accept that position. But this is the time to do something about it.

war
Selective Service System
5 August 1999    1999 Ron Paul 89:6
There is no such thing as a fair draft system. It is always unfair to those who are less sophisticated, who either avoid the draft or are able to get into the National Guard, or as it was in the Civil War, pay to get their way out.

war
Selective Service System
5 August 1999    1999 Ron Paul 89:8
I would like to remind many of my conservative colleagues that, if we brought a bill to this floor where we would say that we would register all of our guns in the United States, there would be a hue and cry about how horrible it would be. Yet, we casually accept this program of registering 18-year-old kids to force them to go and fight the political wars that they are not interested in. This is a very, very serious idea and principle of liberty.

war
Selective Service System
5 August 1999    1999 Ron Paul 89:9
So when the time comes in September to vote for this, I beg that my fellow colleagues will think seriously about this, the needlessness to spend $25 million to continue to register young people to go off to fight needless wars. They are not even permitted to drink beer; and, yet, we expect them to be registered and to use them to fight the wars that the older generation starts for political and narrow-minded reasons.

war
Selective Service System
8 September 1999    1999 Ron Paul 91:3
There is no place in a free society to have a program of conscription and drafting of young people to fight unconstitutional wars. It saves $24 million, and I urge my colleagues not to support the funding for the selective service.

war
Selective Service System
8 September 1999    1999 Ron Paul 92:4
More importantly, I rise in strong objection on moral principles that the draft is wrong. In most of our history we did not have a draft. The gentleman from California early on pointed out that essentially since World War I we have had a draft, and that is true. Since in this century we have seen a diminished respect for personal liberty with the growth of the state we have seen much more willingness to accept the idea that young men belong to the state.

war
Selective Service System
8 September 1999    1999 Ron Paul 92:6
The unfortunate part about a draft is that too often draftees are used in wars that are not legitimate. This is so often the case. If this country faced an attack, we should have volunteers. We should all volunteer. But, unfortunately, the generation of politicians who declare the wars too often never serve. Some of them have not even served in the past. But they are willing to start wars that are not legitimate, and yet they depend on the draft. They depend on the draft for the men to go out and fight and die.

war
Selective Service System
8 September 1999    1999 Ron Paul 92:15
Yes, preserving liberty is worth fighting and even dying for, but conscription is incompatible with that goal. We cannot make men free by first enslaving them and forcing them to sacrifice their lives and liberty for the policies conceived by misdirected politicians and international warmongers.

war
East Timor
28 September 1999    1999 Ron Paul 99:3
I would like to advise my colleagues that we are not just endorsing a humanitarian effort to help people who are suffering. We are literally giving the President carte blanche to go and commit war in this area. We are committing ourselves to troops, and it is an open-ended policy.

war
East Timor
28 September 1999    1999 Ron Paul 99:8
Under number 13, there is another part that concerns me a great deal. In the 1970s, we passed the War Powers Resolution. Both conservatives and liberals, Republicans and Democrats endorsed the notion that Presidents should be restrained in their effort to wage war without declaration.

war
East Timor
28 September 1999    1999 Ron Paul 99:9
Once again, we are endorsing the concept that, if we just subtly and quietly endorse a President’s ability and authority to go into a foreign country under the auspices of the United Nations, we do not have to deal with the real issue of war. But under 13(B), it explicitly restates the fact that a President in this situation can at least wage war for 60 days before we have much to say about it.

war
East Timor
28 September 1999    1999 Ron Paul 99:16
I understand the motivation behind this, but tragically this type of action tends to always backfire because we do not follow the rule of law. And the rule of law says if we commit troops, we ought to get the direct and explicit authority from the Congress with a war resolution. This, in essence, is a baby war resolution, but it is a war resolution.

war
War On East Timor
28 September 1999    1999 Ron Paul 101:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I would like to respond. To try to tie in World War II is not quite fair. I think the gentleman has to admit that we are not talking about that. Besides, I am talking as much about procedure as I am talking about the policy itself.

war
War On East Timor
28 September 1999    1999 Ron Paul 101:2
In World War II there was a serious problem around the world. It was brought to this Congress. We voted on a war resolution. We went to war. The country was unified, and we won. That is what I endorse, that procedure. What I do not endorse is us getting involved the back-door way; getting involved carelessly and casually. Not realizing what we are doing.

war
War On East Timor
28 September 1999    1999 Ron Paul 101:3
I come to the floor only to try to warn my colleagues of what they are voting on today; that this is not just a simple humanitarian resolution. It is the process I’m concerned about. If we bring a war resolution to the floor and say, look, we need to go to war to defend the East Timorese, we can vote it up and down and decide to go over and settle it in 2 or 3 months. But we should not do what we are doing now, to endorse internationalism, or interventionism that inevitably fails.

war
Conference Report On S. 900, Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act
4 November 1999    1999 Ron Paul 113:3
Federal Reserve Governor Edward Gramlich today joined many others who are concerned about the strength of the economy when he warned that the low U.S. savings rate was a cause for concern. Coupled with the likely decline in foreign investment in the United States, he said that the economy will require some potentially “painful” adjustments — some combination of higher exports, higher interest rates, lower investment, and/or lower dollar values.

war
U.S. Foreign Policy of Military Interventionism Brings Death, Destruction and Loss of Life
17 November 1999    1999 Ron Paul 115:4
Our foreign policy of military interventionism has brought us death and destruction to many foreign lands and loss of life for many Americans. From Korea and Vietnam to Serbia, Iran, Iraq and now Afghanistan, we have ventured far from our shores in search of wars to fight. Instead of more free trade with our potential adversaries, we are quick to slap on sanctions that hurt American exports and help to solidify the power of the tyrants, while seriously penalizing innocent civilians in fomenting anti-America hatred.

war
U.S. Foreign Policy of Military Interventionism Brings Death, Destruction and Loss of Life
17 November 1999    1999 Ron Paul 115:6
Sanctions are one thing, but seizures of bank assets of any related business to the Taliban government infuriates and incites the radicals to violence. There is no evidence that this policy serves the interests of world peace. It certainly increases the danger to all Americans as we become the number one target of terrorists. Conventional war against the United States is out of the question, but acts of terrorism, whether it is the shooting down of a civilian airliner or bombing a New York City building, are almost impossible to prevent in a reasonably open society.

war
U.S. Foreign Policy of Military Interventionism Brings Death, Destruction and Loss of Life
17 November 1999    1999 Ron Paul 115:8
General Musharraf’s successful coup against Prime Minister Sharif of Pakistan was in retaliation for America’s interference with Sharif’s handling of the Pakistan-India border war. The recent bombings in Pakistan are a clear warning to Musharraf that he, too, must not submit to U.S.-CIA directives.

war
Statement on OSHA Home Office Regulations
January 28, 2000    2000 Ron Paul 1:4
Mr. Chairman, the fact that OSHA would even consider exercising regulatory authority over any part of a private home shows just how little respect OSHA has for private property. Private property, of course, was considered one of the bulwarks of liberty by our nation’s founding fathers, and has been seriously eroded in this country. While it is heartening that so many members of Congress have expressed their displeasure with OSHA over this issue, I am concerned that most of the debate has focused on the negative consequences of this regulation instead of on the question of whether OSHA has the constitutional authority to regulate any part of a private residence (or private business for that matter). The economic and social consequences of allowing federal bureaucrats to regulate home offices certainly should be debated. However, I would remind my colleagues that conceding the principle that the only way to protect worker safety is by means of a large bureaucracy with the power to impose a “one-size fits all” model on every workplace in America ensures that defenders of the free market will be always on the defensive, trying to reign in the bureaucracy from going “too far” rather than advancing a positive, pro-freedom agenda. Furthermore, many companies are experiencing great success at promoting worker safety by forming partnerships with their employees to determine how best to create a safe workplace. This approach to worker safety is both more effective, and constitutionally sound, than giving OSHA bureaucrats the power to, for example, force landscapers to use $200 gas cans instead of $5 cans or fining a construction company $7,000 dollars because their employees jumped in a trench to rescue a trapped man without first putting on their OSHA-approved hard hats; or fine a company because it failed to warn employees not to eat copier toner!

war
A Republic, If You Can Keep It
31 January 2000    2000 Ron Paul 2:39
In truth, the amount of taxes we now pay compared to 100 years ago is shocking. There is little philosophic condemnation by the intellectual community, the political leaders, or the media of this immoral system. This should be a warning sign to all of us that even in less prosperous times we can expect high taxes and that our productive economic system will come under attack.

war
A Republic, If You Can Keep It
31 January 2000    2000 Ron Paul 2:40
Not only have we seen little resistance to the current high tax system, it has become an acceptable notion that this system is moral and is a justified requirement to finance the welfare/ warfare state.

war
A Republic, If You Can Keep It
31 January 2000    2000 Ron Paul 2:85
Our attitude toward foreign policy has dramatically changed since the beginning of the century. From George Washington through Grover Cleveland, the accepted policy was to avoid entangling alliances. Although we spread our wings westward and southward as part of our manifest destiny in the 19th century, we accepted the Monroe Doctrine notion that European and Asians should stay out of our affairs in this hemisphere and we theirs. McKinley, Teddy Roosevelt, and the Spanish American war changed all that. Our intellectual and political leaders at the turn of the last century brought into vogue the interventionist doctrine setting the stage for the past 100 years of global military activism. From a country that once minded its own business, we now find ourselves with military personnel in more than 130 different countries protecting our modern day American empire. Not only do we have troops spread to the four corners of the Earth, we find Coast Guard cutters in the Mediterranean and around the world, our FBI in any country we choose, and the CIA in places Congress does not even know about. It is a truism that the state grows and freedom is diminished in times of war. Almost perpetual war in the 20th century has significantly contributed to steadily undermining our liberties while glorifying the state.

war
A Republic, If You Can Keep It
31 January 2000    2000 Ron Paul 2:86
In addition to the military wars, liberty has also suffered from the domestic wars on poverty, literacy, drugs, homelessness privacy and many others. We have in the last 100 years gone from the accepted and cherished notion of a sovereign Nation to one of a globalist new world order. As we once had three separate branches of our government, the United Nations proudly uses its three branches, the World Bank, the IMF and the World Trade Organization to work their will in this new era of globalism. Because the U.S. is by far the strongest military industrial power, it can dictate the terms of these international institutions, protecting what we see as our various interests such as oil, along with satisfying our military industrial complex. Our commercial interests and foreign policy are no longer separate. This allows for subsidized profits while the taxpayers are forced to protect huge corporations against any losses from overseas investments. The argument that we go about the world out of humanitarian concerns for those suffering, which was the excuse for bombing Serbia, is a farce. As bad as it is that average Americans are forced to subsidize such a system, we additionally are placed in greater danger because of our arrogant policy of bombing nations that do not submit to our wishes. This generates the hatred directed toward America, even if at times it seems suppressed, and exposes us to a greater threat of terrorism since this is the only vehicle our victims can use to retaliate against a powerful military state.

war
A Republic, If You Can Keep It
31 January 2000    2000 Ron Paul 2:88
Throughout our early history and up to World War I, our wars were fought with volunteers. There was no military draft except for a failed attempt by Lincoln in the Civil War which ended with justified riots and rebellion against it. The attitudes toward the draft definitely changed over the past century. Draftees were said to be necessary to fight in World War I and World War II, Korea and Vietnam. This change in attitude has definitely satisfied those who believe that we have an obligation to police the world. The idiocy of Vietnam served as a catalyst for an antidraft attitude which is still alive today. Fortunately we have not had a draft for over 25 years, but Congress refuses to address this matter in a principled fashion by abolishing once and for all the useless selective service system. Too many authoritarians in Congress still believe that in times of need, an army of teenage draftees will be needed to defend our commercial interests throughout the world. A return to the spirit of the republic would mean that a draft would never be used and all able-bodied persons would be willing to volunteer in defense of their liberty. Without the willingness to do so, liberty cannot be saved. A conscripted army can never substitute for the willingness of freedom-loving Americans to defend their country out of their love for liberty.

war
A Republic, If You Can Keep It
31 January 2000    2000 Ron Paul 2:98
The reasons for rejecting gold and promoting paper are not mysterious, since quite a few special interests benefit. Deficit financing is much more difficult when there is no Central Bank available to monetize government debt. This gives license to politicians to spend lavishly on the projects that are most likely to get them reelected. War is more difficult to pursue if government has to borrow or tax the people for its financing. The Federal Reserve’s ability to create credit out of thin air to pay the bills run up by Congress establishes a symbiosis that is easy for the politician to love.

war
A Republic, If You Can Keep It
31 January 2000    2000 Ron Paul 2:101
But the costs are many and the dangers are real. Because of easy credit throughout this century we have found out that financing war was easier than if taxes had to be raised. The many wars we have fought and the continuous military confrontations in smaller wars since Vietnam have made the 20th Century a bloody century. It is most likely that we would have pursued a less militaristic foreign policy if financing it had been more difficult.

war
A Republic, If You Can Keep It
31 January 2000    2000 Ron Paul 2:103
There are other real costs as well that few are willing to believe are a direct consequence of Federal Reserve Board policy. Rampant inflation after World War I as well as the 1921 depression were a consequence of monetary policy during and following the war. The stock market speculation of the 1920s, the stock market collapse of 1929 and the depression of the 1930s causing millions to be unemployed, all resulted from Federal Reserve Board monetary mischief.

war
A Republic, If You Can Keep It
31 January 2000    2000 Ron Paul 2:104
Price inflation of the early 1950s was a consequence of monetary inflation required to fight the Korean War. Wage and price controls used then totally failed, yet the same canard was used during the Vietnam war in the early 1970s to again impose wage and price controls, with even worse results.

war
A Republic, If You Can Keep It
31 January 2000    2000 Ron Paul 2:105
All the price inflation, all the distortions, all the recessions and unemployment should be laid at the doorstep of the Federal Reserve. The Fed is an accomplice in promoting all unnecessary war, as well as the useless and harmful welfare programs, with its willingness to cover Congress’ profligate spending habits.

war
The Hillory J. Farias Date Rape Prevention Drug Act of 1999
31 January 2000    2000 Ron Paul 3:6
Additionally, this Act undermines the recently enacted Dietary Supplement Health & Education Act (DSHEA) at the expense of thousands of consumers who have safely used these natural metabolites of the amino acid GABA. According to practicing physician Ward Dean, West Point graduate and former Delta Force flight surgeon, HR 2130 appears to be a case of pharmaceutical-company-protectionism. Because the substances restricted under this act are natural, and hence, non-patentable, the pharmaceutical concerns lose market-share in areas for which GHB is a safer and less expensive means of treating numerous ailments. In a recent letter from Dr. Dean, he states:

war
A Republic, If You Can Keep It – Part 2
2 February 2000    2000 Ron Paul 5:3
Although nearly 100,000 American battle deaths have occurred since World War II and both big and small wars have been fought almost continuously, there has not been a congressional declaration of war since 1941. Our Presidents now fight wars not only without explicit congressional approval but also in the name of the United Nations, with our troops now serving under foreign commanders.

war
A Republic, If You Can Keep It – Part 2
2 February 2000    2000 Ron Paul 5:4
Our Presidents have assured us that U.N. authorization is all that is needed to send our troops into battle. The 1973 War Powers Resolution meant to restrict presidential war powers has either been ignored by our Presidents or used to justify war up to 90 days. The Congress and the people too often have chosen to ignore this problem, saying little about the recent bombing in Serbia. The continual bombing of Iraq which has now been going on for over 9 years is virtually ignored.

war
A Republic, If You Can Keep It – Part 2
2 February 2000    2000 Ron Paul 5:5
If a President can decide on the issue of war without a vote of the Congress, a representative republic does not exist. Our President should not have the authority to declare national emergencies and they certainly should not have authority to declare martial law, a power the Congress has already granted to any future emergency.

war
A Republic, If You Can Keep It – Part 2
2 February 2000    2000 Ron Paul 5:16
The Government knew very little about each individual American citizen in 1900. But, starting with World War I, there has been a systematic growth of Government surveillance of everyone’s activities, with multiple records being kept. Today, true privacy is essentially a thing of the past. The FBI and the IRS have been used by various administrations to snoop and harass political opponents, and there has been little effort by Congress to end this abuse. A free society, that is, a constitutional republic, cannot be maintained if privacy is not highly cherished and protected by the Government, rather than abused by it. We can expect it to get worse.

war
A Republic, If You Can Keep It – Part 2
2 February 2000    2000 Ron Paul 5:43
Throughout this century, there has been a move toward drug prohibition starting with the Harrison Act of 1912. The first Federal marijuana law was pushed through by FDR in 1938, but the real war on drugs has been fought with intensity for the past 30 years.

war
A Republic, If You Can Keep It – Part 2
2 February 2000    2000 Ron Paul 5:49
Tobacco is about to be categorized as a drug and prohibition of sorts imposed. This will make the drug war seem small if we continue to expand the tobacco war. Talk about insane government policies of the 20th century, tobacco policy wins the prize. First, we subsidize tobacco in response to demands by the special interests, knowing full well even from the beginning that tobacco had many negative health consequences. Then we spend taxpayers’ money warning the people of its dangers, without stopping the subsidies.

war
A Republic, If You Can Keep It – Part 2
2 February 2000    2000 Ron Paul 5:50
Government then pays for the care of those who choose to smoke, despite the known dangers and warnings. But it does not stop there. The trial lawyers’ lobby saw to it that the local government entities could sue tobacco companies for reimbursement of the excess costs that they were bearing in taking care of smoking-related illnesses, and the only way this could be paid for was to place a tax on those people who did not smoke.

war
A Republic, If You Can Keep It – Part 2
2 February 2000    2000 Ron Paul 5:51
How could such silliness go on for so long? For one reason. We as a nation have forgotten the basic precept of a free society, that all citizens must be responsible for their own acts. If one smokes and gets sick, that is the problem of the one making the decision to smoke or take any other risk for that matter, not the innocent taxpayers who have already been forced to pay for the tobacco subsidies and government health warning ads.

war
A Republic, If You Can Keep It – Part 2
2 February 2000    2000 Ron Paul 5:53
Think of what it would mean if we followed this simple logic and implemented a Federal social program, similar to the current war on smoking, designed to reduce the spread of AIDS within the gay community. Astoundingly, we have done the opposite by making AIDS a politically correct disease. There was certainly a different attitude a hundred years ago regarding those with sexually transmitted diseases like syphilis compared to the special status given AIDS victims today.

war
A Republic, If You Can Keep It – Part 2
2 February 2000    2000 Ron Paul 5:57
The war on drugs is the most important driving force behind the national police state. The excuse given for calling in the Army helicopters and tanks at the Waco disaster was that the authorities had evidence of an amphetamine lab on the Davidian property. This was never proven, but nevertheless it gave the legal cover but not the proper constitutional authority for escalating the attack on the Davidians which led to the senseless killing of so many innocent people.

war
A Republic, If You Can Keep It – Part 2
2 February 2000    2000 Ron Paul 5:69
Any academic discussion questioning the wisdom of our policies surrounding World War II is met with shrill accusations of anti-Semitism and Nazi lover. No one is ever even permitted, without derision by the media, the university intellectuals and the politicians, to ask why the United States allied itself with the murdering Soviets and then turned over Eastern Europe to them while ushering in a 45-year saber-rattling, dangerous Cold War period.

war
A Republic, If You Can Keep It – Part 2
2 February 2000    2000 Ron Paul 5:108
Sentiment is moving in the direction of challenging the status quo of the welfare and international warfare state. The Internet has given hope to millions who have felt their voices were not being heard, and this influence is just beginning. The three major networks and conventional government propaganda no longer control the information now available to everyone with a computer.

war
A Republic, If You Can Keep It – Part 2
2 February 2000    2000 Ron Paul 5:130
Samuel Adams, likewise, warned future generations. He referred to “good manners” as the vital ingredient that a free society needs to survive. Adams said, “Neither the wisest Constitution nor the wisest laws will secure the liberty and happiness of a people whose manners are universally corrupt.”

war
REVIEW ARTICLE ON ‘NEW MATH’
February 10, 2000    2000 Ron Paul 7:1
* Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I submit for the Record and highly recommend to all of my colleagues Bill Evers’ ‘Secretary Riley Reignites the Math Wars,’ which recently appeared in the Weekly Standard. Mr. Evers’ provides an excellent overview of the controversy created by the Department of Education’s endorsement of ten ‘discovery-learning’ programs (also known as ‘new, new math’ or ‘fuzzy math’). Concerns have been raised that ‘fuzzy math’ de-emphasizes traditional mathematics in favor of encouraging children to ‘discover’ math without the guidance of a teacher. Under some ‘new, new math’ programs traditional teaching is discouraged on the grounds that teachers may harm a child’s self-esteem by, for example, correcting a child’s ‘discovery’ that 2+2 equals 5. Obviously, this type of ‘education’ diminishes a child’s future prospects, after all, few employers value high self-esteem more than the ability to add!

war
REVIEW ARTICLE ON ‘NEW MATH’
February 10, 2000    2000 Ron Paul 7:6
In early 1998, U.S. Secretary of Education Richard W. Riley called for a ‘cease-fire’ in the math wars between the proponents of solid content and the proponents of discovery-learning methods. He said he was ‘very troubled’ by ‘the increasing polarization and fighting’ about how and which mathematics should be taught from kindergarten through high school.

war
INTRODUCING LEGISLATION CALLING FOR THE UNITED STATES TO WITHDRAW FROM THE WORLD TRADE ORGANIZATION
March 1, 2000    2000 Ron Paul 12:11
We need to better explain that the Founding Fathers believed that tariffs were meant to raise revenues, not to erect trade barriers. American colonists even before the war for independence understood the difference.

war
CONGRATULATING THE PEOPLE OF TAIWAN FOR SUCCESSFUL CONCLUSION OF PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS AND REAFFIRMING UNITED STATES POLICY TOWARD TAIWAN AND PEOPLE’S REPUBLIC OF CHINA
March 28, 2000    2000 Ron Paul 18:3
* Just as it is wrong to force our preferences on other countries and cultures, it is wrong to dictate politics. The United States has absolutely no moral or constitutional right to do so. In fact, action of that sort could rightfully be considered an act of aggression on our part, and our founding fathers made it very, very clear that war should be contemplated only when national security is immediately threatened. to play the part of policemen of the world degrades all who seek to follow the Constitution. The Constitution does not allow our government to participate in actions against a foreign country when there is no immediate threat to the United States.

war
TRIBUTE TO THE LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS OF HAYS COUNTY, TEXAS
March 29, 2000    2000 Ron Paul 19:2
* As Event Coordinator Cheryl Warren Norton said, ‘With the growing rate of violence, especially among our youth, it is our responsibility and the general public’s responsibility to assist our law enforcement officers in areas in which they are in need.’ The money raised through LEAD 2000 will go toward crime prevention programs aimed at fighting crime and violence on the 8local level. Local law enforcement is the backbone of public safety and protection across America, and I am proud to represent an area that recognizes its law enforcement personnel for the heroes that they are.

war
UNNECESSARY SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS AND UNWISE MILITARY ADVENTURISM IN COLOMBIA
March 29, 2000    2000 Ron Paul 20:3
But we should be very cautious about what we are doing today by expanding our involvement in Colombia. We are now moving into Colombia and spending a lot of money and expanding our war in this area. We should not be spending our money on military adventurism. We should be taking this money and spending it to build up our military defenses. We should be using this money to pay our military personnel more money, give them better housing and better education and better medical care.

war
2000 EMERGENCY SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS ACT
March 29, 2000    2000 Ron Paul 21:2
It is said that we need to appropriate this money to fight the drug war in Colombia. We have been fighting the drug war for 25 years. We have spent $250 billion on the drug war. Some day we will have to wake up and decide that the way we are fighting the drug war is wrong.

war
2000 EMERGENCY SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS ACT
March 29, 2000    2000 Ron Paul 21:14
What about the oil companies who support this war; which several oil companies do? Yes, they want investment security, so they want the military industrial complex to come down there and protect their oil interests. The oil interests are very supportive of this war, as well as the helicopter companies.

war
2000 EMERGENCY SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS ACT
March 29, 2000    2000 Ron Paul 21:17
So I would suggest to my colleagues, let us reassess this. It is not really a war on drugs.

war
2000 EMERGENCY SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS ACT
March 29, 2000    2000 Ron Paul 21:18
The war on drugs, by trying to reduce interdiction does not work. It has not worked. It is not going to work. It is only an excuse. It is an excuse for promoting military intervention in Colombia to satisfy those who are anxious to drill for oil there and for the military industrial complex to sell weapons.

war
2000 EMERGENCY SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS ACT
March 29, 2000    2000 Ron Paul 21:19
It’s amazing to me to see an administration who strongly opposes law abiding American citizens from owning guns for self defense to be such a promoter of the big guns of war throughout the world.

war
Amendment No. 5 Offered By Mr. Paul
30 March 2000    2000 Ron Paul 22:11
In Colombia, there are a lot of weapons already, and we are responsible for 80 percent of them. There is one irony about this bill that strikes me. The administration and many here on the floor who vote for these weapons are the same individuals who are anxious to prohibit the right of an American citizen to own a cheap weapon in selfdefense. At the same time, they are quite willing to tax these individuals and take their money to spend it on the weapons of war around the world and become involved in no-win situations.

war
Fiscal 2000 Supplemental Appropriations/DEA Funding Cuts Amendment
30 March 2000    2000 Ron Paul 23:3
I do not believe for one minute this is a surrender to the drug war. This is an acknowledgment that the $250 billion we have spent over the last 25 years has not worked; that the strategy against drugs is wrong.

war
Fiscal 2000 Supplemental Appropriations/DEA Funding Cuts Amendment
30 March 2000    2000 Ron Paul 23:4
Why continue a war that does not work? This is money down a rat hole. This is totally wasted money and, as far as I am concerned, only an excuse to sell helicopters and go in to Colombia and protect oil interests. That is the real reason why we are down there.

war
WHAT IS FREE TRADE?
May 2, 2000    2000 Ron Paul 29:24
The third benefit of free trade, which has been known for many, many centuries, has been the peace effect from trade. It is known that countries that trade with each other and depend on each other for certain products and where the trade has been free and open and communications are free and open and travel is free and open, they are very less likely to fight wars. I happen to personally think this is one of the greatest benefits of free trade, that it leads us to policies that direct us away from military confrontation.

war
WHAT IS FREE TRADE?
May 2, 2000    2000 Ron Paul 29:30
Fortunately, in 1994 there was a provision put in the bill that said that any member could bring up a privileged resolution that gives us a chance at least to say is this a good idea to be in the World Trade Organization, or is it not? Now, my guess is that we do not have the majority of the U.S. Congress that thinks it is a bad idea. But I am wondering about the majority of the American people, and I am wondering about the number of groups now that are growing wary of the membership in the World Trade Organization, when you look at what happened in Seattle, as well as demonstrations here in D.C. So there is a growing number of people from various aspects of the political spectrum who are now saying, what does this membership mean to us? Is it good or is it bad? A lot of them are coming down on the side of saying it is bad.

war
WHAT IS FREE TRADE?
May 2, 2000    2000 Ron Paul 29:36
This has not just happened 5 years ago, there has been a gradual erosion of the concept of national sovereignty. It occurred certainly after World War II with the introduction of the United Nations, and now, under current conditions, we do not even ask the Congress to declare war, yet we still fight a lot of wars. We send troops all over the world and we are involved in combat all the time, and our presidents tell us they get the authority from a UN resolution. So we have gradually lost the concept of national sovereignty.

war
WHAT IS FREE TRADE?
May 2, 2000    2000 Ron Paul 29:43
So I think this is important material. I think this is an important subject, a lot more important than just the vote to trade with China. I think we should trade with China. I think we should trade with Cuba. I think we should trade with everybody possible, unless we are at war with them. I do not think we should have sanctions against Iran, Iraq or Libya, and it does not make much sense to me to be struggling and fighting and giving more foreign aid to a country like China, and at the same time we have sanctions on and refuse to trade and talk with Cuba. That does not make a whole lot of sense. Yet those who believe and promote trade with China are the ones who will be strongly objecting to trade with Cuba and these other countries. So I think a little bit more consistency on this might be better for all of us.

war
INTERNATIONAL TRADE
May 23, 2000    2000 Ron Paul 39:3
What is permitted is a low-level continuous trade war, not free trade. The current debate over Chinese trade status totally ignores a much bigger trade problem the world faces, an ocean of fluctuating fiat currencies.

war
INTERNATIONAL TRADE
May 23, 2000    2000 Ron Paul 39:6
The Federal Reserve believes that prosperity causes high prices and rising wages, thus causing it to declare war on a symptom of its own inflationary policy, deliberately forcing an economic slowdown, a sad and silly policy, indeed. The Fed also hopes that higher interest rates will curtail the burgeoning trade deficit and prevent the serious currency crisis that usually results from currency-induced trade imbalances. And of course, the Fed hopes to do all this without a recession or depression.

war
U.S. Membership In The Wprld Trade Organization
June 19, 2000    2000 Ron Paul 44:7
Interestingly enough, in the past, if we dealt with trade matters, they came to the U.S. Congress to change the law; they came to elected representatives to deal with this, and that is the way it should be under the Constitution. Today, though, the effort has to be directed through our world trade representative, our international trade representative, who then goes to bat for our business people at the WTO. So is it any surprise that, for instance, the company of Chiquita Banana, who has these trade wars going on in the trade fights, wants somebody in the administration to fight their battle, and just by coincidence, they have donated $1.5 million in their effort to get influence?

war
World Trade Organization
21 June 2000    2000 Ron Paul 46:12
Indeed, this is a treaty that we are obligated to follow. It is an illegal treaty because it was never ratified by the Senate. Even if it had been, it is not legal because you cannot transfer authority to an outside body. It is the U.S. Congress that has the authority to regulate foreign commerce. Nobody else. We will change our tax law and obey the WTO. And just recently, the European Union has complained to us because we do not tax sales on the Internet, and they are going to the WTO to demand that we change that law; and if they win, we will have to change our law. The other side of the argument being, We don’t have to do it. We don’t have to do it if we don’t want to. But then we are not a good member as we promised to be. Then what does the WTO do? They punish us with punitive sanctions, with tariffs. It is a managed trade war operated by the WTO and done in secrecy, without us having any say about it because it is out of our hands. It is a political event now. You have to have access to the U.S. Trade Representative for your case to be heard. This allows the big money, the big corporations to be heard and the little guy gets ignored.

war
Minding Our Own Business Regarding Colombia Is In The Best Interest Of America
September 6, 2000    2000 Ron Paul 69:1
Mr. Speaker, those of us who warned of the shortcomings of expanding our military presence in Colombia were ignored when funds were appropriated for this purpose earlier this year. We argued at that time that clearly no national security interests were involved; that the Civil War was more than 30 years old, complex with three factions fighting, and no assurance as to who the good guys were; that the drug war was a subterfuge, only an excuse, not a reason, to needlessly expand our involvement in Colombia; and that special interests were really driving our policy: Colombia Oil Reserves owned by American interests, American weapons manufacturers, and American corporations anxious to build infrastructure in Colombia.

war
Minding Our Own Business Regarding Colombia Is In The Best Interest Of America
September 6, 2000    2000 Ron Paul 69:4
This foolhardy effort to settle the Colombian civil war has clearly turned out to be a diplomatic failure. The best evidence of a seriously flawed policy is the departure of capital. Watching money flows gives us a market assessment of policy; and by all indication, our policy spells trouble.

war
Minding Our Own Business Regarding Colombia Is In The Best Interest Of America
September 6, 2000    2000 Ron Paul 69:6
Our policy, unless quickly and thoroughly reversed, will surely force an escalation of the civil war and a dangerous increase in our involvement with both dollars and troops. All this will further heighten the need for drug sales to finance all factions of the civil war. So much for stopping the drug war.

war
FSC Repeal And Extra-Territorial Income Exclusion Act Of 2000
September 12, 2000    2000 Ron Paul 73:2
* There are three reasons to consider voting against this bill. First, it perpetuates an international trade war. Second, this bill is brought to the floor as a consequence of a WTO ruling against the United States. Number three, this bill gives more authority to the President to issue Executive Orders.

war
FSC Repeal And Extra-Territorial Income Exclusion Act Of 2000
September 12, 2000    2000 Ron Paul 73:4
* We are now witnessing trade war protectionism being administered by the World (Government) Trade Organization — the WTO. For two years now we have been involved in an ongoing trade war with Europe and this is just one more step in that fight. With this legislation the U.S. Congress capitulates to the demands of the WTO. The actual reason for this legislation is to answer back to the retaliation of the Europeans for having had a ruling against them in favor of the United States on meat and banana products. The WTO obviously spends more time managing trade wars than it does promoting free trade. This type of legislation demonstrates clearly the WTO is in charge of our trade policy.

war
FSC Repeal And Extra-Territorial Income Exclusion Act Of 2000
September 12, 2000    2000 Ron Paul 73:5
* The Wall Street Journal reported on 9/5/00, ‘After a breakdown of talks last week, a multi billion-dollar trade war is now about certain to erupt between the European union and the U.S. over export tax breaks for U.S. companies, and the first shot will likely be fired just weeks before the U.S. election.’

war
FSC Repeal And Extra-Territorial Income Exclusion Act Of 2000
September 12, 2000    2000 Ron Paul 73:8
* This legislation will perpetuate the trade war and certainly support the policies that have created the chaos of the international trade negotiations as was witnessed in Seattle, Washington.

war
FSC Repeal And Extra-Territorial Income Exclusion Act Of 2000
September 12, 2000    2000 Ron Paul 73:9
* The trade war started two years ago when the United States obtained a favorable WTO ruling and complained that the Europeans refused to import American beef and bananas from American owned companies.

war
FSC Repeal And Extra-Territorial Income Exclusion Act Of 2000
September 12, 2000    2000 Ron Paul 73:10
* The WTO then, in its administration of the trade war, permitted the United States to put on punitive tariffs on over $300 million worth of products coming in to the United States from Europe. This only generated more European anger who then objected by filing against the United States claiming the Foreign Sales Corporation tax benefit of four billion dollars to our corporations was ‘a subsidy’.

war
FSC Repeal And Extra-Territorial Income Exclusion Act Of 2000
September 12, 2000    2000 Ron Paul 73:13
* H.R. 4986 will only anger the European Union and accelerate the trade war. Most likely within two months the WTO will give permission for the Europeans to place punitive tariffs on hundreds of

war
FSC Repeal And Extra-Territorial Income Exclusion Act Of 2000
September 12, 2000    2000 Ron Paul 73:14
* millions of dollars of U.S. exports. These trade problems will only worsen if the world slips into a recession when protectionist sentiments are strongest. Also, since currency fluctuations by their very nature stimulate trade wars, this problem will continue with the very significant weakness of the EURO.

war
FSC Repeal And Extra-Territorial Income Exclusion Act Of 2000
September 12, 2000    2000 Ron Paul 73:17
* In addition to the danger of a recession and a continual problem with currency fluctuation, there are also other problems that will surely aggravate this growing trade war. The Europeans have already complained and have threatened to file suit in the WTO against the Americans for selling software products over the Internet. Europeans tax their Internet sales and are able to get their products much cheaper when bought from the United States thus penalizing European countries. Since the goal is to manage things in a so-called equitable manner the WTO very likely could rule against the United States and force a tax on our international Internet sales.

war
FSC Repeal And Extra-Territorial Income Exclusion Act Of 2000
September 12, 2000    2000 Ron Paul 73:19
* The British also have refused to allow any additional American flights into London. In the old days the British decided these problems, under the WTO the United States will surely file suit and try to get a favorable ruling in this area thus ratchening up the trade war.

war
AMERICA’S ROLE IN THE UNITED NATIONS
September 18, 2000    2000 Ron Paul 77:2
On the one hand, some proposed that once the charter of the United States was ratified, the President of the United States would act independently of Congress pursuant to his executive prerogatives to conduct the foreign affairs of the Nation. Others insisted, however, that the Congress played a major role of defining foreign policy, especially because that policy implicated the power to declare war, a subject reserved strictly to Congress by Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution.

war
AMERICA’S ROLE IN THE UNITED NATIONS
September 18, 2000    2000 Ron Paul 77:5
This transfer of power from Congress to the United Nations has not, however, been limited to the power to make war. Increasingly, Presidents are using the U.N. not only to implement foreign policy in pursuit of international peace, but also domestic policy in pursuit of international, environmental, economic, education, social welfare and human rights policy, both in derogation of the legislative prerogatives of Congress and of the 50 State legislatures, and further in derogation of the rights of the American people to constitute their own civil order.

war
AMERICA’S ROLE IN THE UNITED NATIONS
September 18, 2000    2000 Ron Paul 77:29
While no previous United Nations’ secretary general has been so bold, Annan’s proclamation of universal jurisdiction over ‘human rights and fundamental freedoms’ simply reflects the preamble of the Charter of the United Nations which contemplated a future in which the United Nations operates in perpetuity ‘to save succeeding generations from the scourge of ware . . . to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights . . . to establish conditions under which justice . . . can be maintained, and to promote social progress and between standards of life in larger freedom.’ Such lofty goals and objectives are comparable to those found in the preamble to the Constitution of the United States of America: ‘to . . . establish Justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare and secure the Blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity . . .’

war
END-OF-SESSION ISSUES
October 11, 2000    2000 Ron Paul 85:3
American children deserve nothing less than the best educational opportunities, not warmed-over versions of the disastrous educational policies of the past. That is why I introduced H.R. 935, the Family Education Freedom Act. This bill would give parents an inflation-adjusted $3,000 per annum tax credit, per child for educational expenses. The credit applies to those in public, private, parochial, or home schooling.

war
WARNING ABOUT FOREIGN POLICY AND MONETARY POLICY
October 12, 2000    2000 Ron Paul 86:2
Mr. Speaker, over the last 3 years to 4 years, I have come to the floor on numerous occasions trying to sound a warning about both our foreign policy and our monetary policy. Today our monetary policy and our foreign policy have clashed. We see now that we face serious problems, not only in the Middle East, but on our financial markets.

war
THREATS TO FINANCIAL FREEDOM
October 19, 2000    2000 Ron Paul 88:14
For the last 20 years the policies adopted by the United States and allied governments have constituted a stealth war against wealth and against financial privacy. While the free flow of capital is extolled as appropriate and essential, the governments of major nations have turned upside down the traditional role of banks and banking. As a child I was made to believe that the people you dealt with at your bank and other financial institutions were fiduciaries to whom you could entrust your money.

war
THREATS TO FINANCIAL FREEDOM
October 19, 2000    2000 Ron Paul 88:16
The genesis of this ‘wealth=crime’ policy can be found in that infamous political and moral failure, the so-called ‘war on drugs.’ One of the primary weapons of this ill-begotten war has been civil forfeiture, where police seize cash and property based on rumor or hearsay. In 80% of the cases, the owner is never charged with any crime, but usually the police keep the loot. Many police have long since turned their attention away from drugs, and instead pursue the cash and property they use to lard their budgets. Thankfully, my former colleague, Henry Hyde of Illinois, led the successful legislative battle for some much needed civil forfeiture reform which recently became law.

war
THREATS TO FINANCIAL FREEDOM
October 19, 2000    2000 Ron Paul 88:17
As part of the drug war that progressed and expanded (but is never victorious), the catch all crime of ‘money laundering’ was invented: an all purpose federal prosecutors’ dream. The anti-money laundering statutes that have grown like a malignancy. Charges of money laundering now routinely are shown in with almost every possible criminal indictment, often as a bargaining chip and/or a means to confiscate the wealth of the accused even before trial. Try hiring a good defense attorney when your bank account has been frozen.

war
THREATS TO FINANCIAL FREEDOM
October 19, 2000    2000 Ron Paul 88:18
Laws enacted under the banner of the war on drugs intentionally have forced bankers to become spies for the federal financial police. The bankers’ primary allegiance now is not to customers or clients, but to the government.

war
CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 2615, CERTIFIED DEVELOPMENT COMPANY PROGRAM IMPROVEMENTS ACT OF 2000
October 26, 2000    2000 Ron Paul 92:11
* This measure clearly demonstrates how our membership in the WTO undermines our national sovereignty. I have warned this body that the WTO does not promote true free trade, but rather enforces politically influenced ‘managed trade.’ I warned this body that our agreement to abide by WTO rulings would force us to change our domestic laws. I warned this body that our participation in the WTO was unconstitutional. Yet Members scoffed at this idea. Members of the Ways and Means committee said it was ‘unthinkable’ that the U.S. Congress would change our nation’s laws because of an order by the WTO. We were told that we had to join or else we would lose the international ‘trade wars.’ Today we see our sovereignty clearly undermined, and at the same time we stand on the brink of a retaliatory trade war by the EU. So the WTO has given us the worst of all worlds.

war
ECONOMIC PROBLEMS AHEAD
November 13, 2000    2000 Ron Paul 93:6
* We have already seen signs of economic troubles ahead . Although the Fed plans for only a slight slow down and a so-called ‘soft landing,’ the correction from the monetary mischief of the last 10 years has already been determined. Although the dollar currently remains strong, because other currencies are so weak, there is a limitation on how long we can create new dollars without them being devalued. A weaker dollar will surely come in our not too distant future. Our huge current account deficit and trade imbalances warn us of that day.

war
FSC Repeal and Extraterritorial Income Exclusion Act of 2000
14 November 2000    2000 Ron Paul 94:2
Setting aside the aforementioned false choice of globalism or oppression by taxation, there are three reasons to consider voting against this bill. First, it perpetuates an international trade war. Second, this bill is brought to the floor as a consequence of a WTO ruling against the United States. Number three, this bill gives more authority to the President to issue Executive Orders.

war
FSC Repeal and Extraterritorial Income Exclusion Act of 2000
14 November 2000    2000 Ron Paul 94:4
We are now witnessing trade war protectionism being administered by the World (Government) Trade Organization—the WTO. For two years now we have been involved in an ongoing trade war with Europe and this is just one more step in that fight. With this legislation the U.S. Congress capitulates to the demands of the WTO. The actual reason for this legislation is to answer back to the retaliation of the Europeans for having had a ruling against them in favor of the United States on meat and banana products. The WTO obviously spends more time managing trade wars than it does promoting free trade. This type of legislation demonstrates clearly the WTO is in charge of our trade policy.

war
FSC Repeal and Extraterritorial Income Exclusion Act of 2000
14 November 2000    2000 Ron Paul 94:5
The Wall Street Journal reported on 9/5/00, “After a breakdown of talks last week, a multibillion- dollar trade war is now about certain to erupt between the European Union and the U.S. over export tax breaks for U.S. companies, and the first shot will likely be fired just weeks before the U.S. election.”

war
FSC Repeal and Extraterritorial Income Exclusion Act of 2000
14 November 2000    2000 Ron Paul 94:8
This legislation will perpetuate the trade war and certainly support the policies that have created the chaos of the international trade negotiations as was witnessed in Seattle, Washington.

war
FSC Repeal and Extraterritorial Income Exclusion Act of 2000
14 November 2000    2000 Ron Paul 94:9
The trade war started two years ago when the United States obtained a favorable WTO ruling and complained that the Europeans refused to import American beef and bananas from American owned companies.

war
FSC Repeal and Extraterritorial Income Exclusion Act of 2000
14 November 2000    2000 Ron Paul 94:10
The WTO then, in its administration of the trade war, permitted the United States to put on punitive tariffs on over $300 million worth of products coming into the United States from Europe. This only generated more European anger who then objected by filing against the United States claiming the Foreign Sales Corporation tax benefit of four billion dollars to our corporations was “a subsidy.”

war
FSC Repeal and Extraterritorial Income Exclusion Act of 2000
14 November 2000    2000 Ron Paul 94:12
H.R. 4986 will only anger the European Union and accelerate the trade war. Most likely within two months, the WTO will give permission for the Europeans to place punitive tariffs on hundreds of millions of dollars of U.S. exports. These trade problems will only worsen if the world slips into a recession when protectionist sentiments are strongest. Also, since currency fluctuations by their very nature stimulate trade wars, this problem will continue with the very significant weakness of the EURO.

war
FSC Repeal and Extraterritorial Income Exclusion Act of 2000
14 November 2000    2000 Ron Paul 94:15
In addition to the danger of a recession and a continual problem with currency fluctuation, there are also other problems that will surely aggravate this growing trade war. The Europeans have already complained and have threatened to file suit in the WTO against the Americans for selling software products over the Internet. Europeans tax their Internet sales and are able to get their products much cheaper when bought from the United States thus penalizing European countries. Since the goal is to manage things in a so-called equitable manner the WTO very likely could rule against the United States and force a tax on our international Internet sales.

war
FSC Repeal and Extraterritorial Income Exclusion Act of 2000
14 November 2000    2000 Ron Paul 94:17
The British also have refused to allow any additional American flights into London. In the old days the British decided these problems, under the WTO the United States will surely file suit and try to get a favorable ruling in this area thus ratcheting up the trade war.

war
OUR FOOLISH WAR IN THE MIDDLE EAST
November 15, 2000    2000 Ron Paul 95:1
* The West has been at war with the Muslim world for over a thousand years. In this century, the British led the charge prior to World War II. Since that time it has been the United States. Although the British remain close allies of ours in intimidating the Muslim world, it is the military strength of the United States that assumes the burden of responsibility for the policy. It is justified by claiming a right and need to protect “our” oil.

war
OUR FOOLISH WAR IN THE MIDDLE EAST
November 15, 2000    2000 Ron Paul 95:3
* If the U.S. understood the history of this region it would see the total folly of anchoring a war vessel in an enemy port. This lack of understanding of history and respect for religious beliefs of the area, in combination with our foreign policy of aggression and empire building, leads to arrogant foreign military intervention, not only in the Middle East, but around the world as well.

war
OUR FOOLISH WAR IN THE MIDDLE EAST
November 15, 2000    2000 Ron Paul 95:5
* To put this in a proper perspective, consider how Americans, or especially Texans, would feel if the Gulf of Mexico were patrolled and protected by warships of a foreign power, say the Russians. What would we then think if that same power patrolling the Gulf built air bases in Texas and Florida with our government=s complicity with the argument that this was necessary to protect “their” oil and with our government’s complicity? This would anger many Americans and this anger would be directed to both the foreign occupiers of our territorial waters and our own government that permitted it. Yet this is exactly what has been happening in the Persian Gulf region. For religious, historic and sovereignty reasons, the Muslim people harbor great resentment toward us.

war
OUR FOOLISH WAR IN THE MIDDLE EAST
November 15, 2000    2000 Ron Paul 95:7
* The Cole disaster was needless and preventable. The loss of this vessel and the senseless deaths of 17 Americans were a consequence of a policy that has led to a lack of military readiness for our country, while increasing the danger to all Americans and in particular our servicemen in that region. It’s positively amazing that with a military budget of $300 billion we do not have the ability to protect ourselves against a rubber raft, which destroyed a $1 billion vessel. Our sentries on duty had rifles without bullets and were prohibited from firing on any enemy targets. This policy is absurd if not insane. It is obvious that our navy lacks the military intelligence to warn and prevent such an event. It is incapable even of investigating the incident, since the FBI was required to try to figure out what happened. This further intrusion has only served to increase the resentment of the people of Yemen toward all Americans.

war
OUR FOOLISH WAR IN THE MIDDLE EAST
November 15, 2000    2000 Ron Paul 95:14
* Our many failures in the last fifty years should prompt us to reassess our entire foreign policy of interventionism. The notion that since we are the only superpower left we have an obligation to tell everybody else how to live should come an end. Our failure in Korea, Vietnam, Somalia, and the Middle East, and our failure yet come to in Bosnia and Kosovo should alert all Americans to this great danger. But no, we instead continue to expand our intervention by further involving ourselves in yet another sovereign nation. This time it’s Columbia. By sending more weapons into the region we continue to stir up this 30-year civil conflict. And just recently this conflict has spilled over into Venezuela, a major force in South America due to its oil reserves. The Foreign Minister of Venezuela, angered by U.S. actions, recently warned that “any ship or boat which enters the Gulf of Venezuela, of whatever nationality it may be, will be expelled.” Our intervention in many of these regions, and especially in South America, has been done in the name of the drug war. But the truth is it’s serving the interests of the companies who own the oil rights in this region, as well as those who produce the weapons that get sent into these regions.

war
ECONOMIC UPDATE
December 4, 2000    2000 Ron Paul 97:28
* Congress definitely should be concerned about these matters. Budgetary planning will get more difficult as the revenues spiral downward and spending does the opposite. Interest on the national debt will continue and will rise as interest rates rise. The weak dollar, lower stock markets and inflation can affect every fixed income citizen, especially the Social Security beneficiaries. We can expect the World Trade Organization=s managed trade war will actually get much worse under these conditions. Military conflict is not out of the question under the precarious conditions that are developing. Oil supplies are obviously not secure, as we have already seen the run up of prices to dangerously high levels.

war
ECONOMIC UPDATE
December 4, 2000    2000 Ron Paul 97:33
* A major financial crisis is possible since the dollar is the reserve currency of the world, held in central banks as if it were gold itself. The current account deficit for the United States continues to deteriorate, warning us of danger ahead. Our foreign debt of $1.7 trillion continues to grow rapidly and it will eventually have to be paid.

war
CHALLENGE TO AMERICA: A CURRENT ASSESSMENT OF OUR REPUBLIC —
February 07, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 7:37
My concerns are threefold: the health of the economy, the potential for war, and the coming social discord. If our problems are ignored, they will further undermine the civil liberties of all Americans. The next decade will be a great challenge to all Americans.

war
CHALLENGE TO AMERICA: A CURRENT ASSESSMENT OF OUR REPUBLIC —
February 07, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 7:39
The booming economy of the last six years has come to an end. The only question remaining is how bad the slump will be. Although many economists expressed surprise at the sudden and serious shift in sentiment, others have been warning of its inevitability. Boom times built on central-bank credit creation always end in recession or depression. But central planners, being extremely optimistic, hope that this time it will be different; that a new era has arrived.

war
CHALLENGE TO AMERICA: A CURRENT ASSESSMENT OF OUR REPUBLIC —
February 07, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 7:40
For several years, we’ve heard the endless nostrum of a technology and productivity-driven new paradigm that would make the excesses of the 1990s permanent and real. Arguments that productivity increases made the grand prosperity of the last six years possible were accepted as conventional wisdom, although sound free-market analysts warned otherwise. We are now witnessing an economic downturn that will, in all likelihood, be quite serious. If our economic planners pursue the wrong course, they will surely make it much worse and prolong the recovery.

war
CHALLENGE TO AMERICA: A CURRENT ASSESSMENT OF OUR REPUBLIC —
February 07, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 7:49
There is one remnant of the Bretton Woods gold-exchange standard that has aided US dominance over the past 30 years. Gold was once the reserve all central banks held to back up their currencies. After World War II, the world central banks were satisfied to hold dollars, still considered to be as good as gold since internationally the dollar could still be exchanged for gold at $35 an ounce. When the system broke down in 1971, and we defaulted on our promises to pay in gold, chaos broke out. By default the dollar maintained its status as the reserve currency of the world.

war
CHALLENGE TO AMERICA: A CURRENT ASSESSMENT OF OUR REPUBLIC —
February 07, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 7:74
We must reassess the responsibility Congress has in maintaining a sound monetary system. In the 19th Century, the constitutionality of a central bank was questioned and challenged. Not until 1913 were the advocates of a strong federalist system able to foist a powerful central bank on us, while destroying the gold standard. This banking system, which now serves as the financial arm of Congress, has chosen to pursue massive welfare spending and a foreign policy that has caused us to be at war for much of the 20th Century.

war
CHALLENGE TO AMERICA: A CURRENT ASSESSMENT OF OUR REPUBLIC —
February 07, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 7:76
But the day will come when we will have no choice but to question the current system. Yes, the FED does help to finance the welfare state. Yes, the FED does come to the rescue when funds are needed to fight wars and for us to pay the cost of maintaining our empire. Yes, the Fed is able to stimulate the economy and help create what appear to be good times. But it’s all built on an illusion. Wealth cannot come from a printing press. Empires crumble and a price is eventually paid for arrogance toward others. And booms inevitably turn into busts.

war
CHALLENGE TO AMERICA: A CURRENT ASSESSMENT OF OUR REPUBLIC —
February 07, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 7:79
Potential for War

war
CHALLENGE TO AMERICA: A CURRENT ASSESSMENT OF OUR REPUBLIC —
February 07, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 7:80
Foreign military interventionism, a policy the US has followed for over 100 years, encourages war and undermines peace. Even with the good intentions of many who support this policy, it serves the interests of powerful commercial entities. Perpetual conflicts stimulate military spending. Minimal and small wars too often get out of control and cause more tragedy than originally anticipated. Small wars like the Persian Gulf War are more easily tolerated, but the foolishness of an out-of-control war like Vietnam is met with resistance from a justifiably aroused nation. But both types of conflicts result from the same flawed foreign policy of foreign interventionism. Both types of conflicts can be prevented.

war
CHALLENGE TO AMERICA: A CURRENT ASSESSMENT OF OUR REPUBLIC —
February 07, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 7:81
National security is usually cited to justify our foreign involvement, but this excuse distracts from the real reason we venture so far from home. Influential commercial interests dictate policy of when and where we go. Persian Gulf oil obviously got more attention than genocide in Rwanda. If one were truly concerned about our security and enhancing peace, one would always opt for a less militarist policy. It’s not a coincidence that US territory and US citizens are the most vulnerable in the world to terrorist attacks. Escalation of the war on terrorism and not understanding its cause is a dangerous temptation.

war
CHALLENGE TO AMERICA: A CURRENT ASSESSMENT OF OUR REPUBLIC —
February 07, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 7:82
Not only does foreign interventionism undermine chances for peace and prosperity, it undermines personal liberty. War and preparing for war must always be undertaken at someone’s expense. Someone must pay the bills with higher taxes, and someone has to be available to pay with their lives. It’s never the political and industrial leaders who promote the policy who pay. They are the ones who reap the benefits, while at the same time arguing for the policy they claim is designed to protect freedom and prosperity for the very ones being victimized.

war
CHALLENGE TO AMERICA: A CURRENT ASSESSMENT OF OUR REPUBLIC —
February 07, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 7:86
Over the past 50 years, Congress has allowed our presidents to usurp the prerogatives the Constitution explicitly gave only to the Congress. The term foreign policy is never mentioned in the Constitution and it was never intended to be monopolized by the president. Going to war was to be strictly a legislative function, not an Executive one.

war
CHALLENGE TO AMERICA: A CURRENT ASSESSMENT OF OUR REPUBLIC —
February 07, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 7:88
US policy over the past 50 years has led to endless illegal military interventions, from Korea to our ongoing war with Iraq and military occupations in the Balkans. Many Americans have died and many others have been wounded or injured or have been forgotten. Numerous innocent victims living in foreign lands have died, as well, from the bombing and blockades we have imposed. They have been people with whom we have had no fight but who were trapped between the bad policy of their own leaders and our eagerness to demonstrate our prowess to the world. Over 500,000 Iraqi children have reportedly died as a consequence of our bombing and denying food and medicine by our embargo.

war
CHALLENGE TO AMERICA: A CURRENT ASSESSMENT OF OUR REPUBLIC —
February 07, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 7:89
For over 50 years, there has been a precise move toward one-world government at the expense of our own sovereignty. Our presidents claim that authority to wage war can come from the United Nations or NATO resolutions, in contradiction of our Constitution and everything our Founding Fathers believed. US troops are now required to serve under foreign commanders and wear UN insignias. Refusal to do so prompts a court martial.

war
CHALLENGE TO AMERICA: A CURRENT ASSESSMENT OF OUR REPUBLIC —
February 07, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 7:91
We already accept the WTO and its international trade court. Trade wars are fought with this court’s supervision, and we are only too ready to rewrite our tax laws as the WTO dictates. The only portion of the major tax bill at the end of the last Congress to be rushed through for the President’s signature was the Foreign Sales Corporation changes dictated to us by the WTO.

war
CHALLENGE TO AMERICA: A CURRENT ASSESSMENT OF OUR REPUBLIC —
February 07, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 7:98
The two areas in the world that currently present the greatest danger to the United States are Colombia and the Middle East. For decades, we have been engulfed in the ancient wars of the Middle East by subsidizing and supporting both sides. This policy is destined to fail. We are in great danger of becoming involved in a vicious war for oil, as well as being drawn into a religious war that will not end in our lifetime. The potential for war in this region is great, and the next one could make the Persian Gulf War look small. Only a reassessment of our entire policy will keep us from being involved in a needless and dangerous war in this region.

war
CHALLENGE TO AMERICA: A CURRENT ASSESSMENT OF OUR REPUBLIC —
February 07, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 7:100
Our involvement in Colombia could easily escalate into a regional war. For over 100 years, we have been involved in the affairs of Central America, but the recent escalation of our presence in Colombia is inviting trouble for us.

war
CHALLENGE TO AMERICA: A CURRENT ASSESSMENT OF OUR REPUBLIC —
February 07, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 7:101
Although the justification for our enhanced presence is the War on Drugs, protecting US oil interests and selling helicopters are the real reasons for last years’ $1.3 billion emergency funding. Already neighboring countries have expressed concern about our presence in Colombia. The US policymakers gave their usual response by promising more money and support to the neighboring countries that feel threatened.

war
CHALLENGE TO AMERICA: A CURRENT ASSESSMENT OF OUR REPUBLIC —
February 07, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 7:102
Venezuela, rich in oil, is quite nervous about our enhanced presence in the region. Their foreign minister stated that if any of our ships enter the Gulf of Venezuela they will be expelled . This statement was prompted by an overly aggressive US Coast Guard vessel’s intrusion into Venezuelan territorial waters on a drug expedition. I know of no one who believes this expanded and insane drug war will do anything to dampen drug usage in the United States. Yet it will cost us plenty. Too bad our political leaders cannot take a hint. The war effort in Colombia is small now, but under current conditions it will surely escalate. This is a 30-year-old civil war being fought in the jungles of South America. We are unwelcome by many, and we ought to have enough sense to stay out of it. Recently new policy has led to the spraying of herbicides to destroy the coca fields. It’s already been reported that the legal crops in nearby fields have been destroyed as well. This is no way to win friends around the world.

war
CHALLENGE TO AMERICA: A CURRENT ASSESSMENT OF OUR REPUBLIC —
February 07, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 7:103
There are many other areas of the world where we ought to take a second look, and then come home. Instead of bullying the European Union for wanting to have their own rapid deployment force, we should praise them and bring our troops home. World War II has been over for 55 years.

war
CHALLENGE TO AMERICA: A CURRENT ASSESSMENT OF OUR REPUBLIC —
February 07, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 7:119
The ill-conceived drug war of the past 30 years has caused great harm to our society. It has undermined privacy and challenged the constitutional rights of all our citizens. The accelerated attack on drug usage since the early 1970s has not resulted in any material benefit. Over $300 billion has been spent on this war, and we are all less free and poorer because of it. Civil liberties are sacrificed in all wars, both domestic and foreign. It’s clear that, even if it were a legitimate function for government to curtail drug usage, eliminating bad habits through government regulation is not achievable. Like so much else that government tries to do, the harm done is not always evenly distributed. Some groups suffer more than others, further compounding the problem by causing dissention and distrust.

war
CHALLENGE TO AMERICA: A CURRENT ASSESSMENT OF OUR REPUBLIC —
February 07, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 7:121
There are ten times the number of prisoners for drug offenses than there were in 1980, and 80% of the drug arrests are for non-violent possession. In spite of all the money spent and energy wasted, drug usage continues at a record pace. Someday we must wake up and realize the federal drug war is a farce. It has failed and we must change our approach.

war
CHALLENGE TO AMERICA: A CURRENT ASSESSMENT OF OUR REPUBLIC —
February 07, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 7:122
As bad as drug addiction is and the harm it causes, it is miniscule compared to the dollar cost, the loss of liberty, and social conflict that results from our ill-advised drug war.

war
CHALLENGE TO AMERICA: A CURRENT ASSESSMENT OF OUR REPUBLIC —
February 07, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 7:123
Mandatory drug sentencing laws have done a great deal of harm by limiting the discretion that judges could use in sentencing victims in the drug war. Congress should repeal or change these laws, just as we found it beneficial to modify seizure and forfeiture laws two years ago.

war
CHALLENGE TO AMERICA: A CURRENT ASSESSMENT OF OUR REPUBLIC —
February 07, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 7:125
There are no documented benefits from the drug war. Even if a reduction in drug usage could have been achieved, the cost in dollars and loss of liberty would never have justified it. But we don’t have that to deal with, since drug usage continues to get worse; in addition we have all the problems associated with the drug war.

war
CHALLENGE TO AMERICA: A CURRENT ASSESSMENT OF OUR REPUBLIC —
February 07, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 7:126
The effort to diminish the use of drugs and to improve the personal habits of some of our citizens has been the excuse to undermine our freedoms. Ironically we spend hundreds of billions of dollars waging this dangerous war on drugs while government educational policies promote a huge and dangerous over-usage of Ritalin.

war
CHALLENGE TO AMERICA: A CURRENT ASSESSMENT OF OUR REPUBLIC —
February 07, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 7:127
Seizure and forfeiture laws, clearly in violation of the Constitution, have served as a terrible incentive for many police departments to raise money for law-enforcement projects outside the normal budgeting process. Nationalizing the police force for various reasons is a trend that should frighten all Americans. The drug war has been the most important factor in this trend.

war
CHALLENGE TO AMERICA: A CURRENT ASSESSMENT OF OUR REPUBLIC —
February 07, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 7:130
An interventionist government, by its nature, uses any excuse to know what the people are doing. Drug laws are used to enhance the IRS agent’s ability to collect every dime owed the government. These laws are used to pressure Congress to spend more dollars for foreign military operations in places such as Colombia. Artificially high drug prices allow government to clandestinely participate in the drug trade to raise funds to fight the secret controversial wars with off-budget funding. Both our friends and foes depend on the drug war at times for revenue to pursue their causes, which frequently are the same as ours.

war
CHALLENGE TO AMERICA: A CURRENT ASSESSMENT OF OUR REPUBLIC —
February 07, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 7:132
The notion that the Federal government has an obligation to protect us from ourselves drives the drug war. But this idea also drives the do-gooders in Washington to involve themselves in every aspect of our lives. American citizens cannot move without being constantly reminded by consumer advocates, environmentalists, safety experts, and bureaucratic busybodies what they can or cannot do.

war
CHALLENGE TO AMERICA: A CURRENT ASSESSMENT OF OUR REPUBLIC —
February 07, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 7:155
I have expressed concern that our policies are prone to lead to war, economic weakness, and social discord. Understanding the cause of these problems is crucial to finding a solution. If we opt for more government benevolence and meddling in our lives, along with more military adventurism, we have to expect an even greater attack on the civil liberties of all Americans, both rich and poor.

war
POTENTIAL FOR WAR
February 08, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 10:3
Mr. Speaker, foreign military interventionism, a policy the U.S. has followed for over 100 years, encourages war and undermines peace. Even with the good intentions of many who support this policy, it serves the interests of powerful commercial entities.

war
POTENTIAL FOR WAR
February 08, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 10:4
Perpetual conflicts stimulate military spending. Minimal and small wars too often get out of control and cause more tragedy than originally anticipated. Small wars, like the Persian Gulf War, are more easily tolerated, but the foolishness of an out of-control war like Vietnam is met with resistance from a justifiably aroused Nation.

war
POTENTIAL FOR WAR
February 08, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 10:7
Escalation of the war on terrorism and not understanding its causes is a dangerous temptation. Not only does foreign interventionism undermine chances for peace and prosperity, it undermines personal liberty. War and preparing for war must always be undertaken at someone’s expense. Someone must pay the bills with higher taxes, and someone has to be available to pay with their lives.

war
POTENTIAL FOR WAR
February 08, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 10:12
Over the past 50 years, Congress has allowed our Presidents to usurp the prerogatives the Constitution explicitly gave only to the Congress. The term “foreign policy” is never mentioned in the Constitution, and it was never intended to be monopolized by the President. Going to war was to be strictly a legislative function, not an executive one. Operating foreign policy by executive orders and invoking unratified treaties is a slap in the face to the rule of law and our republican form of government. But that is the way it is currently being done.

war
POTENTIAL FOR WAR
February 08, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 10:13
U.S. policy over the past 50 years has led to endless illegal military interventions, from Korea to our ongoing war with Iraq and military occupation in the Balkans. Many Americans have died and many others have been wounded or injured or have just simply been forgotten.

war
POTENTIAL FOR WAR
February 08, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 10:15
For over 50 years, there has been a precise move towards one-world government at the expense of our own sovereignty. Our Presidents claim that our authority to wage wars come from the United Nations or NATO resolution, in contradiction to our Constitution and everything our Founding Fathers believed.

war
POTENTIAL FOR WAR
February 08, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 10:18
Presidents have, by executive orders, been willing to follow unratified treaties in the past. This is a very dangerous precedent. We already accept the international trade court, the WTO. Trade wars are fought with the court’s supervision, and we are only too ready to rewrite our tax laws as the WTO dictates.

war
POTENTIAL FOR WAR
February 08, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 10:28
The two areas in the world that currently present the greatest danger to the United States are Colombia and the Middle East. For decades we have been engulfed in the ancient wars of the Middle East by subsidizing and supporting both sides. This policy is destined to fail. We are in great danger of becoming involved in a vicious war for oil, as well as being drawn into a religious war that will not end in our lifetime.

war
POTENTIAL FOR WAR
February 08, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 10:29
The potential for war in this region is great, and the next one could make the Persian Gulf War look small. Only a reassessment of our entire policy will keep us from being involved in a needless and dangerous war in this region.

war
POTENTIAL FOR WAR
February 08, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 10:31
Our involvement in Colombia could easily escalate into a regional war. For over 100 years, we have been involved in the affairs of Central America, but the recent escalation of our presence in Colombia is inviting trouble for us. Although the justification for our enhanced presence is the war on drugs, protecting U.S. oil interests and selling helicopters are the real reasons for the last year’s $1.3 billion emergency funding.

war
POTENTIAL FOR WAR
February 08, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 10:33
Venezuela, rich in oil, is quite nervous about our enhanced presence in the region. Their foreign minister stated that if any of our ships enter the Gulf of Venezuela, they will be expelled. This statement was prompted by an overly aggressive U.S. Coast Guard vessel intrusion into Venezuela’s territorial waters on a drug expedition. I know of no one who believes this expanded and insane drug war will do anything to dampen drug usage in the United States, yet it will cost us plenty.

war
POTENTIAL FOR WAR
February 08, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 10:34
Too bad our political leaders cannot take a hint. The war effort in Colombia is small now, but under current conditions, it will surely escalate. This is a 30-year-old civil war being fought in the jungles of South America. We are unwelcome by many, and we ought to have enough sense to stay out of it.

war
POTENTIAL FOR WAR
February 08, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 10:37
World War II has been over for 55 years. It is time we look at Korea and ask why we have to broker, with the use of American dollars and American soldiers, the final settlement between North and South Korea. Taiwan and China are now trading and investing in each other’s country. Travel restrictions have been recently liberalized. It is time for us to let the two of them settle their border dispute.

war
POTENTIAL FOR WAR
February 08, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 10:54
The ill-conceived drug war of the past 30 years has caused great harm to our society. It has undermined privacy and challenged the constitutional rights of all our citizens. The accelerated attack on drug usage seen since the early 1970s has not resulted in any material benefit. Over $300 billion has been spent on this war, and we are less free and poorer because of it. Civil liberties are sacrificed in all wars, both domestic and foreign.

war
POTENTIAL FOR WAR
February 08, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 10:59
Some day we must wake up and realize the Federal drug war is a farce, it has failed, and we must change our approach.

war
POTENTIAL FOR WAR
February 08, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 10:60
As bad as drug addiction is and the harm it causes, it is minuscule compared to the dollar cost, the loss of liberty and social conflict that results from our ill-advised drug war.

war
POTENTIAL FOR WAR
February 08, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 10:61
Mandatory drug sentencing have done a great deal of harm by limiting the discretion that judges could use in sentencing victims in this drug war. Congress should repeal or change these laws just as we found it beneficial to modify seizure and for forfeiture laws 2 years ago. The drug laws, I am sure, were never meant to be discriminatory. Yet they are.

war
POTENTIAL FOR WAR
February 08, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 10:64
There are no documented benefits from the drug war. Even if reduction in drug usage could have been achieved, the cost in dollars and loss of liberty would never have justified it. But we do not have that to deal with since drug usage continues to get worse.

war
POTENTIAL FOR WAR
February 08, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 10:65
In addition, we have all the problems associated with the drug war. The effort to diminish the use of drugs and to improve the personal habits of some of our citizens has been the excuse to undermine our freedoms.

war
POTENTIAL FOR WAR
February 08, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 10:66
Ironically, we spend hundreds of billions of dollars waging this dangerous war on drugs while Government educational policies promote a huge and dangerous overusage of Ritalin. This makes no sense whatsoever.

war
POTENTIAL FOR WAR
February 08, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 10:67
Seizure and forfeiture laws, clearly in violation of the Constitution, have served as a terrible incentive for many police departments to raise money for law enforcement projects outside the normal budgeting process. Nationalizing the police force for various reasons is a trend that should frighten all Americans. The drug war has been the most important factor in this trend.

war
POTENTIAL FOR WAR
February 08, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 10:71
An interventionist government, by its nature, uses any excuse to know what the people are doing. Drug laws are used to enhance the IRS agent’s ability to collect every dime owed the government. These laws are used to pressure Congress to use more dollars for foreign military operations in places, such as Colombia. Artificially high drug prices allow governments to clandestinely participate in the drug trade to raise funds to fight the secret controversial wars with off-budget funding. Both our friends and foes depend on the drug war at times for revenue to pursue their causes, which frequently are the same as ours.

war
POTENTIAL FOR WAR
February 08, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 10:73
The notion that the Federal Government has an obligation to protect us from ourselves drives the drug war. But this idea also drives the do-gooders in Washington to involve themselves in every aspect of our lives.

war
POTENTIAL FOR WAR
February 08, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 10:100
I have expressed concern that our policies are prone to lead to war, economic weakness, and social discord. Understanding the cause of these problems is crucial to finding a solution. If we opt for more government benevolence and meddling in our lives, along with more military adventurism, we have to expect an even greater attack on the civil liberties of all Americans, both rich and poor.

war
Questions for Secretary of State Colin Powell before the House Committee on International Relations
March 8, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 17:2
1. On the topic of the International Criminal Court, I have two questions. I am pleased that the administration, as well as the Chairman of this Committee, have spoken against the ICC treaty as an infringement upon U.S. sovereignty. As a policy matter, can you explain why the administration has not spoken similarly against the WTO, the International War Crimes Tribunal, or the idea of fighting wars based on UN or NATO resolutions and why these instrumentalities are any less threatening to our sovereignty? Also on the ICC topic, if the administration is not going to pursue ratification of the treaty, will you support my resolution, H Con Res 23, calling on the President to declare to all nations that the United States does not assent to the treaty and that the signature of former President Clinton should not be construed to mean otherwise?

war
Questions for Secretary of State Colin Powell before the House Committee on International Relations
March 8, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 17:3
2 . Since World War II, each of our Presidents have engaged in wars — both big and small, from Korea to the continued bombing of Iraq — without an explicit declaration of war from Congress. Yet, the Constitution clearly vests the decision to go to war (as opposed to its execution by the commander-in chief, once declared), with the Congress. If, however, the “war decision” is allowed to come from Presidential directives or UN resolutions, of what value to the American people is the Constitutional constraint upon a President who would otherwise wage war without Congressional approval? Do you believe the War Powers Resolution is unconstitutional? If so, why? If not, why not?

war
Questions for Secretary of State Colin Powell before the House Committee on International Relations
March 8, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 17:6
5. Is not the continued bombing of Iraq an act of war? Where does the administration get its authority to pursue this war? Is this policy not in violation of our Constitution that says only Congress can declare war? There is not even a UN resolution calling for the US-British imposed no-fly zone over Iraq. Our allies have almost all deserted us on our policy toward Iraq. Is it not time to talk to the Iraqis? We talked to the Soviets at the height of the Cold War, surely we can do the same with Iraq today. We trade with and subsidize China and we talk to the Iranians, surely we can trade with Iraq . . . ?

war
The Beginning of the End of Fiat Money
March 13, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 18:2
There’s nothing to fear from globalism, free trade and a single worldwide currency. But a globalism where free trade is competitively subsidized by each nation, a continuous trade war is dictated by the WTO, and the single currency is pure fiat, fear is justified. That type of globalism is destined to collapse into economic despair, inflationism and protectionism, and managed by resurgent militant nationalism.

war
The Medical Privacy Protection Resolution
March 15, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 19:2
* The so-called “medical privacy” regulations not only reduce an individual’s ability to determine who has access to their personal medical information, they actually threaten medical privacy and constitutionally-protected liberties. For example, these regulations allow law enforcement and other government officials access to a citizen’s private medical record without having to obtain a search warrant.

war
The Medical Privacy Protection Resolution
March 15, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 19:3
* Allowing government officials to access a private person’s medical records without a warrant is a violation of the Fourth amendment to the United States Constitution, which protects American citizens from warrantless searches by government officials. The requirement that law enforcement officials obtain a warrant from a judge before searching private documents is one of the fundamental protections against abuse of the government’s power to seize an individual’s private documents. While the Fourth amendment has been interpreted to allow warrantless searches in emergency situations, it is hard to conceive of a situation where law enforcement officials would be unable to obtain a warrant before electronic medical records would be destroyed.

war
The Medical Privacy Protection Resolution
March 15, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 19:8
* In a free society such as the one envisioned by those who drafted the Constitution, the federal government should never force a citizen to divulge personal information to advance “important social goals.” Rather, it should be up to the individuals, not the government, to determine what social goals are important enough to warrant allowing others access to their personal property, including their personal information. To the extent these regulations sacrifice individual rights in the name of a bureaucratically-determined “common good,” they are incompatible with a free society and a constitutional government.

war
The Medical Privacy Protection Resolution
March 15, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 19:12
* I ask my colleagues to consider what will happen to that trust between patients and physicians when patients know that any and all information given their doctor may be placed in a government database or seen by medical researchers or handed over to government agents without so much as a simple warrant?

war
The Medical Privacy Protection Resolution
March 15, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 19:14
* These regulations violate the fundamental principles of a free society by placing the perceived “societal” need to advance medical research over the individual’s right to privacy. They also violate the fourth and fifth amendments by allowing law enforcement officials and government favored special interests to seize medical records without an individual’s consent or a warrant and could facilitate the creation of a federal database containing the health care data of every American citizen. These developments could undermine the doctor-patient relationship and thus worsen the health care of millions of Americans. I, therefore, call on my colleagues to join me in repealing this latest threat to privacy and quality health care by cosponsoring the Medical Privacy Protection Resolution.

war
Free Trade
April 24, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 24:8
MONTREAL. The decades preceding World War I were a period of globalization that was at least as extensive as today’s. To the extent that the proposed Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA) moves this continent to ward freer trade, it would help recover the lost promise of the pre-1914 world. But the Quebec summit sent conflicting messages, none of them revolutionary.

war
Free Trade
April 24, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 24:15
In other words, if you want free trade, just trade. Much of the pre-World War I free trade was, indeed, due to Britain’s unilateral free-trade policies.

war
A New China Policy
April 25, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 25:8
The Taiwan Relations Act essentially promises that we will defend Taiwan at all costs and should be reevaluated. Morally and constitutionally a treaty cannot be used to commit us to war at some future date. One generation cannot declare war for another. Making an open-ended commitment to go to war, promising troops, money and weapons, is not permitted by the Constitution.

war
A New China Policy
April 25, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 25:9
It is clear that war can only be declared by a Congress currently in office. Declaring war cannot be circumvented by a treaty or agreement committing us to war at some future date. If a previous treaty can commit future generations to war, the House of Representatives, the body closest to the people, would never have a say in the most important issue of declaring war.

war
A New China Policy
April 25, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 25:14
Don’t forget that President Eisenhower once warned that there always seems to be a need for a “monster to slay” in order to keep the military industries busy and profitable. To continue the weapons buildup, something we are always engaged in around the world, requires excuses for such expenditures- some of these are planned, some contrived, and some accidental.

war
A New China Policy
April 25, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 25:15
When we follow only a military approach without trading in our dealings with foreign nations, and in particular with China, we end up at war, such as we did in the Korean War. Today, we are following a policy where we have less military confrontation with the Chinese and more trade, so relations are much better. A crisis like we have just gone through is more likely to be peacefully resolved to the benefit of both sides. But what we need is even less military involvement, with no military technology going to China and no military weapons going to Taiwan. We have a precise interest in increasing true free trade; that is, trade that is not subsidized nor managed by some world government organization like the WTO. Maintaining peace would then be much easier.

war
A New China Policy
April 25, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 25:17
During the Cuban missile crisis a resolution was achieved under very dangerous circumstances. Quietly, President Kennedy had agreed to remove the missiles from Turkey that were pointed at the Soviets, making the point that American missiles on the Soviet borders was not unlike the Soviets missiles on the American borders. A few months later, quietly, the United States removed these missiles, and no one suffered. The Cold War was eventually won by the United States, but our national security was not threatened by the removal of those missiles.

war
A New China Policy
April 25, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 25:23
We should have more confidence that peaceful trade is a much stronger weapon than all the military force that we can provide. That same argument can be made for our dealings with Vietnam today. We did not win with weapons of war in the 1960s, yet we are now much more engaged in a peaceful trade with the people with Vietnam. Our willingness over the past hundred years to resort to weapons to impose our will on others has generally caused a resentment of America rather than respect.

war
U.S. Intervention In South Korea
25 April 2001    2001 Ron Paul 26:4
President Kim has made his peace initiative toward reclusive North Korea — with whom the South remains technically at war — a cornerstone of his administration. Mr. Bush’s advisers say they are still reviewing the merits of engaging the communist North, but a number of Mr. Kim’s aides fear time is running out since his term ends next year.

war
U.S. Intervention In South Korea
25 April 2001    2001 Ron Paul 26:6
Now, the U.S.-China standoff over an American surveillance plane that landed on China’s Hainan island is fanning fears that a renewed Cold War will grip North Asia. “The U.S.’s dependence upon a Cold War strategy . . . is causing the detente mood (on the Korean Peninsula) to collapse,” says Jang Sung Min, a legislator with the Millennium Democratic Party and an aide to Mr. Kim. He fears the U.S.’s pursuit of missile defense will exacerbate this tension by leading to a renewed arms race between regional powers China, Japan and Russia.

war
AMERICA NOT GETTING FAIR SHAKE FROM UNITED NATIONS —
May 10, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 31:6
Essentially since World War II, we have gone to war under U.N. resolutions. No longer does the President come to the Congress and ask for a declaration of war. U.N. resolutions are passed, and we send our troops throughout the world fighting and being engaged in war. That is not the way it is supposed to be. The Constitution is very clear on when we should be involved in war.

war
H.R. 1646
10 May 2001    2001 Ron Paul 32:4
I do think there are some serious things that we must consider. One is the issue of national sovereignty. To support H.R. 1646, one has to vote to give up some of our national sovereignty to the United Nations. There is $844 million for peacekeeping missions. We know now that we live in an age when we go to war not by declaration of the U.S. Congress but we go to war under U.N. resolutions. When we vote for this bill, and if this bill is supported, that concept of giving up our sovereignty and going to war under U.N. resolutions is supported.

war
Letter to HHS Secretary Tommy Thompson Regarding Proposed Medical Privacy Regulation
May 23, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 39:3
HHS should ensure that the regulation complies with the letter and spirit of the fourth amendment by requiring that law enforcement officials obtain a valid search warrant before seizing private medical records. The requirement that law enforcement officials obtain a warrant from a judge before searching private documents is one of the fundamental protections against abuse of the government’s power to seize an individual’s private documents. While the fourth amendment has been interpreted to allow warrantless searches in emergency situations, it is hard to conceive of a situation where law enforcement officials would be unable to obtain a warrant before electronic medical records would be destroyed.

war
Letter to HHS Secretary Tommy Thompson Regarding Proposed Medical Privacy Regulation
May 23, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 39:7
In a free society, such as the one envisioned by the drafters of the Constitution, the federal government should never force a citizen to divulge personal information to advance “important social goals.” Rather, it should be up to the individuals, not the government, to determine what social goals are important enough to warrant allowing others access to their personal property, including their personal information. To the extent these regulations sacrifice individual rights in the name of a bureaucratically-determined “common good,” they are incompatible with a constitutional government that respects individual liberty.

war
Letter to HHS Secretary Tommy Thompson Regarding Proposed Medical Privacy Regulation
May 23, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 39:9
In conclusion, I once again respectfully request that the Department of Health and Human Services amend the medical privacy rule to require a search warrant before government officials may seize medical records. I also request that HHS remove all sections of the rule that give private parties (particularly researchers) a federal right to access medical records without consent for purposes unrelated to treatment. Furthermore, if HHS is going to continue to allow the Federal Government to collect medical information for any reason, HHS must explicitly provide that none of the information collected under the authority given HHS, or any other federal agency, will be stored in a federally maintained or funded database. Thank you for your consideration of my views, which, according to the Gallup poll, are shared by the vast majority of Americans.

war
Sudan Peace Act
13 June 2001    2001 Ron Paul 40:9
Without Constitutional authority, this bill goes on to encourage the spending of $10 million of U.S. taxpayers hard-earned money in Sudan but for what purpose? From the text of the bill, we learn that “The United States should use all means of pressure available to facilitate a comprehensive solution to the war in Sudan, including (A) the multilateralization of economic and diplomatic tools to compel the Government of Sudan to enter into a good faith peace process; [note that it says “compel . . . good faith peace”] and (B) the support or creation of viable democratic civil authority and institutions in areas of Sudan outside of government control.” I believe we used to call that nation-building before that term became impolitic. How self-righteous a government is ours which legally prohibits foreign campaign contributions yet assumes it knows best and, hence, supports dissident and insurgent groups in places like Cuba, Sudan and around the world. The practical problem here is that we have funded dissidents in such places as Somalia who ultimately turned out to be worse than the incumbent governments. Small wonder the U.S. is the prime target of citizen-terrorists from countries with no real ability to retaliate militarily for our illegitimate and immoral interventions.

war
Sudan Peace Act
13 June 2001    2001 Ron Paul 40:12
The bill does not stop there, however, in intervening in the civil war in Sudan. It appears that this Congress has found a new mission for the Securities and Exchange Commission who are now tasked with investigating “the nature and extent of . . . commercial activity in Sudan” as it relates to “any violations of religious freedom and human rights in Sudan.” It seems we have finally found a way to spend those excessive fees the SEC has been collecting from mutual fund investors despite the fact we cannot seem to bring to the floor a bill to actually reduce those fees which have been collected in multiples above what is necessary to fund this agencies’ previous (and again unconstitutional) mission.

war
Internationalizing SEC
13 June 2001    2001 Ron Paul 41:3
For one thing, cracking down more on foreign oil companies that are doing business in Sudan will not necessarily prohibit the benefits that may flow to the American oil companies if there is a change in government. We should not ignore that. We go to war over oil. We went to war over oil in the Persian Gulf, and certainly we had oil as an influence to send in many dollars and much equipment down into Colombia.

war
Internationalizing SEC
13 June 2001    2001 Ron Paul 41:7
And we should not take that lightly, although this generally is not of much interest to so many people because we do so much and we have such great hopes that it will always do so much good. From just observing history, recent history, the last 20, 30, 40 years since World War II, so often when we get involved and we send money to help the good guys, it is not infrequent the good things that we send in, goods and services and weapons, end up in the hands of the opposition and the enemy. So that is always a possibility once again. These commodities and services and the things that we send and the money may well end up literally being used against the people we are trying to help.

war
Conscription Policies
13 June 2001    2001 Ron Paul 42:10
Issues of cost and unfairness can sway those not seeing a moral reason to oppose conscription. The government spends a lot of money that might be used in armory for war in order to draft a number of men that would be similar to the number who might otherwise volunteer. In this way, the draft is a redundant method that consumes entirely too much money.

war
Conscription Policies
13 June 2001    2001 Ron Paul 42:15
Proponents of the draft continue to ignore their weakest point: namely, that wars which had the support of the American public would not require conscription but instead would have a full supply of eager volunteers. People not only own their own bodies, but a free society also grants people final say over government policy. War is an area where the voice of the people is very important, as their security is at stake. And where else can the people exercise their voice than in the decision on registering to serve? Denying this decision is in effect creating a government that does not respect the people’s wishes, and instead dictates to them. AMERICORPS

war
“Postal Service Has Its Eye On You”
27 June 2001    2001 Ron Paul 47:18
Critics of this snooping both inside and outside the postal service are howling mad that the agency’s reputation for protecting the privacy of its customers is being compromised. “It sounds to me that they’re going past the Treasury guidelines,” says Rick Merritt, executive director of Postal Watch, a private watchdog group. The regulations, for example, do not give specific examples of suspicious activity, leaving that largely for the regulated companies to determine. But the postal-service training video points to lots of “red flags,” such as a customer counting money in the line. It warns that even customers whom clerks know often should be considered suspect if they frequently purchase money orders.

war
A BAD OMEN
July 17, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 52:2
Mr. PAUL . Mr. Speaker, the trial of Slobadon Milosevic threatens U.S. sovereignty. The fact that this trial can be carried out, in the name of international justice, should cause all the Americans to cast a wary eye on the whole principal of the U.N. War Crimes Tribunal. The prosecution of Milosevic , a democratically elected and properly disposed leader of a sovereign country, could not be carried out without full U.S. military and financial support. Since we are the only world superpower, the U.N. court becomes our court under our control. But it is naive to believe our world superpower status will last forever. The precedence now being set will 1 day surely come back to haunt us.

war
A BAD OMEN
July 17, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 52:3
The U.S. today may enjoy dictating policy to Yugoslavia and elsewhere around the world, but danger lurks ahead. The administration adamantly and correctly opposes our membership in the permanent International Criminal Court because it would have authority to exercise jurisdiction over U.S. citizens without the consent of the U.S. government. But how can we, with a straight face, support doing the very same thing to a small country, in opposition to its sovereignty, courts, and constitution. This blatant inconsistency and illicit use of force does not go unnoticed and will sow the seeds of future terrorist attacks against Americans or even war.

war
A BAD OMEN
July 17, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 52:10
One of the conditions for ending the civil war in Kosovo was the disbanding of the KLA. But the very same ruthless leaders of the KLA, now the Liberation Army of Presovo, are now leading the insurrection in Macedonia without NATO lifting a finger to stop it. NATO’s failed policy that precipitated the conflict now raging in Macedonia is ignored.

war
A BAD OMEN
July 17, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 52:11
The U.N. War Tribunal in the Hague should insult the intelligence of all Americans. This court currently can only achieve arrest and prosecution of leaders of poor, small, or defeated nations. There will be no war criminals brought to the Hague from China, Russia, Britain, or the United States no matter what the charges. But some day this approach to world governing will backfire. The U.S. already has suffered the humiliation of being kicked off the U.N. Human Rights Commission and the Narcotics Control Commission. Our arrogant policy and attitude of superiority will continue to elicit a smoldering hatred toward us and out of sheer frustration will motivate even more terrorist attacks against us.

war
A BAD OMEN
July 17, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 52:15
NATO and U.S. leaders insist on playing with fire, not fully understanding the significance of the events now transpiring in the Balkans. If policy is not quickly reversed, events could get out of control and a major war in the region will erupt.

war
A BAD OMEN
July 17, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 52:18
Money and power has permitted the United States the luxury of dictating terms for Milosevic’s prosecution, but our policy of arbitrary interventions in the Balkans is sowing the seeds of tomorrow’s war.

war
Statement Paul Amendment to Defund the UN
July 18, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 56:11
The U.S. has taken a very strong position against endorsing the International Criminal Court. The argument is legitimate. It says that, oh, someday the International Criminal Court may arrest Americans because it just may be that Americans may pursue illegal acts of war, like bombing other countries and killing innocent people.

war
Banning U.S. Contributions To United Nations
18 July 2001    2001 Ron Paul 57:7
It is not beyond comprehension that one day in the not-too-distant future that we may be in a much hotter war in the Yugoslovia area. Things are not very peaceful in Macedonia, and they are actually demonstrating against Americans in Macedonia. The same people that we supported in Kosovo, the KLA, now they have changed their name and they are the radical Albanians playing havoc in Macedonia. And it is with our money.

war
Banning U.S. Contributions To United Nations
18 July 2001    2001 Ron Paul 57:10
It is out of control. It is out of our hands. We have lost control of our destiny when it comes to military operations. We now go to war under U.N. resolutions, rather than this Congress declaring war and fighting wars to win.

war
Quasquicentennial Of The Texas State Constitution Of 1876
18 July 2001    2001 Ron Paul 58:5
Whereas, The more than 90 delegates to the 1875 Constitutional Convention were a diverse group — most were farmers and lawyers; some were merchants, editors, and physicians; some were legislators and judges; some had fought in the Civil War armies of the South as well as of the North; at least five were African-American; 75 were Democrats; 15 were Republicans; and 37 belonged to the Grange, a non-partisan and agrarian order of patrons of husbandry; one delegate had even served nearly four decades earlier as a delegate to the 1836 Constitutional Convention; and

war
Quasquicentennial Of The Texas State Constitution Of 1876
18 July 2001    2001 Ron Paul 58:8
Whereas, Other sections, such as those providing for low taxation and decreased state spending, were aimed at creating a government quite different from the centralized and more expensive one that had existed under the Constitution of 1869, which was itself a product of the post-Civil War Reconstruction Era in Texas; and

war
Iran/Libya Sanctions Act
24 July 2001    2001 Ron Paul 64:3
Furthermore, the sanctions are being extended from a period of five years to ten years. If the original five year sanction period has not been effective in allaying the fears about these governments why do we believe an extra five years will be effective? In fact, few companies have actually been sanctioned under this Act, and to the best of my knowledge no oil companies have been so sanctioned. Still, the sanctions in the Act are not against these nations but are actually directed at “persons” engaged in certain business and investments in these countries. There are already Executive Orders making it illegal for US companies to undertake these activities in these sanctioned countries, so this Act applies to companies in other countries, mostly our allied countries, almost all of whom oppose and resent this legislation and have threatened to take the kinds of retaliatory action that could lead to an all out trade war. In fact, the former National Security Advisor Brent Scrowcroft recently pointed out how these sanctions have had a significant adverse impact upon our Turkish allies.

war
LIFT THE UNITED STATES EMBARGO ON CUBA — HON. RON PAUL
July 26, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 66:5
* I oppose economic sanctions for two very simple reasons. First, they don’t work as effective foreign policy. Time after time, from Cuba to China to Iraq, we have failed to unseat despotic leaders by refusing to trade with the people of those nations. If anything, the anti-American sentiment aroused by sanctions often strengthens the popularity of such leaders, who use America as a convenient scapegoat to divert attention from their own tyranny. History clearly shows that free and open trade does far more to liberalize oppressive governments than trade wars. Economic freedom and political freedom are inextricably linked--when people get a taste of goods and information from abroad, they are less likely to tolerate a closed society at home. So while sanctions may serve our patriotic fervor, they mostly harm innocent citizens and do nothing to displace the governments we claim as enemies.

war
A NEWSPAPER ARTICLE ON THE LIFE OF FREDERIC BASTIAT -- HON. RON PAUL
July 26, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 67:16
This point is true even today. Trade with Mexico has boomed since the passage of the North American Free Trade Agreement and so has truck traffic across the Rio Grande. Luckily we have bridges to facilitate the crossing. But while the bridges were made for crossing, the hundreds of warehouses near the border were not. They’re for storing and waiting--where Mexican truckers are required to hand over their cargo to domestic carriers. Bastiat had his “negative railroads.” We have “negative bridges.”

war
The US Dollar and the World Economy
September 6, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 75:2
This responsibility was performed relatively well in the 19 th Century, despite the abuse the dollar suffered during the Civil War and despite repeated efforts to form a central bank. This policy served to maintain relatively stable prices, and the shortcomings came only when the rules of the gold standard were ignored or abused.

war
The US Dollar and the World Economy
September 6, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 75:30
Refinancing especially helped the consumers to continue spending even in a slowing economy. It isn’t surprising for high credit-card debt to be frequently rolled into second mortgages, since interest on mortgage debt has the additional advantage of being tax-deductible. When financial conditions warrant it, leaving financial instruments (such as paper assets), and looking for hard assets (such as houses), is commonplace and is not a new phenomenon. Instead of the newly inflated money being directed toward the stock market, it now finds its way into the rapidly expanding real-estate bubble. This, too, will burst as all bubbles do. The Fed, the Congress, or even foreign investors can’t prevent the collapse of this bubble, any more than the incestuous Japanese banks were able to keep the Japanese “miracle” of the 1980s going forever.

war
The US Dollar and the World Economy
September 6, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 75:34
Pseudo-free trade, managed poorly and driven by fiat money, is no substitute for true free trade in a world with a stable commodity currency, such as gold. Managed trade and fiat money, historically, have led to trade wars, which the international planners pretend to abhor. Yet the trade war is already gearing up. The WTO, purported to exist to lower tariffs, is actually the agency that grants permission for tariffs to be applied when complaints of dumping are levied. We are in the midst of banana, textile, steel, lumber, and tax wars, all managed by the WTO. When cheap imports hit our markets, it’s a good deal for consumers, but our manufacturers are the first to demand permission to place protective tariffs on imports. If this is already occurring in an economy that has been doing quite well, one can imagine how strong the protectionists’ sentiments will be in a worldwide slowdown.

war
The US Dollar and the World Economy
September 6, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 75:45
Only reining in the welfare-warfare state will suffice. This eliminates the need for the Fed to monetize the debt that politicians depend on to please their constituents and secure their reelection. We must reject our obsession with policing the world by our endless foreign commitments and entanglements. This would reduce the need for greater expenditures while enhancing our national security. It would also remove pressure on the Federal Reserve to continue a flawed monetary policy of monetizing endless government debt.

war
Sometimes The Economy Needs A Setback
10 September 2001    2001 Ron Paul 77:6
A boom is a phase of accelerated prosperity. For ignition, it requires easy money. For inspiration, it draws on new technology. A decade ago, farsighted investors saw a glorious future for the personal computer in the context of the more peaceful world after the cold war. Stock prices began to rise — and rose and rose. The cost of financing new investment fell correspondingly, until by about the middle of the decade the money became too cheap to pass up. Business investment soared, employment rose, reported profits climbed.

war
Statement on the New York City and Washington, DC Terrorist Attacks
September 12, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 78:1
Yesterday, Americans were awakened to find ourselves in a war, attacked by barbarians who targeted innocent civilians. This despicable act reveals how deep-seated is the hatred that has driven this war.

war
Statement on the New York City and Washington, DC Terrorist Attacks
September 12, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 78:2
Though many Americans have just become aware of how deeply we are involved in this war, it has been going on for decades. We are obviously seen by the terrorists as an enemy.

war
Statement on the New York City and Washington, DC Terrorist Attacks
September 12, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 78:3
In war there is no more reprehensible act than for combatants to slaughter innocent civilian bystanders. This is what happened yesterday.

war
Statement on the New York City and Washington, DC Terrorist Attacks
September 12, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 78:4
If there is such a thing, a moral war is one that is only pursued in self-defense. Those who initiate aggression against others for the purpose of occupation or merely to invoke death and destruction are unforgivable and serve only to spread wanton killing.

war
Statement on the New York City and Washington, DC Terrorist Attacks
September 12, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 78:6
When we retaliate for this horror we have suffered, we must be certain that only the guilty be punished. More killing of innocent civilians will only serve to flame the fires of war and further jeopardize our security. Congress should consider its constitutional authority to grant letters of marque and reprisal to meet our responsibility.

war
Statement on the New York City and Washington, DC Terrorist Attacks
September 12, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 78:7
Demanding domestic security in times of war invites carelessness in preserving civil liberties and the right of privacy. Frequently the people are only too anxious for their freedoms to be sacrificed on the altar of authoritarianism thought to be necessary to remain safe and secure. Nothing would please the terrorists more than if we willingly give up some of our cherished liberties while defending ourselves from their threat.

war
Statement on the New York City and Washington, DC Terrorist Attacks
September 12, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 78:8
It is our job to wisely choose our policies and work hard to understand the root causes of the war in which we find ourselves.

war
Statement on the Congressional Authorization of the Use of Force
September 14, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 79:2
To declare war against a group that is not a country makes the clear declaration of war more complex.

war
Statement on the Congressional Authorization of the Use of Force
September 14, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 79:5
For the critics of our policy of foreign interventionism in the affairs of others the attack on New York and Washington was not a surprise and many have warned of its inevitability.

war
Statement on the Congressional Authorization of the Use of Force
September 14, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 79:6
It so far has been inappropriate to ask why the U.S. was the target and not some other western country. But for us to pursue a war against our enemies it’s crucial to understand why we were attacked, which then will tell us by whom we were attacked.

war
Statement on the Congressional Authorization of the Use of Force
September 14, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 79:7
Without this knowledge, striking out at six or eight or even ten different countries could well expand this war of which we wanted no part. Without defining the enemy there is no way to know our precise goal nor to know when the war is over. Inadvertent or casual acceptance of civilian deaths by us as part of this war I’m certain will prolong the agony and increase the chances of even more American casualties. We must guard against this if at all possible.

war
Statement on the Congressional Authorization of the Use of Force
September 14, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 79:8
Too often over the last several decades we have supported both sides of many wars only to find ourselves needlessly entrenched in conflicts unrelated to our national security. It is not unheard of that the weapons and support we send to foreign nations have ended up being used against us. The current crisis may well be another example of such a mishap.

war
Foreign Interventionism
September 25, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 80:6
I do not believe this can happen if we ignore the truth. We cannot close our eyes to the recent history that has brought us to this international crisis. We should guard against emotionally driven demands to kill many bystanders in an effort to liquidate our enemy. These efforts could well fail to punish the perpetrators while only expanding the war and making things worse by killing innocent non-combatants and further radicalizing Muslim peoples.

war
Foreign Interventionism
September 25, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 80:7
It is obviously no easy task to destroy an almost invisible, ubiquitous enemy spread throughout the world, without expanding the war or infringing on our liberties here at home. But above all else, that is our mandate and our key constitutional responsibility- protecting liberty and providing for national security. My strong belief is that in the past, efforts in the US Congress to do much more than this, have diverted our attention and hence led to our neglect of these responsibilities.

war
Foreign Interventionism
September 25, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 80:9
Here at home we are told that the only reason for the suicidal mass killing we experienced on September 11th is that we are hated because we are free and prosperous. If these two conflicting views are not reconciled we cannot wisely fight nor win the war in which we now find ourselves. We must understand why the hatred is directed toward Americans and not other western countries.

war
Foreign Interventionism
September 25, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 80:10
In studying history, I, as many others, have come to the conclusion that war is most often fought for economic reasons. But economic wars are driven by moral and emotional overtones.

war
Foreign Interventionism
September 25, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 80:12
The War between the States, fought primarily over tariffs, was nonetheless inspired by the abhorrence of slavery. It is this moral inspiration that drives people to suicidally fight to the death as so many Americans did between 1861 and 1865.

war
Foreign Interventionism
September 25, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 80:13
Both economic and moral causes of war must be understood. Ignoring the importance of each is dangerous. We should not casually ignore the root causes of our current fight nor pursue this fight by merely accepting the explanation that they terrorize us out of jealously.

war
Foreign Interventionism
September 25, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 80:14
It has already been written that Islamic militants are fighting a “holy war”- a jihad. This drives them to commit acts that to us are beyond comprehension. It seems that they have no concern for economic issues since they have no regard even for their own lives. But an economic issue does exist in this war: OIL!

war
Foreign Interventionism
September 25, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 80:15
When the conflict broke out between Iraq and Iran in the early 1980s and we helped to finance and arm Iraq, Anwar Sadat of Egypt profoundly stated: “This is the beginning of the war for oil.” Our crisis today is part of this long lasting war over oil.

war
Foreign Interventionism
September 25, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 80:17
Unbelievably, to this day our foreign aid continues to flow into Afghanistan, even as we prepare to go to war against her. My suggestion is, not only should we stop this aid immediately, but we should never have started it in the first place.

war
Foreign Interventionism
September 25, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 80:18
It is during this time bin Laden learned to practice terror; tragically, with money from the US taxpayers. But it wasn’t until 1991 during what we refer to as the Persian Gulf War that he turned fully against the United States. It was this war, said to protect our oil that brought out the worst in him.

war
Foreign Interventionism
September 25, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 80:19
Of course, it isn’t our oil. The oil in fact belongs to the Arabs and other Muslim nations of the Persian Gulf. Our military presence in Saudi Arabia is what most Muslims believe to be a sacred violation of holy land. The continuous bombing and embargo of Iraq, has intensified the hatred and contributed to more than over 1,000,000 deaths in Iraq. It is clear that protecting certain oil interests and our presence in the Persian Gulf help drive the holy war.

war
Foreign Interventionism
September 25, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 80:20
Muslims see this as an invasion and domination by a foreign enemy which inspires radicalism. This is not new. This war, from their viewpoint, has been going on since the Crusades 1000 year ago. We ignore this history at our own peril.

war
Foreign Interventionism
September 25, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 80:21
The radicals react as some Americans might react if China dominated the Gulf of Mexico and had air bases in Texas and Florida. Dominating the Persian Gulf is not a benign activity. It has consequences. The attack on the USS Cole was a warning we ignored.

war
Foreign Interventionism
September 25, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 80:25
Punishing the evildoers is crucial. Restoring safety and security to our country is critical. Providing for a strong defense is essential. But extricating ourselves from a holy war that we don’t understand is also necessary if we expect to achieve the above-mentioned goals. Let us all hope and pray for guidance in our effort to restore the peace and tranquility we all desire.

war
Foreign Interventionism
September 25, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 80:29
We face an enormous task to restore the sense of security we have taken for granted for so long. But it can be done. Destroying the evildoers while extricating ourselves from this unholiest of wars is no small challenge. The job is somewhat like getting out of a pit filled with venomous snakes. The sooner we shoot the snakes that immediately threaten us, the sooner we can get safely away. If we’re not careful though, we’ll breed more snakes and they’ll come out of every nook and cranny from around the world and little will be resolved.

war
Foreign Interventionism
September 25, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 80:30
It’s no easy task, but before we fight we’d better be precise about whom we are fighting and how many there are and where they are hiding, or we’ll never know when the war is over and our goals are achieved. Without this knowledge the war can go on for a long, long time, and the war for oil has already been going on for more than 20 years. To this point, our President and his administration have displayed the necessary deliberation. This is a positive change from unauthorized and ineffective retaliatory bombings in past years that only worsened various conflicts.

war
Foreign Interventionism
September 25, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 80:31
If we can’t or won’t define the enemy, the cost to fight such a war will be endless. How many American troops are we prepared to lose? How much money are we prepared to spend? How many innocent civilians, in our nation and others, are we willing to see killed? How many American civilians will we jeopardize? How much of our civil liberties are we prepared to give up? How much prosperity will we sacrifice?

war
Foreign Interventionism
September 25, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 80:32
The founders and authors of our Constitution provided an answer for the difficult tasks that we now face. When a precise declaration of war was impossible due to the vagueness of our enemy, the Congress was expected to take it upon themselves to direct the reprisal against an enemy not recognized as a government. In the early days the concern was piracy on the high seas. Piracy was one of only three federal crimes named in the original Constitution.

war
Foreign Interventionism
September 25, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 80:38
The same results can be better achieved by the marketplace. Passenger IDs voluntarily issued by the airlines could be counterfeit-proof; and loss or theft of an ID could be immediately reported to the proper authorities. An ID, fingerprints, birth certificates, or any other information can be required without any violations of anyone’s personal liberty. This delicate information would not be placed in the hands of the government agents but could be made available to law enforcement officers like any other information obtained with probable cause and a warrant.

war
Foreign Interventionism
September 25, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 80:44
President Kennedy held firm and stood up to the Soviets as he should have and the confrontation was resolved. What was not known at the time was the reassessment of our policy that placed nuclear missiles in the Soviet’s back yard, in Turkey. These missiles were quietly removed a few months later and the world became a safer place in which to live. Eventually, we won the cold war without starting World War III.

war
Foreign Interventionism
September 25, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 80:47
President Bush now has the challenge to do something equally courageous and wise. This is necessary if we expect to avert a catastrophic World War III. When the President asks for patience as he and his advisors deliberate, seeking a course of action, all Americans should surely heed his request.

war
Foreign Interventionism
September 25, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 80:49
It is only with sadness that I reflect on the support, the dollars, the troops, the weapons and training provided by US taxpayers that are now being used against us. Logic should tell us that intervening in all the wars of the world has been detrimental to our self-interest and should be reconsidered.

war
Counter-Terrorism and Homeland Security
October 9, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 82:1
The CIA has a budget of over $30 billion. The FBI has a budget of $3 billion. In addition, $10 to $12 billion are specifically designated to fight terrorism. Yet, with all this money and power, we were not warned of the events that befell us on September 11th.

war
Counter-Terrorism and Homeland Security
October 9, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 82:2
Since the tragic attacks, our officials have located and arrested hundreds of suspects, frozen millions of dollars of assets, and received authority to launch a military attack against the ringleaders in Afghanistan. It seems the war against the terrorists, or guerillas if one really believes we’re in an actual war, has so far been carried out satisfactorily, and under current law. The question is, do we really need a war against the civil liberties of the American people? We should never casually sacrifice any of our freedoms for the sake of perceived security.

war
Counter-Terrorism and Homeland Security
October 9, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 82:10
This is a crucial time in our history. Our policy of foreign interventionism has contributed to this international crisis. How we define our enemies will determine how long we fight and when the war is over. The expense will be worth it if we make the right decisions. Targeting the forces of bin Laden makes sense, but invading 8 to 10 countries without a precise goal will prove to be a policy of folly. Indefinite war, growing in size and cost in terms of dollars and lives, is something for which most Americans will eventually grow weary. Our prayers are with our president, and we hope that he continues to use wise judgment in accomplishing this difficult task- something that he has accomplished remarkably well under very difficult circumstances.

war
AIR PIRACY REPRISAL AND CAPTURE ACT OF 2001 -- HON. RON PAUL
October 10, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 84:1
* Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce the Air Piracy Reprisal and Capture Act of 2001 and the September 11 Marque and Reprisal Act of 2001. The Air Piracy Reprisal and Capture Act of 2001 updates the federal definition of “piracy” to include acts committed in the skies. The September 11 Marque and Reprisal Act of 2001 provides Congressional authorization for the President to issue letters of marque and reprisal to appropriate parties to seize the person and property of Osama bin Laden and any other individual responsible for the terrorist attacks of September 11. Authority to grant letters of marque and reprisal are provided for in the Constitution as a means of allowing Congress to deal with aggressive actions where a formal declaration of war against a foreign power is problematic, Originally intended to deal with piracy, letters of marque and reprisal represent an appropriate response to the piracy of the twentieth century: hijacking terrorism.

war
AIR PIRACY REPRISAL AND CAPTURE ACT OF 2001 -- HON. RON PAUL
October 10, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 84:4
* Since the bombing there has been much discussion of how to respond to warlike acts carried out by private parties. The drafters of the Constitution also had to wrestle with the problem of how to respond to sporadic attacks on American soil and citizens organized by groups not formally affiliated with a government. In order to deal with this situation, the Constitution authorized Congress to issue letters of marque and reprisal. In the early days of the Republic, marque and reprisal were usually used against pirates who, while they may have enjoyed the protection and partnership of governments, where not official representatives of a government.

war
AIR PIRACY REPRISAL AND CAPTURE ACT OF 2001 -- HON. RON PAUL
October 10, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 84:9
* Mr, Speaker, I ask that my colleagues join with me in providing the additional “necessary weapon of war” and to help defend our fellow citizens, our sovereign nation, and our liberty by cosponsoring the September 11 Marque and Reprisal Act of 2001 and the Air Piracy Reprisal and Capture Act of 2001.

war
Ron Paul statement on HR 3004 before the House Financial Services committee
October 11, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 86:1
Mr. Chairman, the so-called Financial Anti-Terrorism Act of 2001 (HR 3004) has more to do with the ongoing war against financial privacy than with the war against international terrorism. Of course, the federal government should take all necessary and constitutional actions to enhance the ability of law enforcement to locate and seize funds flowing to known terrorists and their front groups. For example, America should consider signing more mutual legal assistance treaties with its allies so we can more easily locate the assets of terrorists and other criminals.

war
Ron Paul statement on HR 3004 before the House Financial Services committee
October 11, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 86:2
Unfortunately, instead of focusing on reasonable measures aimed at enhancing the ability to reach assets used to support terrorism, HR 3004 is a laundry list of dangerous, unconstitutional power grabs. Many of these proposals have already been rejected by the American people when presented as necessary to “fight the war on drugs” or “crackdown on white-collar crime.” Even a ban on Internet gambling has somehow made it into this “anti-terrorism” bill!

war
Ron Paul statement on HR 3004 before the House Financial Services committee
October 11, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 86:3
Among the most obnoxious provisions of this bill are: expanding the war on cash by creating a new federal crime of taking over $10,000 cash into or out of the United States; codifying the unconstitutional authority of the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCeN) to snoop into the private financial dealings of American citizens; and expanding the “suspicious activity reports” mandate to broker-dealers, even though history has shown that these reports fail to significantly aid in apprehending criminals. These measures will actually distract from the battle against terrorism by encouraging law enforcement authorities to waste time snooping through the financial records of innocent Americans who simply happen to demonstrate an “unusual” pattern in their financial dealings.

war
Ron Paul statement on HR 3004 before the House Financial Services committee
October 11, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 86:4
HR 3004 also attacks the Fourth Amendment by authorizing warrantless searches of all mail coming into or leaving the country. Allowing government officials to read mail going out of or coming into the country at whim is characteristic of totalitarian regimes, not free societies.

war
Ron Paul statement on HR 3004 before the House Financial Services committee
October 11, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 86:5
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to reject this package of unconstitutional expansions of the financial police state, most of which will prove ultimately ineffective in the war against terrorism. Instead, I hope this Committee will work to fashion a measure aimed at giving the government a greater ability to locate and seize the assets of terrorists while respecting the constitutional rights of American citizens.

war
Statement on Counter-Terrorism Proposals and Civil Liberties
October 12, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 87:2
There is also much the federal government can do under current existing law to fight terrorism. The combined annual budgets of the FBI, the CIA and various other security programs amount to over $30 billion. Perhaps Congress should consider redirecting some of the money spent by intelligence agencies on matters of lower priority to counter-terrorism efforts. Since the tragic attacks, our officials have located and arrested hundreds of suspects, frozen millions of dollars of assets, and received authority to launch a military attack against the ring leaders in Afghanistan. It seems the war against terrorism has so far been carried our satisfactorily under current law.

war
Statement on Counter-Terrorism Proposals and Civil Liberties
October 12, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 87:8
H.R. 3108 waters down the fourth amendment by expanding the federal governments ability to use wiretaps free of judicial oversight. The fourth amendment’s requirement of a search warrant and probable cause strikes a balance between effective law enforcement and civil liberties. Any attempt to water down the warrant requirement threatens innocent citizens with a loss of their liberty. This is particularly true of provisions which allow for nationwide issuance of search warrants, as these severely restrict judicial oversight of government wiretaps and searches.

war
Statement on HR 3004
October 17, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 88:1
Mr. Speaker, the so-called Financial Anti-Terrorism Act of 2001 (HR 3004) has more to do with the ongoing war against financial privacy than with the war against international terrorism. Of course, the federal government should take all necessary and constitutional actions to enhance the ability of law enforcement to locate and seize funds flowing to known terrorists and their front groups. For example, America should consider signing more mutual legal assistance treaties with its allies so we can more easily locate the assets of terrorists and other criminals.

war
Statement on HR 3004
October 17, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 88:2
Unfortunately, instead of focusing on reasonable measures aimed at enhancing the ability to reach assets used to support terrorism, HR 3004 is a laundry list of dangerous, unconstitutional power grabs. Many of these proposals have already been rejected by the American people when presented as necessary to “fight the war on drugs” or “crack down on white-collar crime.” For example, this bill facilitates efforts to bully low tax jurisdictions into raising taxes to levels approved by the tax-loving, global bureaucrats of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development!

war
Statement on HR 3004
October 17, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 88:4
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to reject this package of unconstitutional expansions of the financial police state, most of which will prove ultimately ineffective in the war against terrorism. Instead, I hope Congress will work to fashion a measure aimed at giving the government a greater ability to locate and seize the assets of terrorists while respecting the constitutional rights of American citizens.

war
Statement on International Relations committee hearing featuring Secretary of State Colin Powell
October 17, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 89:1
MR PAUL: Mr. Chairman: It is an honor to have Secretary of State Colin Powell here to brief the committee on the progress of the war on terrorism. I strongly support the administration’s efforts to seek out and punish those who attacked the United States on 9/11 and those who supported and assisted them. I fully recognize the difficult challenges inherent in this effort, and that no real solution will be easily attained. With that said, I must admit that several of the secretary’s points have troubled me.

war
Statement on International Relations committee hearing featuring Secretary of State Colin Powell
October 17, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 89:2
Secretary Powell has stated that “our fight does not end with the al-Qaida and the Taliban regime,” going on to quote President Bush, that “our war begins with the al-Qaida, but it does not end there. It will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped, and defeated.” Mr. Chairman, that is a tall order. Does this Administration really mean to undertake eradicating terrorism from every nation before we can declare victory? Every war must have an exit-strategy, a point where victory can be declared and our troops can be brought home. I fear that the objectives as defined are sufficiently vague as to prevent us from doing so in the foreseeable future. In fact, the secretary’s statement suggests that once our immediate objectives -- ridding the world of the al-Qaida network and the Taliban government- are met, we intend to actually widen the war.

war
Statement on International Relations committee hearing featuring Secretary of State Colin Powell
October 17, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 89:3
Because I am concerned about winning this war at the least possible cost in American life and treasure, I have introduced legislation to authorize the president to issue letters of marque and reprisal. This legislation would give the president a powerful tool to root out Osama bin Laden and his supporters. The legislation would allow the United States to narrow the retaliation to only the guilty parties, thus providing a political as well as military victory. It would also address the increasingly complex problem of asymmetrical warfare using a solution that had been employed successfully in the past against a similar threat. I am disappointed to see that this legislation has not been considered by Congress, and that the Administration has not yet expressed its support for this bill.

war
Statement on International Relations committee hearing featuring Secretary of State Colin Powell
October 17, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 89:4
I am also concerned about the emerging nation-building component of our activities in Afghanistan. If, as it appears, our military action in Afghanistan is to benefit the Northern Alliance opposition group, what assurances do we have that this group will not be every bit as unpopular as the Taliban, as press reporting suggests? Not long ago, it was the Taliban itself that was the recipient of U.S. military and financial support. Who is to say that Afghanistan might not benefit from a government managed by several tribal factions with a weak central government and little outside interference either by the U. S. or the UN? Some have suggested that a western-financed pipeline through Afghanistan can only take place with a strong and “stable” government in place- and that it is up to the U.S. government to ensure the success of what is in fact a private financial venture. Whatever the case, my colleagues in Congress and those in the administration openly talk of a years-long post-war UN presence in Afghanistan to “build institutions.”

war
Statement on International Relations committee hearing featuring Secretary of State Colin Powell
October 17, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 89:6
Mr. Chairman, many Arabs believe we “saved” Saddam Hussein in the Gulf War in order to justify our continued presence there- to, in turn, keep Saudi Arabia and Kuwait “safe.” In a recent interview, President George Bush’s father, President Bush, told CBS that he did not regret not going after Saddam Hussein because “what would have happened if we’d done that is we would have been alone. We would have been an occupying power in an Arab land...And we would have seen something much worse than we have now, because we would have had the enmity of all the gulf.” These are thoughtful words from the former president, however it appears to many that this is exactly what we have done. And the result has been as President Bush warned: we have earned the enmity of many on the Arab streets, who regard our military presence on what they consider sacred ground in Saudi Arabia as an open wound in the Middle East. Those who say our policies have somehow justified the attacks against us are terribly mistaken. It is a fact, however, that our policies have needlessly alienated millions in the Arab world.

war
A SAD STATE OF AFFAIRS --
October 25, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 90:8
Another reason the hearts of many Americans are heavy with grief is because they dread what might come from the many new and broad powers the Government is demanding in the name of providing security. Daniel Webster once warned, “Human beings will generally exercise power when they can get it, and they will exercise it most undoubtedly in popular governments under pretense of public safety.”

war
A SAD STATE OF AFFAIRS --
October 25, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 90:14
And a lot more will be appropriated before it is all over. What about the 40,000 deaths per year on government-run highways and the needless deaths associated with the foolish and misdirected war on drugs? Why should anyone be criticized for trying to put this in proper perspective?

war
A SAD STATE OF AFFAIRS --
October 25, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 90:25
As we bomb Afghanistan, we continue to send foreign aid to feed the people suffering from the war. I strongly doubt if our food will get them to love us or even be our friends. There is no evidence that the starving receive the food. And too often it is revealed that it ends up in the hands of the military forces we are fighting. While we bomb Afghanistan and feed the victims, we lay plans to install the next government and pay for rebuilding the country. Quite possibly, the new faction we support will be no more trustworthy than the Taliban, to which we sent plenty of aid and weapons in the 1980s. That intervention in Afghanistan did not do much to win reliable friends in the region.

war
A SAD STATE OF AFFAIRS --
October 25, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 90:30
I happen to believe that winning this battle against the current crop of terrorists is quite achievable in a relatively short period of time. But winning the war over the long term is a much different situation. This cannot be achieved without a better understanding of the enemy and the geopolitics that drive this war. Even if relative peace is achieved with a battle victory over Osama bin Laden and his followers, other terrorists will appear from all corners of the world for an indefinite period of time if we do not understand the issues.

war
A SAD STATE OF AFFAIRS --
October 25, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 90:31
Changing our current foreign policy with wise diplomacy is crucial if we are to really win the war and restore the sense of tranquility to our land that now seems to be so far in our distant past. Our widespread efforts at peacekeeping and nation-building will only contribute to the resentment that drives the fanatics. Devotion to internationalism and a one-world government only exacerbates regional rivalries. Denying that our economic interests drive so much of what the West does against the East impedes any efforts to diffuse the world crisis that already has a number of Americans demanding nuclear bombs to be used to achieve victory. A victory based on this type of aggressive policy would be a hollow victory indeed.

war
A SAD STATE OF AFFAIRS --
October 25, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 90:32
I would like to draw analogy between the drug war and the war against terrorism. In the last 30 years, we have spent hundreds of billions of dollars on a failed war on drugs. This war has been used as an excuse to attack our liberties and privacy. It has been an excuse to undermine our financial privacy while promoting illegal searches and seizures with many innocent people losing their lives and property. Seizure and forfeiture have harmed a great number of innocent American citizens.

war
A SAD STATE OF AFFAIRS --
October 25, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 90:33
Another result of this unwise war has been the corruption of many law enforcement officials. It is

war
A SAD STATE OF AFFAIRS --
October 25, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 90:34
well known that with the profit incentives so high, we are not even able to keep drugs out of our armed prisons. Making our whole society a prison would not bring success to this floundering war on drugs. Sinister motives of the profiteers and gangsters, along with prevailing public ignorance, keeps this futile war going.

war
A SAD STATE OF AFFAIRS --
October 25, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 90:35
Illegal and artificially high priced drugs drive the underworld to produce, sell and profit from this social depravity. Failure to recognize that drug addiction, like alcoholism, is a disease rather than a crime, encourage the drug warriors in efforts that have not and will not ever work. We learned the hard way about alcohol prohibition and crime, but we have not yet seriously considered it in the ongoing drug war.

war
A SAD STATE OF AFFAIRS --
October 25, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 90:36
Corruption associated with the drug dealers is endless. It has involved our police, the military, border guards and the judicial system. It has affected government policy and our own CIA. The artificially high profits from illegal drugs provide easy access to funds for rogue groups involved in fighting civil wars throughout the world.

war
A SAD STATE OF AFFAIRS --
October 25, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 90:37
Ironically, opium sales by the Taliban and artificially high prices helped to finance their war against us. In spite of the incongruity, we rewarded the Taliban this spring with a huge cash payment for promises to eradicate some poppy fields. Sure!

war
A SAD STATE OF AFFAIRS --
October 25, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 90:38
For the first 140 years of our history, we had essentially no Federal war on drugs, and far fewer problems with drug addiction and related crimes was a consequence. In the past 30 years, even with the hundreds of millions of dollars spent on the drug war, little good has come of it. We have vacillated from efforts to stop the drugs at the source to severely punishing the users, yet nothing has improved.

war
A SAD STATE OF AFFAIRS --
October 25, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 90:39
This war has been behind most big government police powers of the last 30 years, with continual undermining of our civil liberties and personal privacy. Those who support the IRS’s efforts to collect maximum revenues and root out the underground economy, have welcomed this intrusion, even if the drug underworld grows in size and influence.

war
A SAD STATE OF AFFAIRS --
October 25, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 90:40
The drug war encourages violence. Government violence against nonviolent users is notorious and has led to the unnecessary prison overpopulation. Innocent taxpayers are forced to pay for all this so-called justice. Our drug eradication project (using spraying) around the world, from Colombia to Afghanistan, breeds resentment because normal crops and good land can be severely damaged. Local populations perceive that the efforts and the profiteering remain somehow beneficial to our own agenda in these various countries.

war
A SAD STATE OF AFFAIRS --
October 25, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 90:41
Drug dealers and drug gangs are a consequence of our unwise approach to drug usage. Many innocent people are killed in the crossfire by the mob justice that this war generates. But just because the laws are unwise and have had unintended consequences, no excuses can ever be made for the monster who would kill and maim innocent people for illegal profits. But as the violent killers are removed from society, reconsideration of our drug laws ought to occur.

war
A SAD STATE OF AFFAIRS --
October 25, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 90:42
A similar approach should be applied to our war on those who would terrorize and kill our people for political reasons. If the drug laws, and the policies that incite hatred against the United States, are not clearly understood and, therefore, never changed, the number of drug criminals and terrorists will only multiply.

war
A SAD STATE OF AFFAIRS --
October 25, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 90:43
Although this unwise war on drugs generates criminal violence, the violence can never be tolerated. Even if repeal of drug laws would decrease the motivation for drug dealer violence, this can never be an excuse to condone the violence. In the short term, those who kill must be punished, imprisoned, or killed. Long term though, a better understanding of how drug laws have unintended consequences is required if we want to significantly improve the situation and actually reduce the great harms drugs are doing to our society.

war
A SAD STATE OF AFFAIRS --
October 25, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 90:44
The same is true in dealing with those who so passionately hate us that suicide becomes a just and noble cause in their effort to kill and terrorize us. Without some understanding of what has brought us to the brink of a worldwide conflict, and reconsideration of our policies around the globe, we will be no more successful in making our land secure and free than the drug war has been in removing drug violence from our cities and towns.

war
A SAD STATE OF AFFAIRS --
October 25, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 90:46
We have promoted a foolish and very expensive domestic war on drugs for more than 30 years. It has done no good whatsoever. I doubt our Republic can survive a 30-year period of trying to figure out how to win this guerilla war against terrorism. Hopefully, we will all seek the answers in these trying times with an open mind and understanding.

war
Expansion of NATO is a Bad Idea
November 7, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 95:6
NATO does not have a good record since the fall of the Soviets. Take a look at what we were doing in Serbia. Serbia has been our friend. They are a Christian nation. We allied ourselves with the KLA, the Kosovo Muslims, who have been friends with Osama bin Laden. We went in there and illegally, NATO illegally, against their own rules of NATO, incessantly bombed Serbia. They had not attacked another country. They had a civil war going on, yet we supported that with our money and our bombs and our troops, and now we are nation-building over there. We may be over there for another 20 years because of the bad policy of NATO that we went along with.

war
Expansion of NATO is a Bad Idea
November 7, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 95:14
Mr. Speaker, more than a decade ago one of history’s great ideological and military conflicts abruptly ended. To the great surprise of many, including more than a few in own government, the communist world and its chief military arm, the Warsaw Pact, imploded. The Cold War, which claimed thousands of lives and uncountable treasure, was over and the Western Alliance had prevailed.

war
Expansion of NATO is a Bad Idea
November 7, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 95:16
Nowhere was this “new NATO” more starkly in evidence than in Yugoslavia. There, in 1999, NATO became an aggressive military force, acting explicitly in violation of its own charter. By bombing Yugoslavia, a country that neither attacked nor threatened a NATO member state, NATO both turned its back on its stated purpose and relinquished the moral high ground it had for so long enjoyed. NATO intervention in the Balkan civil wars has not even produced the promised result: UN troops will be forced to remain in the Balkans indefinitely in an ultimately futile attempt to build nations against the will of those who will live in them.

war
The War On Terrorism
November 29, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 98:1
Mr. Speaker: We have been told on numerous occasions to expect a long and protracted war. This is not necessary if one can identify the target – the enemy – and then stay focused on that target. It’s impossible to keep one’s eye on a target and hit it if one does not precisely understand it and identify it. In pursuing any military undertaking, it’s the responsibility of Congress to know exactly why it appropriates the funding. Today, unlike any time in our history, the enemy and its location remain vague and pervasive. In the undeclared wars of Vietnam and Korea, the enemy was known and clearly defined, even though our policies were confused and contradictory. Today our policies relating to the growth of terrorism are also confused and contradictory; however, the precise enemy and its location are not known by anyone. Until the enemy is defined and understood, it cannot be accurately targeted or vanquished.

war
The War On Terrorism
November 29, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 98:5
The terrorist attacks on New York and Washington are not quite so simple, but they are similar. These attacks required funding, planning and inspiration from others. But the total number of people directly involved had to be relatively small in order to have kept the plans thoroughly concealed. Twenty accomplices, or even a hundred could have done it. But there’s no way thousands of people knew and participated in the planning and carrying out of this attack. Moral support expressed by those who find our policies offensive is a different matter and difficult to discover. Those who enjoyed seeing the U.S. hit are too numerous to count and impossible to identify. To target and wage war against all of them is like declaring war against an idea or sin.

war
The War On Terrorism
November 29, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 98:6
The predominant nationality of the terrorists was Saudi Arabian. Yet for political and economic reasons, even with the lack of cooperation from the Saudi government, we have ignored that country in placing blame. The Afghan people did nothing to deserve another war. The Taliban, of course, is closely tied to bin Laden and al-Qaeda, but so are the Pakistanis and the Saudis. Even the United States was a supporter of the Taliban’s rise to power, and as recently as August of 2001, we talked oil pipeline politics with them.

war
The War On Terrorism
November 29, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 98:10
To understand world sentiment on this subject, one might note a comment in The Hindu, India’s national newspaper- not necessarily to agree with the paper’s sentiment, but to help us better understand what is being thought about us around the world in contrast to the spin put on the war by our five major TV news networks.

war
The War On Terrorism
November 29, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 98:13
The need to define our target is ever so necessary if we’re going to avoid letting this war get out of control.

war
The War On Terrorism
November 29, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 98:14
It’s important to note that in the same article, the author quoted Michael Klare, an expert on Caspian Sea oil reserves, from an interview on Radio Free Europe: “We (the U.S.) view oil as a security consideration and we have to protect it by any means necessary, regardless of other considerations, other values.” This, of course, was a clearly stated position of our administration in 1990 as our country was being prepared to fight the Persian Gulf War. Saddam Hussein and his weapons of mass destruction only became the issue later on.

war
The War On Terrorism
November 29, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 98:15
For various reasons, the enemy with whom we’re now at war remains vague and illusive. Those who commit violent terrorist acts should be targeted with a rifle or hemlock- not with vague declarations, with some claiming we must root out terrorism in as many as 60 countries. If we’re not precise in identifying our enemy, it’s sure going to be hard to keep our eye on the target. Without this identification, the war will spread and be needlessly prolonged.

war
The War On Terrorism
November 29, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 98:16
Why is this definition so crucial? Because without it, the special interests and the ill-advised will clamor for all kinds of expansive militarism. Planning to expand and fight a never-ending war in 60 countries against worldwide terrorist conflicts with the notion that, at most, only a few hundred ever knew of the plans to attack the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. The pervasive and indefinable enemy- terrorism- cannot be conquered with weapons and UN nation building- only a more sensible pro-American foreign policy will accomplish this. This must occur if we are to avoid a cataclysmic expansion of the current hostilities.

war
The War On Terrorism
November 29, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 98:18
Since we don’t know in which cave or even in which country bin Laden is hiding, we hear the clamor of many for us to overthrow our next villain — Saddam Hussein — guilty or not. On the short list of countries to be attacked are North Korea, Libya, Syria, Iran, and the Sudan, just for starters. But this jingoistic talk is foolhardy and dangerous. The war against terrorism cannot be won in this manner.

war
The War On Terrorism
November 29, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 98:19
The drumbeat for attacking Baghdad grows louder every day, with Paul Wolfowitz, Bill Kristol, Richard Perle, and Bill Bennett leading the charge. In a recent interview, U.S. Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, made it clear: “We are going to continue pursuing the entire al Qaeda network which is in 60 countries, not just Afghanistan.” Fortunately, President Bush and Colin Powell so far have resisted the pressure to expand the war into other countries. Let us hope and pray that they do not yield to the clamor of the special interests that want us to take on Iraq.

war
The War On Terrorism
November 29, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 98:20
The argument that we need to do so because Hussein is producing weapons of mass destruction is the reddest of all herrings. I sincerely doubt that he has developed significant weapons of mass destruction. However, if that is the argument, we should plan to attack all those countries that have similar weapons or plans to build them- countries like China, North Korea, Israel, Pakistan, and India. Iraq has been uncooperative with the UN World Order and remains independent of western control of its oil reserves, unlike Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. This is why she has been bombed steadily for 11 years by the U.S. and Britain. My guess is that in the not-too-distant future, so-called proof will be provided that Saddam Hussein was somehow partially responsible for the attack in the United States, and it will be irresistible then for the U.S. to retaliate against him. This will greatly and dangerously expand the war and provoke even greater hatred toward the United States, and it’s all so unnecessary.

war
The War On Terrorism
November 29, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 98:23
Former President George W. Bush has been criticized for not marching on to Baghdad at the end of the Persian Gulf War. He gave then, and stands by his explanation today, a superb answer of why it was ill-advised to attempt to remove Saddam Hussein from power — there were strategic and tactical, as well as humanitarian, arguments against it. But the important and clinching argument against annihilating Baghdad was political. The coalition, in no uncertain terms, let it be known they wanted no part of it. Besides, the UN only authorized the removal of Saddam Hussein from Kuwait. The UN has never sanctioned the continued U.S. and British bombing of Iraq — a source of much hatred directed toward the United States.

war
The War On Terrorism
November 29, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 98:26
It has been argued that we needed to maintain a presence in Saudi Arabia after the Persian Gulf War to protect the Saudi government from Iraqi attack. Others argued that it was only a cynical excuse to justify keeping troops to protect what our officials declared were “our” oil supplies. Some have even suggested that our expanded presence in Saudi Arabia was prompted by a need to keep King Fahd in power and to thwart any effort by Saudi fundamentalists to overthrow his regime.

war
The War On Terrorism
November 29, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 98:27
Expanding the war by taking on Iraq at this time may well please some allies, but it will lead to unbelievable chaos in the region and throughout the world. It will incite even more anti-American sentiment and expose us to even greater dangers. It could prove to be an unmitigated disaster. Iran and Russia will not be pleased with this move.

war
The War On Terrorism
November 29, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 98:28
It is not our job to remove Saddam Hussein- that is the job of the Iraqi people. It is not our job to remove the Taliban- that is the business of the Afghan people. It is not our job to insist that the next government in Afghanistan include women, no matter how good an idea it is. If this really is an issue, why don’t we insist that our friends in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait do the same thing, as well as impose our will on them? Talk about hypocrisy! The mere thought that we fight wars for affirmative action in a country 6,000 miles from home, with no cultural similarities, should insult us all. Of course it does distract us from the issue of an oil pipeline through northern Afghanistan. We need to keep our eye on the target and not be so easily distracted.

war
The War On Terrorism
November 29, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 98:30
Assume for a minute that bin Laden is as ill as I believe he is with serious renal disease, would he not do everything conceivable for his cause by provoking us into expanding the war and alienating as many Muslims as possible?

war
The War On Terrorism
November 29, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 98:33
The fear I have is that our policies, along with those of Britain, the UN, and NATO since World War II, inspired and have now awakened a long-forgotten sleeping giant- Islamic fundamentalism.

war
The War On Terrorism
November 29, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 98:34
Let’s hope for all our sakes that Iraq is not made the target in this complex war.

war
The War On Terrorism
November 29, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 98:35
The President, in the 2000 presidential campaign, argued against nation building, and he was right to do so. He also said, “If we’re an arrogant nation, they’ll resent us.” He wisely argued for humility and a policy that promotes peace. Attacking Baghdad or declaring war against Saddam Hussein, or even continuing the illegal bombing of Iraq, is hardly a policy of humility designed to promote peace.

war
The War On Terrorism
November 29, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 98:39
Mr. Speaker, we must make every effort to precisely define our target in this war and keep our eye on it.

war
The War On Terrorism
November 29, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 98:43
It is difficult for everyone to put the 9-11 attacks in a proper perspective, because any attempt to do so is construed as diminishing the utter horror of the events of that day. We must remember, though, that the 3,900 deaths incurred in the World Trade Center attacks are just slightly more than the deaths that occur on our nation’s highways each month. Could it be that the sense of personal vulnerability we survivors feel motivates us in meting out justice, rather than the concern for the victims of the attacks? Otherwise, the numbers don’t add up to the proper response. If we lose sight of the target and unwisely broaden the war, the tragedy of 9-11 may pale in the death and destruction that could lie ahead.

war
The War On Terrorism
November 29, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 98:44
As members of Congress, we have a profound responsibility to mete out justice, provide security for our nation, and protect the liberties of all the people, without senselessly expanding the war at the urging of narrow political and economic special interests. The price is too high, and the danger too great. We must not lose our focus on the real target and inadvertently create new enemies for ourselves.

war
The War On Terrorism
November 29, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 98:47
Granting bailouts is not new for Congress, but current conditions have prompted many takers to line up for handouts. There has always been a large constituency for expanding federal power for whatever reason, and these groups have been energized. The military-industrial complex is out in full force and is optimistic. Union power is pleased with recent events and has not missed the opportunity to increase membership rolls. Federal policing powers, already in a bull market, received a super shot in the arm. The IRS, which detests financial privacy, gloats, while all the big spenders in Washington applaud the tools made available to crack down on tax dodgers. The drug warriors and anti-gun zealots love the new powers that now can be used to watch the every move of our citizens. “Extremists” who talk of the Constitution, promote right-to-life, form citizen militias, or participate in non-mainstream religious practices now can be monitored much more effectively by those who find their views offensive. Laws recently passed by the Congress apply to all Americans- not just terrorists. But we should remember that if the terrorists are known and identified, existing laws would have been quite adequate to deal with them.

war
The War On Terrorism
November 29, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 98:51
We know from the ongoing drug war that federal drug police frequently make mistakes, break down the wrong doors and destroy property. Abuses of seizure and forfeiture laws are numerous. Yet the new laws will encourage even more mistakes by federal law-enforcement agencies. It has long been forgotten that law enforcement in the United States was supposed to be a state and local government responsibility, not that of the federal government. The federal government’s policing powers have just gotten a giant boost in scope and authority through both new legislation and executive orders.

war
The War On Terrorism
November 29, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 98:53
It is estimated that approximately 1,200 men have been arrested as a consequence of 9-11, yet their names and the charges are not available, and according to Ashcroft, will not be made available. Once again, he uses the argument that he’s protecting the privacy of those charged. Unbelievable! Due process for the detainees has been denied. Secret government is winning out over open government. This is the largest number of people to be locked up under these conditions since FDR’s internment of Japanese-Americans during World War II. Information regarding these arrests is a must, in a constitutional republic. If they’re terrorists or accomplices, just let the public know and pursue their prosecution. But secret arrests and silence are not acceptable in a society that professes to be free. Curtailing freedom is not the answer to protecting freedom under adverse circumstances.

war
The War On Terrorism
November 29, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 98:58
It’s easy for elected officials in Washington to tell the American people that the government will do whatever it takes to defeat terrorism. Such assurances inevitably are followed by proposals either to restrict the constitutional liberties of the American people or to spend vast sums of money from the federal treasury. The history of the 20th Century shows that the Congress violates our Constitution most often during times of crisis. Accordingly, most of our worst unconstitutional agencies and programs began during the two World Wars and the Depression. Ironically, the Constitution itself was conceived in a time of great crisis. The founders intended its provision to place severe restrictions on the federal government, even in times of great distress. America must guard against current calls for government to sacrifice the Constitution in the name of law enforcement.

war
The War On Terrorism
November 29, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 98:60
Almost all of the new laws focus on American citizens rather than potential foreign terrorists. For example, the definition of “terrorism,” for federal criminal purposes, has been greatly expanded A person could now be considered a terrorist by belonging to a pro-constitution group, a citizen militia, or a pro-life organization. Legitimate protests against the government could place tens of thousands of other Americans under federal surveillance. Similarly, internet use can be monitored without a user’s knowledge, and internet providers can be forced to hand over user information to law-enforcement officials without a warrant or subpoena.

war
The War On Terrorism
November 29, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 98:61
The bill also greatly expands the use of traditional surveillance tools, including wiretaps, search warrants, and subpoenas. Probable-cause standards for these tools are relaxed, or even eliminated in some circumstances. Warrants become easier to obtain and can be executed without notification. Wiretaps can be placed without a court order. In fact, the FBI and CIA now can tap phones or computers nationwide, without demonstrating that a criminal suspect is using a particular phone or computer.

war
The War On Terrorism
November 29, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 98:64
The executive order that has gotten the most attention by those who are concerned that our response to 9-11 is overreaching and dangerous to our liberties is the one authorizing military justice, in secret. Nazi war criminals were tried in public, but plans now are laid to carry out the trials and punishment, including possibly the death penalty, outside the eyes and ears of the legislative and judicial branches of government and the American public. Since such a process threatens national security and the Constitution, it cannot be used as a justification for their protection.

war
The War On Terrorism
November 29, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 98:66
The argument that FDR did it and therefore it must be OK is a rather weak justification. Roosevelt was hardly one that went by the rule book- the Constitution. But the situation then was quite different from today. There was a declared war by Congress against a precise enemy, the Germans, who sent eight saboteurs into our country. Convictions were unanimous, not 2/3 of the panel, and appeals were permitted. That’s not what’s being offered today. Furthermore, the previous military tribunals expired when the war ended. Since this war will go on indefinitely, so too will the courts.

war
The War On Terrorism
November 29, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 98:73
Many throughout the world, especially those in Muslim countries, will be convinced by the secretive process that the real reason for military courts is that the U.S. lacks sufficient evidence to convict in an open court. Should we be fighting so strenuously the war against terrorism and carelessly sacrifice our traditions of American justice? If we do, the war will be for naught and we will lose, even if we win.

war
The War On Terrorism
November 29, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 98:77
For instance, the military draft is the ultimate insult to those who love personal liberty. The Pentagon, even with the ongoing crisis, has argued against the reinstatement of the draft. Yet the clamor for its reinstatement grows louder daily by those who wanted a return to the draft all along. I see the draft as the ultimate abuse of liberty. Morally it cannot be distinguished from slavery. All the arguments for drafting 18-year old men and women and sending them off to foreign wars are couched in terms of noble service to the country and benefits to the draftees. The need-for-discipline argument is the most common reason given, after the call for service in an effort to make the world safe for democracy. There can be no worse substitute for the lack of parental guidance of teenagers than the federal government’s domineering control, forcing them to fight an enemy they don’t even know in a country they can’t even identity.

war
The War On Terrorism
November 29, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 98:84
Henry Grady Weaver, author of a classic book on freedom, The Mainspring of Human Progress , years ago warned us that good intentions in politics are not good enough and actually are dangerous to the cause. Weaver stated:

war
Let Privateers Troll For Bin Laden
4 December 2001    2001 Ron Paul 100:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I recommend my colleagues read the attached article “Let Privateers Troll for Bin Laden” by Larry Sechrest, a research fellow at the Independent Institute in Oakland, California, and a professor of economics at Sul Ross State University. Professor Sechrest documents the role privateers played in the war against pirates who plagued America in the early days of the Republic. These privateers often operated with letters of marque and reprisal granted by the United States Congress.

war
Let Privateers Troll For Bin Laden
4 December 2001    2001 Ron Paul 100:2
Professor Sechrest points out that privateers could be an effective tool in the war against terrorism. Today’s terrorists have much in common with the pirates of days gone by. Like the pirates of old, today’s terrorists are private groups seeking to attack the United States government and threaten the lives, liberty, and property of United States citizens. The only difference is that while pirates sought financial gains, terrorists seek to advance ideological and political agendas through violence.

war
Let Privateers Troll For Bin Laden
4 December 2001    2001 Ron Paul 100:5
Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld recently acknowledged the role that private parties, when provided sufficient incentives by government, can play in bringing terrorists to justice. Now is the time for Congress to ensure President Bush can take advantage of every effective and constitutional means of fighting the war on terrorism. This is why I have introduced the Air Piracy Reprisal and Capture Act of 2001 (HR 3074) and the September 11 Marque and Reprisal Act of 2001 (HR 3076). The Air Piracy Reprisal and Capture Act of 2001 updates the federal definition of “piracy” to include acts committed in the skies. The September 11 Marque and Reprisal Act of 2001 provides Congressional authorization for the President to issue letters of marque and reprisal to appropriate parties to seize the person and property of Osama bin Laden and any other individuals responsible for the terrorist attacks of September 11. I encourage my colleagues to read Professor Sechrest’s article on the effectiveness of privateers, and to help ensure President Bush can take advantage of every available tool to capture and punish terrorists by cosponsoring my Air Piracy Reprisal and Capture Act and the September 11 Marque and Reprisal Act.

war
Let Privateers Troll For Bin Laden
4 December 2001    2001 Ron Paul 100:10
During the War of 1812, 526 American vessels were commissioned as privateers. This was not piracy, because the privateers were licensed by their own governments and the ships were bonded to ensure that their captains followed the accepted laws of the sea, including the humane treatment of those who were taken prisoner. Congress granted privateers “letters of marque and reprisal,” under the authority of Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution.

war
Let Privateers Troll For Bin Laden
4 December 2001    2001 Ron Paul 100:13
Privateering soon evolved into a potent means of warfare. Self-interest encouraged privateers to capture as many enemy ships as possible, and to do it quickly. Were privateers successful in inflicting serious losses on the enemy? Emphatically, yes. Between 1793 and 1797, the British lost 2,266 vessels, the majority taken by French privateers.

war
Let Privateers Troll For Bin Laden
4 December 2001    2001 Ron Paul 100:14
During the War of the League of Augsburg (1689–1697) French privateers captured 3,384 English or Dutch merchant ships and 162 warships, and during the War of 1812, 1,750 British ships were subdued or destroyed by American privateers. Those American privateers struck so much fear in Britain that Lloyd’s of London ceased offering maritime insurance except at ruinously high premiums. No wonder Thomas Jefferson said, “Every possible encouragement should be given to privateering in time of war.”

war
Let Privateers Troll For Bin Laden
4 December 2001    2001 Ron Paul 100:15
If privateering was so successful, why has it disappeared? Precisely because it worked so well. Government naval officers resented the competitive advantage privateers possessed, and powerful nations with large government navies did not want to be challenged on the seas by smaller nations that opted for the less-costly alternative — private ships of war.

war
Ongoing Violence in Israel and Palestine
December 5, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 102:6
Now, I would like to have neutrality. That has been the tradition for America, at least a century ago, to be friends with everybody, trade with everybody, and to be neutral, unless somebody declares war against us, but not to demand that we pick sides in every fight in the world. Yet, this is what we are doing. I think our perceptions are in error, because it is not intended that we make the problem worse. Obviously, the authors of the resolution, do not want to make the problem worse. But we have to realize, perceptions are pretty important. So the perceptions are, yes, we have solidarity with Israel. What is the opposite of solidarity? It is hostility. So if we have solidarity with Israel, then we have hostility to the Palestinians.

war
Too Many Federal Cops
6 December 2001    2001 Ron Paul 104:4
In the past, interim procedural steps, such as the military tribunals Franklin Roosevelt established during World War II to try saboteurs, have been promptly terminated when the conflict ended. Because of its likely permanence, the expansion and institutionalization of national police power poses a greater threat to individual liberties. Congress should count to 10 before creating any additional police forces or a Cabinet-level Office of Homeland Security.

war
Too Many Federal Cops
6 December 2001    2001 Ron Paul 104:6
In 1878 Congress passed the Posse Comitatus Act to prohibit the military from performing civilian police functions. Over Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger’s opposition, President Ronald Reagan declared drug trafficking a threat to national security as the rationale for committing the military to the war on drugs. (Weinberger argued that “reliance on military forces to accomplish civilian tasks is detrimental to . . . the democratic process.”) Reagan’s action gives George Bush a precedent for committing the military and National Guard to civilian police duty at airports and borders.

war
Too Many Federal Cops
6 December 2001    2001 Ron Paul 104:7
Given the president’s candor about the likelihood that the war on terrorism will last many years, the administration and a compliant Congress are in clear and present danger of establishing a national police force and — under either the attorney general, director of homeland security or an agency combining the CIA and State and Defense intelligence (or some combination of the above) — a de facto ministry of the interior.

war
Saddam Hussein
19 December 2001    2001 Ron Paul 107:4
For instance, just this week, we had Stinger Missiles fired at our airplanes. Fortunately, they did not hit our airplanes. But we paid for those Stinger Missiles. And this week there was an attack in India by allies, supposedly, in Pakistan, who are receiving billions of dollars from us at the current time. This vacillation, shifting, on and off, friends one time, enemies the next time, this perpetual war seems to me not to be in the best interests of the United States.

war
Saddam Hussein
19 December 2001    2001 Ron Paul 107:6
So I see this as a perfect example of us always flip-flopping. Not only do we frequently have those weapons that we sell and give to support a so-called friend turn against us, we so often have the opponents in the wars around the world fighting each other with our weapons.

war
Saddam Hussein
19 December 2001    2001 Ron Paul 107:9
I tend to agree with the gentleman from Illinois (Chairman HYDE) that if there was evidence, we probably have, under the authority we have given the President, to go in to Iraq. But that is not what we are talking about. We are talking about the perpetuation, the continuation of the Persian Gulf War, which at the time was designed as a fight for our oil. I think that is what this is all about.

war
Saddam Hussein
19 December 2001    2001 Ron Paul 107:10
Its been suggested that the anthrax came from Iraq. The mounting evidence today, sadly, suggests that it may well be coming from our CIA. Here we are almost ready to go to war against Iraq at the suggestion that our carelessness and our development of anthrax here in this country may have been a contributing factor to this anthrax being spread in this country.

war
Saddam Hussein
19 December 2001    2001 Ron Paul 107:13
Another “whereas,” mentioning UN Resolution 678 it was declared that under Resolution 687, we have authority to go back in today. That is not true. As a matter of fact, 687 gave us the authority to get Saddam Hussein to withdraw from Kuwait. That does not mean that we can perpetuate war forever under that resolution.

war
Saddam Hussein
19 December 2001    2001 Ron Paul 107:16
I am glad this resolution has been toned down a little bit, but it does represent those individuals who think that we should be at war with Iraq today, and I disagree with that. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

war
Opposing Resolution For War With Iraq
19 December 2001    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.

war
Opposing Resolution For War With Iraq
19 December 2001    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.

war
Opposing Resolution For War With Iraq
19 December 2001    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.

war
Opposing Resolution For War With Iraq
19 December 2001    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.

war

19 December 2001    2001 Ron Paul 111:4
Using gas on our own people? I understand a few people died at Waco, and it happened that illegal war gasses were used during that operation.

war

19 December 2001    2001 Ron Paul 111:9
The rationale for this legislation is suspect, not the least because it employs a revisionist view of recent Middle East history. This legislation brings up, as part of its indictment against Iraq, that Iraq attacked Iran some 20 years ago. What the legislation fails to mention is that at that time Iraq was an ally of the United States, and counted on technical and military support from the United States in its war on Iran. Similarly, the legislation mentions Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait more than 10 years ago. But at that time U.S. foreign policy was sending Saddam Hussein mixed messages, as Iraq’s dispute with Kuwait simmered. At the time, U.S. Ambassador April Glaspie was reported in the New York times as giving very ambiguous signals to Saddam Hussein regarding Kuwait, allegedly telling Hussein that the United States had no interest in Arab-Arab disputes.

war

19 December 2001    2001 Ron Paul 111:10
We must also consider the damage a military invasion of Iraq will do to our alliance in this fight against terrorism. An attack on Iraq could destroy that international coalition against terrorism. Most of our European allies — critical in maintaining this coalition — have explicitly stated their opposition to any attack on Iraq. German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer warned recently that Europe was “completely united” in opposition to any attack on Iraq. Russian President Valdimir Putin cautioned recently against American military action in Iraq. Mr. Putin urged the next step to be centered around cutting off the financial resources of terrorists worldwide. As for Iraq, the Russian president said. “. . . so far I have no confirmation, no evidence that Iraq is financing the terrorists that we are fighting against.” Relations with our European allies would suffer should we continue down this path toward military conflict with Iraq.

war

19 December 2001    2001 Ron Paul 111:11
Likewise, U.S. relations with the Gulf states like Saudi Arabia could collapse should the United States initiate an attack on Iraq. Not only would our Saudi allies deny us the use of their territory to launch the attack, but a certain backlash from all gulf and Arab states could well produce even an oil embargo against the United States. Egypt, a key ally in our fight against terrorism, has also warned against any attack on Iraq. Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmed Maher said recently of the coalition that, “If we want to keep consensus . . . we should not resort, after Afghanistan, to military means.”

war

19 December 2001    2001 Ron Paul 111:12
Mr. Speaker, I do not understand this push to seek out another country to bomb next. Media and various politicians and pundits seem to delight in predicting from week to week which country should be next on our bombing list. Is military action now the foreign policy of first resort for the United States? When it comes to other countries and warring disputes, the United States counsels dialogue without exception. We urge the Catholics and Protestants to talk to each other, we urge the Israelis and Palestinians to talk to each other. Even at the height of the Cold War, when the Soviet Union had missiles pointed at us from 90 miles away in Cuba, we solved the dispute through dialogue and diplomacy. Why is it, in this post Cold War era, that the United States seems to turn first to the military to solve its foreign policy problems? Is diplomacy dead?

war
The Case For Defending America
24 January 2002    2002 Ron Paul 1:23
The changes obviously are a result of something other than the tragic loss of over 3,900 people. We kill that many people every month on our government highways. We lost 60,000 young people in the Vietnam War; yet the sense of fear in our country then was not the same as it is today. The major difference is that last year’s attacks made us feel vulnerable because it was clear that our Federal Government had failed in its responsibility to provide defense against such an assault, and the anthrax scare certainly did not help to diminish that fear.

war
The Case For Defending America
24 January 2002    2002 Ron Paul 1:28
The grand irony is that this criticism is being directed towards those who, Heaven forbid, are expressing concern for losing our cherished liberties here at home. This, of course, is what the whole war on terrorism is supposed to be about, protecting liberty, and that includes the right of free expression.

war
The Case For Defending America
24 January 2002    2002 Ron Paul 1:32
The military operation against the Taliban has gone well. The Taliban has been removed from power, and our government, with the help of the U.N., is well along the way toward establishing a new Afghan government. We were not supposed to be in the business of nation building, but I guess 9–11 changed all that. The one problem is that the actual number of al-Qaeda members captured or killed is uncertain. Also, the number of Taliban officials that had any direct contact or knowledge of the attacks on us is purely speculative. Since this war is carried out in secrecy, we will probably not know the details of what went on for years to come.

war
The Case For Defending America
24 January 2002    2002 Ron Paul 1:34
Our sterile approach to the bombing with minimal loss of American life is to be commended, but it may generate outrage toward us by this lopsided killing of persons totally unaware of events of September 11. Our President wisely has not been anxious to send in large numbers of occupying forces into Afghanistan. This also guarantees chaos among the warring tribal factions. The odds of a stable Afghan government evolving out of this mess are remote. The odds of our investing large sums of money to buy support for years to come are great.

war
The Case For Defending America
24 January 2002    2002 Ron Paul 1:35
Unfortunately, it has been seen only as an opportunity for Pakistan and India to resume their warring ways, placing us in a very dangerous situation. This could easily get out of control since China will not allow a clearcut Indian victory over Pakistan. The danger of a nuclear confrontation is real. Even the British have spoken sympathetically about Pakistan’s interest over India. The tragedy is that we have helped both India and Pakistan financially and, therefore, the American taxpayer has indirectly contributed funds for the weapons on both sides. Our troops in this region are potential targets of either or both countries.

war
The Case For Defending America
24 January 2002    2002 Ron Paul 1:36
Fortunately, due to the many probable repercussions, a swift attack on Iraq now seems unlikely. Our surrogate army, organized by the Iraqi National Congress, is now known to be a charade, prompting our administration to correctly stop all funding of this organization. The thought of relying on the Kurds to help remove Hussein defies logic, as the U.S.-funded Turkish army continues its war on the Kurds. There is just no coalition in the Persian Gulf to take on Iraq and, fortunately, our Secretary of State knows it.

war
The Case For Defending America
24 January 2002    2002 Ron Paul 1:37
Our terrorist enemy is vague and elusive. Our plans to expand our current military operations into many other countries are fraught with great risk, risk of making our problems worse. Not dealing with the people actually responsible for the attacks and ignoring the root causes of terrorism will needlessly perpetuate and expand a war that will do nothing to enhance the security and the safety of the American people.

war
The Case For Defending America
24 January 2002    2002 Ron Paul 1:38
Since Iraq is now less likely to be hit, it looks like another poverty-ridden rudderless nation, possibly Somalia, will be the next target. No good can come of this process. It will provide more fodder for the radicals’ claim that the war is about America against Islam. Somalia poses no threat to the United States, but bombing Somalia, as we have Afghanistan and Iraq for 12 years, will only incite more hatred towards the United States and increase the odds of our someday getting hit again by some frustrated, vengeful, radicalized Muslim.

war
The Case For Defending America
24 January 2002    2002 Ron Paul 1:45
An alliance between Iraq and Iran against the United States is a more likely possibility now than ever before. Iraqi Foreign Minister Naji Sabri is optimistically working on bringing those two nations together in a military alliance. His hope is that this would be activated if we attacked Iraq. The two nations have already exchanged prisoners of war as a step in that direction.

war
The Case For Defending America
24 January 2002    2002 Ron Paul 1:46
U.S. military planners are making preparations for our troops to stay in Central Asia for a long time. A long time could mean 50 years. We have been in Korea for that long and we have been in Japan and Europe even longer. But the time will come when we will wear out our welcome and have to leave these areas. The Vietnam War met with more resistance, and we left relatively quickly in a humiliating defeat. Similarly, episodes of a more minor nature occurred in Somalia and Lebanon.

war
The Case For Defending America
24 January 2002    2002 Ron Paul 1:50
If the jingoism of the Wall Street Journal prevails and the warmongers in the Congress and the administration carry the day, we can assume with certainty that these efforts being made will precipitate an uncontrollable breakout of hostilities in the region that could lead to World War III. How a major publication can actually print an article that openly supports such aggression as a serious proposal is difficult to comprehend.

war
The Case For Defending America
24 January 2002    2002 Ron Paul 1:51
Two countries armed with nuclear weapons on the verge of war in the region, and we are being urged to dig a deeper hole for ourselves by seizing the Saudi oil fields? Already the presence of our troops in the Muslim holy land of Saudi Arabia has inflamed the hatred that drove the terrorists to carry out their tragic act of 9–11. Pursuing such an aggressive policy would only further undermine our ability to defend the American people and will compound the economic problems we face here at home.

war
The Case For Defending America
24 January 2002    2002 Ron Paul 1:53
Let there be no doubt, for every terrorist identified, others will see only a freedom fighter. That was the case when we aided Osama bin Laden in the 1980s. He was a member of the Mujahidien, and they were the freedom fighters waging a just war against the Soviet army. Of course, now he is our avowed enemy. A broad definition of terrorism outside the understanding of those who attacked the United States opens a Pandora’s box in our foreign policy commitments.

war
The Case For Defending America
24 January 2002    2002 Ron Paul 1:56
I am fearful that an unlimited worldwide war against all terrorism will distract from the serious consideration that must be given to our policy of foreign interventionism, driven by the powerful commercial interests and a desire to promote world government. This is done while ignoring our principal responsibility of protecting national security and liberty here at home.

war
The Case For Defending America
24 January 2002    2002 Ron Paul 1:63
This is good advice. The framers also understood that the important powers for dealing with other countries and the issue of war were to be placed in the hands of Congress. This principle has essentially been forgotten.

war
The Case For Defending America
24 January 2002    2002 Ron Paul 1:65
Today, through altering aid and sanctions, we buy and sell our “friendship” with all kinds of threats and bribes in our effort to spread our influence around the world. To most people in Washington, free trade means internationally managed trade, with subsidies and support for the WTO, where influential corporations can seek sanctions against their competitors. Our alliances, too numerous to count, have committed our dollars and our troops to such an extent that, under today’s circumstances, there is not a border war or civil disturbance in the world in which we do not have a stake. And more than likely, we have a stake, foreign aid, on both sides of each military conflict.

war
Stimulating The Economy
February 7, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 5:27
Very few in Washington, however, recognize the dire consequences to economic prosperity that welfarism, warfarism, and inflationism cause. Most believe that the occasional recession can be easily handled by government programs and a Federal Reserve policy designed to stimulate growth. It’s happened many times already, and almost everyone believes that in a few months our economy and stock market will be roaring once again.

war
Stimulating The Economy
February 7, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 5:37
Ideas regarding the national debt have been transformed. Presidents Jefferson and Jackson despised government debt and warned against it. Likewise, both detested central banking, which they knew inevitably, would be used to liquidate the real debt through the mischievous process of monetary debasement.

war
Stimulating The Economy
February 7, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 5:42
Those who would belittle the critics of the deficit and national debt are merely supporting a system of big government, whether it’s welfare or warfare, or both.

war
Stimulating The Economy
February 7, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 5:50
The economic loss is bad enough, but whether it’s fighting the war on terrorism, acting as the world’s policeman, or solving the problems of vanishing wealth, the real insult will come from the freedoms we lose. These freedoms, vital to production and wealth formation, are necessary and represent what the American dream is all about. They are what made us the richest nation in all of history, but this we will lose if Congress is not careful with what it does in the coming months.

war
Stimulating The Economy
February 7, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 5:60
6. Limits exist on how extensive our foreign commitments should be. We have our military limits. It’s difficult to be everyplace at one time, especially if significant hostilities break out in more than one place. For instance, if we were to commit massive troops to the overthrow of Saddam Hussein, and Iran were to decide to help Iraq, and at the same time the North Koreans were to decide to make a move, our capacity to wage war in both places would be limited. Already we’re short of bombs from the current Afghanistan war. We had to quit flying sorties over our own cities due to cost, while depending on NATO planes to provide us AWACs cover over U.S. territory. In addition, our financial resources are not unlimited, and any significant change in the value of the dollar, as well as our rapidly growing deficits, could play a significant role in our ability to pay our bills.

war
Stimulating The Economy
February 7, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 5:61
7. In the area of personal liberty, we face some real dangers. Throughout our history, starting with the Civil War, our liberties have been curtailed and the Constitution has been flaunted. Although our government continued to grow with each crisis, many of the liberties curtailed during wartime were restored. War was precise and declared, and when the war was over, there was a desire to return to normalcy. With the current war on terrorism, there is no end in sight and there is no precise enemy, and we’ve been forewarned that this fight will go on for a long time. This means that a return to normalcy after the sacrifices we are making with our freedoms is not likely. The implementation of a national ID card, pervasive surveillance, easy-to-get search warrants, and loss of financial and medical privacy will be permanent. If this trend continues, the Constitution will become a much weaker document.

war
Stimulating The Economy
February 7, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 5:65
11. The economic ramifications of our war on terrorism are difficult to ascertain but could be quite significant. Although the recession was obviously not caused by the attacks, the additional money spent and the effect of all the new regulations cannot help the recovery. When one adds up the domestic costs, the military costs and the costs of new regulations, we can be certain that deficits are going to grow significantly, and the Federal Reserve will be further pressured to pursue a dangerous monetary inflation. This policy will result in higher rather than lower interest rates, a weak dollar and certainly rising prices. The danger of our economy spinning out of control should not be lightly dismissed.

war
So-Called “Campaign Finance Reform” is Unconstitutional
February 13, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 7:24
Hamilton’s warning has proved prophetic in the case of campaign-finance reform. As the debate swirls around the impact of such reform measures on the freedom of speech and association, the question whether Congress has the constitutional authority to regulate federal election campaigns is being ignored. Yet, that question would have been hotly debated and quickly answered in America’s founding era in light of the constitutional text carefully circumscribing Congress’s authority in relation to federal elections. (See Article I, Section 4, Clause 1 and Article II, Section 1, Clause 4; Federalist No. 60 and Federalist No. 68, I Story’s Commentaries on the Constitution , Sections 814-826 and II Story’s Commentaries , Sections 1453-75, 5th ed. 1891.)

war
So-Called “Campaign Finance Reform” is Unconstitutional
February 13, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 7:52
This same theme has been struck by leading proponents of reform in the House of Representatives. Four years ago, House Minority Leader Richard Gephardt urged the adoption of more restrictive measures “for healthy campaigns in a healthy democracy” even at the expense of the freedom of speech. (Gibbs, “The Wake-Up Call,” Time, p. 25, Feb. 3, 1997) Representative Gephardt has not changed his mind, continuing his adamant support of the speech-restrictive Shays-Meehan bill to this day. (Mitchell, “2 Election Bills Go to the House Floor,” The New York Times , June 29, 2001) Indeed, Senator John McCain has not changed his mind either. Having urged in 1997 the enactment of a law placing limits on public policy organizations’ political advertising in the waning days of an election campaign, and thus calling off the political “attack dogs” (NBC News, Meet the Press, Feb. 3, 1997), Senator McCain is waging an all-out war to make sure that his version of campaign-finance reform passes the House. (Shenon, “House Critics Call McCain a Bully on Campaign Bill,” The New York Times, July 9, 2001) As McCain’s Democrat colleague, Russell Feingold, put it upon the introduction of Shays-Meehan in the Senate in 1999: “The prevalence – no – the dominance of money in our system of elections and our legislature will…cause them to crumble.” (Cong. Rec. S422, 423, daily ed., Jan. 19, 1999)

war
Introduction of the Monetary Freedom and Accountability Act
February 13, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 8:11
But there are many in the world of high finance who aren’t buying the official line and warn that Enron is just the first to fall from a shaky house of cards.

war
Introduction of the Monetary Freedom and Accountability Act
February 13, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 8:21
Howe’s claim contends that the price of gold has been manipulated since 1994 “by conspiracy of public officials and major bullion banks, with three objectives: 1) to prevent rising gold prices from sounding a warning on U.S. inflation; 2) to prevent rising gold prices from signaling weakness in the international value of the dollar; and 3) to prevent banks and others who have funded themselves through borrowing gold at low interest rates and are thus short physical gold from suffering huge losses as a consequence of rising gold prices.”

war
Before We Bomb Iraq...
February 26, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 9:1
The war drums are beating, louder and louder. Iraq, Iran, and North Korea have been forewarned. Plans have been laid and, for all we know, already initiated, for the overthrow and assassination of Saddam Hussein.

war
Before We Bomb Iraq...
February 26, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 9:2
There’s been talk of sabotage, psychological warfare, arming domestic rebels, killing Hussein, and even an outright invasion of Iraq with hundreds of thousands of US troops. All we hear about in the biased media is the need to eliminate Saddam Hussein, with little regard for how this, in itself, might totally destabilize the entire Middle East and Central Asia. It could, in fact, make the Iraq “problem” much worse.

war
Before We Bomb Iraq...
February 26, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 9:5
European criticism that the United States is now following a unilateral approach is brushed off, which only causes more apprehension in the European community. Widespread support from the eager media pumps the public to support the warmongers in the administration.

war
Before We Bomb Iraq...
February 26, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 9:9
Our policies have actually served to generate support for Saddam Hussein, in spite of his brutal control of the Iraq people. He is as strong today- if not stronger- as he was prior to the Persian Gulf War 12 years ago.

war
Before We Bomb Iraq...
February 26, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 9:11
While we trade with, and subsidize to the hilt, the questionable government of China, we place sanctions on and refuse to trade with Iran and Iraq, which only causes greater antagonism. But if the warmongers’ goal is to have a war, regardless of international law and the Constitution, current policy serves their interests.

war
Before We Bomb Iraq...
February 26, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 9:12
Could it be that only through war and removal of certain governments we can maintain control of the oil in this region? Could it be all about oil, and have nothing to do with US national security?

war
Before We Bomb Iraq...
February 26, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 9:14
Although bits and pieces of the administration’s plans to wage war against Iraq and possibly Iran and North Korea are discussed, we never hear any mention of the authority to do so. It seems that Tony Blair’s approval is more important than the approval of the American people!

war
Before We Bomb Iraq...
February 26, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 9:15
Congress never complains about its lost prerogative to be the sole declarer of war. Astoundingly, Congress is only too eager to give war power to our presidents through the back door, by the use of some fuzzy resolution that the president can use as his justification. And once the hostilities begin, the money always follows, because Congress fears criticism for not “supporting the troops.” But putting soldiers in harm’s way without proper authority, and unnecessarily, can hardly be the way to “support the troops.”

war
Before We Bomb Iraq...
February 26, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 9:16
Let it be clearly understood- there is no authority to wage war against Iraq without Congress passing a Declaration of War. HJ RES 65, passed in the aftermath of 9/11, does not even suggest that this authority exists. A UN Resolution authorizing an invasion of Iraq, even if it were to come, cannot replace the legal process for the United States going to war as precisely defined in the Constitution. We must remember that a covert war is no more justifiable, and is even more reprehensible.

war
Before We Bomb Iraq...
February 26, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 9:17
Only tyrants can take a nation to war without the consent of the people. The planned war against Iraq without a Declaration of War is illegal. It is unwise because of many unforeseen consequences that are likely to result. It is immoral and unjust, because it has nothing to do with US security and because Iraq has not initiated aggression against us.

war
Statement on the International Criminal Court
February 28, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 13:5
Supporters of the International Criminal Court are quick to say that the Court is modeled on the Nuremberg tribunal set up after World War II, but nothing could be further from the truth. Nuremberg was a trial initiated and prosecuted by sovereign nations. It was a reassertion of national sovereignty over the crimes of a regime that disregarded the concept, that saw other sovereign countries as merely “living space” for their own people. As one analyst recently wrote, “the Nuremberg tribunal, unlike the Hague tribunal, was not really an international tribunal at all. The judges quite specifically stated that the act of promulgating the Nuremberg charter was ‘the exercise of sovereign legislative power of the countries to which the German Reich unconditionally surrendered.’ There was no pretense that the ‘international community’ was prosecuting the Germans.”

war
Statement on wasteful foreign aid to Colombia
March 6, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 14:2
This legislation represents a very serious and significant shift in United States policy toward Colombia. It sets us on a slippery slope toward unwise military intervention in a foreign civil war that has nothing to do with the United States.

war
Statement on wasteful foreign aid to Colombia
March 6, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 14:3
Our policy toward Colombia was already ill-advised when it consisted of an expensive front in our failed “war on drugs.” Plan Colombia, launched nearly two years ago, sent $1.3 billion to Colombia under the guise of this war on drugs. A majority of that went to the Colombian military; much was no doubt lost through corruption. Though this massive assistance program was supposed to put an end to the FARC and other rebel groups involved in drug trafficking, two years later we are now being told- in this legislation and elsewhere- that the FARC and rebel groups are stronger than ever. So now we are being asked to provide even more assistance in an effort that seems to have had a result the opposite of what was intended. In effect, we are being asked to redouble failed efforts. That doesn’t make sense.

war
Statement on wasteful foreign aid to Colombia
March 6, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 14:4
At the time Plan Colombia was introduced, President Clinton promised the American people that this action would in no way drag us into the Colombian civil war. This current legislation takes a bad policy and makes it much worse. This legislation calls for the United States “to assist the Government of Colombia protect its democracy from United States-designated foreign terrorist organizations . . .” In other words, this legislation elevates a civil war in Colombia to the level of the international war on terror, and it will drag us deep into the conflict.

war
Statement on wasteful foreign aid to Colombia
March 6, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 14:5
Mr. Speaker, there is a world of difference between a rebel group fighting a civil war in a foreign country and the kind of international terrorist organization that targeted the United States last September. As ruthless and violent as the three rebel groups in Colombia no doubt are, their struggle for power in that country is an internal one. None of the three appears to have any intention of carrying out terrorist activities in the United States. Should we become involved in a civil war against them, however, these organizations may well begin to view the United States as a legitimate target. What possible reason could there be for us to take on such a deadly risk? What possible rewards could there be for the United States support for one faction or the other in this civil war?

war
Statement on wasteful foreign aid to Colombia
March 6, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 14:7
Further intervention in the internal political and military affairs of Colombia will only increase the mistrust and anger of the average Colombian citizen toward the United States, as these citizens will face the prospect of an ongoing, United States-supported war in their country. Already Plan Colombia has fueled the deep resentment of Colombian farmers toward the United States. These farmers have seen their legitimate crops destroyed, water supply polluted, and families sprayed as powerful herbicides miss their intended marks. An escalation of American involvement will only make matters worse.

war
Statement on wasteful foreign aid to Colombia
March 6, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 14:8
Mr. Speaker, at this critical time, our precious military and financial resources must not be diverted to a conflict that has nothing to do with the United States and poses no threat to the United States. Trying to designate increased military involvement in Colombia as a new front on the “war on terror” makes no sense at all. It will only draw the United States into a quagmire much like Vietnam. The Colombian civil war is now in its fourth decade; pretending that the fighting there is somehow related to our international war on terrorism is to stretch the imagination to the breaking point. It is unwise and dangerous.

war
Steel Protectionism
Wednesday, March 13, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 15:5
What happened to the wonderful harmony that the WTO was supposed to bring to global trade? The administration has been roundly criticized since the steel decision was announced last week, especially by our WTO “partners.” The European Union is preparing to impose retaliatory sanctions to protect its own steel industry. EU trade commissioner Pascal Lamy has accused the U.S. of setting the stage for a global trade war, and several other steel producing nations such as Japan and Russia also have vowed to fight the tariffs. Even British Prime Minister Tony Blair, who has been tremendously supportive of the President since September 11th, recently stated that the new American steel tariffs were totally unjustified. Wasn’t the WTO supposed to prevent all this squabbling? Those of us who opposed U.S. membership in the WTO were scolded as being out of touch, unwilling to see the promise of a new global prosperity. What we’re getting instead is increased hostility from our trading partners and threats of economic sanctions from our WTO masters. This is what happens when we let government-managed trade schemes pick winners and losers in the global trading game. The truly deplorable thing about all of this is that the WTO is touted as promoting free trade!

war
Do Not Initiate War On Iraq
March 20, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 19:1
I was recently asked why I thought it was a bad idea for the President to initiate a war against Iraq. I responded by saying that I could easily give a half a dozen reasons why; and if I took a minute, I could give a full dozen. For starters, here is a half a dozen.

war
Do Not Initiate War On Iraq
March 20, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 19:2
Number one, Congress has not given the President the legal authority to wage war against Iraq as directed by the Constitution, nor does he have U.N. authority to do so. Even if he did, it would not satisfy the rule of law laid down by the Framers of the Constitution.

war
Do Not Initiate War On Iraq
March 20, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 19:4
Number three, a war against Iraq initiated by the United States cannot be morally justified. The argument that someday in the future Saddam Hussein might pose a threat to us means that any nation, any place in the world is subject to an American invasion without cause. This would be comparable to the impossibility of proving a negative.

war
Do Not Initiate War On Iraq
March 20, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 19:5
Number four, initiating a war against Iraq will surely antagonize all neighboring Arab and Muslim nations as well as the Russians, the Chinese, and the European Union, if not the whole world. Even the English people are reluctant to support Tony Blair’s prodding of our President to invade Iraq. There is no practical benefit for such action. Iraq could end up in even more dangerous hands like Iran.

war
Do Not Initiate War On Iraq
March 20, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 19:6
Number five, an attack on Iraq will not likely be confined to Iraq alone. Spreading the war to Israel and rallying all Arab nations against her may well end up jeopardizing the very existence of Israel. The President has already likened the current international crisis more to that of World War II than the more localized Vietnam war. The law of unintended consequences applies to international affairs every bit as much as to domestic interventions, yet the consequences of such are much more dangerous.

war
Do Not Initiate War On Iraq
March 20, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 19:7
Number six, the cost of a war against Iraq would be prohibitive. We paid a heavy economic price for the Vietnam war in direct cost, debt and inflation. This coming war could be a lot more expensive. Our national debt is growing at a rate greater than $250 billion per year. This will certainly accelerate. The dollar cost will be the least of our concerns compared to the potential loss of innocent lives, both theirs and ours. The systematic attack on civil liberties that accompanies all wars cannot be ignored. Already we hear cries for resurrecting the authoritarian program of constriction in the name of patriotism, of course.

war
Do Not Initiate War On Iraq
March 20, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 19:8
Could any benefit come from all this warmongering? Possibly. Let us hope and pray so. It should be evident that big government is anathema to individual liberty. In a free society, the role of government is to protect the individual’s right to life and liberty. The biggest government of all, the U.N. consistently threatens personal liberties and U.S. sovereignty. But our recent move toward unilateralism hopefully will inadvertently weaken the United Nations. Our participation more often than not lately is conditioned on following the international rules and courts and trade agreements only when they please us, flaunting the consensus, without rejecting internationalism on principle- as we should.

war
Statement Opposing Military Conscription
March 20, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 20:7
During the War of 1812, Daniel Webster eloquently made the case that a military draft was unconstitutional: “ Where is it written in the Constitution , in what article or section is it contained, that you may take children from their parents, and parents from their children, and compel them to fight the battles of any war, in which the folly or the wickedness of Government may engage it? Under what concealment has this power lain hidden, which now for the first time comes forth, with a tremendous and baleful aspect, to trample down and destroy the dearest rights of personal liberty? Sir, I almost disdain to go to quotations and references to prove that such an abominable doctrine had no foundation in the Constitution of the country. It is enough to know that the instrument was intended as the basis of a free government, and that the power contended for is incompatible with any notion of personal liberty. An attempt to maintain this doctrine upon the provisions of the Constitution is an exercise of perverse ingenuity to extract slavery from the substance of a free government. It is an attempt to show, by proof and argument, that we ourselves are subjects of despotism, and that we have a right to chains and bondage, firmly secured to us and our children, by the provisions of our government.”

war
America’s Entangling Alliances in the Middle East
April 10, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 21:1
We were warned, and in the early years of our Republic, we heeded that warning. Today, though, we are entangled in everyone’s affairs throughout the world, and we are less safe as a result. The current Middle-East crisis is one that we helped create, and it is typical of how foreign intervention fails to serve our interests. Now we find ourselves smack-dab in the middle of a fight that will not soon end. No matter what the outcome, we lose.

war
America’s Entangling Alliances in the Middle East
April 10, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 21:10
But here we are in the middle of a war that has no end and serves only to divide us here at home, while the unbalanced slaughter continues with tanks and aircraft tearing up a country that does not even have an army.

war
America’s Entangling Alliances in the Middle East
April 10, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 21:11
It is amazing that the clamor of support for Israel here at home comes from men of deep religious conviction in the Christian faith, who are convinced they are doing the Lord’s work. That, quite frankly, is difficult for me as a Christian to comprehend. We need to remember the young people who will be on the front lines when the big war starts- which is something so many in this body seem intent on provoking.

war
America’s Entangling Alliances in the Middle East
April 10, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 21:12
Ironically, the biggest frustration in Washington, for those who eagerly resort to war to resolve differences, is that the violence in the Middle East has delayed plans for starting another war against Iraq.

war
America’s Entangling Alliances in the Middle East
April 10, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 21:15
It’s costly, to say the least. Already our military budget has sapped domestic spending and caused the deficit to explode. But the greatest danger is that one day these contained conflicts will get out of control. Certainly the stage is set for that to happen in the Middle East and south central Asia. A world war is a possibility that should not be ignored. Our policy of subsidizing both sides is ludicrous. We support Arabs and Jews, Pakistanis and Indians, Chinese and Russians. We have troops in 140 countries around the world just looking for trouble. Our policies have led us to support Al Qaeda in Kosovo and bomb their Serb adversaries. We have, in the past, allied ourselves with bin Laden, as well as Saddam Hussein, only to find out later the seriousness of our mistake. Will this foolishness ever end?

war
Predictions
24 April 2002    2002 Ron Paul 25:10
The United States, with Tony Blair as head cheerleader, will attack Iraq without proper authority, and a major war, the largest since World War II, will result.

war
Predictions
24 April 2002    2002 Ron Paul 25:19
The leaders of whichever side loses the war will be hauled into and tried before the International Criminal Court for war crimes. The United States will not officially lose the war, but neither will we win. Our military and political leaders will not be tried by the International Criminal Court.

war
Predictions
24 April 2002    2002 Ron Paul 25:24
The war will prove to be divisive, with emotions and hatred growing between the various factions and special interests that drive our policies in the Middle East.

war
Predictions
24 April 2002    2002 Ron Paul 25:25
Agitation from more class warfare will succeed in dividing us domestically, and believe it or not, I expect lobbyists will thrive more than ever during the dangerous period of chaos.

war
Statement in Support of a Balanced Approach to the Middle East Peace Process
May 2, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 32:3
It is, when speaking of the dead, the one-sidedness of this bill that is so unfortunate. How is it that the side that loses seven people to every one on the other side is portrayed as the sole aggressor and condemned as terrorist? This is only made worse by the fact that Palestinian deaths are seen in the Arab world as being American-inspired, as it is our weapons that are being used against them. This bill just reinforces negative perceptions of the United States in that part of the world. What might be the consequences of this? I think we need to stop and think about that for a while. We in this body have a Constitutional responsibility to protect the national security of the United States. This one-sided intervention in a far-off war has the potential to do great harm to our national security.

war
Statement in Support of a Balanced Approach to the Middle East Peace Process
May 2, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 32:5
Many people of various religious backgrounds seem determined to portray what is happening in the Middle East as some kind of historic/religious struggle, where one side is pre-ordained to triumph and destroy the other. Even some in this body have embraced this notion. Surely the religious component that some interject into the conflict rouses emotions and adds fuel to the fire. But this is dangerous thinking. Far from a great holy war, the Middle East conflict is largely about what most wars are about: a struggle for land and resources in a part of the world where both are scarce. We must think and act rationally, with this fact clearly in mind.

war
Expressing Solidarity With Israel In Its Fight Against Terrorism
2 May 2002    2002 Ron Paul 33:3
It is, when speaking of the dead, the onesidedness of this bill that is so unfortunate. How is it that the side that loses seven people to every one on the other side is portrayed as the sole aggressor and condemned as terrorist? This is only made worse by the fact that Palestinian deaths are seen in the Arab world as being American-inspired, as it is our weapons that are being used against them. This bill just reinforces negative perceptions of the United States in that part of the world. What might be the consequences of this? I think we need to stop and think about that for a while. We in this body have a Constitutional responsibility to protect the national security of the United States. This one-sided intervention in a far-off war has the potential to do great harm to our national security.

war
Expressing Solidarity With Israel In Its Fight Against Terrorism
2 May 2002    2002 Ron Paul 33:5
Many people of various religious backgrounds seem determined to portray what is happening in the Middle East as some kind of historic/religious struggle, where one side is pre-ordained to triumph and destroy the other. Even some in this body have embraced this notion. Surely the religious component that some interject into the conflict rouses emotions and adds fuel to the fire. But this is dangerous thinking. Far from a great holy war, the Middle East conflict is largely about what most wars are about: a struggle for land and resources in a part of the world where both are scarce. We must think and act rationally, with this fact clearly in mind.

war
Say No to Conscription
May 9, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 35:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I hope my colleagues who believe that the current war on terrorism justifies violating the liberty of millions of young men by reinstating a military draft will consider the eloquent argument against conscription in the attached speech by Daniel Webster. Then-representative Webster delivered his remarks on the floor of the House in opposition to a proposal to institute a draft during the War of 1812. Webster’s speech remains one of the best statements of the Constitutional and moral case against conscription.

war
Say No to Conscription
May 9, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 35:5
ON CONSCRIPTION (By Daniel Webster) During America’s first great war, waged against Great Britain, the Madison Administration tried to introduce a conscription bill into Congress. This bill called forth one of Daniel Webster’s most eloquent efforts, in a powerful opposition to conscription. The speech was delivered in the House of Representatives on December 9, 1814; the following is a condensation:

war
Say No to Conscription
May 9, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 35:6
This bill indeed is less undisguised in its object, and less direct in its means, than some of the measures proposed. It is an attempt to exercise the power of forcing the free men of this country into the ranks of an army, for the general purposes of war, under color of a military service. It is a distinct system, introduced for new purposes, and not connected with any power, which the Constitution has conferred on Congress.

war
Say No to Conscription
May 9, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 35:9
Conscription is chosen as the most promising instrument, both of overcoming reluctance to the Service, and of subduing the difficulties which arise from the deficiencies of the Exchequer. The administration asserts the right to fill the ranks of the regular army by compulsion. It contends that it may now take one out of every twenty-five men, and any part or the whole of the rest, whenever its occasions require. Persons thus taken by force, and put into an army, may be compelled to serve there, during the war, or for life. They may be put on any service, at home or abroad, for defense or for invasion, according to the will and pleasure of Government. This power does not grow out of any invasion of the country, or even out of a state of war. It belongs to Government at all times, in peace as well as in war, and is to be exercised under all circumstances, according to its mere discretion. This, Sir, is the amount of the principle contended for by the Secretary of War (James Monroe).

war
Say No to Conscription
May 9, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 35:10
Is this, Sir, consistent with the character of a free Government? Is this civil liberty? Is this the real character of our Constitution? No, Sir, indeed it is not. The Constitution is libeled, foully libeled. The people of this country have not established for themselves such a fabric of despotism. They have not purchased at a vast expense of their own treasure and their own blood a Magna Carta to be slaves. Where is it written in the Constitution, in what article or section is it contained, that you may take children from their parents, and parents from their children, and compel them to fight the battles of any war, in which the folly or the wickedness of Government may engage it? Under what concealment has this power lain hidden, which now for the first time comes forth, with a tremendous and baleful aspect, to trample down and destroy the dearest rights of personal liberty? Sir, I almost disdain to go to quotations and references to prove that such an abominable doctrine has no foundation in the Constitution of the country. It is enough to know that that instrument was intended as the basis of a free Government, and that the power contended for is incompatible with any notion of personal liberty. An attempt to maintain this doctrine upon the provisions of the Constitution is an exercise of perverse ingenuity to extract slavery from the substance of a free Government. It is an attempt to show, by proof and argument, that we ourselves are subjects of despotism, and that we have a right to chains and bondage, firmly secured to us and our children, by the provisions of our Government.

war
Amendment 9
9 May 2002    2002 Ron Paul 37:4
On December 31, right before the last day of the treaty, the Rome Convention, could be signed, our President signed this convention, but it has never been ratified. It has not been brought to the Senate. It was too late, and our President now does not have any intention. We might say why worry about it, but just recently we all know that the President has essentially rescinded the signature on this treaty to make the point that we do not want our servicemen called in and tried in International Criminal Court as war criminals. So it is a protection of the servicemen.

war
Don’t Force Taxpayers to Fund Nation-Building in Afghanistan
May 21, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 43:11
Among other harmful things, this legislation dramatically expands the drug war. Under the group we have installed in Afghanistan, opium production has skyrocketed. Now we are expected to go in and clean up the mess our allies have created. In addition, this bill will send some $60 million to the United Nations, to help fund its own drug eradication program. I am sure most Americans agree that we already send the United Nations too much of our tax money, yet this bill commits us to sending even more.

war
Don’t Force Taxpayers to Fund Nation-Building in Afghanistan
May 21, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 43:12
The drug war has been a failure. Plan Colombia, an enormously expensive attempt to reduce drug production in that Andean nation, has actually resulted in a 25 percent increase in coca leaf and cocaine production. Does anyone still think our war on drugs there has been successful? Is it responsible to continue spending money on policies that do not work?

war
Don’t Force Taxpayers to Fund Nation-Building in Afghanistan
May 21, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 43:16
Madam Chairman, some two decades ago the Soviet Union also invaded Afghanistan and attempted to impose upon the Afghan people a foreign political system. Some nine years and 15,000 Soviet lives later they retreated in disgrace, morally and financially bankrupt. During that time, we propped up the Afghan resistance with our weapons, money, and training, planting the seeds of the Taliban in the process. Now the former Soviet Union is gone, its armies long withdrawn from Afghanistan, and we’re left cleaning up the mess- yet we won’t be loved for it. No, we won’t get respect or allegiance from the Afghans, especially now that our bombs have rained down upon them. We will pay the bills, however, Afghanistan will become a tragic ward of the American state, another example of an interventionist foreign policy that is supposed to serve our national interests and gain allies, yet which does neither.

war
No More Taxpayer Funds for the Failed Drug War in Colombia
May 23, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 49:2
The interesting thing about what is going on right now, there is no politics in this. This is about war, and this is important, and this is about policy. It is said that we would like to get things like this through without a full discussion; but this, to me, is a key issue. This amendment is about whether or not we will change our policy in central America and, specifically, in Colombia.

war
No More Taxpayer Funds for the Failed Drug War in Colombia
May 23, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 49:4
But the theory is that we will be more effective if we change the policy. Pastrana tried to negotiate a peace and we were going too deal with the drugs, and we were going to have peace after 40 years of a civil war. Now Uribi is likely to become President and the approach is to different. He said, no more negotiations. We will be fighting and we want American help, and we want a change in policy, and we do not want spraying fields; we want helicopters to fight a war. That is what we are dealing with here. We should not let this go by without a full discussion and a full understanding, because in reality, there is no authority to support a military operation in Colombia.

war
No More Taxpayer Funds for the Failed Drug War in Colombia
May 23, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 49:5
What we are doing is we are appropriating for something for the administration to do without a proper authority. He has no authority to get involved in the civil war down there. We cannot imply that the issue of war is granted through the appropriation process. It is not the way the system works. The constitutional system works with granting explicit authority to wage war. The President has no authority, and now he wants the money; and we are ready to capitulate. Let me tell my colleagues, if we care about national defense, we must reconsider this.

war
No More Taxpayer Funds for the Failed Drug War in Colombia
May 23, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 49:7
So I would say, please, take a close look at this. We do not need to be expanding our role in Colombia. The drug war down there has not worked, and I do not expect this military war that we are about to wage to work either. We need to talk about national defense, and this does not help our national defense. I fear this. I feel less secure when we go into areas like this, because believe me, this is the way that we get troops in later on. We already have advisory forces in Colombia. Does anybody remember about advisors and then eventually having military follow in other times in our history. Yes, this is a very risky change in policy. This is not just a minor little increase in appropriation.

war
No More Taxpayer Funds for the Failed Drug War in Colombia
May 23, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 49:8
So I would ask, once again, where is the authority? Where does the authority exists for our President to go down and expand a war in Colombia when it has nothing to do with our national defense or our security? It has more to do with oil than our national security, and we know it. There is a pipeline down there that everybody complains that it is not well protected. It is even designated in legislation, and we deal with this at times. So I would say think about the real reasons behind us going down there.

war
Oppose the "Supplemental" Spending Bill
May 24, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 50:3
Even much of the military spending in this bill has no relationship to legitimate national security needs. Instead it furthers an interventionist foreign policy which is neither constitutional nor in the best interests of the American people. For example, this supplemental contains a stealth attempt to shift our policy toward Colombia, expanding our already failed drug war to include direct participation in Colombia’s 38-year civil war. Though a bill on Colombia was scheduled for markup in the International Relations committee, for some reason it was pulled at the last minute. Therefore, the committee has not been able to debate this policy shift on Colombia. We are instead expected just not to notice, I suppose, that the policy shift has been included in this bill.

war
Oppose the "Supplemental" Spending Bill
May 24, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 50:4
Our expanded interventionism in Colombia is called "counterterrorism," but no one has even attempted to demonstrate that Colombia’s civil war poses even a remote terrorist threat to the United States. In fact, the only terrorist threat from Colombia I have seen actually counsels against our deepening involvement. According to House International Relations Committee briefing materials made available last month:

war
Oppose the "Supplemental" Spending Bill
May 24, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 50:7
The war on drugs in Colombia is failing miserably. Under "Plan Colombia," coca production has increased 25 percent in the period between 2000 and 2001. The production of cocaine increased by roughly the same amount. More cocaine was coming out of Colombia into the United States at the end of 2001, during Plan Colombia, than at the end of 2000, before Plan Colombia. Is this a reason to expand our involvement into Colombia’s civil war?

war
Oppose the "Supplemental" Spending Bill
May 24, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 50:9
We are being dragged into a civil war in Colombia that has nothing to do with us and nothing to do with international terrorism. Those who want to send American money and troops into the Colombian quagmire do not want debate, because their claims that a 38 year civil war somehow has something to do with 9/11 ring hollow.

war
Beware Dollar Weakness
June 5, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 52:4
Gold is history’s oldest and most stable currency. Central bankers and politicians hate gold because it restrains spending and denies them the power to create money and credit out of thin air. Those who promote big government, whether to wage war and promote foreign expansionism or to finance the welfare state here at home, cherish this power.

war
Inspection or Invasion in Iraq?
June 24, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 57:6
In the meeting last month, Scott Ritter reminded members of Congress that a nation cannot go to war based on assumptions and guesses, that a lack of knowledge is no basis on which to initiate military action. Mr. Ritter warned those present that remaining quiescent in the face of the administration’s seeming determination to exceed the authority granted to go after those who attacked us, will actually hurt the president and will hurt Congress. He concluded by stating that going in to Iraq without Congressionally-granted authority would be a “failure of American democracy.” Those pounding the war drums loudest for an invasion of Iraq should pause for a moment and ponder what Scott Ritter is saying. Thousands of lives are at stake.

war
Inspection or Invasion in Iraq?
June 24, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 57:17
Bush spoke ominously of an Iraqi ballistic missile threat to Europe. What missile threat is the president talking about? These questions are valid, and if the case for war is to be made, they must be answered with more than speculative rhetoric.

war
Inspection or Invasion in Iraq?
June 24, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 57:18
Congress has seemed unwilling to challenge the Bush administration’s pursuit of war against Iraq. The one roadblock to an all- out U.S. assault would be weapons inspectors reporting on the facts inside Iraq. Yet without any meaningful discussion and debate by Congress concerning the nature of the threat posed by Baghdad, war seems all but inevitable.

war
Is America a Police State?
June 27, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 64:4
I have, for more than two decades, been severely critical of our post-World War II foreign policy. I have perceived it to be not in our best interest and have believed that it presented a serious danger to our security.

war
Is America a Police State?
June 27, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 64:7
Again, let me remind you I made these statements on the House floor in January 2000. Unfortunately, my greatest fears and warnings have been borne out.

war
Is America a Police State?
June 27, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 64:10
As evidence mounts that we have achieved little in reducing the terrorist threat, more diversionary tactics will be used. The big one will be to blame Saddam Hussein for everything and initiate a major war against Iraq, which will only generate even more hatred toward America from the Muslim world.

war
Is America a Police State?
June 27, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 64:13
Terror and fear are used to achieve complacency and obedience, especially when citizens are deluded into believing they are still a free people. The changes, they are assured, will be minimal, short-lived, and necessary, such as those that occur in times of a declared war. Under these conditions, most citizens believe that once the war is won, the restrictions on their liberties will be reversed. For the most part, however, after a declared war is over, the return to normalcy is never complete. In an undeclared war, without a precise enemy and therefore no precise ending, returning to normalcy can prove illusory.

war
Is America a Police State?
June 27, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 64:14
We have just concluded a century of wars, declared and undeclared, while at the same time responding to public outcries for more economic equity. The question, as a result of these policies, is: “Are we already living in a police state?” If we are, what are we going to do about it? If we are not, we need to know if there’s any danger that we’re moving in that direction.

war
Is America a Police State?
June 27, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 64:30
All 18-year-old males must register to be ready for the next undeclared war. If they don’t, men with guns will appear and enforce this congressional mandate. “Involuntary servitude” was banned by the 13th Amendment, but courts don’t apply this prohibition to the servitude of draftees or those citizens required to follow the dictates of the IRS – especially the employers of the country, who serve as the federal government’s chief tax collectors and information gatherers. Fear is the tool used to intimidate most Americans to comply to the tax code by making examples of celebrities. Leona Helmsley and Willie Nelson know how this process works.

war
Is America a Police State?
June 27, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 64:37
All our financial activities are subject to “legal” searches without warrants and without probable cause. Tax collection, drug usage, and possible terrorist activities “justify” the endless accumulation of information on all Americans.

war
Is America a Police State?
June 27, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 64:39
Personal privacy, the sine qua non of liberty, no longer exists in the United States. Ruthless and abusive use of all this information accumulated by the government is yet to come. The Patriot Act has given unbelievable power to listen, read, and monitor all our transactions without a search warrant being issued after affirmation of probably cause. “Sneak and peak” and blanket searches are now becoming more frequent every day. What have we allowed to happen to the 4th amendment?

war
Is America a Police State?
June 27, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 64:41
What government gives with one hand- as it attempts to provide safety and security- it must, at the same time, take away with two others. When the majority recognizes that the monetary cost and the results of our war against terrorism and personal freedoms are a lot less than promised, it may be too late.

war
Is America a Police State?
June 27, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 64:47
The Congress would never agree that we are a police state. Most members, I’m sure, would argue otherwise. But we are all obligated to decide in which direction we are going. If we’re moving toward a system that enhances individual liberty and justice for all, my concerns about a police state should be reduced or totally ignored. Yet, if, by chance, we’re moving toward more authoritarian control than is good for us, and moving toward a major war of which we should have no part, we should not ignore the dangers. If current policies are permitting a serious challenge to our institutions that allow for our great abundance, we ignore them at great risk for future generations.

war
Is America a Police State?
June 27, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 64:49
Since the new department is now a forgone conclusion, why should anyone bother to record a dissent? Because it’s the responsibility of all of us to speak the truth to our best ability, and if there are reservations about what we’re doing, we should sound an alarm and warn the people of what is to come.

war
Is America a Police State?
June 27, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 64:54
Political propagandizing is used to get all of us to toe the line and be good “patriots,” supporting every measure suggested by the administration. We are told that preemptive strikes, torture, military tribunals, suspension of habeas corpus, executive orders to wage war, and sacrificing privacy with a weakened 4th Amendment are the minimum required to save our country from the threat of terrorism.

war
Is America a Police State?
June 27, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 64:55
Who’s winning this war anyway?


war
Is America a Police State?
June 27, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 64:59
So far the direction is clear: we are legislating bigger and more intrusive government here at home and are allowing our President to pursue much more military adventurism abroad. These pursuits are overwhelmingly supported by Members of Congress, the media, and the so-called intellectual community, and questioned only by a small number of civil libertarians and anti-imperial, anti-war advocates.

war
Is America a Police State?
June 27, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 64:64
-We show extreme bias in support of one side in the fifty-plus-year war going on in the Middle East.

war
Is America a Police State?
June 27, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 64:65
What if the al Qaeda is telling the truth and we ignore it? If we believe only the official line from the administration and proceed to change our whole system and undermine our constitutional rights, we may one day wake up to find that the attacks have increased, the numbers of those willing to commit suicide for their cause have grown, our freedoms are diminished, and all this has contributed to making our economic problems worse. The dollar cost of this “war” could turn out to be exorbitant, and the efficiency of our markets can be undermined by the compromises placed on our liberties.

war
Is America a Police State?
June 27, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 64:68
What if we had never placed our troops in Saudi Arabia and had involved ourselves in the Middle East war in an even-handed fashion. Would it have been worth it if this would have prevented the events of 9/11?

war
Is America a Police State?
June 27, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 64:71
This in no way precludes pursuing those directly responsible for the attacks and dealing with them accordingly- something that we seem to have not yet done. We hear more talk of starting a war in Iraq than in achieving victory against the international outlaws that instigated the attacks on 9/11. Rather than pursuing war against countries that were not directly responsible for the attacks, we should consider the judicious use of Marque and Reprisal.

war
Is America a Police State?
June 27, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 64:83
We pump up the military in India and Pakistan, ignore all the warnings about Saudi Arabia, and plan a secret war against Iraq to make sure no one starts asking where Osama bin Laden is. We think we know where Saddam Hussein lives, so let’s go get him instead.

war
Is America a Police State?
June 27, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 64:86
According to all the pundits, we are expected to champion this big-government approach, and if we don’t jolly well like it, we will be tagged “unpatriotic.” The fear that permeates our country cries out for something to be done in response to almost daily warnings of the next attack. If it’s not a real attack, then it’s a theoretical one; one where the bomb could well be only in the mind of a potential terrorist.

war
Is America a Police State?
June 27, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 64:89
The plans for a first strike supposedly against a potential foreign government should alarm all Americans. If we do not resist this power the President is assuming, our President, through executive order, can start a war anyplace, anytime, against anyone he chooses, for any reason, without congressional approval. This is a tragic usurpation of the war power by the executive branch from the legislative branch, with Congress being all too accommodating.

war
Is America a Police State?
June 27, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 64:90
Removing the power of the executive branch to wage war, as was done through our revolution and the writing of the Constitution, is now being casually sacrificed on the altar of security. In a free society, and certainly in the constitutional republic we have been given, it should never be assumed that the President alone can take it upon himself to wage war whenever he pleases.

war
Is America a Police State?
June 27, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 64:92
Our CIA attempt to assassinate Castro backfired with the subsequent assassination of our president. Killing Saddam Hussein, just for the sake of killing him, obviously will increase the threat against us, not diminish it. It makes no sense. But our warriors argue that someday he may build a bomb, someday he might use it, maybe against us or some yet-unknown target. This policy further radicalizes the Islamic fundamentalists against us, because from their viewpoint, our policy is driven by Israeli, not U.S. security interests.

war
Is America a Police State?
June 27, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 64:94
This new doctrine is based on proving a negative, which is impossible to do, especially when we’re dealing with a subjective interpretation of plans buried in someone’s head. To those who suggest a more restrained approach on Iraq and killing Saddam Hussein, the war hawks retort, saying: “Prove to me that Saddam Hussein might not do something someday directly harmful to the United States.” Since no one can prove this, the warmongers shout: “Let’s march on Baghdad.”

war
Is America a Police State?
June 27, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 64:95
We all can agree that aggression should be met with force and that providing national security is an ominous responsibility that falls on Congress’ shoulders. But avoiding useless and unjustifiable wars that threaten our whole system of government and security seems to be the more prudent thing to do.

war
Is America a Police State?
June 27, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 64:112
I’m sure that our intelligence agencies had the information available to head off 9/11, but bureaucratic blundering and turf wars prevented the information from being useful. But, the basic principle is wrong. City policeman can’t and should not be expected to try to preempt crimes. That would invite massive intrusions into the everyday activities of every law-abiding citizen.

war
Is America a Police State?
June 27, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 64:120
When the government keeps detailed records on every move we make and we either need advance permission for everything we do or are penalized for not knowing what the rules are, America will be declared a police state. Personal privacy for law-abiding citizens will be a thing of the past. Enforcement of laws against economic and political crimes will exceed that of violent crimes (just look at what’s coming under the new FEC law). War will be the prerogative of the administration. Civil liberties will be suspended for suspects, and their prosecution will not be carried out by an independent judiciary. In a police state, this becomes common practice rather than a rare incident.

war
Is America a Police State?
June 27, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 64:121
Some argue that we already live in a police state, and Congress doesn’t have the foggiest notion of what they’re dealing with. So forget it and use your energy for your own survival. Some advise that the momentum towards the monolithic state cannot be reversed. Possibly that’s true, but I’m optimistic that if we do the right thing and do not capitulate to popular fancy and the incessant war propaganda, the onslaught of statism can be reversed.

war
Unintended Consequences of the Drug War
June 27, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 65:1
Mr. Speaker, I highly recommend the attached article “Unintended Consequences” by Thomas G. Donlan, from Barron’s magazine, to my colleagues. This article provides an excellent explanation of the way current federal drug policy actually encourages international terrorist organizations, such as Al Queda, to use the drug trade to finance their activities. Far from being an argument to enhance the war on drugs, the reliance of terrorist organizations upon the drug trade is actually one more reason to reconsider current drug policy. Terrorist organizations are drawn to the drug trade because federal policy still enables drug dealers to reap huge profits from dealing illicit substances. As Mr. Donlan points out, pursuing a more rational drug policy would remove the exorbitant profits from the drug trade and thus remove the incentive for terrorists to produce and sell drugs.

war
Unintended Consequences of the Drug War
June 27, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 65:2
In conclusion, I once again recommend Mr. Donlan’s article to my colleagues. I hope the author’s explanation of how the war on drugs is inadvertently strengthening terrorist organizations will lead them to embrace a more humane, constitutional and rational approach to dealing with the legitimate problems associated with drug abuse.

war
Unintended Consequences of the Drug War
June 27, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 65:5
Karzai’s previous “interim administration” had banned opium production, but its writ did not run many miles beyond the city of Kabul. Warlords and provincial governors did as they pleased, and they were pleased to tax the opium trade and indeed participate in it as traders and transporters and protectors.

war
Unintended Consequences of the Drug War
June 27, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 65:8
"As ye sow, so shall ye reap." The Biblical passage is an apt reminder that America’s undercover agents nurtured Islamic fundamentalism to strengthen Afghan resistance to the Soviet Union. We reaped chaos in Afghanistan and a corps of well-trained fanatics bent on our destruction. America has also sown a war on drugs, and those same fanatics have harvested the profits.

war
Unintended Consequences of the Drug War
June 27, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 65:10
But all those things are unintended consequences of the war on drugs. Drug use is eventually a self-punishing mistake; the drug war turns out to be the same.

war
Unintended Consequences of the Drug War
June 27, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 65:11
Now the war on drugs and the war on terrorism are beginning to look like two currents in a single river. Nearly half of the international terrorist groups on the State Department’s list are involved in drug trafficking, either to raise money for their political aims or because successful drug commerce requires a ruthlessness indistinguishable from terrorism.

war
Unintended Consequences of the Drug War
June 27, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 65:12
The currents don’t always run together: The FBI and other federal law enforcement agencies acknowledge that the extra resources they are devoting to the detection and apprehension of terrorists are not new resources; the money agents and equipment come to the war on terror at the expense of the war on drugs.

war
Unintended Consequences of the Drug War
June 27, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 65:13
In the domestic war on drugs, officials are trying to make the two currents serve their purposes. The government runs TV ads portraying young Americans confessing, "I killed grandmas. I killed daughters. I killed firemen. I killed policemen," and then warning the viewers, "Where do terrorists get their money? If you buy drugs, some of it may come from you."

war
Has Capitalism Failed?
July 9, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 66:14
Second, we do know why financial bubbles occur, and we know from history that they are routinely associated with speculation, excessive debt, wild promises, greed, lying, and cheating. These problems were described by quite a few observers as the problems were developing throughout the 90s, but the warnings were ignored for one reason. Everybody was making a killing and no one cared, and those who were reminded of history were reassured by the Fed Chairman that "this time" a new economic era had arrived and not to worry. Productivity increases, it was said, could explain it all.

war
Honoring Maj. Gen. Gerald F. Perryman
10 July 2002    2002 Ron Paul 69:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor Maj. Gen. Gerald F. Perryman, Jr. on the occasion of his retirement from his position as Assistant Deputy Chief of Staff for Warfighting Integration, Headquarters U.S. Air Force, Washington, DC. General Perryman entered the Air Force in 1970 through Texas A&M University’s ROTC program. During his distinguished career he commanded the Air Force’s Peacekeeper missile squadron during its transition from the Minuteman weapon system, and led the 91st Missile Group to win the 1994 Omaha Trophy as the best of U.S. Strategic Command’s Air Force and Navy ballistic missile units. The general has commanded a missile wing and space wing. He also commanded 14th Air Force and was Component Commander of U.S. Air Force space operations within U.S. Space Command. As Commander of the Aerospace Command and Control, intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance Center, General Perryman was responsible for integrating command and control, and intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance for the Air Force to improve the ability of commanders to create desired effects in the battlespace. The general has served as a missile combat crew commander in the Minuteman and Peacekeeper weapons systems, and as a space warning crew commander.

war
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY – WHO NEEDS IT?
July 23, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 73:3
The flawed foreign policy of interventionism that we have followed for decades significantly contributed to the attacks. Warnings had been sounded by the more astute that our meddling in the affairs of others would come to no good. This resulted in our inability to defend our own cities, while spending hundreds of billions of dollars providing more defense for others than for ourselves. In the aftermath, we were even forced to ask other countries to patrol our airways to provide security for us.

war
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY – WHO NEEDS IT?
July 23, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 73:11
Unfortunately, foreign policy will not change, and those who suggest that it be strictly designed for American security will be shouted down for their lack of patriotism. Instead, war fever will build until the warmongers get their wish and we march on Baghdad, making us even a greater target of those who despise us for our bellicose control of the world.

war
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY – WHO NEEDS IT?
July 23, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 73:13
A common sense improvement to homeland security would allow the DOD to provide protection, not a huge, new, militarized domestic department. We need to bring our troops home, including our Coast Guard; close down the base in Saudi Arabia; stop expanding our presence in the Muslim portion of the former Soviet Union; and stop taking sides in the long, ongoing war in the Middle East.

war
Commemorate A Unique And Magnificent Group Of Aviators
25 July 2002    2002 Ron Paul 77:2
The first Enlisted Pilot, Vernon L. Burge, earned his wings in the old Signal Corps in 1912. Prior to World War 11, 282 enlisted pilots served in the Signal Corps, then in the Army Air Service and later in the Army Air Corps as rated pilots. Many flew the Air Mail during the early 1930s of the Roosevelt Administration.

war
Commemorate A Unique And Magnificent Group Of Aviators
25 July 2002    2002 Ron Paul 77:4
To qualify for Pilot Training, the enlisted men had to meet several stringent requirements. They had to be enlisted in the regular Army, not drafted, possess a high-school diploma, pass a rigid physical exam, and sign a contract with the Army avowing that upon completion of Flight Training, they would continue serving in the Army Air Corps as Staff Sergeant Pilots for three years, as Technical Sergeant Pilots for three years, as Master Sergeants for three years, and end the contract as Warrant Officer Pilots.

war
Department of Homeland Security
26 July 2002    2002 Ron Paul 80:3
This current proposed legislation suggest that merging 22 government agencies and departments — compromising nearly 200,000 federal employees — into one department will address our current vulnerabilities. I do not see how this can be the case. If we are presently under terrorist threat, it seems to me that turning 22 agencies upside down, sparking scores of turf wars and creating massive logistical and technological headaches — does anyone really believe that even simple things like computer and telephone networks will be up and running in the short term? — is hardly the way to maintain the readiness and focus necessary to defend the United States. What about vulnerabilities while Americans wait for this massive new bureaucracy to begin functioning as a whole even to the levels at which its component parts were functioning before this legislation was taken up? Is this a risk we can afford to take? Also, isn’t it a bit ironic that in the name of “homeland security” we seem to be consolidating everything except the government agencies most critical to the defense of the United States: the multitude of intelligence agencies that make up the Intelligence Community?

war
Congress Sgould Think Twice Before Thrusting U.S. Into War
September 4, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 81:1
Mr. Speaker; I rise to urge the Congress to think twice before thrusting this nation into a war without merit- one fraught with the danger of escalating into something no American will be pleased with.

war
Congress Sgould Think Twice Before Thrusting U.S. Into War
September 4, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 81:2
Thomas Jefferson once said: "Never was so much false arithmetic employed on any subject as that which has been employed to persuade nations that it is in their interests to go to war."

war
Congress Sgould Think Twice Before Thrusting U.S. Into War
September 4, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 81:3
We have for months now heard plenty of false arithmetic and lame excuses for why we must pursue a preemptive war of aggression against an impoverished third world nation 6000 miles from our shores that doesn’t even possess a navy or air force, on the pretense that it must be done for national security reasons.

war
Congress Sgould Think Twice Before Thrusting U.S. Into War
September 4, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 81:5
Congress must consider the fact that those with military experience advocate a "go slow" policy, while those without military experience are the ones demanding this war.

war
Congress Sgould Think Twice Before Thrusting U.S. Into War
September 4, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 81:7
If the military and diplomatic reasons for a policy of restraint make no sense to those who want a war, I advise they consider the $100 billion cost that will surely compound our serious budget and economic problems we face here at home. We need no more false arithmetic on our budget or false reasons for pursuing this new adventure into preemptive war and worldwide nation-building.

war
Congress Sgould Think Twice Before Thrusting U.S. Into War
September 4, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 81:8
Mr. Speaker, allow me to offer another quote from Jefferson. Jefferson said: "No country perhaps was ever so thoroughly against war as ours. These dispositions pervade every description of its citizens, whether in or out of office. We love and we value peace, we know its blessings from experience."

war
Congress Sgould Think Twice Before Thrusting U.S. Into War
September 4, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 81:9
We need this sentiment renewed in this Congress in order to avoid a needless war that offers us nothing but trouble. Congress must deal with this serious matter of whether or not we go to war. I believe it would be a mistake with the information that is available to us today. I do not see any reason whatsoever to take young men and young women and send them 6,000 miles to attack a country that has not committed any aggression against this country. Many American now share my belief that it would be a serious mistake.

war
Congress Sgould Think Twice Before Thrusting U.S. Into War
September 4, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 81:10
First, there is a practical reason to oppose a war in Iraq. Our military now has been weakened over the last decade, and when we go into Iraq we will clearly dilute our ability to defend our country. We do not enhance our national defense by initiating this war. Besides, it is impractical because of unintended consequences which none of us know about. We do not know exactly how long this will last. It could be a six-day war, a six-month war, or six years or even longer.

war
Congress Sgould Think Twice Before Thrusting U.S. Into War
September 4, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 81:11
There is a military reason for not going to war. We ought to listen to the generals and other military experts, including Colin Powell, Brent Scowcroft, Anthony Zinni, and Norman Schwarzkopf, who are now advising us NOT to go to war. Some have even cautioned against the possibility of starting World War III. They understand that our troops have been spread too thin around the world, and it is dangerous from a purely military standpoint to go to war today.

war
Congress Sgould Think Twice Before Thrusting U.S. Into War
September 4, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 81:12
There is a constitutional argument and a constitutional mistake that could be made. If we once again go to war, as we have done on so many occasions since World War II, without a clear declaration of war by Congress, we blatantly violate the Constitution. I fear we will once again go to war in a haphazard way, by executive order, or even by begging permission from the rotten, anti-American United Nations. This haphazard approach, combined with a lack of clearly defined goal for victory, makes it almost inevitable that true victory will not come. So we should look at this from a constitutional perspective. Congress should assume its responsibility, because war is declared by Congress, not by a President and not by a U.N.

war
Congress Sgould Think Twice Before Thrusting U.S. Into War
September 4, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 81:13
This is a very important matter, and I am delighted to hear that there will be congressional hearings and discussion. I certainly believe we should have a balanced approach. We have already had some hearings in the other body, where we heard only one side of the issue. If we want to have real hearings, we should have a debate and hear evidence on both sides, rather than just hearing pro-war interests arguing for war.

war
Congress Sgould Think Twice Before Thrusting U.S. Into War
September 4, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 81:14
There are even good political reasons for not initiating this conflict. War is not popular. It may seem popular in the short run, when there appears to be an immediate victory and everyone is gloating, but war is not popular. People get killed, and body bags end up coming back. War is very unpopular, and it is not the politically smart thing to do.

war
Congress Sgould Think Twice Before Thrusting U.S. Into War
September 4, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 81:15
There are economic reasons to avoid this war. We can do serious damage to our economy. It is estimated that this venture into Iraq may well cost over a hundred billion dollars. Our national debt right now is increasing at a rate of over $450 billion yearly, and we are talking about spending another hundred billion dollars on an adventure when we do not know what the outcome will be and how long it will last? What will happen to oil prices? What will happen to the recession that we are in? What will happen to the deficit? We must expect all kinds of economic ramifications.

war
Congress Sgould Think Twice Before Thrusting U.S. Into War
September 4, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 81:17
There are philosophical reasons for those who believe in limited government to oppose this war. "War is the health of the state," as the saying goes. War necessarily means more power is given to the state. This additional power always results in a loss of liberty. Many of the worst government programs of the 20th century began during wartime "emergencies" and were never abolished. War and big government go hand in hand, but we should be striving for peace and freedom.

war
Congress Sgould Think Twice Before Thrusting U.S. Into War
September 4, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 81:18
Finally, there is a compelling moral argument against war in Iraq. Military force is justified only in self-defense; naked aggression is the province of dictators and rogue states. This is the danger of a new "preemptive first strike" doctrine. America is the most moral nation on earth, founded on moral principles, and we must apply moral principles when deciding to use military force.

war
Avoid War With Iraq
4 September 2002    2002 Ron Paul 82:1
Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, I want to start my 5 minutes with a quote from Jefferson. Jefferson said, “No country perhaps was ever so thoroughly against war as ours.” These dispositions pervade every description of its citizens, whether in or out of office.

war
Avoid War With Iraq
4 September 2002    2002 Ron Paul 82:3
We need this sentiment renewed in this Congress in order to avoid a needless war that offers us nothing but trouble. Congress must deal with this serious matter of whether or not we go to war. I believe it would be a mistake with the information that is available to us today. I do not see any reason whatsoever to take young men and young women and send them 6,000 miles off to a land to attack a country that has not committed any aggression against this country. I believe it would be a serious mistake for various reasons.

war
Avoid War With Iraq
4 September 2002    2002 Ron Paul 82:4
First, it is a practical reason. There is no practical defense for this. Our military now has been weakened over the last decade, and actually when we go into Iraq, as we may well do, we will weaken our ability to defend our country. We do not enhance our defense by initiating this war.

war
Avoid War With Iraq
4 September 2002    2002 Ron Paul 82:5
Besides, it is impractical because of unintended consequences which none of us know about and what might come. We do not know exactly how long this will last. It could be a six-day war, a six-month war or six years or even longer. It could be very impractical by going to war.

war
Avoid War With Iraq
4 September 2002    2002 Ron Paul 82:6
There is a military reason for not going to war. We ought to just listen to the generals and the other military experts that are now advising us there is not a good reason to go to war, possibly even start World War III some have suggested. They claim our troops have been spread too thinly around the world, and it is not a good military matter to go into war today.

war
Avoid War With Iraq
4 September 2002    2002 Ron Paul 82:7
There is a constitutional argument and a constitutional mistake that could be made. If we once again go to war, as we have done on so many occasions since World War II, without a clear declaration of war and a clear goal of victory, a haphazard way of slipping into war by Executive Order or, heaven forbid, getting permission from the United Nations makes it so that it is almost inevitable that true victory will not come.

war
Avoid War With Iraq
4 September 2002    2002 Ron Paul 82:8
So we should look at this in a very constitutional fashion. We in the Congress should assume our responsibility because war is declared by Congress, not by a President and not by a U.N.

war
Avoid War With Iraq
4 September 2002    2002 Ron Paul 82:10
Actually there are even good political reasons for not going into this battle. War is not popular. It may be popular for the short run when there seems to be an immediate victory and everyone is gloating over the victory, but war is not popular. People get killed and body bags end up coming back. War is very unpopular, and it is not the politically smart thing to do.

war
The Price Of War
5 September 2002    2002 Ron Paul 83:2
The question is, whatever happened to this principle and should it be restored? We find the 20th century was wracked with war; peace was turned asunder and our liberties steadily eroded. Foreign alliances and meddling in the internal affairs of other nations became commonplace. On many occasions, involvement in military action occurred through U.N. resolutions or a Presidential executive order, despite the fact that the war power was explicitly placed in the hands of the Congress.

war
The Price Of War
5 September 2002    2002 Ron Paul 83:3
Since World War II, nearly 100,000 deaths and over a quarter million wounded, not counting the many thousands claimed to have been affected by Agent Orange and the Persian Gulf War Syndrome, have all occurred without a declaration of war and without a clearcut victory. The entire 20th century was indeed costly with over 600,000 killed in battle and an additional million wounded.

war
The Price Of War
5 September 2002    2002 Ron Paul 83:11
The transition from nonintervention to our current role as world arbiter in all conflicts was insidious and fortuitous. In the early part of the 20th century, the collapse of the British Empire left a vacuum which was steadily filled by a U.S. presence around the world. In the latter part of the century, the results of World War II and the collapse of the Soviet system propelled us into our current role.

war
The Price Of War
5 September 2002    2002 Ron Paul 83:14
In recent years, we too often slipped into war through the back door with the purpose rarely defined or understood and the need for victory ignored. A restrained effort of intervention frequently explodes into something that we do not foresee. Policies end up doing the opposite of their intended purpose with unintended consequences resulting.

war
The Price Of War
5 September 2002    2002 Ron Paul 83:20
Our meddling in the internal affairs of Iran was of no benefit to us and set the stage for our failed policy in dealing with Iraq. We allied ourselves in the 1980s with Iraq in its war with Iran and assisted Saddam Hussein in his rise to power. As recent reports reconfirm, we did nothing to stop Hussein’s development of chemical and biological weapons and at least indirectly assisted in their development. Now, as a consequence of that needless intervention, we are planning a risky war to remove him from power; and as usual, the probable result of such an effort would be something that our government does not anticipate like a takeover by someone much worse. As bad as Hussein is, he is an enemy of the al- Qaeda and someone new well may be a close ally of the Islamic radicals.

war
The Price Of War
5 September 2002    2002 Ron Paul 83:22
The Persian Gulf War fought, without a declaration of war, is in reality still going on. It looks like that 9–11 may well have been a battle in that war perpetrated by fanatical guerrillas. It indicates how seriously flawed our foreign policy is.

war
The Price Of War
5 September 2002    2002 Ron Paul 83:23
In the 1980s we got involved in the Soviet-Afghanistan war and actually sided with the forces of Osama bin Laden, helping him gain power. This obviously was an alliance of no benefit to the United States, and it has come back to haunt us.

war
The Price Of War
5 September 2002    2002 Ron Paul 83:27
There is no end in site. Since 9–11, our involvement in the Middle East and in Saudi Arabia has grown significantly. Though we can badger those countries whose leaders depend on us to keep them in power to stay loyal to the United States, the common people of the region become more alienated. Our cozy relationship with the Russians may not be as long-lasting as our current administration hopes. Considering the $40 billion trade deal recently made between Russia and Saddam Hussein, it is more than a bit ironic that we find the Russians now promoting free trade as a solution to a difficult situation while we are promoting war.

war
The Price Of War
5 September 2002    2002 Ron Paul 83:28
This continuous escalation of our involvement overseas has been widespread. We have been in Korea for more than 50 years. We have promised to never back away from the China-Taiwan conflict over territorial disputes. Fifty-seven years after World War II we still find our military spread throughout Europe and Asia. And now the debate ranges over whether our national security requires that we, for the first time, escalate this policy of intervention to include anticipatory self-defense and preemptive war.

war
The Price Of War
5 September 2002    2002 Ron Paul 83:29
If our interventions of the 20th century led to needless deaths and unwon wars and continuous unintended consequences, imagine what this new doctrine is about to unleash on the world. Our policy has prompted us to announce that our CIA will assassinate Saddam Hussein whenever it gets the chance, and that the government of Iraq is to be replaced. Evidence now has surfaced that the United Nations inspection teams in the 1990s definitely included American CIA agents who were collecting information on how to undermine the Iraqi government and continue with their routine bombing missions.

war
The Price Of War
5 September 2002    2002 Ron Paul 83:36
The term foreign policy does not exist in the Constitution. All members of the Federal Government have sworn to uphold the Constitution and should do only those things that are clearly authorized. Careful reading of the Constitution reveals Congress has a lot more responsibility than does the President in dealing with foreign affairs. The President is the Commanderin- Chief, but cannot declare war or finance military action without explicit congressional approval. A good starting point would be for all of us in the Congress to assume the responsibility given us to make sure the executive branch does not usurp any authority explicitly given to the Congress.

war
The Price Of War
5 September 2002    2002 Ron Paul 83:37
A proper foreign policy of nonintervention is built on friendship with other nations, free trade and maximum travel, maximizing the exchanges of goods and services and ideas. Nations that trade with each other are definitely less likely to fight against each other. Unnecessary bellicosity and jingoism is detrimental to peace and prosperity and incites unnecessary confrontation. And yet today that is about all we hear coming from the politicians and the media pundits who are so anxious for this war against Iraq.

war
The Price Of War
5 September 2002    2002 Ron Paul 83:42
A successful and prosperous society comes from such a policy and is impossible without a sound free-market economy, one not controlled by a central bank. Avoiding trade wars, devaluations, inflations, deflations, and disruption of free trade with protectionist legislation are impossible under a system of international trade dependent on fluctuating fiat currencies controlled by world central banks and influenced by powerful financial interests. Instability in trade is one of the prime causes of creating conditions leading to war.

war
The Price Of War
5 September 2002    2002 Ron Paul 83:47
The principle of mark and reprisal would be revived, and specific problems, such as terrorist threats, would be dealt with on a contract basis, incorporating private resources to more accurately target our enemies and reduce the chances of needless and endless war. This would help prevent a continual expansion of a conflict into areas not relating to any immediate threat. By narrowing the target, there is less opportunity for special interests to manipulate our foreign policy to serve the financial needs of the oil and military weapons industries.

war
The Price Of War
5 September 2002    2002 Ron Paul 83:48
The Logan Act would be repealed, thus allowing maximum freedom of our citizens to volunteer to support their war of choice. This would help diminish the enthusiasm for wars the proponents have used to justify our world policies and diminish the perceived need for a military draft.

war
The Price Of War
5 September 2002    2002 Ron Paul 83:49
If we followed a constitutional policy of nonintervention, we would never have to entertain the aggressive notion of preemptive war based on speculation of what a country might do at some future date. Political pressure by other countries to alter our foreign policy for their benefit would never be a consideration. Commercial interests of our citizens investing overseas could not expect our armies to follow them and to protect their profits.

war
The Price Of War
5 September 2002    2002 Ron Paul 83:52
There are many reasons why a policy for peace is superior to a policy of war. The principle that we do not have the moral authority to forcibly change government in foreign lands just because we do not approve of their shortcomings should be our strongest argument. But rarely today is a moral argument in politics worth much.

war
The Price Of War
5 September 2002    2002 Ron Paul 83:54
We should all be aware that war is a failure of relationships between foreign powers. Since this is such a serious matter, our American tradition as established by the founders made certain that the executive is subservient to the more democratically responsive legislative branch on the issue of war. Therefore, no war is ever to be the prerogative of a President through his unconstitutional use of executive orders, nor should it ever be something where the legal authority comes from an international body such as NATO or the United Nations. Up until 50 years ago, this had been the American tradition.

war
The Price Of War
5 September 2002    2002 Ron Paul 83:56
Countries like Switzerland and Sweden, who promote neutrality and nonintervention, have benefited for the most part by remaining secure and free of war over the centuries. Nonintervention consumes a lot less of the Nation’s wealth. With less wars, the higher the standard of living for all citizens. But this, of course, is not attractive to the military-industrial complex which enjoys a higher standard of living at the expense of the taxpayer when a policy of intervention and constant war preparation is carried out.

war
The Price Of War
5 September 2002    2002 Ron Paul 83:60
Maintaining an overseas empire is incompatible with the American tradition of liberty and prosperity. The financial drain and the antagonism that it causes with our enemies, and even our friends, will finally force the American people to reject the policy outright. There will be no choice. Gorbachev just walked away and Yeltsin walked in, with barely a ripple. A nonviolent revolution of unbelievable historic magnitude occurred and the Cold War ended. We are not immune from such a similar change.

war
The Price Of War
5 September 2002    2002 Ron Paul 83:61
This Soviet collapse ushered in the age of unparalleled American dominance over the entire world and along with it allowed the new expanded hot war between the West and the Muslim East. All the hostility directed toward the West built up over the centuries between the two factions is now directed toward the United States. We are now the only power capable of paying for and literally controlling the Middle East and its cherished wealth, and we have not hesitated. Iraq, with its oil and water and agricultural land, is a prime target of our desire to further expand our dominion. The battle is growing ever so tense with our acceptance and desire to control the Caspian Sea oil riches. But Russia, now licking its wounds and once again accumulating wealth, will not sit idly by and watch the American empire engulf this region. When time runs out for us, we can be sure Russia will once again be ready to fight for control of all those resources in countries adjacent to her borders. And expect the same from China and India. And who knows, maybe one day even Japan will return to the ancient art of using force to occupy the cherished territories in their region of the world.

war
The Price Of War
5 September 2002    2002 Ron Paul 83:62
The most we can hope for will be, once the errors of our ways are acknowledged and we can no longer afford our militarism, we will reestablish the moral principle that underpins the policy of ‘‘peace, commerce and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none.’’ Our modern-day war hawks represent neither this American principle nor do they understand how the love of liberty drove the founders in their great battle against tyranny.

war
Questions That Will Not Be Asked About Iraq
September 10, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 85:1
Soon we hope to have hearings on the pending war with Iraq. I am concerned there are some questions that won’t be asked- and maybe will not even be allowed to be asked. Here are some questions I would like answered by those who are urging us to start this war.

war
Questions That Will Not Be Asked About Iraq
September 10, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 85:2
1. Is it not true that the reason we did not bomb the Soviet Union at the height of the Cold War was because we knew they could retaliate?

war
Questions That Will Not Be Asked About Iraq
September 10, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 85:15
14. Is it not true that the constitutional power to declare war is exclusively that of the Congress? Should presidents, contrary to the Constitution, allow Congress to concur only when pressured by public opinion? Are presidents permitted to rely on the UN for permission to go to war?

war
Questions That Will Not Be Asked About Iraq
September 10, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 85:17
16. Is it not true that anywhere between 100,000 and 300,000 US soldiers have suffered from Persian Gulf War syndrome from the first Gulf War, and that thousands may have died?

war
Questions That Will Not Be Asked About Iraq
September 10, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 85:18
17. Are we prepared for possibly thousands of American casualties in a war against a country that does not have the capacity to attack the United States?

war
Questions That Will Not Be Asked About Iraq
September 10, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 85:19
18. Are we willing to bear the economic burden of a 100 billion dollar war against Iraq, with oil prices expected to skyrocket and further rattle an already shaky American economy? How about an estimated 30 years occupation of Iraq that some have deemed necessary to "build democracy" there?

war
Questions That Will Not Be Asked About Iraq
September 10, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 85:25
24. Are you familiar with the 1994 Senate Hearings that revealed the U.S. knowingly supplied chemical and biological materials to Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war and as late as 1992- including after the alleged Iraqi gas attack on a Kurdish village?

war
Questions That Will Not Be Asked About Iraq
September 10, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 85:27
26. Is it not true that preventive war is synonymous with an act of aggression, and has never been considered a moral or legitimate US policy?

war
Questions That Will Not Be Asked About Iraq
September 10, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 85:28
27. Why do the oil company executives strongly support this war if oil is not the real reason we plan to take over Iraq?

war
Questions That Will Not Be Asked About Iraq
September 10, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 85:29
28. Why is it that those who never wore a uniform and are confident that they won’t have to personally fight this war are more anxious for this war than our generals?

war
Questions That Will Not Be Asked About Iraq
September 10, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 85:31
30. Where does the Constitution grant us permission to wage war for any reason other than self-defense?

war
Questions That Will Not Be Asked About Iraq
September 10, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 85:32
31. Is it not true that a war against Iraq rejects the sentiments of the time-honored Treaty of Westphalia, nearly 400 years ago, that countries should never go into another for the purpose of regime change?

war
Questions That Will Not Be Asked About Iraq
September 10, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 85:33
32. Is it not true that the more civilized a society is, the less likely disagreements will be settled by war?

war
Questions That Will Not Be Asked About Iraq
September 10, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 85:34
33. Is it not true that since World War II Congress has not declared war and- not coincidentally- we have not since then had a clear-cut victory?

war
Questions That Will Not Be Asked About Iraq
September 10, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 85:36
35. Why don’t those who want war bring a formal declaration of war resolution to the floor of Congress?

war
Abolishing The Federal Reserve
10 September 2002    2002 Ron Paul 86:5
Though the Federal Reserve policy harms the average American, it benefits those in a position to take advantage of the cycles in monetary policy. The main beneficiaries are those who receive access to artificially inflated money and/or credit before the inflationary effects of the policy impact the entire economy. Federal Reserve policies also benefit big spending politicians who use the inflated currency created by the Fed to hide the true costs of the welfare-warfare state. It is time for Congress to put the interests of the American people ahead of the special interests and their own appetite for big government.

war
Abolishing The Federal Reserve
10 September 2002    2002 Ron Paul 86:29
What keeps the gold standard from becoming a reality again is the love of big government and war. If we ever fall in love with freedom again, the gold standard will once more become a hot issue in public debate.

war
A Political Mistake
September 18, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 87:1
Mr. Speaker, I have for years advocated a moral and constitutional approach to our foreign policy. This has been done in the sincerest belief that a policy of peace, trade, and friendship with all nations is far superior in all respects to a policy of war, protectionism, and confrontation. But in the Congress I find, with regards to foreign affairs, no interest in following the precepts of the Constitution and the advice of our early Presidents.

war
A Political Mistake
September 18, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 87:3
I have heard all the arguments on why we must immediately invade and occupy Iraq and have observed that there are only a few hardy souls left in the Congress who are trying to stop this needless, senseless, and dangerous war. They have adequately refuted every one of the excuses for this war of aggression; but, obviously, either no one listens, or the unspoken motives for this invasion silence those tempted to dissent.

war
A Political Mistake
September 18, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 87:4
But the tragic and most irresponsible excuse for the war rhetoric is now emerging in the political discourse. We now hear rumblings that the vote is all about politics, the November elections, and the control of the U.S. Congress, that is, the main concern is political power. Can one imagine delaying the declaration of war against Japan after Pearl Harbor for political reasons? Or can one imagine forcing a vote on the issue of war before an election for political gain? Can anyone believe there are those who would foment war rhetoric for political gain at the expense of those who are called to fight and might even die if the war does not go as planned?

war
A Political Mistake
September 18, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 87:5
I do not want to believe it is possible, but rumors are rampant that looking weak on the war issue is considered to be unpatriotic and a risky political position to take before the November elections. Taking pleasure in the fact that this might place many politicians in a difficult position is a sobering thought indeed.

war
A Political Mistake
September 18, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 87:6
There is a bit of irony over all of this political posturing on a vote to condone a war of aggression and force some Members into a tough vote. Guess what, contrary to conventional wisdom, war is never politically beneficial to the politicians who promote it. Presidents Wilson and Roosevelt were reelected by promising to stay out of war. Remember, the party in power during the Korean War was routed in 1952 by a general who promised to stop the bloodshed. Vietnam, which started with overwhelming support and hype and jingoistic fervor, ended President Johnson’s political career in disgrace and humiliation. The most significant plight on the short term of President Kennedy was his effort at regime change in Cuba and the fate he met at the Bay of Pigs. Even Persian Gulf War I, thought at the time to be a tremendous victory, with its aftermath still lingering, did not serve President Bush, Sr.’s reelection efforts in 1992.

war
A Political Mistake
September 18, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 87:7
War is not politically beneficial for two reasons: innocent people die, and the economy is always damaged. These two things, after the dust settles from the hype and the propaganda, always make the people unhappy. The euphoria associated with the dreams of grandiose and painless victories is replaced by the stark reality of death, destruction, and economic pain. Instead of euphoria, we end up with heartache as we did after the Bay of Pigs, Korea, Vietnam, Somalia, and Lebanon.

war
A Political Mistake
September 18, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 87:8
Since no one wants to hear anymore of morality and constitutionality and justice, possibly some will listen to the politics of war, since that is what drives so many. A token victory at the polls this fall by using a vote on the war as a lever will be to little avail. It may not even work in the short run. Surely, history shows that war is never a winner, especially when the people who have to pay, fight, and die for it come to realize that the war was not even necessary and had nothing to do with national security or fighting for freedom, but was promoted by special interests who stood to gain from taking over a sovereign country.

war
A Political Mistake
September 18, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 87:9
Mr. Speaker, peace is always superior to war; it is also a political winner.

war
Can We Afford this War?
September 24, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 89:8
But the only talk here in the nation’s capitol is about when, not if, we must initiate a war that even the administration admits could cost $200 billion. Some are not even embarrassed to gloat about the political benefits for those who preach war over those who prefer negotiations, diplomacy and containment. The fact that the Arab nations are overwhelmingly opposed to an attack on Iraq and are joined by the European Community is of no concern to those who demand war regardless of any circumstance.

war
Can We Afford this War?
September 24, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 89:9
Eighty percent of the American people now report that they believe that a war with Iraq will increase the chances of our suffering from a new terrorist attack. If this is true, we become less secure with an attack on Iraq, since little has been done to correct the deficiencies in the intelligence gathering agencies and our immigration policies.

war
Can We Afford this War?
September 24, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 89:10
No credible evidence has been produced that Iraq has or is close to having nuclear weapons. No evidence exists to show that Iraq harbors al Qaeda terrorists. Quite to the contrary, experts on this region recognize Hussein as an enemy of the al Qaeda and a foe to Islamic fundamentalism. Many other nations pose much greater threats to world peace. Yet no one is clamoring for war against them. Saddam Hussein is now weaker than ever.

war
Can We Afford this War?
September 24, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 89:12
Our national debt is over $6 trillion and is increasing by nearly half a trillion dollars a year. Since Social Security funds are all placed in the general revenues and spent and all funds are fungible, honest accounting, of which there has been a shortage lately, dictates that a $200 billion war must jeopardize Social Security funding. This is something the American people deserve to know.

war
Can We Afford this War?
September 24, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 89:15
The tragedy is that once the flaw in policy is discovered, it is too late to prevent the pain and suffering, and only finger pointing occurs. Now is the only time we can give serious attention to the true cost of assuming the burden of an endless task of being the world’s policeman and starting wars that have nothing to do with defense or national security.

war
Internet Gambling
1 October 2002    2002 Ron Paul 92:2
In addition to being unconstitutional, H.R. 556 is likely to prove ineffective at ending Internet gambling. Instead, this bill will ensure that gambling is controlled by organized crime. History, from the failed experiment of prohibition to today’s futile “war on drugs,” shows that the government cannot eliminate demand for something like Internet gambling simply by passing a law. Instead, H.R. 556 will force those who wish to gamble over the Internet to patronize suppliers willing to flaunt the ban. In many cases, providers of services banned by the government will be members of criminal organizations. Even if organized crime does not operate Internet gambling enterprises their competitors are likely to be controlled by organized crime. After all, since the owners and patrons of Internet gambling cannot rely on the police and courts to enforce contracts and resolve other disputes, they will be forced to rely on members of organized crime to perform those functions. Thus, the profits of Internet gambling will flow into organized crime. Furthermore, outlawing an activity will raise the price vendors are able to charge consumers, thus increasing the profits flowing to organized crime from Internet gambling. It is bitterly ironic that a bill masquerading as an attack on crime will actually increase organized crime’s ability to control and profit from Internet gambling.

war
Is Congress Relevant with Regards to War?
October 3, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 94:1
The last time Congress declared war was on December 11, 1941, against Germany in response to its formal declaration of war against the United States. This was accomplished with wording that took less than one-third of a page, without any nitpicking arguments over precise language, yet it was a clear declaration of who the enemy was and what had to be done. And in three-and-a-half years, this was accomplished. A similar resolve came from the declaration of war against Japan three days earlier. Likewise, a clear-cut victory was achieved against Japan.

war
Is Congress Relevant with Regards to War?
October 3, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 94:2
Many Americans have been forced into war since that time on numerous occasions, with no congressional declaration of war and with essentially no victories. Today’s world political condition is as chaotic as ever. We’re still in Korea and we’re still fighting the Persian Gulf War that started in 1990.

war
Is Congress Relevant with Regards to War?
October 3, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 94:3
The process by which we’ve entered wars over the past 57 years, and the inconclusive results of each war since that time, are obviously related to Congress’ abdication of its responsibility regarding war, given to it by Article I Section 8 of the Constitution.

war
Is Congress Relevant with Regards to War?
October 3, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 94:4
Congress has either ignored its responsibility entirely over these years, or transferred the war power to the executive branch by a near majority vote of its Members, without consideration of it by the states as an amendment required by the Constitution.

war
Is Congress Relevant with Regards to War?
October 3, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 94:5
Congress is about to circumvent the Constitution and avoid the tough decision of whether war should be declared by transferring this monumental decision-making power regarding war to the President. Once again, the process is being abused. Odds are, since a clear-cut decision and commitment by the people through their representatives are not being made, the results will be as murky as before. We will be required to follow the confusing dictates of the UN, since that is where the ultimate authority to invade Iraq is coming from- rather than from the American people and the U.S. Constitution.

war
Is Congress Relevant with Regards to War?
October 3, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 94:6
Controversial language is being hotly debated in an effort to satisfy political constituencies and for Congress to avoid responsibility of whether to go to war. So far the proposed resolution never mentions war, only empowering the President to use force at his will to bring about peace. Rather strange language indeed!

war
Is Congress Relevant with Regards to War?
October 3, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 94:7
A declaration of war limits the presidential powers, narrows the focus, and implies a precise end point to the conflict. A declaration of war makes Congress assume the responsibilities directed by the Constitution for this very important decision, rather than assume that if the major decision is left to the President and a poor result occurs, it will be his fault, not that of Congress. Hiding behind the transfer of the war power to the executive through the War Powers Resolution of 1973 will hardly suffice.

war
Is Congress Relevant with Regards to War?
October 3, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 94:8
However, the modern way we go to war is even more complex and deceptive. We must also write language that satisfies the UN and all our allies. Congress gladly transfers the legislative prerogatives to declare war to the President, and the legislative and the executive branch both acquiesce in transferring our sovereign rights to the UN, an un-elected international government. No wonder the language of the resolution grows in length and incorporates justification for starting this war by citing UN Resolutions.

war
Is Congress Relevant with Regards to War?
October 3, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 94:10
What a difference from the days when a declaration of war was clean and precise and accomplished by a responsible Congress and an informed people!

war
Is Congress Relevant with Regards to War?
October 3, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 94:11
A great irony of all this is that the United Nations Charter doesn’t permit declaring war, especially against a nation that has been in a state of peace for 12 years. The UN can only declare peace. Remember, it wasn’t a war in Korea; it was only a police action to bring about peace. But at least in Korea and Vietnam there was fighting going on, so it was a bit easier to stretch the language than it is today regarding Iraq. Since Iraq doesn’t even have an Air Force or a Navy, is incapable of waging a war, and remains defenseless against the overwhelming powers of the United States and the British, it’s difficult to claim that we’re going into Iraq to restore peace.

war
Is Congress Relevant with Regards to War?
October 3, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 94:15
An up or down vote on declaring war against Iraq would not pass the Congress, and the President has no intention of asking for it. This is unfortunate, because if the process were carried out in a constitutional fashion, the American people and the U.S. Congress would vote "No" on assuming responsibility for this war.

war
Is Congress Relevant with Regards to War?
October 3, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 94:16
Transferring authority to wage war, calling it permission to use force to fight for peace in order to satisfy the UN Charter, which replaces the Article I, Section 8 war power provision, is about as close to 1984 "newspeak" that we will ever get in the real world.

war
Statement Opposing the use of Military Force against Iraq
October 8, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 96:1
Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to this resolution. The wisdom of the war is one issue, but the process and the philosophy behind our foreign policy are important issues as well. But I have come to the conclusion that I see no threat to our national security. There is no convincing evidence that Iraq is capable of threatening the security of this country, and, therefore, very little reason, if any, to pursue a war.

war
Statement Opposing the use of Military Force against Iraq
October 8, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 96:2
But I am very interested also in the process that we are pursuing. This is not a resolution to declare war. We know that. This is a resolution that does something much different. This resolution transfers the responsibility, the authority, and the power of the Congress to the President so he can declare war when and if he wants to. He has not even indicated that he wants to go to war or has to go to war; but he will make the full decision, not the Congress, not the people through the Congress of this country in that manner.

war
Statement Opposing the use of Military Force against Iraq
October 8, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 96:5
I also want to mention very briefly something that has essentially never been brought up. For more than a thousand years there has been a doctrine and Christian definition of what a just war is all about. I think this effort and this plan to go to war comes up short of that doctrine. First, it says that there has to be an act of aggression; and there has not been an act of aggression against the United States. We are 6,000 miles from their shores.

war
Statement Opposing the use of Military Force against Iraq
October 8, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 96:7
Also, the Christian doctrine says that the proper authority must be responsible for initiating the war. I do not believe that proper authority can be transferred to the President nor to the United Nations.

war
Statement Opposing the use of Military Force against Iraq
October 8, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 96:8
But a very practical reason why I have a great deal of reservations has to do with the issue of no-win wars that we have been involved in for so long. Once we give up our responsibilities from here in the House and the Senate to make these decisions, it seems that we depend on the United Nations for our instructions; and that is why, as a Member earlier indicated, essentially we are already at war. That is correct. We are still in the Persian Gulf War. We have been bombing for 12 years, and the reason President Bush, Sr., did not go all the way? He said the U.N. did not give him permission to.

war
Statement Opposing the use of Military Force against Iraq
October 8, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 96:9
My argument is when we go to war through the back door, we are more likely to have the wars last longer and not have resolution of the wars, such as we had in Korea and Vietnam. We ought to consider this very seriously.

war
Statement Opposing the use of Military Force against Iraq
October 8, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 96:12
So to declare that we have been attacked, I do not believe for a minute that this fulfills the requirement that we are retaliating against aggression by this country. There is a need for us to assume responsibility for the declaration of war, and also to prepare the American people for the taxes that will be raised and the possibility of a military draft which may well come.

war
Statement Opposing the use of Military Force against Iraq
October 8, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 96:13
I must oppose this resolution, which regardless of what many have tried to claim will lead us into war with Iraq. This resolution is not a declaration of war, however, and that is an important point: this resolution transfers the Constitutionally-mandated Congressional authority to declare wars to the executive branch. This resolution tells the president that he alone has the authority to determine when, where, why, and how war will be declared. It merely asks the president to pay us a courtesy call a couple of days after the bombing starts to let us know what is going on. This is exactly what our Founding Fathers cautioned against when crafting our form of government: most had just left behind a monarchy where the power to declare war rested in one individual. It is this they most wished to avoid.

war
Statement Opposing the use of Military Force against Iraq
October 8, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 96:14
As James Madison wrote in 1798, "The Constitution supposes what the history of all governments demonstrates, that the executive is the branch of power most interested in war, and most prone to it. It has, accordingly, with studied care, vested the question of war in the legislature."

war
Statement Opposing the use of Military Force against Iraq
October 8, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 96:17
Back in 1997 and 1998 I publicly spoke out against the actions of the Clinton Administration, which I believed was moving us once again toward war with Iraq. I believe the genesis of our current policy was unfortunately being set at that time. Indeed, many of the same voices who then demanded that the Clinton Administration attack Iraq are now demanding that the Bush Administration attack Iraq. It is unfortunate that these individuals are using the tragedy of September 11, 2001 as cover to force their long-standing desire to see an American invasion of Iraq. Despite all of the information to which I have access, I remain very skeptical that the nation of Iraq poses a serious and immanent terrorist threat to the United States. If I were convinced of such a threat I would support going to war, as I did when I supported President Bush by voting to give him both the authority and the necessary funding to fight the war on terror.

war
Statement Opposing the use of Military Force against Iraq
October 8, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 96:25
Three years ago, during Iraq’s six-month occupation of Kuwait, there had been an outcry when a teen-age Kuwaiti girl testified eloquently and effectively before Congress about Iraqi atrocities involving newborn infants. The girl turned out to be the daughter of the Kuwaiti Ambassador to Washington, Sheikh Saud Nasir al-Sabah, and her account of Iraqi soldiers flinging babies out of incubators was challenged as exaggerated both by journalists and by human-rights groups. ( Sheikh Saud was subsequently named Minister of Information in Kuwait, and he was the government official in charge of briefing the international press on the alleged assassination attempt against George Bush .) In a second incident, in August of 1991, Kuwait provoked a special session of the United Nations Security Council by claiming that twelve Iraqi vessels, including a speedboat, had been involved in an attempt to assault Bubiyan Island, long-disputed territory that was then under Kuwaiti control. The Security Council eventually concluded that, while the Iraqis had been provocative, there had been no Iraqi military raid, and that the Kuwaiti government knew there hadn’t. What did take place was nothing more than a smuggler-versus-smuggler dispute over war booty in a nearby demilitarized zone that had emerged, after the Gulf War, as an illegal marketplace for alcohol, ammunition, and livestock.

war
Statement Opposing the use of Military Force against Iraq
October 8, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 96:27
The President was not alone in his caution. Janet Reno, the Attorney General, also had her doubts. "The A.G. remains skeptical of certain aspects of the case," a senior Justice Department official told me in late July, a month after the bombs were dropped on Baghdad…Two weeks later, what amounted to open warfare broke out among various factions in the government on the issue of who had done what in Kuwait. Someone gave a Boston Globe reporter access to a classified C.I.A. study that was highly skeptical of the Kuwaiti claims of an Iraqi assassination attempt. The study, prepared by the C.I.A.’s Counter Terrorism Center, suggested that Kuwait might have "cooked the books" on the alleged plot in an effort to play up the "continuing Iraqi threat" to Western interests in the Persian Gulf . Neither the Times nor the Post made any significant mention of the Globe dispatch, which had been written by a Washington correspondent named Paul Quinn-Judge, although the story cited specific paragraphs from the C.I.A. assessment. The two major American newspapers had been driven by their sources to the other side of the debate.

war
Statement Opposing the use of Military Force against Iraq
October 8, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 96:30
Reality: It is far from certain that Iraq used chemical weapons against the Kurds. It may be accepted as conventional wisdom in these times, but back when it was first claimed there was great skepticism. The evidence is far from conclusive. A 1990 study by the Strategic Studies Institute of the U.S. Army War College cast great doubts on the claim that Iraq used chemical weapons on the Kurds. Following are the two gassing incidents as described in the report:

war
Statement Opposing the use of Military Force against Iraq
October 8, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 96:31
In September 1988, however – a month after the war (between Iran and Iraq) had ended – the State Department abruptly, and in what many viewed as a sensational manner, condemned Iraq for allegedly using chemicals against its Kurdish population. The incident cannot be understood without some background of Iraq’s relations with the Kurds…throughout the war Iraq effectively faced two enemies – Iran and elements of its own Kurdish minority. Significant numbers of the Kurds had launched a revolt against Baghdad and in the process teamed up with Tehran. As soon as the war with Iran ended, Iraq announced its determination to crush the Kurdish insurrection. It sent Republican Guards to the Kurdish area, and in the course of the operation – according to the U.S. State Department – gas was used, with the result that numerous Kurdish civilians were killed. The Iraqi government denied that any such gassing had occurred. Nonetheless, Secretary of State Schultz stood by U.S. accusations, and the U.S. Congress, acting on its own, sought to impose economic sanctions on Baghdad as a violator of the Kurds’ human rights.

war
Statement Opposing the use of Military Force against Iraq
October 8, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 96:41
These were sent while the United States was supporting Iraq covertly in its war against Iran. U.S. assistance to Iraq in that war also included covertly-delivered intelligence on Iranian troop movements and other assistance. This is just another example of our policy of interventionism in affairs that do not concern us – and how this interventionism nearly always ends up causing harm to the United States.

war
Treatment Of Mr. Martin Mawyer By U.N. Officers Must Be Investigated
16 October 2002    2002 Ron Paul 100:12
Mawyer had intended to deliver 30 bags filled with more than 60,000 petitions to the U.N. from American citizens. The petitions addressed a variety of issues of concern to citizens, including the U.N.’s newly ratified International Criminal Court, a plan to implement a U.N. standing army, the Kyoto global warming treaty, protection of U.S. military personnel serving in U.N. missions abroad, and a host of other issues relating to national sovereignty.

war
Oppose The New Homeland Security Bureaucracy!
November 13, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 101:5
HR 5710 also expands the federal police state by allowing the attorney general to authorize federal agency inspectors general and their agents to carry firearms and make warrantless arrests. One of the most disturbing trends in recent years is the increase in the number of federal officials authorized to carry guns. This is especially disturbing when combined with the increasing trend toward restricting the ability of average Americans to exercise their second amendment rights. Arming the government while disarming the public encourages abuses of power.

war
Unintended Consequences
November 14, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 102:1
Mr. Speaker, government efforts at benevolence always backfire. Inevitably, unintended consequences overwhelm the short-term and narrow benefits of authoritarian programs designed to make the economic system fair, the people morally better, and the world safe for democracy. One hundred years of intense government "benevolence" in the United States has brought us to the brink of economic collapse, a domestic police state, and perpetual war overseas. And now our obsession with conquering and occupying Iraq is about to unleash consequences that no one can accurately foresee. The negative possibilities are unlimited and the benefits negligible.

war
Unintended Consequences
November 14, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 102:2
Some have warned that the planned pre-emptive invasion of Iraq could prove so destabilizing to the region and the world that it literally could ignite a worldwide conflict big enough to be called World War III. Nuclear exchanges are perhaps even more likely to occur under the conditions of an expanded Middle east war than they were at the height of the Cold War, when the Soviets and U.S. had literally thousands of nuclear weapons pointed at each other. If we carry out our threats to invade and occupy Iraq, especially if we do so unilaterally, the odds are at least 50-50 that this worst case scenario will result.

war
Unintended Consequences
November 14, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 102:3
The best-case scenario would be a short war, limited to weeks and involving few American and Iraqi civilian casualties. This, in combination with a unified Iraqi welcome, the placing into power of a stable popular government that is long lasting, contributing to regional stability and prosperity, and free elections, just is what our planners are hoping for. The odds of achieving this miraculous result are probably one in 10,000.

war
Unintended Consequences
November 14, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 102:6
No local Iraqi or regional Arab support materializes. Instead of a spontaneous uprising as is hoped, the opposite occurs. The Iraqi citizens anxious to get rid of Hussein join in his defense, believing foreign occupation and control of their oil is far worse than living under the current dictator. Already we see that sanctions have done precisely that. Instead of blaming Saddam Hussein and his dictatorial regime for the suffering of the past decade, the Iraqi people blame the U.S.-led sanctions and the constant bombing by the U.S. and British. Hussein has increased his power and the people have suffered from the war against Iraq since 1991. There are a lot of reasons to believe this same reaction will occur with an escalation of our military attacks. Training dissidents like the Iraqi National Congress will prove no more reliable than the training and the military assistance we provided in the 70’s and the 80’s for Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein when they qualified as U.S. "allies."

war
Unintended Consequences
November 14, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 102:7
Pre-emptive war against Iraq may well prompt traditional enemies in the regions to create new alliances, as the hatred for America comes to exceed age-old hatreds that caused regional conflicts. Iraq already has made overtures and concessions to Iran and Kuwait, with some signs of conciliation being shown by both sides. Total domination of the entire Persian Gulf and the Caspian Sea regions by the U.S. will surely stir survival instincts in these countries as well as in Russia. As the balance of power continues to shift in the U.S.’s favor, there will be even more reasons for countries like China and Pakistan to secretly support the nations that are being subjected to U.S. domination in the region. The U.S. will never have a free ride in its effort to control the entire world’s oil supply. Antagonisms are bound to build, and our ability to finance the multiple military conflicts that are bound to come is self-limited.

war
Unintended Consequences
November 14, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 102:8
The Kurds may jump at the chance, if chaos ensues, to fulfill their dream of an independent Kurdish homeland. This, of course, will stir the ire of the Turks and the Iranians. Instead of stability for northern Iraq, the war likely will precipitate more fighting than the war planners ever imagined. Delivering Kurdish Iraq to Turkey as a prize for its cooperation with our war plans will not occur without a heated and deadly struggle. Turkey is already deeply concerned about the prospect for Kurdish independence, and only remains loyal to America because U.S. taxpayers are forced to subsidize an already depressed Turkish economy caused by our Iraqi policies. More money will pacify for a while, but either frustration with the perpetual nature of the problem or our inability to continue the financial bailout will lead Turkey to have second thoughts about its obedience to our demands to wage war from their country. All of this raises the odds that Islamic radicals will once more take control of the Turkish government. These developing conditions increase the odds of civil strife erupting in Turkey.

war
Unintended Consequences
November 14, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 102:10
In the chaos that may erupt, several countries might see an opportunity to move on their neighbors. Already we have been warned that cooperation from Russia means no American criticism or resistance to its moves in Georgia or Chechnya. China could attack Taiwan. North Korea could renew its struggle against South Korea. India may see this as an opportunity to settle the Kashmir dispute with Pakistan- with the real risk of nuclear war breaking out. It seems the obsession about Iraq’s improbable possession of nuclear weapons far exceeds the more realistic possibility that our pre-emptive strike against Iraq may precipitate a nuclear exchange between these two countries, or even a first strike with nuclear weapons by Israel against Iraq.

war
Unintended Consequences
November 14, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 102:11
Expect Israel to use the chaos to further promote their occupation and settlements in the Palestinian homeland and possibly even in Lebanon. Israel’s possession of nuclear weapons in a period of outright war will surely serve to intimidate her neighbors and intensify her efforts to further expand the Israeli homeland.

war
Unintended Consequences
November 14, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 102:12
If massive Iraqi civilian casualties result, as indeed is possible though not deliberate, expect more worldwide condemnation and even a UN resolution condemning what others will call American War Crimes. Our refusal to be subject to the International Criminal Court, while demanding others be tried in the court, will never sit well with the world community. Our position is a far cry from what it ought to be- demanding national sovereignty while promoting neutrality and friendship with all nations.

war
Unintended Consequences
November 14, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 102:13
Our own CIA has warned that war with Iraq will more likely cause Saddam Hussein to use any massively lethal weapons that he might have than if we don’t attack him. Also, they warned that the likelihood of al Qaeda attacks on our own soil will increase once an invasion begins. This, of course, could cause a wave of well-placed snipers around the United States.

war
Unintended Consequences
November 14, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 102:14
It is now admitted that over 150,000 U.S. servicemen are suffering from Persian Gulf War Syndrome as a result of the first Persian Gulf War. Our government would like to ignore this fact, but a new war literally could create an epidemic of casualties of the same sort, since the exact etiology is not completely understood. The number of deaths and injuries that might occur from an occupation of Iraq is unknown, but conceivably could be much higher than anyone wants to imagine.

war
Unintended Consequences
November 14, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 102:15
Anti Americanism now sweeping the world will significantly increase once we launch our attack. Already we have seen elections swayed in Europe, Turkey, and Pakistan by those unfriendly to the United States. The attitude that the world’s "King of the Hill" must be brought down will escalate, especially if the war goes poorly and does not end quickly with minimal civilian deaths.

war
Unintended Consequences
November 14, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 102:16
Al Qaeda likely will get a real boost in membership once the war breaks out. Membership is already pervasive throughout the world without any centralized control. We should expect this to continue, with an explosion in membership and a negative impact around the world. Our attack will confirm to the doubters that bin Laden was right in assessing our desire to control the Middle Eastern resources and dictate policy to the entire region while giving support to Israel over the Palestinians.

war
Unintended Consequences
November 14, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 102:17
Our very weak economy could easily collapse with the additional burden of a costly war. War is never a way to make the people of a country better off. It does not end recessions, and is much more likely to cause one or make one much worse. A significant war will cause revenues to decrease, taxes to increase, inflation to jump, encourage trade wars, and balloon the deficit. Oil prices will soar and the dollar will retreat ever further.

war
Unintended Consequences
November 14, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 102:19
This war, if of any significant duration, in time will be seen as a Republican war plain and simple. Along with a weak economy, it could easily usher in a "regime change" here in the United States. The conditions may justify a change in leadership, but the return of control to the opposition party will allow them to use the opportunity to promote their domestic liberal agenda and socialize the entire economy.

war
Unintended Consequences
November 14, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 102:20
The net result, regardless of the size and duration of the coming war, will be that the people of the United States will be less free and much poorer. The bigger the war, the greater will be the suffering.

war
“You Are A Suspect”
14 November 2002    2002 Ron Paul 103:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to read “You are a Suspect” by William Safire in today’s New York Times. Mr. Safire, who has been one of the media’s most consistent defenders of personal privacy, details the Defense Department’s plan to establish a system of “Total Information Awareness.” According to Mr. Safire, once this system is implemented, no American will be able to use the internet to fill a prescription, subscribe to a magazine, buy a book, send or receive e-mail, or visit a web site free from the prying eyes of government bureaucrats. Furthermore, individual internet transactions will be recorded in “a virtual centralized grand database.” Implementation of this project would shred the Fourth Amendment’s requirement that the government establish probable cause and obtain a search warrant before snooping into the private affairs of its citizens. I hope my colleagues read Mr. Safire’s article and support efforts to prevent the implementation of this program, including repealing any legislation weakening privacy protections that Congress may inadvertently have passed in the rush to complete legislative business this year.

war
Republic Versus Democracy
29 January 2003    2003 Ron Paul 6:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, at the close of the Constitutional Convention in 1787, Benjamin Franklin told an inquisitive citizen that the delegates to the Constitutional Convention gave the people a Republic, if you can keep it. We should now apologize to Mr. Franklin. It is obvious that the Republic is gone, and we are wallowing in a pure democracy against which the Founders had strongly warned.

war
Republic Versus Democracy
29 January 2003    2003 Ron Paul 6:5
With these obvious signs of a failed system all around us, there seems to be more determination than ever to antagonize the people of the world by pursuing a world empire. Nation-building, foreign intervention, preemptive war and global government drive our foreign policy.

war
Republic Versus Democracy
29 January 2003    2003 Ron Paul 6:11
Although the United States Constitution was by far the best ever written for the protection of liberty, with safeguards against the dangers of a democracy, it, too, was flawed from the beginning. Instead of guaranteeing liberty equally for all people, the authors themselves yielded to the democratic majority’s demands that they compromise on the issue of slavery. This mistake, plus others along the way, culminated in a civil war that surely could have been prevented with clearer understanding and a more principled approach to the establishment of a constitutional republic.

war
Republic Versus Democracy
29 January 2003    2003 Ron Paul 6:14
The ideas of democracy, not the principles of liberty, were responsible for the passage of the 16th amendment. It imposed the income tax on the American people and helped us usher in the modern age of the welfare warfare State. Unfortunately, the 16th amendment has not been repealed as was the 18th. As long as the 16th amendment is in place, the odds are slim that we can restore a constitutional republic dedicated to liberty. The personal income tax is more than symbolic of a democracy; it is a predictable consequence.

war
Republic Versus Democracy
29 January 2003    2003 Ron Paul 6:15
The transition from republic to democracy was gradual and insidious. Its seeds were sown early in our history. In many ways, the Civil War and its aftermath laid the foundation for the acute erosion that took place over the entire 20th century.

war
Republic Versus Democracy
29 January 2003    2003 Ron Paul 6:16
Chronic concern about war and economic downturns events caused by an intrusive government’s failure to follow the binding restraints of the Constitution allowed majority demands to supercede the rights of the minority. By the end of the 20th century, majority opinion had become the determining factor in all that government does. The rule of law was cast aside, leaving the Constitution a shell of what it once was, a Constitution with rules that guaranteed a Republic with limit and regional government and protection of personal liberty.

war
Republic Versus Democracy
29 January 2003    2003 Ron Paul 6:17
The marketplace, driven by voluntary cooperation, private property ownership, and sound money was severely undermined with the acceptance of the principles of true democracy. Unfortunately, too many people confused the democratic elections of leaders in a Republic for democracy by accepting the rule of majority opinion in all affairs. For majorities to pick leaders is one thing. It is something quite different for majorities to decide what rights are, to redistribute property, to tell people how to manage their personal lives, and to promote undeclared, unconstitutional wars.

war
Republic Versus Democracy
29 January 2003    2003 Ron Paul 6:22
Over the last hundred years the goal of securing individual liberties within the framework of a constitutional republic has been replaced with incessant talk of democracy and fairness. Rallying support for our ill-advised participation in World War I, Wilson spoke glowingly of making the world safe for democracy and never mentioned national security. This theme has to this day persisted in all our foreign affairs. Neoconservatives now brag of their current victories in promoting what they call “hard Wilsonism.”

war
Republic Versus Democracy
29 January 2003    2003 Ron Paul 6:39
We were adequately warned about this problem. Democracies lead to chaos, violence and bankruptcy. The demands of the majority are always greater than taxation alone can provide. Therefore, control of the monetary and banking system is required for democracies to operate.

war
Republic Versus Democracy
29 January 2003    2003 Ron Paul 6:40
It was no accident in 1913 when the dramatic shift toward democracy became pronounced that the Federal Reserve was established. A personal income tax was imposed as well. At the same time, popular election of Senators was instituted, and our foreign policy became aggressively interventionist. Even with an income tax, the planners for war and welfare knew that it would become necessary to eliminate restraints on the printing of money. Private counterfeiting was a heinous crime, but government counterfeiting and fractional reserve banking were required to seductively pay for the majority’s demands.

war
Republic Versus Democracy
29 January 2003    2003 Ron Paul 6:56
No one should be surprised that the Arabs are confused by our overtures of friendship. We have just recently promised billions of dollars to Turkey to buy their support for the new Persian Gulf War. Our support of Saudi Arabia, in spite of its ties to the al Qaeda, is financing and training. It is totally ignored by those obsessed with going to war against Iraq. Saudi Arabia is the furthest thing from a democracy. As a matter of fact, if democratic elections were permitted, the Saudi Government would be overthrown by a bin Laden ally.

war
Republic Versus Democracy
29 January 2003    2003 Ron Paul 6:61
We believe bin Laden when he takes credit for an attack on the West, and we believe him when he warns us of an impending attack, but we refuse to listen to his explanation of why he and his allies are at war with us. Bin Laden claims are straightforward. The U.S. defiles Islam with bases on the Holy Land and Saudi Arabia, its initiation of war against Iraq, with 12 years of persistent bombing, and its dollars and weapons being used against the Palestinians, as the Palestinian territory shrinks and Israel’s occupation expands.

war
Republic Versus Democracy
29 January 2003    2003 Ron Paul 6:62
There will be no peace in the world for the next 50 years or longer if we refuse to believe why those who are attacking us do it. To dismiss terrorism as a result of Muslims hating us because we are rich and free is one of the greatest foreign policy frauds ever perpetuated on the American people. Because the propaganda machine, the media, and the government have restated this so many times, the majority now accept it as face value, and the administration gets the political cover its needs to pursue a holy war for democracy against the infidels who hate us for our goodness.

war
Republic Versus Democracy
29 January 2003    2003 Ron Paul 6:66
Relying on authoritarian democracy and domestic and international meddling only moves us sharply away from a constitutional republic and the rule of law and toward the turbulence of a decaying democracy about which Madison and others had warned. Once the goal of liberty is replaced by a preconceived notion of the benefits and the moral justification of a democracy, a trend toward internationalism and world government follows. We certainly witnessed this throughout the 20th century. Since World War II, we have failed to follow the Constitution in taking this country to war, but instead have deferred to the collective democratic wisdom of the United Nations.

war
Republic Versus Democracy
29 January 2003    2003 Ron Paul 6:72
With the additional spending to wage war against terrorism at home, while propping up an ever-expensive and failing welfare state, and the added funds needed to police the world, all in the midst of a recession, we are destined to see an unbelievably huge explosion of deficit spending. Raising taxes will not help. Borrowing the needed funds for the budgetary deficit, plus the daily borrowing from foreigners required to finance our ever-growing account deficit, will put tremendous pressure on the dollar.

war
Republic Versus Democracy
29 January 2003    2003 Ron Paul 6:81
The withholding principle was devised to make paying for the programs the majority demanded seem less painful. Passing on debt to the next generation through borrowing is also a popular way to pay for welfare and warfare. The effect of inflating a currency to pay the bills is difficult to understand and the victims are hard to identify. Inflation is the most sinister method of payment for a welfare state. It, too, grows in popularity as the demands increase for services that are not affordable.

war
Republic Versus Democracy
29 January 2003    2003 Ron Paul 6:89
It is too late to avoid the turbulence and violence that Madison warned us about. It has already started. But it is important to minimize the damage and prepare a way for the restoration of the Republic. The odds are not favorable, but not impossible. No one can know the future with certainty. The Soviet system came to an abrupt end with less violence than could ever have been imagined at the height of the Cold War. It was a pleasant surprise.

war
Republic Versus Democracy
29 January 2003    2003 Ron Paul 6:94
Today, it is the opposite. The American people must get permission from the government for their every move, whether it is the use of their own property or spending their own money. Even the most serious decisions, such as going to war, are done while ignoring the Constitution and without a vote of the people’s representatives in the Congress. Members of the global government have more to say about when American troops are put in harm’s way than the U.S. Congress. The Constitution no longer restrains the government. The government restrains the people in all they do. This destroys individual creative energy, and the “mainspring of human progress” is lost. The consequences are less progress, less prosperity, and less personal fulfillment.

war
Republic Versus Democracy
29 January 2003    2003 Ron Paul 6:102
Failure of government programs prompts more determined efforts, while the loss of liberty is ignored or rationalized away. Whether it is the war against poverty, drugs, terrorism, or the current Hitler of the day, an appeal to patriotism is used to convince the people that a little sacrifice, here and there, of liberty is a small price to pay.

war
Republic Versus Democracy
29 January 2003    2003 Ron Paul 6:103
The results, though, are frightening and will soon even become more so. Poverty has been made worse. The drug war is a bigger threat than drug use. Terrorism remains a threat, and foreign wars have become routine and decided upon without congressional approval.

war
Republic Versus Democracy
29 January 2003    2003 Ron Paul 6:117
Understanding the connection between liberty, prosperity and security has been lost. The priorities are backwards. Prosperity and security come from liberty. Peace and the absence of war come from a consequence of liberty and free trade. The elimination of ignorance and restraints on do-goodism and authoritarianism in a civilized society can only be achieved through a contractual arrangement between the people and the government, in our case the U.S. Constitution. This document was the best ever devised for releasing the creative energy of a free people while strictly holding in check the destructive powers of government. Only the rule of law can constrain those who by human instinct look for a free ride while delivering power to those few, found in every society, whose only goal in life is a devilish desire to rule over others.

war
Abolish Selective Service
January 29, 2003    2003 Ron Paul 9:1
Mr. Speaker, I am today introducing legislation to repeal the Selective Service Act and related parts of the US Code. The Department of Defense, in response to recent calls to reinstate the draft, has confirmed that conscription serves no military need. This is only the most recent confirmation that the draft, and thus the Selective Service system, serves no military purpose. In 1999, then-Secretary of the Army Louis Caldera, in a speech before the National Press Club, admitted that “Today, with our smaller, post-Cold War armed forces, our stronger volunteer tradition and our need for longer terms of service to get a good return on the high, up-front training costs, it would be even harder to fashion a fair draft.”

war
Middle East Conflict
11 February 2003    2003 Ron Paul 18:5
Mr. Speaker, how many more times must we place ourselves and our country at risk by taking one side or other in battles, wars, and conflicts that have nothing to do with the United States, and where anger toward the United States will inevitably result? I urge my colleagues to uphold the Constitution and vote against this unfortunately-worded resolution.

war
Introducing United States Korea Normalization Resolution Of 2003
13 February 2003    2003 Ron Paul 23:3
The U.S. defense guarantee of South Korea costs more than $3 billion per year in direct costs and approximately $12 billion per year in total costs. Total U.S. aid to South Korea has exceeded $14 billion since the war.

war
Introducing United States Korea Normalization Resolution Of 2003
13 February 2003    2003 Ron Paul 23:7
That is why I am introducing the United States-Korea Normalization Resolution, which expresses the sense of Congress that, 60 years after the Korean War, the U.S. security guarantee to South Korea should end, as should the stationing of American troops in South Korea.

war
Another United Nations War
25 February 2003    2003 Ron Paul 24:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, President Bush, Sr., proudly spoke of “The New World Order,” a term used by those who promote one-world government under the United Nations. In going to war in 1991, he sought and received U.N. authority to push Iraqi forces out of Kuwait. He forcefully stated that this U.N. authority was adequate and that although a congressional resolution was acceptable, it was entirely unnecessary and he would proceed regardless. At that time, there was no discussion regarding a congressional declaration of war. The first Persian Gulf War, therefore, was clearly a U.N. political war fought within U.N. guidelines, not for U.S. security; and it was not fought through to victory. The bombings, sanctions, and harassment of the Iraqi people have never stopped. We are now about to resume the act of fighting. Although this is referred to as the Second Persian Gulf War, it is merely a continuation of a war started long ago and is likely to continue for a long time, even after Saddam Hussein is removed from power.

war
Another United Nations War
25 February 2003    2003 Ron Paul 24:3
Our 58 years in Korea have seen 33,000 lives lost, 100,000 casualties and over $1 trillion in today’s dollars spent. Korea is the most outrageous example of our fighting a U.N. war without a declaration from the U.S. Congress. And where are we today? On the verge of a nuclear confrontation with a North Korean regime nearly out of control. And to compound the irony, the South Koreans are intervening in hopes of diminishing the tensions that exist between the United States and North Korea.

war
Another United Nations War
25 February 2003    2003 Ron Paul 24:4
As bad as the Vietnam nightmare was, at least we left and the U.N. was not involved. We left in defeat and Vietnam remained a unified, Communist country. The results have been much more salutary. Vietnam is now essentially non-Communist and trade with the West is routine. We did not disarm Vietnam; we never counted their weapons; and so far, no one cares. Peaceful relations have developed between our two countries not by force of arms, but through trade and friendship. No United Nations, no war, and no inspections served us well, even after many decades of war and a million deaths inflicted on the Vietnamese in an effort by both the French and the United States to force them into compliance with Western demands.

war
Another United Nations War
25 February 2003    2003 Ron Paul 24:5
In this new battle with Iraq, our relationship with the United Nations and our allies is drawing a lot of attention. The administration now says it would be nice to have U.N. support, but it is not necessary. The President argues that a unilateralist approach is permissible with his understanding of national sovereignty, but no mention is made of the fact that the authority to go to war is not a U.N. prerogative and that such authority can only come from the U.S. Congress.

war
Another United Nations War
25 February 2003    2003 Ron Paul 24:6
Although the argument that the United Nations cannot dictate to us what is in our best interests is correct, and we do have a right to pursue foreign policy unilaterally, it is ironic that we are making this declaration in order to pursue an unpopular war that very few people or governments throughout the world support.

war
Another United Nations War
25 February 2003    2003 Ron Paul 24:9
Those who believe, and many sincerely do, that the United Nations serves a useful function, argue that ignoring the United Nations at this juncture will surely make it irrelevant. Even with my opposition to the United Nations, I can hardly be pleased that its irrelevancy might come about because of our rush to war against a nation that has not aggressed against us nor poses any threat to us.

war
Another United Nations War
25 February 2003    2003 Ron Paul 24:10
From my viewpoint, the worst scenario would be for the United Nations to sanction this war, which may well occur if we offer enough U.S. taxpayer money and Iraqi oil to the reluctant countries. If that happens, we could be looking at another 58-year occupation, expanded Middle East chaos, or a dangerous spread of hostility to all of Asia or even further.

war
Emancipation Proclamation
26 February 2003    2003 Ron Paul 25:2
While all Americans should be grateful that this country finally extinguished slavery following the Civil War, many scholars believe that the main issue in the Civil War was the proper balance of power between the states and the federal government. President Lincoln himself made it clear that his primary motivation was to preserve a strong central government. For example, in a letter to New York Tribune editor Horace Greeley in 1862, Lincoln said: “My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and it is not either to save or destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave, I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union.”

war
Emancipation Proclamation
26 February 2003    2003 Ron Paul 25:7
Now, therefore, I, Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States, by virtue of the power in me vested as Commander-In-Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States in time of actual armed rebellion against the authority and government of the United States, and as a fit and necessary war measure for suppressing said rebellion, do, on this 1st day of January, A.D. 1863, and in accordance with my purpose so to do, publicly proclaimed for the full period of one hundred days from the first day above mentioned, order and designate as the States and parts of States wherein the people thereof, respectively, are this day in rebellion against the United States the following, to wit:

war
Emancipation Proclamation
26 February 2003    2003 Ron Paul 25:12
And upon this act, sincerely believed to be an act of justice, warranted by the Constitution upon military necessity, I invoke the considerate judgment of mankind and the gracious favor of Almighty God.

war
The Myth of War Prosperity
March 4, 2003    2003 Ron Paul 28:1
Mr. Speaker, I want to talk tonight about an economic myth. There is a longstanding myth that war benefits the economy.

war
The Myth of War Prosperity
March 4, 2003    2003 Ron Paul 28:2
The argument goes that when a country is at war, jobs are created and the economy grows. This is a myth. Many argue that World War II ended the Great Depression, which is another myth. Unemployment went down because many men were drafted, but national economic output went down during the war.

war
The Myth of War Prosperity
March 4, 2003    2003 Ron Paul 28:3
Economic growth and a true end to the Depression did not occur until after World War II. So it is wrong to think there is an economic benefit arising from war.

war
The Myth of War Prosperity
March 4, 2003    2003 Ron Paul 28:4
There are many economic shortcomings during a war. During wartime it is much more common to experience inflation because the money presses are running to fund military expenses. Also, during wartime there is a bigger challenge to the currency of the warring nation, and already we see that the dollar has dropped 20 percent in the past year. Although there are many other reasons for a weak dollar, the war certainly is contributing to the weakness in the dollar.

war
The Myth of War Prosperity
March 4, 2003    2003 Ron Paul 28:5
Also, during wartime the country can expect that taxes will go up. I know we are talking about cutting taxes, and I am all for cutting taxes; but in real terms taxes will go up during wartime. And it is inevitable that deficits increase. And right now our deficits are exploding. Our national debt is going up nearly $500 billion per year at an analyzed rate.

war
The Myth of War Prosperity
March 4, 2003    2003 Ron Paul 28:6
The other shortcoming economically of wartime is that funds, once they are borrowed, inflated, or taxed, once the government spends these, so much of this expenditure is overseas, and it takes away from domestic spending. So this is a strong negative for the domestic economy. Another thing that arises during wartime so often is the sentiment for protectionism- and a weak economy in wartime will really build an incentive for protectionist measures, and we are starting to see that, which I think is a danger.

war
The Myth of War Prosperity
March 4, 2003    2003 Ron Paul 28:7
During wartime, trade is much more difficult; and so if a war comes, we can expect that even our trade balances might get much worse. There are a lot of subjective problems during wartime too. The first thing that goes is confidence. Right now there is less confidence in the stock market and literally hundreds of billions of dollars lost in the stock market in the last year or two, again, due to other reasons; but the possibility of war contributes to this negative sentiment toward the stock market.

war
The Myth of War Prosperity
March 4, 2003    2003 Ron Paul 28:8
It is hard to judge the future. Nobody can know the future because of the unintended consequences of war. We do not know how long the war will last. How much it will spread? So there are a lot of uncertainties about this. There is fear. Fear comes from the potential for war and a lot of confusion. And unfortunately, when wars are not fought for national security reasons, the popularity of the war is questioned- and this may alienate our allies. And I believe we are seeing some of that already. There is no doubt that during wartime government expands in size and scope. And this of course is a great danger. And after war, the government rarely shrinks to its original size. It grows. It may shrink a little, but inevitably the size of the government grows because of war. This is a danger because when government gets bigger, the individual has to get smaller; therefore, it diminishes personal individual liberty.

war
The Myth of War Prosperity
March 4, 2003    2003 Ron Paul 28:10
War should always be fought as the very, very last resort. It should never be done casually, but only when absolutely necessary. And when it is, I believe it should be fought to be won. It should be declared. It should not be fought under U.N. resolutions or for U.N. resolutions, but for the sovereignty and the safety and the security of this country. It is explicit in our Constitution that necessary wars be declared by the Congress. And that is something that concerns me a great deal because we have not declared war outright since 1945, and if you look carefully, we have not won very many since then.

war
The Myth of War Prosperity
March 4, 2003    2003 Ron Paul 28:11
We are lingering in Korea. What a mess! We have been there for 58 years, have spent hundreds of billions of dollars, and we still have achieved nothing- because we went there under U.N. resolutions and we did not fight to victory. The same was true with the first Persian Gulf War. We went into Iraq without a declaration of war. We went there under the U.N., we are still there, and nobody knows how long we will be there. So there are many costs, some hidden and some overt. But the greatest threat, the greatest cost of war is the threat to individual liberty. So I caution my colleagues that we should move much more cautiously and hope and pray for peace.

war
American Sovereignty Restoration Act Of 2003
6 March 2003    2003 Ron Paul 31:3
As the United States faces another undeclared war for the United Nations — as is specified in the authorization for the use of force against Iraq (Public Law 107–243) — it is past time that we return to the principles of our founding fathers.

war
American Sovereignty Restoration Act Of 2003
6 March 2003    2003 Ron Paul 31:24
While no previous United Nations’ secretary general has been so bold, Annan’s proclamation of universal jurisdiction over ‘human rights and fundamental freedoms’ simply reflects the preamble of the Charter of the United Nations which contemplated a future in which the United Nations operates in perpetuity ‘to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war . . . to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights . . . to establish conditions under which justice . . . can be maintained, and to promote social progress and between standards of life in larger freedom.’ Such lofty goals and objectives are comparable to those found in the preamble to the Constitution of the United States of America: ‘to . . . establish Justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare and secure the Blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity . . .’

war
Freedom From Unnecessary Litigation Act
12 March 2003    2003 Ron Paul 33:3
The malpractice crisis has contributed to the closing of a maternity ward in Philadelphia and a trauma center in Nevada. Meanwhile, earlier this year, surgeons in West Virginia walked off the job to protest increasing liability rates. These are a few of the examples of how access to quality health care is jeopardized by the epidemic of large (and medically questionable) malpractice awards, and the resulting increase in insurance rates.

war
Reconsider The Direction Of Our Foreign Policy
20 March 2003    2003 Ron Paul 37:2
The time for debate over the wisdom of going to war has passed. Although I was unsuccessful in arguing that such a war be undertaken only after the passage of a constitutionally- enacted Declaration of War, it is time now for us to line up behind our troops. As a Vietnam era veteran of the U.S. Air Force I understand how important it is to troop morale that each and every fighting person know all Americans stand behind them.

war
Reconsider The Direction Of Our Foreign Policy
20 March 2003    2003 Ron Paul 37:3
Once this war has ended we should seriously reconsider the direction of our foreign policy. The American people have seen the ineffectiveness of our reliance upon our socalled “NATO allies” and the United Nations. Hopefully this will lead us to reconsider our role in these organizations. I hope this will be the last time Americans fight under the color of U.N. resolutions. Once this war is completed I hope we will reassess our foreign entanglements, return to the traditional U.S. foreign policy of non-intervention, and return to the standard of our own national security.

war
“Negative Outcomes” Insurance – A Free-Market Approach to the Medical Malpractice
March 27, 2003    2003 Ron Paul 39:2
The malpractice crisis has contributed to the closing of a maternity ward in Philadelphia and a trauma center in Nevada. Meanwhile, earlier this year, surgeons in West Virginia walked off the job to protest increasing liability rates. These are a few of the examples of how access to quality health care is jeopardized by the epidemic of large (and medically questionable) malpractice awards, and the resulting increase in insurance rates.

war
Don’t Antagonize our Trading Partners
April 1, 2003    2003 Ron Paul 41:1
Madam Speaker, this week we will be working on the $75 billion supplemental appropriations to pay for the war. Financing the war is not as simple as it appears. It involves more than just passing a piece of legislation labeled as support for the troops.

war
Don’t Antagonize our Trading Partners
April 1, 2003    2003 Ron Paul 41:2
It has now been fashionable to bash France and Germany and other friends if they are less enthusiastic for the war than we think they should be. Yet foreign corporations provide millions of jobs for American citizens. French companies alone employ over 400,000. There is a practical reason why offending the French and others may backfire on us.

war
Don’t Antagonize our Trading Partners
April 1, 2003    2003 Ron Paul 41:4
In thinking about providing funds for the war and overall military expenditures, not only must every dollar be borrowed from overseas, but an additional $150 billion each year as well. The current account deficit is now 44 percent greater than the military budget and represents the amount we must borrow to balance the accounts. The bottom line is that our international financial condition is dire and being made worse by current international events.

war
Don’t Antagonize our Trading Partners
April 1, 2003    2003 Ron Paul 41:8
My humble advice, consider being nicer to our friends and allies. We need them more than we can imagine to finance our war efforts. There is more to it than passing the supplemental appropriation. Besides, we need time to get our financial house in order. Antagonizing our trading partners can only make that task that much more complicated.

war
Don’t Antagonize our Trading Partners
April 1, 2003    2003 Ron Paul 41:9
The day will come when true monetary reform will be required. Printing money to finance war and welfare can never be a panacea.

war
Rice Farmers Fairness Act
2 April 2003    2003 Ron Paul 45:2
This is a “something for nothing” subsidy of the worst kind! As a result of this provision, there is a very real threat to the agricultural infrastructure. With landowners receiving subsidies in spite of lack of production, the entire warehousing, processing and “value-added” industries are put at risk.

war
War No Excuse For Frivolous Spending
3 April 2003    2003 Ron Paul 46:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, at a time of war Congress has no more important duty than to make sure that our military force have all the resources they need. However, Congress also has a duty to not use the war as cover for unnecessary and unconstitutional spending. This is especially true when war coincides with a period of economic downturn and growing federal deficits. Unfortunately, Congress today is derelict in its duty to the United States taxpayer. Instead of simply ensuring that our military has the necessary resources to accomplish its mission in Iraq, a mission which may very well be over before this money reaches the Pentagon, Congress has loaded this bill up with unconstitutional wasteful foreign aid and corporate welfare spending.

war
War No Excuse For Frivolous Spending
3 April 2003    2003 Ron Paul 46:4
On foreign spending, this bill actually provides one billion dollars in foreign aid to Turkey — even though that country refused the U.S. request for cooperation in the war on Iraq. One billion dollars to a country that thumbed its nose at an American request for assistance? How is this possibly an appropriate expenditure of taxpayer money? Additionally, this “war supplemental” has provided cover for more of the same unconstitutional foreign aid spending. It provides 2.5 billion dollar for Iraqi reconstruction when Americans have been told repeatedly that reconstruction costs will be funded out of Iraqi oil revenues. It also ensures that the American taxpayer will subsidize large corporations that wish to do business in Iraq by making transactions with Iraq eligible for support from the Export-Import Bank. It sends grants and loans in excess of 11.5 billion dollars to Jordan, Israel, Egypt, and Afghanistan — above and beyond the money we already send them each year.

war
War No Excuse For Frivolous Spending
3 April 2003    2003 Ron Paul 46:5
Incredibly, this bill sends 175 million dollars in aid to Pakistan even though it was reported in April that Pakistan purchased ballistic missiles from North Korea! Furthermore, it is difficult to understand how $100 million to Colombia, $50 million to the Gaza Strip, and $200 million for “Muslim outreach” has anything to do with the current war in Iraq. Also, this bill spends $31 million to get the federal government into the television broadcasting business in the Middle East. With private American news networks like CNN available virtually everywhere on the globe, is there any justification to spend taxpayer money to create and fund competing state-run networks? Aren’t state-run news networks one of the features of closed societies we have been most critical of in the past?

war
United States Embargo On Cuba
9 April 2003    2003 Ron Paul 48:4
I oppose economic sanctions for two very simple reasons. First, they don’t work as effective foreign policy. Time after time, from Cuba to China to Iraq, we have failed to unseat despotic leaders by refusing to trade with the people of those nations. If anything, the anti- American sentiment aroused by sanctions often strengthens the popularity of such leaders, who use America as a convenient scapegoat to divert attention from their own tyranny. History clearly shows that free and open trade does far more to liberalize oppressive governments than trade wars. Economic freedom and political freedom are inextricably linked — when people get a taste of goods and information from abroad, they are less likely to tolerate a closed society at home. So while sanctions may serve our patriotic fervor, they mostly harm innocent citizens and do nothing to displace the governments we claim as enemies.

war
Repeal the So-Called “Medical Privacy Rule”
April 9, 2003    2003 Ron Paul 49:4
The so-called medical privacy regulations and uniform health identifier scheme not only reduce an individual’s ability to determine who has access to his personal medical information, but actually threaten medical privacy and constitutionally-protected liberties. For example, these regulations allow law enforcement and other government officials access to a citizen’s private medical records without having to obtain a search warrant.

war
Repeal the So-Called “Medical Privacy Rule”
April 9, 2003    2003 Ron Paul 49:5
Allowing government officials to access a private person’s medical records without a warrant is a violation of the Fourth amendment to the United States Constitution, which protects American citizens from warrantless searches by government officials. The requirement that law enforcement officials obtain a warrant from a judge before searching private documents is one of the fundamental protections against abuse of the government’s power to seize an individual’s private documents. While the Fourth Amendment has been interpreted to allow warrantless searches in emergency situations, it is hard to conceive of a situation where law enforcement officials would be unable to obtain a warrant before electronic medical records would be destroyed.

war
Repeal the So-Called “Medical Privacy Rule”
April 9, 2003    2003 Ron Paul 49:10
In a free society such as the one envisioned by those who drafted the Constitution, the federal government should never force a citizen to divulge personal information to advance “important social goals.” Rather, it should be up to individuals, not the government, to determine what social goals are important enough to warrant allowing others access to their personal property, including their personal information. To the extent these regulations sacrifice individual rights in the name of a bureaucratically determined common good, they are incompatible with a free society and a constitutional government.

war
Repeal the So-Called “Medical Privacy Rule”
April 9, 2003    2003 Ron Paul 49:13
I ask my colleagues to consider how comfortable you would be confiding an embarrassing physical or emotional problem to your physicians if you knew that any and all information given your doctor may be placed in a government database or seen by medical researchers, handed over to government agents without so much as a simple warrant or accessed by anyone who happens to know your unique health identifier?

war
Repeal the So-Called “Medical Privacy Rule”
April 9, 2003    2003 Ron Paul 49:15
Mr. Speaker, the misnamed medical privacy regulations and the scheme to assign all Americans a unique health care identifier violates the Fourth and Fifth amendments by allowing law enforcement officials and government favored special interests to seize medical records without an individual’s consent or a warrant. Federal supervision of who can access medical records, combined with a federally-assigned medical ID, facilitate the creation of a federal database containing the health care data of every American citizen. These developments could undermine the doctor-patient relationship and thus worsen the health care of millions of Americans. I, therefore, call on my colleagues to join me in repealing these threats to privacy and quality health care by cosponsoring the Patient Privacy Act.

war
America National Sovereignty vs. UN “International Law” – Time for Congress to Vote
April 29, 2003    2003 Ron Paul 51:2
Obviously many Americans now want to get out of the UN because they resent its refusal to sanction our war in Iraq. The administration deserves some credit for ultimately upholding the principle that American national security is not a matter of international consensus, and that we don’t need UN authorization to act. But the administration sent mixed signals by doing everything possible to obtain such authorization, and by citing UN resolutions as justification for our actions. The message seems to be that the UN is credible when we control it and it does what we want, but lacks all credibility when it refuses to do our bidding.

war
Big Program Won’t Eliminate AIDS
1 May 2003    2003 Ron Paul 54:4
Mr. Chairman, at a time when the government is running record deficits, is engaged in an enormously expensive war in Iraq and Afghanistan and elsewhere, and is even cutting veterans benefits, I find it extremely irresponsible that we are discussing sending additional billions overseas in yet another dubious program. Additionally, I am greatly concerned that the billions we are contributing to the “Global Fund” will be going to organizations that support and perform abortions, prostitution, infanticide and other horrors. There is nothing in this bill to prevent this, only faith that the Coordinator will exercise good judgment in these matters. That is simply not sufficient. I strongly oppose this bill and urge my colleagues to do likewise.

war
The Wisdom Of Tax Cuts
6 May 2003    2003 Ron Paul 56:6
Remember, the real issue is total spending by government. Yet this issue is ignored or politicized by both sides of the aisle here in Congress. The political discussion about whether to cut taxes has avoided the real issue and instead has degenerated into charges of class and party warfare, with both sides lusting for power. Of course, the great issue for the ages, namely, what is the proper role for government in a constitutional republic, is totally ignored. Yet another question remains: Are the American people determined they still wish to have a constitutional Republic?

war
The Flag Burning Amendment
June 3, 2003    2003 Ron Paul 57:25
It is assumed that many in the military support this amendment, but in fact there are veterans who have been great heroes in war on both sides of this issue. I would like to quote a past national commander of the American Legion, Keith Kreul. He said:

war
H. Con. res. 177
4 June 2003    2003 Ron Paul 61:3
The legislation inaccurately links our military action against Afghanistan, whose government was in partnership with Al-Qaeda, with our recent attack on Iraq, claiming that these were two similar campaigns in the war on terror. In fact, some of us are more concerned that the policy of pre-emptive military action, such as was the case in Iraq, will actually increase the likelihood of terrorist attacks against the United States — a phenomenon already predicted by the CIA.

war
Establishin Joint Committee To Review House And Senate Matters Assuring Continuing Representation And Congressional Operations For The American People
5 June 2003    2003 Ron Paul 64:4
I would remind my colleagues that this country has faced the possibility of threats to the continuity of this body several times throughout our history, yet no one suggested removing the people’s right vote for members of Congress. For example, the British in the War of 1812 attacked the city of Washington, yet nobody suggested the states could not address the lack of a quorum in the House of Representatives though elections. During the Civil War, the neighboring state of Virginia, where today many Capitol Hill staffers and members reside, was actively involved in hostilities against the United States Government, yet Abraham Lincoln never suggested that non-elected persons serve in the House. Forty-two years ago, Americans wrestled with a hostile superpower that had placed nuclear weapons just 90 miles off the Florida coast, yet no one suggested we consider taking away the people’s right to elect their representatives in order to ensure “continuity of government!”

war
Unlawful Internet Gambling Funding Prohibition Act
10 June 2003    2003 Ron Paul 66:2
In addition to being unconstitutional, H.R. 2143 is likely to prove ineffective at ending Internet gambling. Instead, this bill will ensure that gambling is controlled by organized crime. History, from the failed experiment of prohibition to today’s futile “war on drugs,” shows that the government cannot eliminate demand for something like Internet gambling simply by passing a law. Instead, H.R. 2143 will force those who wish to gamble over the Internet to patronize suppliers willing to flaunt the ban. In many cases, providers of services banned by the government will be members of criminal organizations. Even if organized crime does not operate Internet gambling enterprises their competitors are likely to be controlled by organized crime. After all, since the owners and patrons of Internet gambling cannot rely on the police and courts to enforce contracts and resolve other disputes, they will be forced to rely on members of organized crime to perform those functions. Thus, the profits of Internet gambling will flow into organized crime. Furthermore, outlawing an activity will raise the price vendors are able to charge consumers, thus increasing the profits flowing to organized crime from Internet gambling. It is bitterly ironic that a bill masquerading as an attack on crime will actually increase organized crime’s ability to control and profit from Internet gambling.

war
Results Of The Attack On Iraq: What Have We Discovered
19 June 2003    2003 Ron Paul 67:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, (1) After more than two months of searching, no Weapons of Mass Destruction have been discovered in Iraq. While it is not impossible that something may be discovered, the fact that no WMD were used during the war and none have yet been discovered afterward indicates that Iraq did not pose a threat to the United States.

war
Results Of The Attack On Iraq: What Have We Discovered
19 June 2003    2003 Ron Paul 67:19
(19) Yet, supporters of this war are already planning for the next war — possibly against Iran, Syria, North Korea, Cuba . . . or who knows where . . .

war
Medicare Funds For Prescription Drugs
26 June 2003    2003 Ron Paul 71:9
At the least, we should be debating whether to spend on warfare or welfare and choosing between corporate welfare and welfare for the poor instead of simply increasing spending on every program. While I would much rather spend federal monies on prescription drugs then another unconstitutional war, increasing spending on any program without corresponding spending reductions endangers our nation’s economic future.

war
The “Continuity of Government” Proposal – A Dangerous and Unnecessary Threat to Representative Rule
June 30, 2003    2003 Ron Paul 72:4
COGC is Unnecessary Every generation seems to labor under the delusion that it lives in the most dangerous and turbulent time in human history. COGC certainly proves this point. Its proposal provides doomsday scenarios designed to make us believe that the threat of modern terrorism poses a much greater risk to our government institutions than ever existed in the past. Yet is Congress really more vulnerable than it was at the height of the Cold War, when a single Soviet missile could have destroyed Washington? Surely Congress faced greater danger in 1814, when the British army actually invaded Washington, routed the city, and burned down the White House! Somehow the republic survived those much more perilous times without a constitutional amendment calling for the emergency appointment of Representatives.

war
Neo – CONNED !
July 10, 2003    2003 Ron Paul 73:12
The remnant’s instincts were correct, and the politicians placated them with talk of free markets, limited government, and a humble, non-nation-building foreign policy. However, little concern for civil liberties was expressed in this recent quest for less government. Yet, for an ultimate victory of achieving freedom, this must change. Interest in personal privacy and choices has generally remained outside the concern of many conservatives—especially with the great harm done by their support of the drug war. Even though some confusion has emerged over our foreign policy since the breakdown of the Soviet empire, it’s been a net benefit in getting some conservatives back on track with a less militaristic, interventionist foreign policy. Unfortunately, after 9-ll, the cause of liberty suffered a setback. As a result, millions of Americans voted for the less-than-perfect conservative revolution because they believed in the promises of the politicians.

war
Neo – CONNED !
July 10, 2003    2003 Ron Paul 73:15
In spite of the floundering economy, Congress and the Administration continue to take on new commitments in foreign aid, education, farming, medicine, multiple efforts at nation building, and preemptive wars around the world. Already we’re entrenched in Iraq and Afghanistan, with plans to soon add new trophies to our conquest. War talk abounds as to when Syria, Iran and North Korea will be attacked.

war
Neo – CONNED !
July 10, 2003    2003 Ron Paul 73:19
There is abundant evidence exposing those who drive our foreign policy justifying preemptive war. Those who scheme are proud of the achievements in usurping control over foreign policy. These are the neoconservatives of recent fame. Granted, they are talented and achieved a political victory that all policymakers must admire. But can freedom and the republic survive this takeover? That question should concern us.

war
Neo – CONNED !
July 10, 2003    2003 Ron Paul 73:25
More recently, the modern-day neocons have come from the far left, a group historically identified as former Trotskyites. Liberal, Christopher Hitchens, has recently officially joined the neocons, and it has been reported that he has already been to the White House as an ad hoc consultant. Many neocons now in positions of influence in Washington can trace their status back to Professor Leo Strauss of the University of Chicago. One of Strauss’ books was Thoughts on Machiavelli . This book was not a condemnation of Machiavelli’s philosophy. Paul Wolfowitz actually got his PhD under Strauss. Others closely associated with these views are Richard Perle, Eliot Abrams, Robert Kagan, and William Kristol. All are key players in designing our new strategy of preemptive war. Others include: Michael Ledeen of the American Enterprise Institute; former CIA Director James Woolsey; Bill Bennett of Book of Virtues fame; Frank Gaffney; Dick Cheney; and Donald Rumsfeld. There are just too many to mention who are philosophically or politically connected to the neocon philosophy in some varying degree.

war
Neo – CONNED !
July 10, 2003    2003 Ron Paul 73:30
3. They believe in preemptive war to achieve desired ends.

war
Neo – CONNED !
July 10, 2003    2003 Ron Paul 73:46
It is no secret—especially after the rash of research and articles written about the neocons since our invasion of Iraq—how they gained influence and what organizations were used to promote their cause. Although for decades, they agitated for their beliefs through publications like The National Review, The Weekly Standard, The Public Interest, The Wall Street Journal , Commentary , and the New York Post , their views only gained momentum in the 1990s following the first Persian Gulf War—which still has not ended even with removal of Saddam Hussein. They became convinced that a much more militant approach to resolving all the conflicts in the Middle East was an absolute necessity, and they were determined to implement that policy.

war
Neo – CONNED !
July 10, 2003    2003 Ron Paul 73:47
In addition to publications, multiple think tanks and projects were created to promote their agenda. A product of the Bradley Foundation, the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) led the neocon charge, but the real push for war came from the Project for a New American Century (PNAC) another organization helped by the Bradley Foundation. This occurred in 1998 and was chaired by Weekly Standard editor Bill Kristol. They urged early on for war against Iraq, but were disappointed with the Clinton administration, which never followed through with its periodic bombings. Obviously, these bombings were motivated more by Clinton’s personal and political problems than a belief in the neocon agenda.

war
Neo – CONNED !
July 10, 2003    2003 Ron Paul 73:48
The election of 2000 changed all that. The Defense Policy Board, chaired by Richard Perle, played no small role in coordinating the various projects and think tanks, all determined to take us into war against Iraq. It wasn’t too long before the dream of empire was brought closer to reality by the election of 2000 with Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Cheney, and Donald Rumsfeld playing key roles in this accomplishment. The plan to promote an “American greatness” imperialistic foreign policy was now a distinct possibility. Iraq offered a great opportunity to prove their long-held theories. This opportunity was a consequence of the 9-11 disaster.

war
Neo – CONNED !
July 10, 2003    2003 Ron Paul 73:50
Let there be no doubt, those in the neocon camp had been anxious to go to war against Iraq for a decade. They justified the use of force to accomplish their goals, even if it required preemptive war. If anyone doubts this assertion, they need only to read of their strategy in “A Clean Break: a New Strategy for Securing the Realm.” Although they felt morally justified in changing the government in Iraq, they knew that public support was important, and justification had to be given to pursue the war. Of course, a threat to us had to exist before the people and the Congress would go along with war. The majority of Americans became convinced of this threat, which, in actuality, never really existed. Now we have the ongoing debate over the location of weapons of mass destruction. Where was the danger? Was all this killing and spending necessary? How long will this nation building and dying go on? When will we become more concerned about the needs of our own citizens than the problems we sought in Iraq and Afghanistan? Who knows where we’ll go next—Iran, Syria or North Korea?

war
Neo – CONNED !
July 10, 2003    2003 Ron Paul 73:51
At the end of the Cold War, the neoconservatives realized a rearrangement of the world was occurring and that our superior economic and military power offered them a perfect opportunity to control the process of remaking the Middle East.

war
Neo – CONNED !
July 10, 2003    2003 Ron Paul 73:56
In Ledeen’s most recent publication, The War Against the Terror Masters , he reiterates his beliefs outlined in this 1999 Machaivelli book. He specifically praises: “Creative destruction…both within our own society and abroad…(foreigners) seeing America undo traditional societies may fear us, for they do not wish to be undone.” Amazingly, Ledeen concludes: “They must attack us in order to survive, just as we must destroy them to advance our historic mission.”

war
Neo – CONNED !
July 10, 2003    2003 Ron Paul 73:57
If those words don’t scare you, nothing will. If they are not a clear warning, I don’t know what could be. It sounds like both sides of each disagreement in the world will be following the principle of preemptive war. The world is certainly a less safe place for it.

war
Neo – CONNED !
July 10, 2003    2003 Ron Paul 73:59
Ledeen quotes Machiavelli approvingly on what makes a great leader. “A prince must have no other objectives or other thoughts or take anything for his craft, except war.” To Ledeen, this meant: “…the virtue of the warrior are those of great leaders of any successful organization.” Yet it’s obvious that war is not coincidental to neocon philosophy, but an integral part. The intellectuals justify it, and the politicians carry it out. There’s a precise reason to argue for war over peace according to Ledeen, for “…peace increases our peril by making discipline less urgent, encouraging some of our worst instincts, in depriving us of some of our best leaders.” Peace, he claims, is a dream and not even a pleasant one, for it would cause indolence and would undermine the power of the state. Although I concede the history of the world is a history of frequent war, to capitulate and give up even striving for peace—believing peace is not a benefit to mankind—is a frightening thought that condemns the world to perpetual war and justifies it as a benefit and necessity. These are dangerous ideas, from which no good can come.

war
Neo – CONNED !
July 10, 2003    2003 Ron Paul 73:60
The conflict of the ages has been between the state and the individual: central power versus liberty. The more restrained the state and the more emphasis on individual liberty, the greater has been the advancement of civilization and general prosperity. Just as man’s condition was not locked in place by the times and wars of old and improved with liberty and free markets, there’s no reason to believe a new stage for man might not be achieved by believing and working for conditions of peace. The inevitability and so-called need for preemptive war should never be intellectually justified as being a benefit. Such an attitude guarantees the backsliding of civilization. Neocons, unfortunately, claim that war is in man’s nature and that we can’t do much about it, so let’s use it to our advantage by promoting our goodness around the world through force of arms. That view is anathema to the cause of liberty and the preservation of the Constitution. If it is not loudly refuted, our future will be dire indeed.

war
Neo – CONNED !
July 10, 2003    2003 Ron Paul 73:63
Ledeen makes it clear that war is necessary to establish national boundaries—because that’s the way it’s always been done. Who needs progress of the human race! He explains:

war
Neo – CONNED !
July 10, 2003    2003 Ron Paul 73:64
“Look at the map of the world: national boundaries have not been drawn by peaceful men leading lives of spiritual contemplation. National boundaries have been established by war, and national character has been shaped by struggle, most often bloody struggle.”

war
Neo – CONNED !
July 10, 2003    2003 Ron Paul 73:65
Yes, but who is to lead the charge and decide which borders we are to fight for? What about borders 6,000 miles away unrelated to our own contiguous borders and our own national security? Stating a relative truism regarding the frequency of war throughout history should hardly be the moral justification for expanding the concept of war to settle man’s disputes. How can one call this progress?

war
Neo – CONNED !
July 10, 2003    2003 Ron Paul 73:66
Machiavelli, Ledeen and the neocons recognized a need to generate a religious zeal for promoting the state. This, he claims, is especially necessary when force is used to promote an agenda. It’s been true throughout history and remains true today, each side of major conflicts invokes God’s approval. Our side refers to a “crusade;” theirs to a “holy Jihad.” Too often wars boil down to their god against our God. It seems this principle is more a cynical effort to gain approval from the masses, especially those most likely to be killed for the sake of the war promoters on both sides who have power, prestige and wealth at stake.

war
Neo – CONNED !
July 10, 2003    2003 Ron Paul 73:67
Ledeen explains why God must always be on the side of advocates of war: “Without fear of God, no state can last long, for the dread of eternal damnation keeps men in line, causes them to honor their promises, and inspires them to risk their lives for the common good.” It seems dying for the common good has gained a higher moral status than eternal salvation of one’s soul. Ledeen adds:

war
Neo – CONNED !
July 10, 2003    2003 Ron Paul 73:69
It’s of interest to note that some large Christian denominations have joined the neoconservatives in promoting preemptive war, while completely ignoring the Christian doctrine of a Just War. The neocons sought and openly welcomed their support.

war
Neo – CONNED !
July 10, 2003    2003 Ron Paul 73:72
Neocons—anxious for the U.S. to use force to realign the boundaries and change regimes in the Middle East—clearly understand the benefit of a galvanizing and emotional event to rally the people to their cause. Without a special event, they realized the difficulty in selling their policy of preemptive war where our own military personnel would be killed. Whether it was the Lusitania, Pearl Harbor, the Gulf of Tonkin, or the Maine, all served their purpose in promoting a war that was sought by our leaders.

war
Neo – CONNED !
July 10, 2003    2003 Ron Paul 73:78
The current attention given neocons is usually done in the context of foreign policy. But there’s more to what’s going on today than just the tremendous influence the neocons have on our new policy of preemptive war with a goal of empire. Our government is now being moved by several ideas that come together in what I call “neoconism.” The foreign policy is being openly debated, even if its implications are not fully understood by many who support it. Washington is now driven by old views brought together in a new package.

war
Neo – CONNED !
July 10, 2003    2003 Ron Paul 73:81
Instead of the “end of history,” we are now experiencing the end of a vocal limited-government movement in our nation’s capital. While most conservatives no longer defend balanced budgets and reduced spending, most liberals have grown lazy in defending civil liberties and now are approving wars that we initiate. The so-called “third way” has arrived and, sadly, it has taken the worst of what the conservatives and liberals have to offer. The people are less well off for it, while liberty languishes as a result.

war
Neo – CONNED !
July 10, 2003    2003 Ron Paul 73:85
Power, politics and privilege prevail over the rule of law, liberty, justice and peace. But it does not need to be that way. Neoconism has brought together many old ideas about how government should rule the people. It may have modernized its appeal and packaging, but authoritarian rule is authoritarian rule, regardless of the humanitarian overtones. A solution can only come after the current ideology driving our government policies is replaced with a more positive one. In a historical context, liberty is a modern idea and must once again regain the high moral ground for civilization to advance. Restating the old justifications for war, people control and a benevolent state will not suffice. It cannot eliminate the shortcomings that always occur when the state assumes authority over others and when the will of one nation is forced on another—whether or not it is done with good intentions.

war
Neo – CONNED !
July 10, 2003    2003 Ron Paul 73:86
I realize that all conservatives are not neoconservatives, and all neocons don’t necessarily agree on all points—which means that in spite of their tremendous influence, most Members of Congress and those in the administration do not necessarily take their marching orders from the AEI or Richard Perle. But to use this as a reason to ignore what neoconservative leaders believe, write about it and agitate for—with amazing success I might point out—would be at our own peril. This country still allows open discourse—though less everyday—and we who disagree should push the discussion and expose those who drive our policies. It is getting more difficult to get fair and balanced discussion on the issues, because it has become routine for the hegemons to label those who object to preemptive war and domestic surveillance as traitors, unpatriotic and un-American. The uniformity of support for our current foreign policy by major and cable-news networks should concern every American. We should all be thankful for CSPAN and the internet.

war
Neo – CONNED !
July 10, 2003    2003 Ron Paul 73:87
Michael Ledeen and other neoconservatives are already lobbying for war against Iran. Ledeen is pretty nasty to those who call for a calmer, reasoned approach by calling those who are not ready for war “cowards and appeasers of tyrants.” Because some urge a less militaristic approach to dealing with Iran, he claims they are betraying America’s best “traditions.” I wonder where he learned early American history! It’s obvious that Ledeen doesn’t consider the Founders and the Constitution part of our best traditions. We were hardly encouraged by the American revolutionaries to pursue an American empire. We were, however, urged to keep the Republic they so painstakingly designed.

war
Neo – CONNED !
July 10, 2003    2003 Ron Paul 73:89
The believers in liberty ought not deceive themselves. Who should be satisfied? Certainly not conservatives, for there is no conservative movement left. How could liberals be satisfied? They are pleased with the centralization of education and medical programs in Washington and support many of the administration’s proposals. But none should be pleased with the steady attack on the civil liberties of all American citizens and the now-accepted consensus that preemptive war—for almost any reason—is an acceptable policy for dealing with all the conflicts and problems of the world.

war
Neo – CONNED !
July 10, 2003    2003 Ron Paul 73:90
In spite of the deteriorating conditions in Washington—with loss of personal liberty, a weak economy, exploding deficits, and perpetual war, followed by nation building—there are still quite a number of us who would relish the opportunity to improve things, in one way or another. Certainly, a growing number of frustrated Americans, from both the right and the left, are getting anxious to see this Congress do a better job. But first, Congress must stop doing a bad job.

war
Amendment 6 To de-Fund The United Nations — Part 1
15 July 2003    2003 Ron Paul 75:5
We also lose our sovereignty when we look to the U.N. for guidance. When we declared war or when we went to war without declaration of war last fall, we had a resolution on the floor which cited the U.N. 23 different times. I do not believe we should go to war under U.N. resolutions, and we have essentially been in Iraq under U.N. resolution because in the early 1990s it was under U.N. resolution that we went to war. The old-fashioned way of going to war was a declaration of war.

war
Amendment 6 To de-Fund The United Nations — Part 1
15 July 2003    2003 Ron Paul 75:7
It gets to be almost a joke around the world about some of the things the U.N. does. When you think about the Commission of Human Rights and who is appointed as the chairman of the Commission of Human Rights, nobody else other than Libya. And before the war it was actually Iraq who was supposed to chair the Disarmament Commission.

war
Amendment 6 To de-Fund The United Nations — Part 2
15 July 2003    2003 Ron Paul 77:4
However, too often I think they leave doing these programs that are designed to help people who are truly suffering versus getting involved with what we call peacekeeping missions. The United Nations are not allowed to declare war. They never go to war, and yet too often we get involved in war. That is why they were called peacekeepers in Korea. That is why it is a peacekeeping mission when we go to Iraq. But, still, the armies are raised, and young men are called off, and people are killed on these peacekeeping missions. Therefore, I say that the United Nations has tended to take away the responsibilities of this Congress to make these very, very important decisions.

war
The Monetary Freedom And Accountability Act
17 July 2003    2003 Ron Paul 79:9
Just about every analyst and “expert” on Wall Street willing to mention any of this has been quick to explain that the increase in the price of gold is due to impending war with Iraq. But hard-money analysts are arguing that should the United States go to war it will be of very little consequence to the price of gold — a momentary blip — because gold is a commodity and its price a matter of supply and demand.

war
Abolishing The Federal Reserve
17 July 2003    2003 Ron Paul 83:6
Though the Federal Reserve policy harms the average American, it benefits those in a position to take advantage of the cycles in monetary policy. The main beneficiaries are those who receive access to artificially inflated money and/or credit before the inflationary effects of the policy impact the entire economy. Federal Reserve policies also benefit big spending politicians who use the inflated currency created by the Fed to hide the true costs of the welfare-warfare state. It is time for Congress to put the interests of the American people ahead of the special interests and their own appetite for big government.

war
The Justifications for War
July 21, 2003    2003 Ron Paul 85:1
Madam Speaker, the truth about whether or not Saddam Hussein sought to buy uranium from Niger has dominated the news for the past several weeks. Many of those challenging the administration on this issue are motivated more by politics than by policy. Some of today’s critics were strongly in favor of going to war against Iraq when doing so appeared politically popular, but now are chagrined that the war is not going as smoothly as was hoped.

war
The Justifications for War
July 21, 2003    2003 Ron Paul 85:2
I am sure once the alleged attempt to buy uranium is thoroughly debunked, the other excuses for going to war will be examined with a great deal of scrutiny as well. It is obvious that the evidence used to justify going to war is now less than convincing.

war
The Justifications for War
July 21, 2003    2003 Ron Paul 85:9
One question, though, I hope gets asked: Why should we use intelligence cited by a foreign government as justification for going to war? One would think the billions we spend would produce reliable intelligence-gathering agencies.

war
The Justifications for War
July 21, 2003    2003 Ron Paul 85:10
Since we lack a coherent foreign policy, we see support for war from different groups depending on circumstances unrelated to national defense. For instance, those who strenuously objected to Kosovo promoted war in Iraq. And those who objected to Iraq are now anxious to send troops to Liberia. For some, U.N. permission is important and necessary. For others, the U.N. is helpful provided it endorses the war they want.

war
The Justifications for War
July 21, 2003    2003 Ron Paul 85:11
Only a few correctly look to the Constitution and to Congress to sort out the pros and cons of each conflict, and decide whether or not a declaration of war is warranted.

war
The Justifications for War
July 21, 2003    2003 Ron Paul 85:12
The sad fact is that we have lost our way. A legitimate threat to national security is no longer a litmus test for sending troops hither and yon, and the American people no longer require Congress to declare the wars we fight. Hopefully, some day this will change.

war
UNESCO
22 July 2003    2003 Ron Paul 86:12
So I warn my colleagues about rejoining UNESCO, believing very sincerely that it is not in our interest. It costs us a lot of money. It does not represent the goals and the culture and the beliefs of Americans. We did get out because it represented us badly, and here we are about to get back into UNESCO. I urge support for my amendment.

war
UNESCO — Part 2
22 July 2003    2003 Ron Paul 87:5
I do not believe that. I have not come around to that belief. Being a member in a world community does not mean that you have to sacrifice your sovereignty. Being a member of a world community means that we should get along with people, that we should not be fighting with people, we should be trading with people; but that does not imply the necessity of having an international government. This is what is implied here. In this day and age we go to war under U.N. resolutions; but here our children are going to war with the education system by the United Nations dictating to us educational standards.

war
UNESCO — Part 2
22 July 2003    2003 Ron Paul 87:8
UNESCO’s World Heritage Convention has taken treasured American public monuments to be designated world heritage sites. This is a movement away from the concept of national sovereignty. This means that there will not be control by the American people through their Representative. That makes every single one of us less significant, not only in the issue of war but now in the issue of schools and taxation. Yes, it moves slowly, it is not overwhelming; we still have a lot of control, but we are losing it gradually. And we do know that even those who objected to the war in Iraq would have been quite happy if only the United Nations would have passed a resolution that permitted us to go to war. I do not like that kind of a world. The only oath of office I take is the oath to the U.S. Constitution and UNESCO does not conform to that oath. The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. PAUL). The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that the noes appeared to have it.

war
PATRIOT Act
22 July 2003    2003 Ron Paul 88:4
I have had many Members in the Congress come to me and on the quiet admit to me that voting for the PATRIOT Act was the worst bill and the worst vote they have ever cast; and this will give them an opportunity to change it, although this is very narrow. It is too bad we could not have made this more broad, and it is too bad we are not going to get to vote on the amendment of the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. SANDERS) to make sure that without the proper search warrant that the Federal Government would not have access to the library records.

war
PATRIOT Act
22 July 2003    2003 Ron Paul 88:7
But my main argument is that there is never a need to sacrifice liberty in order to protect liberty, and that is why we would like to at least remove this clause that allows sneak-and-peak search warrants.

war
Medicinal Marijuana
22 July 2003    2003 Ron Paul 89:7
There are more people who die from the use of legal drugs than illegal drugs. Just think of that. More people die from the use of legal drugs; and also, there are more deaths from the drug war than there are from deaths from using the illegal drugs. So it has gotten out of control. But the whole idea that a person who is dying, a physician cannot even prescribe something that might help them. The terrible irony of Peter McDaniels was that he died because of vomiting, something that could have and had only been curtailed by the use of marijuana. No other medication had helped; and we, the Federal Government, go in there and deny this and defy the State law, the State law of California.

war
Stay out of Liberia!
24 July 2003    2003 Ron Paul 90:2
We all recognize the tragedy in Liberia. A civil war has raged there for the past 14 years, leaving thousands dead and a million without homes. Horrific stories of atrocities abound. We wish for peace and a resolution to the conflict. But we must recognize that this resolution should come through regional West African efforts. These are the countries involved and affected; these are the countries with the most incentive to resolve the problem. Simply stated, there is no US national security interest at stake in the conflict - no matter how widely “national interest” is defined.

war
Paper Money and Tyranny
September 5, 2003    2003 Ron Paul 93:6
Our Founders thoroughly understood this issue, and warned us against the temptation to seek wealth and fortune without the work and savings that real prosperity requires. James Madison warned of “The pestilent effects of paper money,” as the Founders had vivid memories of the destructiveness of the Continental dollar. George Mason of Virginia said that he had a “Mortal hatred to paper money.” Constitutional Convention delegate Oliver Ellsworth from Connecticut thought the convention “A favorable moment to shut and bar the door against paper money.” This view of the evils of paper money was shared by almost all the delegates to the convention, and was the reason the Constitution limited congressional authority to deal with the issue and mandated that only gold and silver could be legal tender. Paper money was prohibited and no central bank was authorized. Over and above the economic reasons for honest money, however, Madison argued the moral case for such. Paper money, he explained, destroyed “The necessary confidence between man and man, on necessary confidence in public councils, on the industry and morals of people and on the character of republican government.”

war
Paper Money and Tyranny
September 5, 2003    2003 Ron Paul 93:8
Even with this history and great concern expressed by the Founders, the barriers to paper money have been torn asunder. The Constitution has not been changed, but is no longer applied to the issue of money. It was once explained to me, during the debate over going to war in Iraq, that a declaration of war was not needed because to ask for such a declaration was “frivolous” and that the portion of the Constitution dealing with congressional war power was “anachronistic.” So too, it seems that the power over money given to Congress alone and limited to coinage and honest weights, is now also “anachronistic.”

war
Paper Money and Tyranny
September 5, 2003    2003 Ron Paul 93:22
The monetary issue, along with the desire to have free trade among the states, prompted those at the Constitutional Convention to seek solutions to problems that plagued the post-revolutionary war economy. This post-war recession was greatly aggravated by the collapse of the unsound fiat Continental dollar. The people, through their representatives, spoke loudly and clearly for gold and silver over paper.

war
Paper Money and Tyranny
September 5, 2003    2003 Ron Paul 93:24
In the 1870s, the people once again spoke out clearly against the greenback inflation of Lincoln. Notoriously, governments go to paper money while rejecting gold to promote unpopular and unaffordable wars. The return to gold in 1879 went smoothly and was welcomed by the people, putting behind them the disastrous Civil War inflationary period.

war
Paper Money and Tyranny
September 5, 2003    2003 Ron Paul 93:28
A central bank and fiat money enable government to maintain an easy war policy that under strict monetary rules would not be achievable. In other words, countries with sound monetary policies would rarely go to war because they could not afford to, especially if they were not attacked. The people could not be taxed enough to support wars without destroying the economy. But by printing money, the cost can be delayed and hidden, sometimes for years if not decades. To be truly opposed to preemptive and unnecessary wars one must advocate sound money to prevent the promoters of war from financing their imperialism.

war
Paper Money and Tyranny
September 5, 2003    2003 Ron Paul 93:30
The money issue should indeed be a gigantic political issue. Fiat money hurts the economy, finances wars, and allows for excessive welfarism. When these connections are realized and understood, it will once again become a major political issue, since paper money never lasts. Ultimately politicians will not have a choice of whether to address or take a position on the money issue. The people and circumstances will demand it.

war
Paper Money and Tyranny
September 5, 2003    2003 Ron Paul 93:59
Big business and banking deserve our harsh criticism, but not because they are big or because they make a lot of money. Our criticism should come because of the special benefits they receive from a monetary system designed to assist the business class at the expense of the working class. Labor leader Samuel Gompers understood this and feared paper money and a central bank while arguing the case for gold. Since the monetary system is used to finance deficits that come from war expenditures, the military industrial complex is a strong supporter of the current monetary system.

war
Paper Money and Tyranny
September 5, 2003    2003 Ron Paul 93:72
The odds aren’t very good that the Fed will adopt a policy of not inflating the money supply because of some very painful consequences that would result. Also there would be a need to remove the pressure on the Fed to accommodate the big spenders in Congress. Since there are essentially only two groups that have any influence on spending levels, big-government liberals and big- government conservatives, that’s not about to happen. Poverty is going to worsen due to our monetary and fiscal policies, so spending on the war on poverty will accelerate. Our obsession with policing the world, nation building, and pre-emptive war are not likely to soon go away, since both Republican and Democratic leaders endorse them. Instead, the cost of defending the American empire is going to accelerate. A country that is getting poorer cannot pay these bills with higher taxation nor can they find enough excess funds for the people to loan to the government. The only recourse is for the Federal Reserve to accommodate and monetize the federal debt, and that, of course, is inflation.

war
Statement Opposing the Continuity of Government Proposal
September 9, 2003    2003 Ron Paul 94:6
Mr. Chairman, this country has faced the possibility of threats to the continuity of this body several times throughout our history, yet no one suggested removing the people’s right to vote for members of Congress. For example, the British in the War of 1812 attacked the city of Washington, yet nobody suggested the states could not address the lack of a quorum in the House of Representatives though elections. During the Civil War, the neighboring state of Virginia (where today many Capitol Hill staffers and members reside) was actively involved in hostilities against the United States government. Yet Abraham Lincoln never suggested that non-elected persons serve in the House.

war
We Cannot Afford Another $87 Billion in Iraq
September 16, 2003    2003 Ron Paul 98:1
Mr. Speaker, the neo-conservative media machine has been hard at work lately drumming up support for the $87 billion appropriation to extend our precarious occupation of Iraq. Opposition to this funding, according to the Secretary of Defense, encourages our enemies and hinders the war against terrorism. This is a distortion of the facts and is nothing more than attacking the messenger when one disapproves of the message.

war
We Cannot Afford Another $87 Billion in Iraq
September 16, 2003    2003 Ron Paul 98:2
Those within the administration, prior to the war, who warned of the dangers and real costs were fired. Yet now it turns out that they were correct, that it would not be a cakewalk, that it would require a lot more troops, and costs would far exceed original expectations.

war
We Cannot Afford Another $87 Billion in Iraq
September 16, 2003    2003 Ron Paul 98:9
Some believe that by not raising taxes to pay for the war we can fund it on the cheap. We cannot. When deficits skyrocket the federal government prints more money, the people are effectively taxed by losing value in their savings and in their paychecks. The inflation tax is a sinister and evil way to pay for unpopular wars. It has been done that way for centuries.

war
We Cannot Afford Another $87 Billion in Iraq
September 16, 2003    2003 Ron Paul 98:10
Mr. Speaker, I guess we shouldn’t worry because we can find a way to pay for it. Already we are charging our wounded soldiers $8.10 a day for food when recuperating in a hospital from their war injuries. We also know that other soldiers are helping out by buying their own night vision goggles, GPS devices, short wave radios, backpacks, and even shoes! So I suppose we can fund the war that way. It does not seem like much of a bother to cut veterans’ benefits. Besides, many conservatives for years have argued that deficits do not really matter, only tax rates do. So let us just quit worrying about deficits and this $87 billion supplemental. Of course I’m being sarcastic.

war
Congratulations
17 September 2003    2003 Ron Paul 100:2
John Dettling and Geraldine Wendel met in south Texas more than 6 decades ago. They married in El Campo, Texas in 1943, on the eve of World War II. Less than 1 year later, John left for Europe as a soldier. Like many couples of the era, the war separated the young newlyweds for some time. Happily, John returned from the war safe and sound and they began a long life together. The couple built a home in Wharton, Texas, where they still live today.

war
American Dream Downpayment Act
1 October 2003    2003 Ron Paul 104:2
H.R. 1276 not only warps the true meaning of the American dream, but also exceeds Congress’ constitutional boundaries and interferes with and distorts the operation of the free market. Instead of expanding unconstitutional federal power, Congress should focus its energies on dismantling the federal housing bureaucracy so the American people can control housing resources and use the free market to meet their demands for affordable housing.

war
Commending The National Endowment For Democracy For Contributions To democratic Development Around The World On The 20th Anniversary Of Its Establishment
7 October 2003    2003 Ron Paul 105:14
Madam Speaker, the National Endowment for Democracy, by meddling in the elections and internal politics of foreign countries, does more harm to the United States than good. It creates resentment and ill-will toward the United States among millions abroad. It is beyond time to de-fund this Cold War relic and return to the foreign policy of our founders, based on open relations and trade with all countries and free from meddling and manipulation in the internal affairs of others.

war
Statement Opposing Trade Sanctions against Syria
October 15, 2003    2003 Ron Paul 106:2
This bill cites Syria’s alleged support for Hamas, Hizballah, Palestine Islamic Jihad, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, and other terrorist groups as evidence that Syria is posing a threat to the United States. Not since the Hizballah bombing of a US Marine barracks in Lebanon in 1983 have any of these organizations attacked the United States. After that attack on our Marines, who were sent to Beirut to intervene in a conflict that had nothing to do with the United States, President Ronald Reagan wisely ordered their withdrawal from that volatile area. Despite what the interventionists constantly warn, the world did not come to an end back in 1983 when the president decided to withdraw from Beirut and leave the problems there to be worked out by those countries most closely involved.

war
Statement Opposing Trade Sanctions against Syria
October 15, 2003    2003 Ron Paul 106:9
That is the problem with this approach. Imposing sanctions and cutting off relations with a country is ineffective and counterproductive. It is only one-half step short of war and very often leads to war. This bill may well even completely eliminate any trade between the two countries. It will almost completely shut the door on diplomatic relations. It sends a strong message to Syria and the Syrian people: that we no longer wish to engage you. This cannot be in our best interest.

war
Supplemental Appropriation
16 October 2003    2003 Ron Paul 108:5
“Trying to eliminate Saddam Hussein . . . would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. Apprehending him was probably impossible . . . We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq . . . There was no available ‘exit strategy’ we could see, violating another of our principles. Furthermore, we had been self-consciously trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-Cold War world. Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the United Nations’ mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression that we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the United States could conceivably be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land.”

war
Supplemental Appropriation
16 October 2003    2003 Ron Paul 108:7
I was a strong opponent of the war for two reasons: one, I sincerely believed our national security was not threatened, and I also was convinced that it had no relationship to 9–11; and I think those two concerns have been proven to be correct. Many who had voted against the war now suggest that they might vote for this appropriation because they feel it is necessary to vote to support the troops. I think that is a red herring argument because if we take a poll, and there have been some recent polls of the troops in Iraq, we find out that probably all of them would love to come home next week. So I do not see how a vote against this appropriation can be construed. As a matter of fact, that is challenging the motivation of those of us who will oppose the legislation, that we do not support the troops. So I am in support of voting against this appropriation.

war
Veterans Recognized By The Silver Rose
16 October 2003    2003 Ron Paul 109:2
Established in 1997 by Mary Elizabeth Marchand, The Order of The Silver Rose gives many veterans the satisfaction of being recognized for making the ultimate sacrifice for our nation. Mrs. Marchand’s father, Chief Hospital Corpsman Frank Davis, died from illnesses resulting from the use of Agent Orange in the Vietnam War. A combat veteran, Chief Davis was not wounded in combat but exposed to a dangerous substance while fighting for his country. Exposure to Agent Orange resulted in Davis losing his life some years later. Subsequently, determination was made by the Department of Defense that Chief Davis and many like him do not qualify for The Purple Heart.

war
Veterans Recognized By The Silver Rose
16 October 2003    2003 Ron Paul 109:3
The Order of The Silver Rose recognizes the courage, heroism, and contributions of American service personnel who were exposed to Agent Orange in a combat zone. There are thousands of veterans who served this country faithfully who are now suffering illnesses, some fatal, directly due to being exposed to harmful substances during the war.

war
Borrowing Billions to Fund a Failed Policy in Iraq
October 17, 2003    2003 Ron Paul 110:9
Conservatives often proclaim that they are opposed to providing American welfare to the rest of the world. I agree. The only way to do that, however, is to stop supporting a policy of military interventionism. You cannot have one without the other. If a military intervention against Syria and Iran are next, it will be the same thing: we will pay to bomb the country and we will pay even more to rebuild it - and as we see with the plan for Iraq, this rebuilding will not be done on the cheap. The key fallacy in the argument of the militarists is that there is some way to fight a war without associated costs - the costs of occupation, reconstruction, “institution-building,” “democracy programs.”

war
Misguided Policy Of Nation Building In Iraq
17 October 2003    2003 Ron Paul 111:4
It did not even start after 9–11. It is true within weeks after 9–11 the Project for New American Century saw this as an opportunity to bring forth their suggestions that they had made many years ago, and they have been agitating forth for over 10 years, and that is to go into Iraq; and they saw this as an opportunity. But actually, this debate has been going on even a lot longer. Certainly since the first Iraqi war in 1990 and the persistence of our bombing of Iraq, as well as the embargo and boycotts of Iraq served to do a lot of internal damage to the Iraqi people.

war
Misguided Policy Of Nation Building In Iraq
17 October 2003    2003 Ron Paul 111:6
It may be that the lack of affordability may bring us to our senses before the logic of a foreign policy. That might make more sense than what we have been doing. Before the Iraqi war, the 18 months, actually there was a pretty strong debate here in the Congress. Several of us, quite a few of us, got to the floor and talked about the potentiality of war and why we thought it was a bad idea. My conclusion in October of 2002, 6 months or so before the invasion, was that we should not go in to Iraq. And it was a deeply held conviction, not only philosophically, because of a strong belief I have in nonintervention and the restraints that are placed on us by the Constitution, but also because I was convinced that our national security was not threatened by Saddam Hussein and that 9–11 had nothing to do with Iraq and Iraq had nothing to do with 9–11 nor Saddam Hussein. And I think the events since that time have proven that assumption to be correct.

war
Misguided Policy Of Nation Building In Iraq
17 October 2003    2003 Ron Paul 111:8
Now, the argument goes that whether or not we supported the war at the beginning, we should support the troops now. The troops are there and if you vote against the appropriations, it means that you lack support for the troops. Well, this is not true; and those who argue that case know it is the case, that it is not true because the funding that is already in the pipeline is certainly enough for several months of leaving and coming home. And so that argument just does not hold water. And besides, if you really talk to the troops, and now we are getting so much more information from the troops, if you ask them whether there is somebody in the Congress that votes to have them come home, whether that indicates a lack of support for them, I think you would get a very clear answer. Probably a very large number, if not all of them, would like to come home tomorrow and they do not see a lot of benefit by the sacrifices that are being made over there. But I think if the support for the war is weak, why are we there? What drives us? And what drives our foreign policy?

war
Misguided Policy Of Nation Building In Iraq
17 October 2003    2003 Ron Paul 111:12
So although it was seen by the world that we went into Iraq by defying the United Nations, if anybody would like to check and go back and look at the authorization for the use of force which was a transfer, illegal transfer of power to the President to pursue war, the United Nations was cited 16 times. There was a need to enforce the United Nations resolution. That was the justification for the Congress to transfer this power to the President in allowing him to make his own decision.

war
Misguided Policy Of Nation Building In Iraq
17 October 2003    2003 Ron Paul 111:13
Well, that is technically flaunting the Constitution and that the proper method for us going to war is for the Congress to declare war, and then, of course, go out and win the war. But the authority comes from the people to the Congress and the Congress cannot transfer this power and this decisionmaking to the President under a majority vote in the legislative body.

war
Misguided Policy Of Nation Building In Iraq
17 October 2003    2003 Ron Paul 111:22
I would like to quote from the memoirs of George Bush, Senior, which he wrote, and they were published approximately 5 years ago, dealing with Iraq and what he thought about it, about the invasion of Iraq and why he did not go into Iraq. This comes from A World Transformed. This is George Bush, Senior. He says, Trying to eliminate Saddam would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. Apprehending him was probably impossible. We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq. There was no viable exit strategy we could see, violating another of our principles. Furthermore, we had been self-consciously trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post- Cold War period. Had we gone the invasion route, the United States could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land.

war
Misguided Policy Of Nation Building In Iraq
17 October 2003    2003 Ron Paul 111:25
I think we have lost a little bit of our humility, to say the least, and, as of now, I do not think that our reputation has been enhanced, especially in the Arab-Muslim world, and that concerns me because it is this lack of civility between countries and the antagonism which leads to conflicts and hatreds and killing and guerrilla wars which we are fighting right now.

war
Misguided Policy Of Nation Building In Iraq
17 October 2003    2003 Ron Paul 111:26
I express my concern about the way we went to war because it was a transfer of power from the Congress by mere vote, which circumvented the Constitution, rather than a declaration of war, and I base my concern on the fact that we have had a lot more trouble in the last 50 years when we quit declaring war and at least prior to that the wars we declared, they came to an end.

war
Misguided Policy Of Nation Building In Iraq
17 October 2003    2003 Ron Paul 111:27
Look at Korea. We did not declare war there. We went there under a U.N. resolution. We are still there. We spent over $1 trillion, and we are still in conflict with North Korea, and it is a serious problem, and we do not trade with them.

war
Misguided Policy Of Nation Building In Iraq
17 October 2003    2003 Ron Paul 111:28
Going into Vietnam, we went once again into Vietnam without a declaration of war. It really came to no resolution other than the fact that we walked away. We had to get out because we were not winning. The determination to win was not there because the Vietnamese were not a threat to our national security. Nobody was going to declare war, but look at the difference.

war
Misguided Policy Of Nation Building In Iraq
17 October 2003    2003 Ron Paul 111:30
I think this was a problem going into Iraq in 1990. It was an undeclared war. It was a U.N. war. It did not end it. It continued and it is still continuing into its 15th year, and here we are still arguing over the financing which I think is at very early stages. How long will we be there and how many men are going to die and how is it going to end? I am convinced as long as we follow this principle of foreign interventionism that we take it upon ourselves to spread democracy around the world, we are going to be running into trouble like this.

war
Misguided Policy Of Nation Building In Iraq
17 October 2003    2003 Ron Paul 111:31
James Madison early on in 1798 gave us some advice about the Presidential power and congressional power to go to war, but he was explaining why it was important to keep it in the hands of the legislative body. He says, The Constitution supposes what the history of all governments demonstrate, that the executive is the branch of power most interested in war and the most prone to it. It has accordingly with studied care vested the question of war in the legislature.

war
Misguided Policy Of Nation Building In Iraq
17 October 2003    2003 Ron Paul 111:33
How do the people stay involved in this? In one way, they pay the bills and the young people die. That is what is at stake. Our economy’s at stake, our young people are at stake and our freedoms are at stake because we allow the prerogatives that were explicitly given to the Congress to drift away and get into the hands of the executive branch and into the United Nations. We do not declare war. We do not win them. They persist, they last a long time, and this is the reason why we should really and truly talk about how do we get out of this mess, instead of just expanding the mess, how do we get out and restore a policy that makes a lot more sense.

war
Misguided Policy Of Nation Building In Iraq
17 October 2003    2003 Ron Paul 111:34
The famous General, General Douglas MacArthur, who knew a lot about war, also had advice to us about how to handle the issue of war, and he said, The powers in charge keep us in a perpetual state of fear, keep us in a conscious stampede of patriotic fervor, with a cry of grave national emergency. Always there has been some terrible evil to gobble us up if we did not blindly rally behind it by furnishing the exorbitant sums demanded. Yet, in retrospect, these disasters seem never to have happened, seem never to have been quite real.

war
Misguided Policy Of Nation Building In Iraq
17 October 2003    2003 Ron Paul 111:35
Here is a man who knew about World War I, World War II and Korea, and he was suggesting that they were overblown.

war
Misguided Policy Of Nation Building In Iraq
17 October 2003    2003 Ron Paul 111:38
I guess early this week we also had another vote that emphasizes my concerns, because it again is going in the wrong direction, and that was the vote we had on Syria. A couple of us voted against this. Syria is a hard country to defend, and I am not going to defend Syria. I am defending the Constitution, and I am defending nonintervention, but the Syrian resolution was more or less the first major step in the direction of war against Syria.

war
Misguided Policy Of Nation Building In Iraq
17 October 2003    2003 Ron Paul 111:39
This is exactly what the project for a new America century wants. Syria is on their list and the sanctions put on Syria are essentially a prelude to war because that country, as part of the axis of evil, we have to get rid of that regime and they are helping the Iraqis so, therefore, war is coming, and I just cannot see how the average American is sitting around worrying about the Syrians, but they said the Syrians, there may be some people going back and forth from Syria and participating in the guerrilla war in Iraq, which may well be true, but then again, what about other borders?

war
Misguided Policy Of Nation Building In Iraq
17 October 2003    2003 Ron Paul 111:42
Here we are putting sanctions on Syria because we do not like the way they are handling their borders, but there are a lot of people in this country who would like to see us do a better job with our own borders. We do not have control of our own borders, yet here we are putting on sanctions and initiating another step towards war against Syria because we are not satisfied with what they are doing.

war
Misguided Policy Of Nation Building In Iraq
17 October 2003    2003 Ron Paul 111:47
In a way, what happened in Vietnam, the achievement there without the Army was far better than the losses that occurred when we were trying to use force. But I just am worried about what is happening. I am worried about the expenditures. I am worried that the guerilla war is going to spread. I am concerned because I believe so sincerely that our policy of foreign intervention serves more to incite terrorists against our country than we will calm down by our being over there.

war
Misguided Policy Of Nation Building In Iraq
17 October 2003    2003 Ron Paul 111:54
“The American people have not embraced the idea of the American empire, and they are unlikely to do so. Since rebelling against the British Empire, Americans have resisted the imperial impulse, guided by the founders’ frequent warnings that republic and empire are incompatible. Empire is problematic because it subverts the freedoms and liberties of freedoms at home while simultaneously thwarting the will of the people abroad. An imperial strategy threatens to entangle America in an assortment of unnecessary and unrewarding wars.

war
Misguided Policy Of Nation Building In Iraq
17 October 2003    2003 Ron Paul 111:59
But the politician never pays. Politicians here on the floor who are so anxious to go, many of them have not served, and many of them would not be very anxious to be serving over there. It is the politicians who promote the wars that rarely serve. The only way that anybody on this floor should ever vote to send our troops into harm’s way is they should look at it in a very personal way. They should look at it in the sense of what would it be like if I would go there and I would be carrying a rifle on the front line, or I would be a target for some sniper. Do I want to be there? Is it worth that? Or would I send my son to do that, or would I send my grandson or my granddaughter to that type of danger?

war
Congress Shouldn’t Censor Foreign Leaders
28 October 2003    2003 Ron Paul 113:6
A careful reading of the prime minister’s speech did not find any explicit calls for violence. Actually, Dr. Mahathir called for Muslims around the world to cease using violence to seek their goals. He stated, “is there no other way than to ask our young people to blow themselves up and kill people and invite the massacre of more of our own people?” Also, he advises against “revenge” attacks and urges Muslims to “win [the] hearts and minds” of non-Muslims including “Jews...who do not approve of what the Israelis are doing.” While we may agree or disagree with the cause that Dr. Mahathir espouses, the fact that he calls for non-violent means to achieve his goals is to be commended rather than condemned. This is not to agree with every aspect of his address — and certainly not to agree with some of the ridiculous statements contained therein — but rather to caution against the kind of blanket condemnation that this legislation represents. Do we not also agree with his words that Muslim violence in the Middle East has been counterproductive? President Bush himself in May invited Dr. Mahathir to the White House to, in the president’s words, “publicly thank the Prime Minister for his strong support in the war against terror.”

war
Expressing Gratitude To Members Of The U.S. Armed Forces Deployed In Operation Restore Hope In Somalia In 1993
28 October 2003    2003 Ron Paul 114:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I voted in favor of this legislation because I do believe it is important to express our gratitude to our armed forces, and particularly to remember those who lost their lives in Somalia in Operation Restore Hope. Indeed, members of our armed forces have been asked to make extraordinary sacrifices in this post Cold War era, as US military presence across the globe has, despite what many of us hoped, increased significantly and military deployments into hostile situations have also increased.

war
Expressing Gratitude To Members Of The U.S. Armed Forces Deployed In Operation Restore Hope In Somalia In 1993
28 October 2003    2003 Ron Paul 114:3
The legislation states, falsely, that our failed Somali nation-building fiasco was somehow related to the war against terrorism. This attempt at revisionist history is more than dishonest: it is likely interventions like these actually increased resentment of the US and may have even led to more recruits to terrorist organizations.

war
Encouraging People’s Republic Of China To Fulfill Commitments Under International Trade Agreements, Support United States Manufacturing Sector, And Establish Monetary And Financial Market Reforms
29 october 2003    2003 Ron Paul 115:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, like all Americans, I am concerned about the loss of jobs in America’s manufacturing sector and the role currency manipulation plays in that loss. For many years, I have warned my colleagues that America’s monetary policy is endangering America’s economy. The economic difficulties currently facing this country are a classic example of the harm resulting from a boom-andbust cycle caused by an inflationary monetary policy. An open debate on monetary issues is therefore long overdue.

war
Encouraging People’s Republic Of China To Fulfill Commitments Under International Trade Agreements, Support United States Manufacturing Sector, And Establish Monetary And Financial Market Reforms
29 october 2003    2003 Ron Paul 115:8
In fact, Mr. Speaker, our ability to continue to fund the welfare-warfare state without destroying the American economy depends on foreigners buying our debt. Perhaps we should think twice before we start bullying and browbeating our foreign creditors to change their economic or other polices to our liking.

war
Conference Report On H.R. 1588 National Defense Authorization Act For Fiscal Yeas 2004
7 November 2003    2003 Ron Paul 116:3
Additionally, the 10 year phase-in of concurrent receipt for the remaining who are at least 50 percent disabled effectively means that thousands of our veterans — particularly those of the World War II and Korea generations — will not live to receive this earned and deserved benefit.

war
Conference Report On H.R. 2417 Intelligence Authorization Act For Fiscal year 2004
20 November 2003    2003 Ron Paul 121:4
I am also concerned that our scarce resources are again being squandered pursuing a failed drug war in Colombia, as this bill continues to fund our disastrous Colombia policy. Billions of dollars have been spent in Colombia to fight this drug war, yet more drugs than ever are being produced abroad and shipped into the United States — including a bumper crop of opium sent by our new allies in Afghanistan. Evidence in South America suggests that any decrease in Colombian production of drugs for the US market has only resulted in increased production in neighboring countries. As I have stated repeatedly, the solution to the drug problem lies not in attacking the producers abroad or in creating a militarized police state to go after the consumers at home, but rather in taking a close look at our seemingly insatiable desire for these substances. Until that issue is addressed we will continue wasting billions of dollars in a losing battle.

war
Say No To Involuntary Servitude
November 21, 2003    2003 Ron Paul 122:1
The ultimate cost of war is almost always the loss of liberty. True defensive wars and revolutionary wars against tyrants may preserve or establish a free society, as did our war against the British. But these wars are rare. Most wars are unnecessary, dangerous, and cause senseless suffering with little being gained. The result of most conflicts throughout the ages has been loss of liberty and life on both sides. The current war in which we find ourselves clearly qualifies as one of those unnecessary and dangerous wars. To get the people to support ill-conceived wars, the nation’s leaders employ grand schemes of deception.

war
Say No To Involuntary Servitude
November 21, 2003    2003 Ron Paul 122:2
Woodrow Wilson orchestrated our entry into World War I by first promising during the election of 1916 to keep us out of the European conflict, then a few months later pressuring and maneuvering Congress into declaring war against Germany. Whether it was the Spanish American War before that or all the wars since, U.S. presidents have deceived the people to gain popular support for ill-conceived military ventures. Wilson wanted the war and immediately demanded conscription to fight it. He didn’t have the guts even to name the program a military draft; instead in a speech before Congress calling for war he advised the army should be “chosen upon the principle of universal liability to service.” Most Americans at the time of the declaration didn’t believe actual combat troops would be sent. What a dramatic change from this early perception, when the people endorsed the war, to the carnage that followed – and the later disillusionment with Wilson and his grand scheme for world government under the League of Nations. The American people rejected this gross new entanglement, a reflection of a somewhat healthier age than the one we find ourselves in today.

war
Say No To Involuntary Servitude
November 21, 2003    2003 Ron Paul 122:3
But when it comes to war, the principle of deception lives on. The plan for “universal liability to serve” once again is raising its ugly head. The dollar cost of the current war is already staggering, yet plans are being made to drastically expand the human cost by forcing conscription on the young men (and maybe women) who have no ax to grind with the Iraqi people and want no part of this fight.

war
Say No To Involuntary Servitude
November 21, 2003    2003 Ron Paul 122:4
Hundreds of Americans have already been killed, and thousands more wounded and crippled, while thousands of others will experience new and deadly war related illnesses not yet identified.

war
Say No To Involuntary Servitude
November 21, 2003    2003 Ron Paul 122:5
We were told we had to support this pre-emptive war against Iraq because Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction (and to confront al Qaeda). It was said our national security depended on it. But all these dangers were found not to exist in Iraq. It was implied that lack of support for this Iraqi invasion was un-American and unpatriotic.

war
Say No To Involuntary Servitude
November 21, 2003    2003 Ron Paul 122:6
Since the original reasons for the war never existed, it is now claimed that we’re there to make Iraq a western-style democracy and to spread western values. And besides, it’s argued, it’s nice that Saddam Hussein has been removed from power. But does the mere existence of evil somewhere in the world justify preemptive war at the expense of the American people? Utopian dreams, fulfilled by autocratic means, hardly qualify as being morally justifiable.

war
Say No To Involuntary Servitude
November 21, 2003    2003 Ron Paul 122:7
These after-the-fact excuses for invasion and occupation of a sovereign nation direct attention away from the charge that the military industrial complex encouraged this war. It was encouraged by war profiteering, a desire to control natural resources (oil), and a Neo-con agenda of American hegemony with the goal of redrawing the borders of the countries of the Middle East.

war
Say No To Involuntary Servitude
November 21, 2003    2003 Ron Paul 122:8
The inevitable failure of such a seriously flawed foreign policy cannot be contemplated by those who have put so much energy into this occupation. The current quagmire prompts calls from many for escalation, with more troops being sent to Iraq. Many of our reservists and National Guardsmen cannot wait to get out and have no plans to re-enlist. The odds are that our policy of foreign intervention, which has been with us for many decades, is not likely to soon change. The dilemma of how to win an un-winnable war is the issue begging for an answer.

war
Say No To Involuntary Servitude
November 21, 2003    2003 Ron Paul 122:10
Unpopular wars invite conscription. Volunteers disappear, as well they should. A truly defensive just war prompts popular support. A conscripted, unhappy soldier is better off on the long run than the slaves of old since the “enslavement” is only temporary. But in the short run the draft may well turn out to be more deadly and degrading, as one is forced to commit life and limb to a less than worthy cause – like teaching democracy to unwilling and angry Arabs. Slaves were safer in that their owners had an economic interest in protecting their lives. Endangering the lives of our soldiers is acceptable policy, and that’s why they are needed. Too often, though, our men and women who are exposed to the hostilities of war and welcomed initially are easily forgotten after the fighting ends. Soon afterward, the injured and the sick are ignored and forgotten.

war
Say No To Involuntary Servitude
November 21, 2003    2003 Ron Paul 122:11
It is said we go about the world waging war to promote peace, and yet the price paid is rarely weighed against the failed efforts to make the world a better place. Justifying conscription to promote the cause of liberty is one of the most bizarre notions ever conceived by man! Forced servitude, with the risk of death and serious injury as a price to live free, makes no sense. What right does anyone have to sacrifice the lives of others for some cause of questionable value? Even if well motivated it can’t justify using force on uninterested persons.

war
Say No To Involuntary Servitude
November 21, 2003    2003 Ron Paul 122:12
It’s said that the 18 year old owes it to his country. Hogwash! It just as easily could be argued that a 50 year-old chicken-hawk, who promotes war and places the danger on innocent young people, owes a heck of a lot more to the country than the 18 year-old being denied his liberty for a cause that has no justification.

war
Say No To Involuntary Servitude
November 21, 2003    2003 Ron Paul 122:14
The dollar cost of war and the economic hardship is great in all wars and cannot be minimized. War is never economically beneficial except for those in position to profit from war expenditures. The great tragedy of war is the careless disregard for civil liberties of our own people. Abuses of German and Japanese Americans in World War I and World War II are well known.

war
Say No To Involuntary Servitude
November 21, 2003    2003 Ron Paul 122:15
But the real sacrifice comes with conscription – forcing a small number of youngvulnerable citizens to fight the wars that older men and women, who seek glory in military victory without themselves being exposed to danger, promote. These are wars with neither purpose nor moral justification, and too often not even declared by the Congress.

war
Say No To Involuntary Servitude
November 21, 2003    2003 Ron Paul 122:16
Without conscription, unpopular wars are much more difficult to fight. Once the draft was undermined in the 1960s and early 1970s, the Vietnam War came to an end. But most importantly, liberty cannot be preserved by tyranny. A free society must always resort to volunteers. Tyrants thinks nothing of forcing men to fight and serve in wrongheaded wars; a true fight for survival and defense of America would elicit, I’m sure, the assistance of every able-bodied man and woman. This is not the case for wars of mischief far away from home in which we so often have found ourselves in the past century.

war
Say No To Involuntary Servitude
November 21, 2003    2003 Ron Paul 122:17
One of the worst votes that an elected official could ever cast would be to institute a military draft to fight an illegal war, if that individual himself maneuvered to avoid military service. But avoiding the draft on principle qualifies oneself to work hard to avoid all unnecessary war and oppose the draft for all others.

war
Say No To Involuntary Servitude
November 21, 2003    2003 Ron Paul 122:18
A government that is willing to enslave a portion of its people to fight an unjust war can never be trusted to protect the liberties of its own citizens. The ends can never justify the means, no matter what the Neo-cons say.

war
Whose Peace?
December 8, 2003    2003 Ron Paul 123:5
I do not know whether the product is perfect. I have not studied the minute details of the proposal. But what I do know is that politicians, governments, and special interests promote war at the expense of those who have to fight them. Wars end when the victims finally demand peace. And that is what we are beginning to see. According to one recent survey, a majority among both the Israeli and Palestinian population support this new initiative. That is encouraging.

war
Congress Abandoned its Duty to Debate and Declare War
February 4, 2004    2004 Ron Paul 1:1
There is plenty of blame to go around for the mistakes made by going to war in Iraq, especially now that it is common knowledge Saddam Hussein told the truth about having no weapons of mass destruction, and that Al Qaida and 9/11 were in no way related to the Iraqi government.

war
Congress Abandoned its Duty to Debate and Declare War
February 4, 2004    2004 Ron Paul 1:3
But before Congress gets too carried away with condemning the administration or the intelligence gathering agencies, it ought to look to itself. A proper investigation and debate by this Congress — as we’re now scrambling to accomplish — clearly was warranted prior to any decision to go to war. An open and detailed debate on a proper declaration of war certainly would have revealed that U.S. national security was not threatened — and the whole war could have been avoided. Because Congress did not do that, it deserves the greatest criticism for its dereliction of duty.

war
Congress Abandoned its Duty to Debate and Declare War
February 4, 2004    2004 Ron Paul 1:4
There was a precise reason why the most serious decision made by a country — the decision to go to war — was assigned in our Constitution to the body closest to the people. If we followed this charge I’m certain fewer wars would be fought, wide support would be achieved for just defensive wars, there would be less political finger-pointing if events went badly, and blame could not be placed on one individual or agency. This process would more likely achieve victory, which has eluded us in recent decades.

war
Congress Abandoned its Duty to Debate and Declare War
February 4, 2004    2004 Ron Paul 1:6
But already we hear the inquiry will be deliberately delayed, limited to investigating only the failures of the intelligence agencies themselves, and may divert its focus to studying intelligence gathering related to North Korea and elsewhere. If the commission avoids the central controversy — whether or not there was selective use of information or undue pressure put on the CIA to support a foregone conclusion to go to war by the administration — the commission will appear a sham.

war
Congress Abandoned its Duty to Debate and Declare War
February 4, 2004    2004 Ron Paul 1:7
Regardless of the results, the process of the inquiry is missing the most important point — the failure of Congress to meet its responsibility on the decision to go, or not go, to war. The current mess was predictable from the beginning. Unfortunately, Congress voluntarily gave up its prerogative over war and illegally transferred this power to the president in October of 2002. The debate we are having now should have occurred here in the halls of Congress then. We should have debated a declaration of war resolution. Instead, Congress chose to transfer this decision-making power to the president to avoid the responsibility of making the hard choice of sending our young people into harms way, against a weak, third world country. This the president did on his own, with congressional acquiescence. The blame game has emerged only now that we are in the political season. Sadly, the call for and the appointment of the commission is all part of this political process.

war
Congress Abandoned its Duty to Debate and Declare War
February 4, 2004    2004 Ron Paul 1:8
It is truly disturbing to see many who abdicated their congressional responsibility to declare or reject war, who timidly voted to give the president the power he wanted, now posturing as his harshest critics.

war
A Wise Consistency
February 11, 2004    2004 Ron Paul 2:10
Free Trade Fraud—Neo-mercantilism : Virtually all economists are for free trade. Even the politicians express such support. However, many quickly add, “Yes, but it should be fair.” That is, free trade is fine unless it appears to hurt someone. Then a little protectionism is warranted, for fairness sake. Others who claim allegiance to free trade are only too eager to devalue their own currencies, which harms a different group of citizens — like importers and savers — in competitive devaluations in hopes of gaining a competitive edge. Many so-called free-trade proponents are champions of international agreements that undermine national sovereignty and do little more than create an international bureaucracy to manage tariffs and sanctions. Organizations like NAFTA, WTO, and the coming FTAA are more likely to benefit the powerful special interests than to enhance true free trade. Nothing is said, however, about how a universal commodity monetary standard would facilitate trade, nor is it mentioned how unilaterally lowering tariffs can benefit a nation. Even bilateral agreements are ignored when our trade problems are used as an excuse to promote dangerous internationalism.

war
A Wise Consistency
February 11, 2004    2004 Ron Paul 2:13
Paper Money, Inflation, and Economic Pain : Paper money and inflation have never provided long-term economic growth, nor have they enhanced freedom. Yet the world, led by the United States, lives with a financial system awash with fiat currencies and historic debt as a consequence. No matter how serious the problems that come from central-bank monetary inflations — the depressions and inflation, unemployment, social chaos, and war — the only answer has been to inflate even more. Except for the Austrian free-market economists, the consensus is that the Great Depression was prolonged and exacerbated by the lack of monetary inflation. This view is held by Alan Greenspan, and reflected in his January 2001 response to the stock market slump and a slower economy — namely a record monetary stimulus and historically low interest rates. The unwillingness to blame the slumps on the Federal Reserve’s previous errors, though the evidence is clear, guarantees that greater problems for the United States and the world economy lie ahead. Though there is adequate information to understand the real cause of the business cycle, the truth and proper policy are not palatable. Closing down the engine of inflation at any point does cause short-term problems that are politically unacceptable. But the alternative is worse, in the long term. It is not unlike a drug addict demanding and getting a fix in order to avoid the withdrawal symptoms. Not getting rid of the addiction is a deadly mistake. While resorting to continued monetary stimulus through credit creation delays the pain and suffering, it inevitably makes the problems much worse. Debt continues to build in all areas — personal, business, and government. Inflated stock prices are propped up, waiting for another collapse. Mal-investment and overcapacity fail to correct. Insolvency proliferates without liquidation. These same errors have been prolonging the correction in Japan for 14 years, with billions of dollars of non-performing loans still on the books. Failure to admit and recognize that fiat money, mismanaged by central banks, gives us most of our economic problems, along with a greater likelihood for war, means we never learn from our mistakes. Our consistent response is to inflate faster and borrow more, which each downturn requires, to keep the economy afloat. Talk about a foolish consistency! It’s time for our leaders to admit the error of their ways, consider the wise consistency of following the advice of our Founders, and reject paper money and central bank inflationary policies.

war
A Wise Consistency
February 11, 2004    2004 Ron Paul 2:14
Alcohol Prohibition—For Our Own Protection : Alcohol prohibition was a foolish consistency engaged in for over a decade, but we finally woke up to the harm done. In spite of prohibition, drinking continued. The alcohol being produced in the underground was much more deadly, and related crime ran rampant. The facts stared us in the face, and with time, we had the intelligence to repeal the whole experiment. No matter how logical this reversal of policy was, it did not prevent us from moving into the area of drug prohibition, now in the more radical stages, for the past 30 years. No matter the amount of harm and cost involved, very few in public life are willing to advise a new approach to drug addiction. Alcoholism is viewed as a medical problem, but illicit drug addiction is seen as a heinous crime. Our prisons overflow, with the cost of enforcement now into the hundreds of billions of dollars, yet drug use is not reduced. Nevertheless, the politicians are consistent. They are convinced that a tough stand against usage with very strict laws and mandatory sentences — sometimes life sentences for non-violent offenses — is a popular political stand. Facts don’t count, and we can’t bend on consistently throwing the book at any drug offenders. Our prisons are flooded with non-violent drug users — 84% of all federals prisoners — but no serious reassessment is considered. Sadly, the current war on drugs has done tremendous harm to many patients’ need for legitimate prescribed pain control. Doctors are very often compromised in their ability to care for the seriously and terminally ill by overzealous law enforcement. Throughout most of our history, drugs were legal and at times were abused. But during that time, there was no history of the social and legal chaos associated with drug use that we suffer today. A hundred years ago, a pharmacist openly advertised, “Heroin clears the complexion, gives buoyancy to the mind, regulates the stomach and the bowels and is, in fact, a perfect guardian of health.” Obviously this is overstated as a medical panacea, but it describes what it was like not to have hysterical busybodies undermine our Constitution and waste billions of dollars on a drug war serving no useful purpose. This country needs to wake up! We should have more confidence in citizens making their own decisions, and decide once again to repeal federal prohibition, while permitting regulation by the states alone.

war
A Wise Consistency
February 11, 2004    2004 Ron Paul 2:17
Foreign Policy of Interventionism—General : Our foreign policy of interventionism offers the best example of Emerson’s foolish inconsistency. No matter how unsuccessful our entanglements become, our leaders rarely question the wisdom of trying to police the world. Most of the time our failures prompt even greater intervention, rather than less. Never yielding to the hard cold facts of our failures, our drive to meddle and nation-build around the world continues. Complete denial of the recurrent blowback from our meddling — a term our CIA invented — prompts us to spend endlessly while jeopardizing the lives of hundreds of thousands of people. Refusing even to consider the failure of our own policies is outrageous. Only in the context of commercial benefits to the special interests and the military- industrial complex, molded with patriotic jingoism, can one understand why we pursue such a foolish policy. Some of these ulterior motives are understandable, but the fact that average Americans rarely question our commitment to these dangerous and expensive military operations is disturbing. The whipped up war propaganda too often overrules the logic that should prevail. Certainly the wise consistency of following the Constitution has little appeal. One would think the painful consequences of our militarism over the last hundred years would have made us more reluctant to assume the role of world policeman in a world that hates us more each day.

war
A Wise Consistency
February 11, 2004    2004 Ron Paul 2:18
A strong case can be made that all the conflicts, starting with the Spanish-American War up to our current conflict in the Middle East, could have been avoided. For instance, the foolish entrance into World War I to satisfy Wilson’s ego led to a disastrous peace at Versailles, practically guaranteeing World War II. Likewise, our ill-advised role in the Persian Gulf War I placed us in an ongoing guerilla war in Iraq and Afghanistan, which may become a worldwide conflict before it ends. Our foolish antics over the years have prompted our support for many thugs throughout the 20th Century — Stalin, Samoza, Batista, the Shah of Iran, Noriega, Osama bin Laden, Saddam Hussein, and many others — only to regret it once the unintended consequences became known. Many of those we supported turned on us, or our interference generated a much worse replacement — such as the Ayatollah in Iran. If we had consistently followed the wise advice of our early presidents, we could have avoided the foreign policy problems we face today. And if we had, we literally would have prevented hundreds of thousands of needless deaths over the last century. The odds are slim to none that our current failure in Afghanistan and Iraq will prompt our administration to change its policies of intervention. Ignoring the facts and rigidly sticking to a failed policy — a foolish consistency — as our leaders have repeatedly done over the past 100 years, unfortunately will prevail despite its failure and huge costs. This hostility toward principled consistency and common sense allows for gross errors in policy making. Most Americans believed, and still do, that we went to war against Saddam Hussein because he threatened us with weapons of mass destruction and his regime was connected to al Qaeda. The fact that Saddam Hussein not only did not have weapons of mass destruction, but essentially had no military force at all, seems to be of little concern to those who took us to war. It was argued, after our allies refused to join in our efforts, that a unilateral approach without the United Nations was proper under our notion of national sovereignty. Yet resolutions giving the President authority to go to war cited the United Nations 21 times, forgetting the U.S. Constitution allows only Congress to declare war. A correct declaration of war was rejected out of hand. Now with events going badly, the administration is practically begging the UN to take over the transition — except, of course, for the Iraqi Development Fund that controls the oil and all the seized financial assets. The contradictions and distortions surrounding the Iraqi conflict are too numerous to count. Those who wanted to institutionalize the doctrine of pre-emptive war were not concerned about the Constitution or consistency in our foreign policy. And for this, the American people and world peace will suffer.

war
A Wise Consistency
February 11, 2004    2004 Ron Paul 2:19
Promoting Democracy — An Obsession Whose Time Has Passed : Promoting democracy is now our nation’s highest ideal. Wilson started it with his ill-advised drive to foolishly involve us in World War I. His utopian dream was to make the world safe for democracy. Instead, his naiveté and arrogance promoted our involvement in the back-to-back tragedies of World War I and World War II. It’s hard to imagine the rise of Hitler in World War II without the Treaty of Versailles. But this has not prevented every president since Wilson from promoting U.S.-style democracy to the rest of the world.

war
A Wise Consistency
February 11, 2004    2004 Ron Paul 2:21
This makes the point that our persistence in imposing our will on others through military force ignores sound thinking, but we never hear serious discussions about changing our foreign policy of meddling and empire building, no matter how bad the results. Regardless of the human and financial costs for all the wars fought over the past hundred years, few question the principle and legitimacy of interventionism. Bad results, while only sowing the seeds of our next conflict, concern few here in Congress. Jingoism, the dream of empire, and the interests of the military-industrial complex generate the false patriotism that energizes supporters of our foreign entanglements. Direct media coverage of the more than 500 body bags coming back from Iraq is now prohibited by the administration. Seeing the mangled lives and damaged health of thousands of other casualties of this war would help the American people put this war in proper perspective. Almost all war is unnecessary and rarely worth the cost. Seldom does a good peace result. Since World War II, we have intervened 35 times in developing countries, according to the LA Times, without a single successful example of a stable democracy. Their conclusion: “American engagement abroad has not led to more freedom or more democracy in countries where we’ve become involved.” So far, the peace in Iraq — that is, the period following the declared end of hostilities — has set the stage for a civil war in this forlorn Western-created artificial state. A U.S.- imposed national government unifying the Kurds, the Sunnis, and the Shiites will never work. Our allies deserted us in this misadventure. Dumping the responsibility on the UN, while retaining control of the spoils of war, is a policy of folly that can result only in more Americans being killed. This will only fuel the festering wounds of Middle East hatred toward all Western occupiers. The Halliburton scandals and other military-industrial connections to the occupation of Iraq will continue to annoy our allies, and hopefully a growing number of American taxpayers.

war
A Wise Consistency
February 11, 2004    2004 Ron Paul 2:24
-Our goal in international affairs ought to be to promote liberty and the private-property/free-market order — through persuasion and example, and never by force of arms, clandestine changes, or preemptive war.

war
A Wise Consistency
February 11, 2004    2004 Ron Paul 2:27
-The Constitution places restraints on Congress and the executive branch, so as not to wage war casually and without proper declaration. It provides no authority to spend money or lives to spread our political message around the world. A strict adherence to the rule of law and the Constitution would bring an immediate halt to our ill-advised experiment in assuming the role of world policeman. We have been told that our effort in Iraq has been worth the 500-plus lives lost and the thousands wounded. I disagree — with great sadness for the families who have lost so much, and with so little hope for a good peace — I can only say, I disagree and hope I’m wrong.

war
A Wise Consistency
February 11, 2004    2004 Ron Paul 2:28
Fighting Terrorism With Big Government—A Convenience or Necessity? Fighting terrorism is a top concern for most Americans. It is understandable, knowing how vulnerable we now are to an attack by our enemies. But striking out against the liberties of all Americans, with the Patriot Act, the FBI, or Guantanamo-type justice will hardly address the problem. Liberty cannot be enhanced by undermining liberty! It is never necessary to sacrifice liberty to preserve it. It’s tempting to sacrifice liberty for safety, and that is the argument used all too often by the politicians seeking more power. But even that is not true. History shows that a strong desire for safety over liberty usually results in less of both. But that does not mean we should ignore the past attacks or the threat of future attacks that our enemies might unleash. First, fighting terrorism is a cliché. Terrorism is a technique or a process, and if not properly defined, the solutions will be hard to find. Terrorism is more properly defined as an attack by a guerrilla warrior who picks the time and place of the attack because he cannot match the enemy with conventional weapons. With too broad a definition of terrorism, the temptation will be to relinquish too much liberty, being fearful that behind every door and in every suitcase lurks a terrorist- planted bomb. Narrowing the definition of terrorism and recognizing why some become enemies is crucial. Understanding how maximum security is achieved in a free society is vital. We have been told that the terrorists hate us for our wealth, our freedom, and our goodness. This war cannot be won if that belief prevails.

war
A Wise Consistency
February 11, 2004    2004 Ron Paul 2:29
When the definition of terrorism is vague and the enemy pervasive throughout the world, the neo-conservatives — who want to bring about various regime changes for other reasons — conveniently latch onto these threats and use them as the excuse and justification for our expanding military presence throughout the Middle East and the Caspian Sea region. This is something they have been anxious to do all along. Already, plans are being laid by neo-conservative leaders to further expand our occupations to many other countries, from Central America and Africa to Korea. Whether it’s invading Iraq, threatening North Korea, or bullying Venezuela or even Russia, it’s now popular to play the terrorist card. Just mention terrorism and the American people are expected to grovel and allow the war hawks to do whatever they want to do. This is a very dangerous attitude. One would think that, with the shortcomings of the Iraqi occupation becoming more obvious every day, more Americans would question our flagrant and aggressive policy of empire building. The American people were frightened into supporting this war because they were told that Iraq had: “25,000 liters of anthrax; 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin; 500 tons of sarin, mustard, and VX nerve gas; significant quantities of refined uranium; and special aluminum tubes used in developing nuclear weapons.” The fact that none of this huge amount of material was found, and the fact that David Kay resigned from heading up the inspection team saying none will be found, doesn’t pacify the instigators of this policy of folly. They merely look forward to the next regime change as they eye their list of potential targets. And they argue with conviction that the 500-plus lives lost were worth it. Attacking a perceived enemy who had few weapons, who did not aggress against us, and who never posed a threat to us does nothing to help eliminate the threat of terrorist attacks. If anything, deposing an Arab Muslim leader — even a bad one — incites more hatred toward us, certainly not less. This is made worse if our justification for the invasion was in error. It is safe to say that in time we’ll come to realize that our invasion has made us less safe, and has served as a grand recruiting tool for the many militant Muslim groups that want us out of their countries — including the majority of those Muslims in Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Afghanistan, and the entire Middle East. Because of the nature of the war in which we find ourselves, catching Saddam Hussein, or even killing Osama bin Laden, are almost irrelevant. They may well simply become martyrs to their cause and incite even greater hatred toward us.

war
A Wise Consistency
February 11, 2004    2004 Ron Paul 2:30
There are a few things we must understand if we ever expect this war to end.

war
A Wise Consistency
February 11, 2004    2004 Ron Paul 2:32
Second: This war started a long time before 9-11. That attack was just the most dramatic event of the war so far. The Arabs have fought Western crusaders for centuries, and they have not yet forgotten the European Crusades centuries ago. Our involvement has been going on, to some degree, since World War II, but was dramatically accelerated in 1991 with the first Persian Gulf invasion along with the collapse of the Soviet system. Placing U.S. troops on what is considered Muslim holy land in Saudi Arabia was pouring salt in the wounds of this already existing hatred. We belatedly realized this and have removed these troops.

war
A Wise Consistency
February 11, 2004    2004 Ron Paul 2:33
Third: If these facts are ignored, there’s no chance that the United States-led Western occupation of the oil-rich Middle East can succeed (70% of the world’s oil is in the Persian Gulf and Caspian Sea regions). Without a better understanding of the history of this region, it’s not even possible to define the enemy, know why they fight, or understand the difference between guerilla warrior attacks and vague sinister forces of terrorism. The pain of recognizing that the ongoing war is an example of what the CIA calls blowback and an unintended consequence of our foreign policy is a great roadblock to ever ending the war.

war
A Wise Consistency
February 11, 2004    2004 Ron Paul 2:34
Judicial Review : Respect for the original intent of the Constitution is low in Washington. It’s so low, it’s virtually non-existent. This causes many foolish inconsistencies in our federal courts. The Constitution, we have been told, is a living, evolving document and it’s no longer necessary to change it in the proper fashion. That method is too slow and cumbersome, it is claimed. While we amended it to institute alcohol prohibition, the federal drug prohibition is accomplished by majority vote of the U.S. Congress. Wars are not declared by Congress, but pursued by Executive Order to enforce UN Resolutions. The debate of the pros and cons of the war come afterward — usually following the war’s failure — in the political arena, rather than before with the proper debate on a declaration of war resolution. Laws are routinely written by un-elected bureaucrats, with themselves becoming the judicial and enforcement authority. Little desire is expressed in Congress to alter this monster that creates thousands of pages each year in the Federal Register. Even the nearly 100,000 bureaucrats who now carry guns stir little controversy. For decades, Executive Orders have been arrogantly used to write laws to circumvent a plodding or disagreeable Congress. This attitude was best described by a Clinton presidential aide who bragged: “…stroke of the pen, law of the land, kinda cool!” This is quite a testimonial to the rule of law and constitutional restraint on government power. The courts are no better than the executive or legislative branches in limiting the unconstitutional expansion of the federal monolith. Members of Congress, including committee chairmen, downplay my concern that proposed legislation is unconstitutional by insisting that the courts are the ones to make such weighty decisions, not mere Members of Congress. This was an informal argument made by House leadership on the floor during the debate on campaign finance reform. In essence, they said “We know it’s bad, but we’ll let the courts clean it up.” And look what happened! The courts did not save us from ourselves.

war
Federal War On Drugs Threatens The Effective Treatment Of Chronic Pain
11 February 2004    2004 Ron Paul 4:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, the publicity surrounding popular radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh’s legal troubles relating to his use of the pain killer OxyContin will hopefully focus public attention on how the federal War on Drugs threatens the effective treatment of chronic pain. Prosecutors have seized Mr. Limbaugh’s medical records in connection with an investigation into charges that Mr. Limbaugh violated federal drug laws. The fact that Mr. Limbaugh is a high profile, and often controversial, conservative media personality has given rise to speculation that the prosecution is politically motivated. Adding to this suspicion is the fact that individual pain patients are rarely prosecuted in this type of case.

war
Federal War On Drugs Threatens The Effective Treatment Of Chronic Pain
11 February 2004    2004 Ron Paul 4:2
In cases where patients are not high profile celebrities like Mr. Limbaugh, it is a pain management physician who bears the brunt of overzealous prosecutors. Faced with the failure of the War on Drugs to eliminate drug cartels and kingpins, prosecutors and police have turned their attention to pain management doctors, using federal statutes designed for the prosecution of drug kingpins to prosecute physicians for prescribing pain medicine.

war
Federal War On Drugs Threatens The Effective Treatment Of Chronic Pain
11 February 2004    2004 Ron Paul 4:9
By waging this war on pain physicians, the government is condemning patients to either live with excruciating chronic pain or seek opioids from other, less reliable, sources — such as street drug dealers. Of course, opioids bought on the street will likely pose a greater risk of damaging a patient’s health than will opioids obtained from a physician.

war
Federal War On Drugs Threatens The Effective Treatment Of Chronic Pain
11 February 2004    2004 Ron Paul 4:10
Finally, as the Limbaugh case reveals, the prosecution of pain management physicians destroys the medical privacy of all chronic pain patients. Under the guise of prosecuting the drug war, law enforcement officials can rummage through patients’ personal medical records and, as may be the case with Mr. Limbaugh, use information uncovered to settle personal or political scores. I am pleased that AAPS, along with the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), has joined the effort to protect Mr. Limbaugh’s medical records.

war
Federal War On Drugs Threatens The Effective Treatment Of Chronic Pain
11 February 2004    2004 Ron Paul 4:11
Mr. Speaker, Congress should take action to rein in overzealous prosecutors and law enforcement officials and stop the harassment of legitimate pain management physicians, who are acting in good faith in prescribing opioids for relief from chronic pain. Doctors should not be prosecuted for doing what, in their best medical judgment, is in their patients’ best interest. Doctors should also not be prosecuted for the misdeeds of their patients. Finally, I wish to express my hope that Mr. Limbaugh’s case will encourage his many fans and supporters to consider how their support for the federal War on Drugs is inconsistent with their support of individual liberty and Constitutional government.

war
Rush Limbaugh and the Sick Federal War on Pain Relief
February 12, 2004    2004 Ron Paul 5:1
Mr. Speaker, the publicity surrounding popular radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh’s legal troubles relating to his use of the pain killer OxyContin hopefully will focus public attention on how the federal drug war threatens the effective treatment of chronic pain. Prosecutors have seized Mr. Limbaugh’s medical records to investigate whether he violated federal drug laws. The fact that Mr. Limbaugh is a high profile, controversial, conservative media personality has given rise to speculation that the prosecution is politically motivated. Adding to this suspicion is the fact that individual pain patients are rarely prosecuted in this type of case.

war
Rush Limbaugh and the Sick Federal War on Pain Relief
February 12, 2004    2004 Ron Paul 5:2
In cases where patients are not high profile celebrities like Mr. Limbaugh, it is pain management physicians who bear the brunt of overzealous prosecutors. Faced with the failure of the war on drugs to eliminate drug cartels and kingpins, prosecutors and police have turned their attention to pain management doctors, using federal statutes designed for the prosecution of drug dealers to prosecute physicians for prescribing pain medicine.

war
Rush Limbaugh and the Sick Federal War on Pain Relief
February 12, 2004    2004 Ron Paul 5:9
By waging this war on pain physicians, the government is condemning patients to either live with excruciating chronic pain or seek opioids from other, less reliable, sources — such as street drug dealers. Of course opioids bought on the street likely will pose a greater risk of damaging a patient’s health than opioids obtained from a physician.

war
Rush Limbaugh and the Sick Federal War on Pain Relief
February 12, 2004    2004 Ron Paul 5:10
Finally, as the Limbaugh case reveals, the prosecution of pain management physicians destroys the medical privacy of all chronic pain patients. Under the guise of prosecuting the drug war, law enforcement officials can rummage through patients’ personal medical records and, as may be the case with Mr. Limbaugh, use information uncovered to settle personal or political scores. I am pleased that AAPS, along with the American Civil Liberties Union, has joined the effort to protect Mr. Limbaugh’s medical records.

war
Rush Limbaugh and the Sick Federal War on Pain Relief
February 12, 2004    2004 Ron Paul 5:12
Finally, I wish to express my hope that Mr. Limbaugh’s case will encourage his many fans and listeners to consider how their support for the federal war on drugs is inconsistent with their support of individual liberty and constitutional government.

war
The Financial Services Committees “Views and Estimates for 2005”
February 26, 2004    2004 Ron Paul 7:5
The committee’s ‘Views and Estimates” gives an unqualified endorsement to increased taxpayer support for the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FINCEN), while ignoring the growing erosion of our financial privacy under the PATRIOT Act and similar legislation. In fact, the committee ignores the recent stealth expansion of the FBI’s power to seize records of dealers in precious metals, jewelers, and pawnshops without a warrant issued by an independent judge. Instead of serving as cheerleaders for the financial police state, the committee should act to curtail the federal government’s ability to monitor the financial affairs of law-abiding Americans.

war
H. Res. 412 Honoring Men And Women Of The Drug Enforcement Administration — Part 1
3 March 2004    2004 Ron Paul 10:3
I would like to call attention to my colleagues and to the Congress the lack of success on the war on drugs. The war has been going on for 30 years. The success is not there, and I think we are deceiving ourselves if we think that everything is going well and that we have achieved something, because there is really no evidence for that. Not only that, there have been many unintended consequences that we fail to look at, and I want to take this time to make that the point and try to get some of us to think that there may be another way to fight the war on drugs.

war
H. Res. 412 Honoring Men And Women Of The Drug Enforcement Administration — Part 1
3 March 2004    2004 Ron Paul 10:5
Another reason why I am taking this time to express an opposition is that the process has been flawed. After World War I, there was a movement in this country that believed that too many Americans had bad habits of drinking too much alcohol, and of course, if we really want to deal with a bad drug, alcohol is it. Many, many more die from alcoholism and drunken driving and all kinds of related illnesses, but the country knew it and they recognized how one dealt with those problems.

war
H. Res. 412 Honoring Men And Women Of The Drug Enforcement Administration — Part 1
3 March 2004    2004 Ron Paul 10:11
One other point is that as a physician I have come to the firm conclusion that the war on drugs has been very detrimental to the practice of medicine and the care of patients. The drug culture has literally handicapped physicians in caring for the ill and the pain that people suffer with terminal illnesses. I have seen doctors in tears coming to me and saying that all his wife had asked me for was to die not in pain; and even he, as a physician, could not get enough pain medication because they did not want to make her an addict. So we do have a lot of unintended consequences.

war
H. Res. 412 Honoring Men And Women Of The Drug Enforcement Administration — Part 1
3 March 2004    2004 Ron Paul 10:12
We have civil liberty consequences as well. We set the stage for gangsters and terrorists raising money by making weeds and wild plants and flowers illegal. If someone could say and show me all of a sudden that the American people use a lot less drugs and kids are never tempted, it would be a better case; but we do not have the evidence. We have no evidence to show that 30 years of this drug war has done very much good. Matter of fact, all studies of the DARE program show that the DARE program has not encouraged kids to use less illegal drugs. So there is quite a few reasons why we ought not to just glibly say to the DEA it’s been a wonderful 30 years and encourage more of it.

war
H. Res. 412 Honoring Men And Women Of The Drug Enforcement Administration — Part 1
3 March 2004    2004 Ron Paul 10:13
The second part of the resolution talks about the sacrifice of these men. To me, it is a tragedy. Why should we ever have a policy where men have to sacrifice themselves? I do not believe it is necessary. We gave up on the prohibition of alcohol. I believe the drug war ought to be fought, but in a much different manner.

war
H. Res. 412 Honoring Men And Women Of The Drug Enforcement Administration — Part 2
3 March 2004    2004 Ron Paul 11:3
Regarding the loss of lives, whether it is 3,000 that some report, or 20,000, many of those would be preventable if we did not have the drug wars going on. The drug wars go on because people are fighting for turf and then the police have to go in and try to stop them because prices are artificially high. We have created the incentive for drug violence. We take something worthless and make it worth billions of dollars. We set the stage for terrorists.

war
H. Res. 412 Honoring Men And Women Of The Drug Enforcement Administration — Part 2
3 March 2004    2004 Ron Paul 11:4
Right now, because of the policies in Afghanistan, 80 percent of Afghanistan now has been returned to the drug lords. If the drugs were worthless, there would be no incentive to promote them. But they are worth a lot of money, so inadvertently our drug war pushes the prices up, and we create the incentive for the Taliban and others to raise the poppies and send the drugs over here. Then they finance the terrorists. So it is an unintended consequence that does not make any sense. It does not have to happen.

war
H. Res. 412 Honoring Men And Women Of The Drug Enforcement Administration — Part 2
3 March 2004    2004 Ron Paul 11:12
Mr. Speaker, I think we are deceiving ourselves if we think the war on drugs is being won, and the failure to look at the unintended consequences, the real cost. As a matter of fact, this resolution brings up the real cost, this long list, this long tragic list of individuals who have been killed over this war.

war
H. Res. 412 Honoring Men And Women Of The Drug Enforcement Administration — Part 2
3 March 2004    2004 Ron Paul 11:13
So I am asking once again not so much to be in opposition to this resolution, but this resolution is to praise 30 years of the DEA and to praise an agency that really has no authority because it comes only from the executive branch, but for us to someday seriously think about the problems that have come from the war on drugs.

war
H. Res. 412 Honoring Men And Women Of The Drug Enforcement Administration — Part 2
3 March 2004    2004 Ron Paul 11:14
Let me tell Members, there is a politically popular position in this country that many are not aware of: The tragedy of so many families seeing their loved ones die and suffer without adequate care, 90-year-old people dying of cancer and nurses and doctors intimidated and saying we cannot make them a drug addict. This drug war culture that we live with has done a lot of harm in the practice of medicine. Attacking the physicians who prescribe pain medicine and taking their licenses from them is reprehensible. I ask Members to please reconsider, not so much what we do today, but in the future, maybe we will wake up and decide there is a better way to teach good habits to American citizens.

war
Providing For Consideration Of H.R. 3717, Broadcast Decency Enforcement Act Of 2004
11 March 2004    2004 Ron Paul 17:16
Even the proponents of the commercial speech doctrine agreed that the Federal Government should never restrict political speech. Yet, this Congress, this administration, and this Supreme Court have restricted political speech with the recently enacted campaign finance reform law. Meanwhile, the Department of Justice has indicated it will use the war against terrorism to monitor critics of the administration’s foreign policy, thus chilling antiwar political speech. Of course, on many college campuses students have to watch what they say lest they run afoul of the rules of “political correctness.” Even telling a “politically incorrect” joke can bring a student up on charges before the thought police! Now, selfproclaimed opponents of political correctness want to use federal power to punish colleges that allows the expression of views they consider “unpatriotic” and/or punish colleges when the composition of the facility does not meet their definition of diversity.

war
Oppose a Flawed Policy of Preemptive War
March 17, 2004    2004 Ron Paul 18:1
Mr. Speaker, today during the floor debate on H. Res. 557 (the Iraq resolution), I unfortunately was denied time to express my dissent on the policy of preemptive war in Iraq- even though I am a member of the International Relations committee. The fact that the committee held no hearings and did not mark up the resolution further challenges the fairness of the process.

war
Oppose a Flawed Policy of Preemptive War
March 17, 2004    2004 Ron Paul 18:3
Justifying preemption is not an answer to avoiding appeasement. Very few wars are necessary. Very few wars are good wars. And this one does not qualify. Most wars are costly beyond measure, in life and limb and economic hardship. In this regard, this war does qualify: 566 deaths, 10,000 casualties, and hundreds of billions of dollars for a victory requiring self-deception.

war
Oppose a Flawed Policy of Preemptive War
March 17, 2004    2004 Ron Paul 18:4
Rather than bragging about victory, we should recognize that the war raging on between the Muslim East and the Christian West has intensified and spread, leaving our allies and our own people less safe. Denying we have an interest in oil, and denying that occupying an Islamic country is an affront to the sensitivities of most Arabs and Muslims, is foolhardy.

war
Oppose a Flawed Policy of Preemptive War
March 17, 2004    2004 Ron Paul 18:5
Reasserting U.N. Security Council resolutions as a justification for the war further emphasizes our sacrifice of sovereignty, and only underscores how Congress has reneged its constitutional responsibility over war.

war
Oppose a Flawed Policy of Preemptive War
March 17, 2004    2004 Ron Paul 18:8
We all praise our troops and support them. Challenging one’s patriotism for not supporting this resolution and/or policy in the Persian Gulf is not legitimate. We should all be cautious about endorsing and financing a policy that unfortunately expands the war rather than ends it.

war
Opposing H.R. 557
17 March 2004    2004 Ron Paul 19:2
Very few wars are necessary. Very few wars are good and just, including this one. In reality, most wars are costly beyond measure in life and limb and economic hardship, including this one. There have been 566 deaths, 10,000 casualties, and hundreds of billions of dollars for a “victory” that remains elusive. Rather than bragging of victory we should recognize that the war that rages on has intensified and spread, leaving our allies and our own people less safe.

war
Opposing H.R. 557
17 March 2004    2004 Ron Paul 19:3
Denying that we are interested in oil and that occupying an Islamic country is not an affront to the sensitivities of most Arabs and Muslims is foolhardy. Reasserting U.N. Security Council resolutions as the justification for war further emphasizes our sacrifice of sovereignty and Congress’s reneging on its Constitutional responsibility on war.

war
Opposing H.R. 557
17 March 2004    2004 Ron Paul 19:6
Falsely claiming that al-Qaeda was aligned with Saddam Hussein and using this as a rallying cry to war has now resulted in al-Qaeda actually having a strong presence and influence in Iraq. Falsely claiming that Iraq had a supply of weapons of mass destruction has resulted in a dramatic loss of U.S. credibility, as anti-Americanism spreads around the world. As a result of this, al-Qaeda recruitment sadly has been dramatically boosted.

war
Opposing H.R. 557
17 March 2004    2004 Ron Paul 19:7
That Saddam Hussein was a brutal dictator was never in question, so reaffirming it here is unnecessary. What we must keep in mind, however, is that Saddam Hussein was attacking his own people and making war on Iran when he was essentially an ally of the United States — to the point where the U.S. Government assisted him in his war on Iran. This support is made all the more clear when viewing recently-declassified State Department cables in the days after Donald Rumsfeld traveled to Iraq as a U.S. envoy in 1983. Here are two such examples:

war
Opposing H.R. 557
17 March 2004    2004 Ron Paul 19:9
Presidential envoy Donald Rumsfeld and Tariq Aziz meet for two and one-half hours and agree that “the U.S. and Iraq shared many common interests,” including peace in the Persian Gulf, the desire to diminish the influence of Iran and Syria, and support for reintegrating Egypt, isolated since its unilateral peace with Israel, into the Arab world. Rumsfeld comments on Iraq’s oil exports, suggests alternative pipeline facilities, and discusses opposition to international terrorism and support for a fair Arab-Israeli peace. He and Aziz discuss the Iran-Iraq war “in detail.” Rumsfeld says that the administration wants an end to the war, and offers “our willingness to do more.” He mentions chemical weapons, possible escalation of fighting in the Gulf, and human rights as impediments to the U.S. government’s desire to do more to help Iraq, then shifts the conversation to U.S. opposition to Syria’s role in Lebanon.

war
Opposing H.R. 557
17 March 2004    2004 Ron Paul 19:15
We should all be cautious in endorsing and financing a policy that unfortunately expands the war rather than ending it. That, sadly, is what this legislation does.

war
Don’t Expand NATO!
March 30, 2004    2004 Ron Paul 25:2
More than 50 years ago the North Atlantic Treaty Organization was formed to defend Western Europe and the United States against attack from the communist nations of Eastern Europe. It was an alliance of sovereign nations bound together in common purpose - for mutual defense. The deterrence value of NATO helped kept the peace throughout the Cold War. In short, NATO achieved its stated mission. With the fall of the Soviet system and the accompanying disappearance of the threat of attack, in 1989-1991, NATO’s reason to exist ceased. Unfortunately, as with most bureaucracies, the end of NATO’s mission did not mean the end of NATO. Instead, heads of NATO member states gathered in 1999 desperately attempting to devise new missions for the outdated and adrift alliance. This is where NATO moved from being a defensive alliance respecting the sovereignty of its members to an offensive and interventionist organization, concerned now with “economic, social and political difficulties...ethnic and religious rivalries, territorial disputes, inadequate or failed efforts at reform, the abuse of human rights, and the dissolution of states,” in the words of the Washington 1999 Summit.

war
Don’t Expand NATO!
March 30, 2004    2004 Ron Paul 25:7
Further, this legislation encourages the accession of Albania, Macedonia, and Croatia - nations that not long ago were mired in civil and regional wars. The promise of US military assistance if any of these states are attacked is obviously a foolhardy one. What will the mutual defense obligations we are entering into mean if two Balkan NATO members begin hostilities against each other (again)?

war
Don’t Expand NATO!
March 30, 2004    2004 Ron Paul 25:8
In conclusion, we should not be wasting US tax money and taking on more military obligations expanding NATO. The alliance is a relic of the Cold War, a hold-over from another time, an anachronism. It should be disbanded, the sooner the better.

war
The Lessons of 9/11
April 22, 2004    2004 Ron Paul 27:6
The failure to understand the nature of the enemy who attacked us on 9/11, along with a pre-determined decision to initiate a pre-emptive war against Iraq, prompted our government to deceive the people into believing that Saddam Hussein had something to do with the attacks on New York and Washington. The majority of the American people still contend the war against Iraq was justified because of the events of 9/11. These misinterpretations have led to many U.S. military deaths and casualties, prompting a growing number of Americans to question the wisdom of our presence and purpose in a strange foreign land 6,000 miles from our shores.

war
The Lessons of 9/11
April 22, 2004    2004 Ron Paul 27:7
The neo-conservative defenders of our policy in Iraq speak of the benefits that we have brought to the Iraqi people: removal of a violent dictator, liberation, democracy, and prosperity. If all this were true, the resistance against our occupation would not be growing. We ought to admit we have not been welcomed as liberators as was promised by the proponents of the war.

war
The Lessons of 9/11
April 22, 2004    2004 Ron Paul 27:9
Failing to understand why 9/11 happened and looking for a bureaucratic screw-up to explain the whole thing — while using the event to start an unprovoked war unrelated to 9/11 — have dramatically compounded the problems all Americans and the world face. Evidence has shown that there was no connection between Saddam Hussein and the guerilla attacks on New York and Washington, and since no weapons of mass destruction were found, other reasons are given for invading Iraq. The real reasons are either denied or ignored: oil, neo-conservative empire building, and our support for Israel over the Palestinians.

war
The Lessons of 9/11
April 22, 2004    2004 Ron Paul 27:10
The proponents of the Iraqi war do not hesitate to impugn the character of those who point out the shortcomings of current policy, calling them unpatriotic and appeasers of terrorism. It is said that they are responsible for the growing armed resistance, and for the killing of American soldiers. It’s conveniently ignored that if the opponents of the current policy had prevailed, not one single American would have died nor would tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians have suffered the same fate.

war
The Lessons of 9/11
April 22, 2004    2004 Ron Paul 27:12
Pursuing our policy has boiled down to “testing our resolve.” It is said by many — even some who did not support the war — that now we have no choice but to “stay the course.” They argue that it’s a noble gesture to be courageous and continue no matter how difficult. But that should not be the issue. It is not a question of resolve, but rather a question of wise policy. If the policy is flawed and the world and our people are less safe for it, unshakable resolve is the opposite of what we need. Staying the course only makes sense when the difficult tasks are designed to protect our country and to thwart those who pose a direct threat to us. Wilsonian idealism of self-sacrifice to “make the world safe for democracy” should never be an excuse to wage preemptive war — especially since it almost never produces the desired results. There are always too many unintended consequences.

war
The Lessons of 9/11
April 22, 2004    2004 Ron Paul 27:14
Show me one neo-con that would accept a national election that put the radical Shiites in charge. As Secretary Rumsfeld said, it’s not going to happen. These same people are condemning the recent democratic decisions made in Spain. We should remember that since World War II, in 35 U.S. attempts to promote democracy around the world none have succeeded.

war
The Lessons of 9/11
April 22, 2004    2004 Ron Paul 27:15
Promoters of war too often fail to contemplate the unintended consequences of an aggressive foreign policy. So far, the anti-war forces have not been surprised with the chaos that has now become Iraq, or Iran’s participation — but even they cannot know all the long-term shortcomings of such a policy.

war
The Lessons of 9/11
April 22, 2004    2004 Ron Paul 27:17
The only policy now offered is to escalate the war and avenge the deaths of American soldiers—if they kill 10 of our troops, we’ll kill 100 of theirs. Up until now, announcing the number of Iraqi deaths has been avoided purposely, but the new policy announces our success by the number of Iraqis killed. But the more we kill, the greater the incitement of the radical Islamic militants. The harder we try to impose our will on them, the greater the resistance becomes.

war
The Lessons of 9/11
April 22, 2004    2004 Ron Paul 27:31
This misdirected policy has prompted the current protracted war in Iraq, which has gone on for 13 years with no end in sight. The al Qaeda attacks should not be used to justify more intervention; instead they should be seen as a guerilla attacks against us for what the Arabs and Muslim world see as our invasion and interference in their homelands. This cycle of escalation is rapidly spreading the confrontation worldwide between the Christian West and the Muslim East. With each escalation, the world becomes more dangerous. It is especially made worse when we retaliate against Muslims and Arabs who had nothing to do with 9/11—as we have in Iraq—further confirming the suspicions of the Muslim masses that our goals are more about oil and occupation than they are about punishing those responsible for 9/11.

war
The Lessons of 9/11
April 22, 2004    2004 Ron Paul 27:35
Continuing to deny that the attacks against us are related to our overall policy of foreign meddling through many years and many administrations, makes a victory over our enemies nearly impossible. Not understanding the true nature and motivation of those who have and will commit deadly attacks against us prevents a sensible policy from being pursued. Guerilla warriors, who are willing to risk and sacrifice everything as part of a war they see as defensive, are a far cry, philosophically, from a band of renegades who out of unprovoked hate seek to destroy us and kill themselves in the process. How we fight back depends on understanding these differences.

war
The Lessons of 9/11
April 22, 2004    2004 Ron Paul 27:36
Of course, changing our foreign policy to one of no pre-emptive war, no nation building, no entangling alliances, no interference in the internal affairs of other nations, and trade and friendship with all who seek it, is no easy task.

war
The Lessons of 9/11
April 22, 2004    2004 Ron Paul 27:40
Sadly, in the process the people are forgotten, especially those who pay the taxes, those whose lives are sacrificed in no-win undeclared wars, and the unemployed and poor as the economic consequences of financing our foreign entanglements evolve.

war
The Lessons of 9/11
April 22, 2004    2004 Ron Paul 27:41
Regardless of one’s enthusiasm or lack thereof for the war and the general policy of maintaining American troops in more than 130 countries, one cold fact soon must be recognized by all of us in Congress. The American people cannot afford it, and when the market finally recognizes the over commitment we’ve made, the results will not be pleasing to anyone.

war
The Lessons of 9/11
April 22, 2004    2004 Ron Paul 27:43
Huge deficits, financed by borrowing and Federal Reserve monetization, are an unsustainable policy and always lead to higher price inflation, higher interest rates, a continued erosion of the dollar’s value, and a faltering economy. Economic law dictates that the standard of living then must go down for all Americans—except for the privileged few who have an inside track on government largess—if this policy of profligate spending continues. Ultimately, the American people, especially the younger generation, will have to decide whether to languish with current policy or reject the notion that perpetual warfare and continued growth in entitlements should be pursued indefinitely.

war
Continuity In Representation Act
22 April 2004    2004 Ron Paul 28:15
Mr. Chairman, this country has faced the possibility of threats to the continuity of this body several times in our history. Yet no one suggested removing the people’s right to vote for members of Congress. For example, the British in the War of 1812 attacked the city of Washington, yet nobody suggested the States could not address the lack of a quorum in the House of Representatives through elections. During the Civil War, the neighboring State of Virginia, where today many Capitol Hill staffers reside and many members stay while Congress is in session, was actively involved in hostilities against the United States Government. Yet, Abraham Lincoln never suggested that non-elected persons serve in the House. Adopting any of the proposals to deny the people the ability to choose their own representatives would let the terrorists know that they can succeed in altering our republican institutions. I hope all my colleagues who are considering rejecting H.R. 2844 in favor of a Constitutional amendment will question the wisdom of handing terrorists a preemptive victory over republican government.

war
Introducing Cassandra Tamez’s Essay Into The Congressional Record
   2004 Ron Paul 29:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to enter into the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD the following essay by Miss Cassandra Tamez, a high school student who resides in my Congressional district. Miss Tamez’s essay, entitled “My Commitment to America’s Future,” earned her a Voice of Democracy Scholarship award from the Veterans of Foreign Wars. I am very proud of Miss Tamez’s efforts and I wish her well in her future endeavors.

war
Statement on the Abuse of Prisoners in Iraq
May 6, 2004    2004 Ron Paul 31:1
Mr. PAUL: Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this resolution as written. Like so many resolutions we have seen here on the Iraq war, this one is not at all what it purports to be. Were this really a resolution condemning abuse of prisoners and other detainees, I doubt anyone here would oppose it. Clearly the abuse and humiliation of those in custody is deplorable, and the pictures we have all seen over the past week are truly horrific.

war
Statement on the Abuse of Prisoners in Iraq
May 6, 2004    2004 Ron Paul 31:5
Further, this resolution explicitly endorses what is clearly a failed policy in Iraq. I wonder whether anyone remembers that we did not go to war against Iraq to build a better nation there, or to bring about “improvements in… water, sewage, power, infrastructure, transportation, telecommunications, and food security…” as this resolution touts. Nor did those who urged this war claim at the time that the goals were to “significantly improv[e]…food availability, health service, and educational opportunities” in Iraq, as this legislation also references. No, the war was essential, they claimed, to stop a nation poised to use weapons of mass destruction to inflict unspeakable harm against the United States. Now historical revisionists are pointing out how wonderful our nation-building is going in Iraq, as if that justifies the loss of countless American and Iraqi civilian lives.

war
Statement on the Abuse of Prisoners in Iraq
May 6, 2004    2004 Ron Paul 31:6
This resolution decries the fact that the administration had not informed Congress of these abuses and that the administration has not kept Congress in the information loop. Yet, Congress made it clear to the administration from the very beginning that Congress wanted no responsibility for the war in Iraq. If Congress wanted to be kept in the loop it should have vigorously exercised its responsibilities from the very beginning. This means, first and foremost, that Congress should have voted on a declaration of war as required in the Constitution. Congress, after abrogating this responsibility in October 2002, now is complaining that it is in the dark. Indeed, who is to say that the legal ambiguity created by the Congressional refusal to declare war may not have contributed to the notion that detainees need not be treated in accordance with the Geneva Convention, that governs the treatment of prisoners during a time of war? Until Congress takes up its constitutional responsibilities, complaints that the administration is not sufficiently forthcoming with information ring hollow.

war
Don’t Start a War with Iran!
May 6, 2004    2004 Ron Paul 32:1
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this ill-conceived and ill-timed legislation. Let’s not fool ourselves: this concurrent resolution leads us down the road to war against Iran. It creates a precedent for future escalation, as did similar legislation endorsing “regime change” in Iraq back in 1998.

war
Don’t Start a War with Iran!
May 6, 2004    2004 Ron Paul 32:3
Additionally, this legislation calls for yet more and stricter sanctions on Iran, including a demand that other countries also impose sanctions on Iran. As we know, sanctions are unmistakably a move toward war, particularly when, as in this legislation, a demand is made that the other nations of the world similarly isolate and blockade the country. Those who wish for a regime change in Iran should especially reject sanctions - just look at how our Cuba policy has allowed Fidel Castro to maintain his hold on power for decades. Sanctions do not hurt political leaders, as we know most recently from our sanctions against Iraq, but rather sow misery among the poorest and most vulnerable segments of society. Dictators do not go hungry when sanctions are imposed.

war
Don’t Start a War with Iran!
May 6, 2004    2004 Ron Paul 32:5
I urge my colleagues to reject this move toward war with Iran, to reject the failed policies of regime-change and nation-building, and to return to the wise and consistent policy of non-interventionism in the affairs of other sovereign nations.

war
H. Con. Res. 398: Expressing The Concern Of Congress Over Iran’s Development Of The Means To Produce Nuclear Weapons
17 May 2004    2004 Ron Paul 34:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this ill-conceived and ill-timed legislation. Let’s not fool ourselves: this concurrent resolution leads us down the road to war against Iran. It creates a precedent for future escalation, as did similar legislation endorsing “regime change” in Iraq back in 1998.

war
H. Con. Res. 398: Expressing The Concern Of Congress Over Iran’s Development Of The Means To Produce Nuclear Weapons
17 May 2004    2004 Ron Paul 34:3
Additionally, this legislation calls for yet more and stricter sanctions on Iran, including a demand that other countries also impose sanctions on Iran. As we know, sanctions are unmistakably a move toward war, particularly when, as in this legislation, a demand is made that the other nations of the world similarly isolate and blockade the country. Those who wish for a regime change in Iran should especially reject sanctions — just look at how our Cuba policy has allowed Fidel Castro to maintain his hold on power for decades. Sanctions do not hurt political leaders, as we know most recently from our sanctions against Iraq, but rather sow misery among the poorest and most vulnerable segments of society. Dictators do not go hungry when sanctions are imposed.

war
H. Con. Res. 398: Expressing The Concern Of Congress Over Iran’s Development Of The Means To Produce Nuclear Weapons
17 May 2004    2004 Ron Paul 34:5
I urge my colleagues to reject this move toward war with Iran, to reject the failed policies of regime-change and nation-building, and to return to the wise and consistent policy of non-interventionism in the affairs of other sovereign nations.

war
The House of Representatives Must be Elected!
June 2, 2004    2004 Ron Paul 36:5
Mr. Speaker, this country has faced the possibility of threats to the continuity of this body several times throughout our history, yet no one suggested removing the people’s right to vote for members of the House of Representatives. For example, when the British attacked the city of Washington in the War of 1812, nobody suggested the states could not address the lack of a quorum in the House of Representatives though elections. During the Civil War, DC neighbor Virginia was actively involved in hostilities against the United States government- yet President Abraham Lincoln never suggested that non-elected persons serve in the House.

war
The Same Old Failed Policies in Iraq
June 3, 2004    2004 Ron Paul 37:3
We never seem to learn, and the Muslim Middle East never forgets. Our support for the Shah of Iran and Saddam Hussein’s war against Iran has never endeared us to the Iranians. We’re supposed to be surprised to discover that our close confidant Ahmed Chalabi turns out to be a cozy pragmatic friend of Iran. The CIA may have questioned the authenticity of Iranian intelligence passed on to the U.S. by Chalabi, yet still this intelligence was used eagerly to promote the pro-war propaganda that so many in Congress and the nation bought into. And now it looks like the intelligence fed to Chalabi by Iran was deliberately falsified, but because it fit in so neatly with the neocon’s determination to remake the entire Middle East, starting with a preemptive war against Iraq, it was received enthusiastically.

war
The Same Old Failed Policies in Iraq
June 3, 2004    2004 Ron Paul 37:7
What a mess! But no one should be surprised. Regime change plans- whether by CIA operations or by preemptive war- almost always go badly. American involvement in installing the Shah of Iran in the fifties, killing Diem in South Vietnam in the sixties, helping Osama bin Laden against the Soviets in the eighties, assisting Saddam Hussein against Iran in the eighties, propping up dictators in many Arab countries, and supporting the destruction of the Palestinian people all have had serious repercussions on American interests including the loss of American life. We have wasted hundreds of billions of dollars while the old wounds in the Middle East continue to fester.

war
The Same Old Failed Policies in Iraq
June 3, 2004    2004 Ron Paul 37:11
The invisible economic costs are enormous but generally ignored. A policy of militarism and constant war has huge dollar costs, which contribute to the huge deficits, higher interest rates, inflation, and economic dislocations. War cannot raise the standard of living for the average American. Participants in the military-industrial complex do benefit, however. Now the grand scheme of physically rebuilding Iraq using American corporations may well prove profitable to the select few with political connections.

war
The Same Old Failed Policies in Iraq
June 3, 2004    2004 Ron Paul 37:15
It’s time we reconsider the advice of the founding fathers and the guidelines of the Constitution, which counsel a foreign policy of non-intervention and strategic independence. Setting a good example is a far better way to spread American ideals than through force of arms. Trading with nations, without interference by international government regulators, is far better than sanctions and tariffs that too often plant the seeds of war.

war
The Same Old Failed Policies in Iraq
June 3, 2004    2004 Ron Paul 37:18
Instead of the incessant chant about us forcing democracy on others, why not read our history and see how thirteen nations joined together to form a loose-knit republic with emphasis on local self-government. Part of the problem with our effort to re-order Iraq is that the best solution is something we have essentially rejected here in the United States. It would make a lot more sense to concentrate on rebuilding our Republic, emphasizing the principles of private property, free markets, trade, and personal liberty here at home rather then pursuing war abroad. If this were done, we would not be a militaristic state spending ourselves into bankruptcy, and government benefits to the untold thousands of corporations and special interest would be denied.

war
Mourning The Death Of Ronald Reagan
9 June 2004    2004 Ron Paul 38:7
Regardless of their sincerity, their humanitarian motives, those who would sacrifice freedom for security have embarked on this downward path. Plutarch warned, “The real destroyer of the liberties of the people is he who spreads among them bounties, donations and benefits.”

war
Spending Billions on our Failed Intelligence Agencies
June 23, 2004    2004 Ron Paul 41:3
The stories of such activities are numerous. In 1953 the CIA overthrew Mohammad Mossadegh in Iran, installing the Shah as dictator. This led to increasing anti-Americanism, the overthrow of the Shah in 1979, the kidnapping of Americans, the establishment of a hard-line Islamic regime hostile to the United States. In the 1980s the United States provided covert support to Saddam Hussein’s Iraq in its war with Iran. Ten years later the United States went to war against Saddam Hussein and then 11 years after that the United States went to war again against Saddam’s Iraq. In the 1980s the United States provided weapons and training to the Taliban and what later became Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan as they sought to overthrow the communist government in power. Some 20 years later, that same Taliban and Osama bin Laden struck out against the United States. The United States then went to war against that Taliban government.

war
A Token Attempt to Reduce Government Spending
June 24, 2004    2004 Ron Paul 43:4
The only way Congress will cease excessive spending is by rejecting the idea that the federal government has the authority and the competence to solve all ills, both domestic and international. If the last century taught us anything, it was that big government cannot create utopia. Yet, too many members believe that we can solve all economic problems, eliminate all social ills, and bring about worldwide peace and prosperity by simply creating new federal programs and regulations. However, the well-intended efforts of Congress have exacerbated America’s economic and social problems. Meanwhile our international meddling has failed to create perpetual peace but rather lead to perpetual war for perpetual peace.

war
American Community Survey
7 July 2004    2004 Ron Paul 45:4
One of the reasons why it came to my attention is just recently I received this survey in the mail here in my temporary residence in Virginia. It is rather intimidating and it is rather threatening when you receive this in the mail. And I have the envelope here and right up on the front they have warned me. They said “The American Community Survey form enclosed. Your response is required by law.”

war
Government Spending – A Tax on the Middle Class
July 8, 2004    2004 Ron Paul 52:5
Expanding entitlements is now an accepted prerogative of both parties. Foreign wars and nation building are accepted as foreign policy by both parties.

war
Taiwan Relations Act — Part 1
14 July 2004    2004 Ron Paul 54:3
I happen to believe that we have ignored for too long in this country and in this body the foreign policy that was designed by our Founders, a foreign policy of nonintervention. I think it is better for us. I think it is healthy in all ways, both financially and in that it keeps us out of wars, and we are allowed to build friendships with all the nations of the world. The politics of nonintervention should be given some serious consideration.

war
Taiwan Relations Act — Part 1
14 July 2004    2004 Ron Paul 54:4
Usually, the argument given me for that is that 200 years ago or 250 years ago things were different. Today we have had to go through the Cold War and communism; and, therefore, we are a powerful Nation and we have an empire to protect; and we have this moral obligation to police the world and take care of everybody.

war
Taiwan Relations Act — Part 1
14 July 2004    2004 Ron Paul 54:6
I certainly think the Taiwan Relations Act qualifies as an entangling alliance, and that is what we have been warned about: “Do not get involved in entangling alliances.” It gets us so involved, we get in too deep, and then we end up with a military answer to too many of our problems. I think that is what has happened certainly in the last 50 years.

war
Taiwan Relations Act — Part 1
14 July 2004    2004 Ron Paul 54:13
So I would urge my colleagues to be cautious about this. I know this will be overwhelmingly passed; but, nevertheless, it is these types of commitments, these types of alliances that we make that commit us to positions that are hard to back away from. This is why we get into these hot wars, these shooting wars, when really I do not think it is necessary.

war
Opposing Aid To Pakistan
15 July 2004    2004 Ron Paul 61:3
Essentially for 100 years, we have accepted the foreign policy of Woodrow Wilson. It is a flawed idealism that we should, and it is our responsibility to, make the world safe for democracy. That did not just exist for World War I, which led to a peace treaty which caused a lot of problems leading up to World War II; but those notions are well engrained in the current neoconservative approach to foreign policy and the policy that this administration follows. But I do not think it is in the best interests of our country to follow this.

war
Opposing Aid To Pakistan
15 July 2004    2004 Ron Paul 61:7
There is quite a bit of difference between the foreign policy of neutrality and friendship with everyone versus giving money and support to everyone. And if we look at our history, it has not worked very well. We have in the past given money to both sides of a lot of wars, and right now we try to be friends and we give money in support to both India and Pakistan. I do not bring this amendment up here to be pro either one or anti either one. I want to have a pro-American foreign policy and not say, well, I want to punish Pakistan and help India or vice versa.

war
Hands Off Sudan!
July 23, 2004    2004 Ron Paul 65:1
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this incredibly dangerous legislation. I hope my colleagues are not fooled by the title of this bill, “Declaring genocide in Darfur, Sudan.” This resolution is no statement of humanitarian concern for what may be happening in a country thousands of miles from the United States. Rather, it could well lead to war against the African country of Sudan. The resolution “urges the Bush Administration to seriously consider multilateral or even unilateral intervention to prevent genocide should the United Nations Security Council fail to act.” We must realize the implications of urging the President to commit the United States to intervene in an ongoing civil war in a foreign land thousands of miles away.

war
The Constitution
23 September 2004    2004 Ron Paul 70:4
Although the 19th century generally was kind to the intent of the constitution, namely limiting government power, a major setback occurred with the Civil War and the severe undermining of the principle of sovereign States.

war
The Constitution
23 September 2004    2004 Ron Paul 70:5
The Civil War will finally change the balance of power in our federalist system, paving the way for centralized big government.

war
The Constitution
23 September 2004    2004 Ron Paul 70:6
Although the basic principle underlying the constitutional republic we were given was compromised in the post Civil War period, it was not until the 20th century that steady and significant erosion of the Constitution restraints placed on the central government occurred. This erosion adversely affected not only economic and civil liberties but foreign affairs as well.

war
Reject a National Prescription Database
October 5, 2004    2004 Ron Paul 74:1
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to HR 3015, the National All Schedules Prescription Electronic Reporting Act. This bill is yet another unjustifiable attempt by the federal government to use the war on drugs as an excuse for invading the privacy and liberties of the American people and for expanding the federal government’s disastrous micromanagement of medical care. As a physician with over 30 years experience in private practice, I must oppose this bill due to the danger it poses to our health as well as our liberty.

war
Reject a National Prescription Database
October 5, 2004    2004 Ron Paul 74:2
By creating a national database of prescriptions for controlled substances, the federal government would take another step forward in the war on pain patients and their doctors. This war has already resulted in the harassment and prosecution of many doctors, and their staff members, whose only “crime” is prescribing legal medication, including opioids, to relieve their patients’ pain. These prosecutions, in turn, have scared other doctors so that they are unwilling to prescribe an adequate amount of pain medication, or even any pain medication, for their suffering patients.

war
Reject a National Prescription Database
October 5, 2004    2004 Ron Paul 74:4
Applying to doctors laws intended to deal with drug kingpins, the government has created the illusion of some success in the war on drugs. Investigating drug dealers can be hard and dangerous work. In comparison, it is much easier to shut down medical practices and prosecute doctors who prescribe pain medication.

war
Reject a National Prescription Database
October 5, 2004    2004 Ron Paul 74:5
A doctor who is willing to treat chronic pain patients with medically justified amounts of controlled substances may appear at first look to be excessively prescribing. Because so few doctors are willing to take the drug war prosecution risks associated with treating chronic pain patients, and because chronic pain patients must often consume significant doses of pain medication to obtain relief, the prosecution of one pain doctor can be heralded as a large success. All the government needs to do is point to the large amount of patients and drugs associated with a medical practice.

war
Reject a National Prescription Database
October 5, 2004    2004 Ron Paul 74:6
Once doctors know that there is a national database of controlled substances prescriptions that overzealous law enforcement will be scrutinizing to harass doctors, there may be no doctors left who are willing to treat chronic pain. Instead of creating a national database, we should be returning medical regulation to local control, where it historically and constitutionally belongs. Instead of drug warriors regulating medicine with an eye to maximizing prosecutions, we should return to state medical boards and state civil courts review that looks to science-based standards of medical care and patients’ best interests.

war
Reject a National Prescription Database
October 5, 2004    2004 Ron Paul 74:8
Instead of further eroding our medical privacy, Congress should take steps to protect it. Why should someone be prevented from denying the government and third parties access to his medical records without his permission or a warrant?

war
Reject Draft Slavery
October 5, 2004    2004 Ron Paul 75:2
The Department of Defense, in response to calls to reinstate the draft, has confirmed that conscription serves no military need. Defense officials from both parties have repudiated it. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld has stated, “The disadvantages of using compulsion to bring into the armed forces the men and women needed are notable,” while President William Clinton’s Secretary of the Army Louis Caldera, in a speech before the National Press Club, admitted that, “Today, with our smaller, post-Cold War armed forces, our stronger volunteer tradition and our need for longer terms of service to get a good return on the high, up-front training costs, it would be even harder to fashion a fair draft.”

war
Reject Draft Slavery
October 5, 2004    2004 Ron Paul 75:4
Some say the 18-year old draftee “owes it” to his (or her, since HR 163 makes woman eligible for the draft) country. Hogwash! It just as easily could be argued that a 50 year-old chicken-hawk, who promotes war and places innocent young people in danger, owes more to the country than the 18 year-old being denied his (or her) liberty.

war
Reject Draft Slavery
October 5, 2004    2004 Ron Paul 75:6
Economic hardship is great in all wars. War is never economically beneficial except for those in position to profit from war expenditures. The great tragedy of war is that it enables the careless disregard for civil liberties of our own people. Abuses of German and Japanese Americans in World War I and World War II are well known.

war
Reject Draft Slavery
October 5, 2004    2004 Ron Paul 75:7
But the real sacrifice comes with conscription — forcing a small number of young vulnerable citizens to fight the wars that older men and women, who seek glory in military victory without themselves being exposed to danger, promote. The draft encourages wars with neither purpose nor moral justification, wars that too often are not even declared by the Congress.

war
Reject Draft Slavery
October 5, 2004    2004 Ron Paul 75:8
Without conscription, unpopular wars are difficult to fight. Once the draft was undermined in the 1960s and early 1970s, the Vietnam War came to an end. But most importantly, liberty cannot be preserved by tyranny. A free society must always resort to volunteers. Tyrants think nothing of forcing men to fight and serve in wrongheaded wars. A true fight for survival and defense of America would elicit, I am sure, the assistance of every able-bodied man and woman. This is not the case with wars of mischief far away from home, which we have experienced often in the past century.

war
The 9-11 Intelligence Bill: More Bureaucracy, More Intervention, Less Freedom
October 8, 2004    2004 Ron Paul 77:3
Nationalizing standards for drivers licenses and birth certificates, and linking them together via a national database, creates a national ID system pure and simple. Proponents of the national ID understand that the public remains wary of the scheme, so they attempt to claim they’re merely creating new standards for existing state IDs. Nonsense! This legislation imposes federal standards in a federal bill, and it creates a federalized ID regardless of whether the ID itself is still stamped with the name of your state. It is just a matter of time until those who refuse to carry the new licenses will be denied the ability to drive or board an airplane. Domestic travel restrictions are the hallmark of authoritarian states, not free republics.

war
The 9-11 Intelligence Bill: More Bureaucracy, More Intervention, Less Freedom
October 8, 2004    2004 Ron Paul 77:9
Immediately after the attack on September 11, 2001, I introduced several pieces of legislation designed to help fight terrorism and secure the United States, including a bill to allow airline pilots to carry firearms and a bill that would have expedited the hiring of Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) translators to support counterterrorism investigations and operations. I also introduced a bill to authorize the president to issue letters of marque and reprisal to bring to justice those who committed the attacks of September 11, 2001, and other similar acts of war planned for the future.

war
Raising the Debt Limit: A Disgrace
November 18, 2004    2004 Ron Paul 79:3
Most Americans do not spend much time worrying about the national debt, which now totals more than eight trillion dollars. The number is so staggering that it hardly seems real, even when economists issue bleak warnings about how much every American owes — currently about $25,000. Of course, Congress never hands each taxpayer a bill for that amount. Instead, the federal government uses your hard-earned money to pay interest on this debt, which is like making minimum payments on a credit card. Notice that the principal never goes down. In fact, it is rising steadily.

war
Stay out of Sudan’s Civil War
November 19, 2004    2004 Ron Paul 80:1
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this ill-conceived, counter-productive legislation. This represents exactly the kind of unconstitutional interventionism the Founding Fathers warned us about. It is arrogant and dangerous for us to believe that we can go around the world inserting ourselves into civil wars that have nothing to do with us without having to face the unintended consequences that always arise. Our steadily-increasing involvement in the civil war in Sudan may well delay the resolution of the conflict that appears to be proceeding without our involvement. Just today, in talks with the UN, the two sides pledged to end the fighting.

war
Stay out of Sudan’s Civil War
November 19, 2004    2004 Ron Paul 80:2
The fact is we do not know and cannot understand the complexities of the civil war in Sudan, which has lasted for 39 of that country’s 48 years of existence. Supporters of our intervention in Sudan argue that this is a clear-cut case of Sudan’s Christian minority being oppressed and massacred by the Arab majority in the Darfur region. It is interesting that the CIA’s World Factbook states that Sudan’s Christians, who make up five percent of the population, are concentrated in the south of the country. Darfur is a region in the mid-western part of Sudan. So I wonder about this very simplistic characterization of the conflict.

war
Stay out of Sudan’s Civil War
November 19, 2004    2004 Ron Paul 80:3
It seems as if this has been all reduced to a few slogans, tossed around without much thought or care about real meaning or implication. We unfortunately see this often with calls for intervention. One thing we do know, however, is that Sudan is floating on a sea of oil. Why does it always seem that when we hear urgent clamor for the United States to intervene, oil or some other valuable commodity just happens to be present? I find it interesting that so much attention is being paid to oil-rich Sudan while right next door in Congo the death toll from its civil war is estimated to be two to three million - several times the estimated toll in Sudan.

war
Stay out of Sudan’s Civil War
November 19, 2004    2004 Ron Paul 80:5
Inserting ourselves into this civil war in Sudan will do little to solve the crisis. In fact, the promise of US support for one side in the struggle may discourage the progress that has been made recently. What incentive is there to seek a peaceful resolution of the conflict when the US government promises massive assistance to one side? I strongly urge my colleagues to rethink our current dangerous course toward further intervention in Sudan. We may end up hurting most those we are intending to help.

war
Where To From Here?
November 20, 2004    2004 Ron Paul 81:1
The election of 2004 is now history. It’s time to ponder our next four years. Will our country become freer, richer, safer, and more peaceful, or will we continue to suffer from lost civil liberties, a stagnant economy, terrorist threats, and an expanding war in the Middle East and central Asia? Surely the significance of the election was reflected in its intensity and divisiveness.

war
Where To From Here?
November 20, 2004    2004 Ron Paul 81:7
Both candidates supported the Iraq War and the continuation of it.

war
Where To From Here?
November 20, 2004    2004 Ron Paul 81:10
Both candidates agreed that a president can initiate war without a declaration by Congress.

war
Where To From Here?
November 20, 2004    2004 Ron Paul 81:18
One Merrill Lynch money manager responded to the election by saying, “Bush getting reelected means a bigger deficit, a weaker dollar, and higher gold prices.” Another broker added, “Four more years of Bush is a gift to the gold markets — more war, more deficits, more division.”

war
Where To From Here?
November 20, 2004    2004 Ron Paul 81:20
The value of the dollar is a much more important issue than most realize in Washington. Our current account deficit of 6% of GDP, and our total foreign indebtedness of over $3 trillion, pose a threat to our standard of living. Unfortunately, when the crisis hits our leaders will have little ability to stem the tide of price inflation and higher interest rates that will usher in a dangerous period of economic weakness. Our dependency on foreign borrowing to finance our spendthrift habits is not sustainable. We borrow $1.8 billion a day! The solution involves changing our policy with regards to foreign commitments, foreign wars, empire overseas, and the ever-growing entitlement system here at home. This change is highly unlikely without significant turmoil, and it certainly is not on the administration’s agenda for the next four years. That’s why the world is now betting against the dollar.

war
Where To From Here?
November 20, 2004    2004 Ron Paul 81:27
Though the recent election reflected the good instincts of many Americans concerned about moral values, abortion, and marriage, let’s hope and pray this endorsement will not be used to justify more pre-emptive/unnecessary wars, expand welfare, ignore deficits, endorse the current monetary system, expand the domestic police state, and promote the American empire worldwide.

war
Where To From Here?
November 20, 2004    2004 Ron Paul 81:34
There are even more reasons to believe the current government status quo is unsustainable. As a nation dependent on the willingness of foreigners to loan us the money to finance our extravagance, we now are consuming 80% of the world’s savings. Though the Fed does its part in supplying funds by purchasing Treasury debt, foreign central banks and investors have loaned us nearly twice what the Fed has, to the tune of $1.3 trillion. The daily borrowing needed to support our spending habits cannot last. It can be argued that even the financing of the Iraq war cannot be accomplished without the willingness of countries like China and Japan to loan us the necessary funds. Any shift, even minor, in this sentiment will send chills through the world financial markets. It will not go unnoticed, and every American consumer will be affected.

war
Where To From Here?
November 20, 2004    2004 Ron Paul 81:36
Few in Washington comprehend the nature of the crisis. But liberal Lawrence Summers, Clinton’s Secretary of the Treasury and now president of Harvard, perceptively warns of the danger that is fast approaching. He talks of, “A kind of global balance of financial terror” that we should be concerned about. He goes on to say: “there is surely something off about the world’s greatest power being the world’s greatest debtor. In order to finance prevailing levels of consumption and investment, must the United States be as dependent as it is on the discretionary acts of what are inevitably political entities in other countries?” An economist from the American Enterprise Institute also expressed concern by saying that foreign central banks “now have considerable ability to disrupt U.S. financial markets by simply deciding to refrain from buying further U.S. government paper.”

war
Where To From Here?
November 20, 2004    2004 Ron Paul 81:41
I’ve wondered if our casual acceptance of the deaths inflicted on both sides in the Vietnam War, and its association with the drug culture that many used to blot out the tragic human losses, contributed to the cheapening of pre-born human life and the acceptance of abortion as a routine and acceptable practice. Though abortion is now an ingrained part of our society, the moral conflict over the issue continues to rage with no end in sight.

war
Where To From Here?
November 20, 2004    2004 Ron Paul 81:43
The issue of moral values and the mandate that has been claimed after the election raises serious questions. The architects of the Iraq invasion claim a stamp of approval from the same people who voted for moral values by voting against abortion and gay marriage. The question must be asked whether or not the promotion of pre-emptive war and a foreign policy of intervention deserve the same acceptance as the pro-life position by those who supported moral values. The two seem incompatible: being pro-life yet pro-war, with a callous disregard for the innocent deaths of thousands. The minister who preaches this mixed message of protecting life for some while promoting death for others deserves close scrutiny. Too often the message from some of our national Christian leaders sounds hateful and decidedly un-Christian in tone. They preach the need for vengeance and war against a country that never attacked nor posed a threat to us. It’s just as important to resolve this dilemma as the one involving the abortionist who is paid to kill the unborn while the mother is put in prison for killing her newborn.

war
Where To From Here?
November 20, 2004    2004 Ron Paul 81:45
One cannot know the true intention of the war promoters, but the policy and its disastrous results require our attention and criticism. Pre-emptive war, especially when based on erroneous assumptions, cannot be ignored — nor can we ignore the cost in life and limb, the financial costs, and the lost liberties.

war
Where To From Here?
November 20, 2004    2004 Ron Paul 81:46
Being more attuned to our Constitution and having a different understanding of morality would go a long way toward preventing unnecessary and dangerous wars. I’d like to make a few points about this different understanding:

war
Where To From Here?
November 20, 2004    2004 Ron Paul 81:47
First : The United States should never go to war without an express Declaration by Congress. If we had followed this crucial but long-forgotten rule the lives lost in Korea, Vietnam, the Persian Gulf, and Iraq might have been prevented. And instead of making us less secure, this process would make us more secure. Absent our foreign occupations and support for certain governments in the Middle East and central Asia over the past fifty years, the 9-11 attack would have been far less likely to happen.

war
Where To From Here?
November 20, 2004    2004 Ron Paul 81:48
Second : A defensive war is morally permissible and justified, even required. Just as a criminal who invades our house and threatens our family deserves to be shot on the spot, so too does a nation have the moral duty to defend against invasion or an imminent threat. For centuries the Christian definition of a just war has guided many nations in making this decision.

war
Where To From Here?
November 20, 2004    2004 Ron Paul 81:49
Third : The best test (a test the chicken hawks who promoted the war refused to take) for those who are so eager to send our troops to die in no-win wars is this: “Am I willing to go; am I willing to be shot; am I willing to die for this cause; am I willing to sacrifice my children and grandchildren for this effort?” The bottom line: Is this Iraq war worth the loss of more than 1200 dead Americans, and thousands of severe casualties, with no end in sight, likely lasting for years and motivating even more suicidal attacks on innocent Americans here at home?

war
Where To From Here?
November 20, 2004    2004 Ron Paul 81:50
Fourth : Can we as a moral people continue to ignore the loss of innocent life on the other side? Can we as a nation accept the callousness of the war proponents regarding the estimated 100,000 Iraqi civilian deaths? Can we believe these deaths are a mere consequence of our worthy effort to impose our will on an alien culture? Is it really our duty to sacrifice so much to pursue a questionable policy of dictating to others what we think is best for them? Can these deaths be dismissed as nothing more than “collateral damage,” and even applauded as proof of the professed progress we are making in our effort to democratize the Middle East? By ignoring the human costs of the conflict we invite problems, and the consequence of our actions will come back to haunt us.

war
Where To From Here?
November 20, 2004    2004 Ron Paul 81:51
Fifth : Arguing that the war in Iraq is necessary for our national security is pure fiction; that it has something to do with the 9-11 attack or WMDs is nonsense. Our meddling in the Middle East and the rest of the world actually increases the odds of us being attacked again by suicidal guerrillas here at home. Tragically, this is something the neo-cons will never admit.

war
Where To From Here?
November 20, 2004    2004 Ron Paul 81:52
Sixth : What kind of satisfaction can we achieve from the civil war we have instigated? A significant portion of the killing in Iraq now occurs amongst Iraqis themselves, at our urging. The country is in chaos, despite the assurances of our leaders. Even under the thug Saddam Hussein, Christians at least were protected by the government — whereas today their churches are bombed and many are struggling to escape the violence by fleeing to Syria. There is no evidence that our efforts in the Middle East have promoted life and peace. Tragically, no one expects the death and destruction in Iraq to end anytime soon.

war
Where To From Here?
November 20, 2004    2004 Ron Paul 81:55
Though the election did not reflect a desire for us to withdraw from Iraq, it will be a serious mistake for those who want to expand the war into Syria or Iran to claim the election results were an endorsement of the policy of pre-emptive war. Yet that’s exactly what may happen if no one speaks out against our aggressive policy of foreign intervention and occupation.

war
Where To From Here?
November 20, 2004    2004 Ron Paul 81:57
A Chinese news agency recently reported that the Chinese government made a $70 billion investment commitment in Iran for the development of natural gas resources. This kind of investment by a neighbor of Iran will be of great significance if the neo-cons have their way and we drag Iran into the Afghanistan and Iraqi quagmire. The close alliance between Iranian Shias and their allies in Iraq makes a confrontation with Iran likely, as the neo-cons stoke the fire of war in the region.

war
Where To From Here?
November 20, 2004    2004 Ron Paul 81:59
Ronald Reagan learned this lesson the hard way in coming to understand attitudes in Lebanon. Reagan spoke boldly that he would not turn tail and run no matter how difficult the task when he sent Marines to support the Israeli/Christian side of the Lebanese civil war in 1983. But he changed his tune after 241 Marines were killed. He wrote about the incident in his autobiography: “Perhaps we didn’t appreciate fully enough the depth of the hatred and complexity of the problems that made the Middle East such a jungle. Perhaps the idea of a suicide car bomber committing mass murder to gain instant entry to Paradise was so foreign to our own values and consciousness that it did not create in us the concern for the Marines’ safety that it should have… 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 re-think our policy there.” Shortly thereafter Reagan withdrew the Marines from Lebanon, and no more Americans were killed in that fruitless venture.

war
Where To From Here?
November 20, 2004    2004 Ron Paul 81:60
Too bad our current foreign policy experts don’t understand the “irrationality of Middle Eastern politics”. By leaving Lebanon, Reagan saved lives and proved our intervention in the Lebanese war was of no benefit to Lebanon or the United States.

war
Where To From Here?
November 20, 2004    2004 Ron Paul 81:61
Reagan’s willingness to admit error and withdraw from Lebanon was heroic, and proved to be life-saving. True to form, many neo-cons with their love of war exude contempt for Reagan’s decision. To them force and violence are heroic, not reassessing a bad situation and changing policy accordingly.

war
Where To From Here?
November 20, 2004    2004 Ron Paul 81:62
One of the great obstacles to our efforts in Iraq is pretending we’re fighting a country. We wrongly expect occupation and “democratization” to solve our problems. The notion that the Iraq war is part of our retaliation for the 9-11 attacks is a serious error that must be corrected if we are to achieve peace and stability in the Middle East and security here at home.

war
Where To From Here?
November 20, 2004    2004 Ron Paul 81:64
Ironically, this fight over religious values and interpretations in the Middle East encourages a similar conflict here at home among Christians. The conservative Christian community too often sounds militantly pro-war. Too many have totally forgotten the admonition “blessed are the peacemakers.” This contrasts with the views of some Christians, who find pre-emptive war decidedly un-Christian. Though civil, the two Christian views are being more hotly contested every day.

war
Where To From Here?
November 20, 2004    2004 Ron Paul 81:65
A policy that uses the religious civil war within the Muslim faith as an excuse for remaking the entire Middle East by force makes little sense and will not end well. The more we fight and the more we kill the greater the animosity of those who want us out of their family feud — and out of their countries.

war
Where To From Here?
November 20, 2004    2004 Ron Paul 81:66
It’s clear the Christian conservative turnout was critical to the President’s re-election. Though many may well have voted for the family/moral values touted by the President and mishandled by Senator Kerry, most agree with the Christian Right that our policy of pre-emptive war in the Middle East is not in conflict with pro-family and pro-life values. This seems strange indeed, since a strong case can be made that the conservative Christian Right, those most interested in the pro-life issue, ought to be the strongest defenders of peace and reject unnecessary pre-emptive war.

war
Where To From Here?
November 20, 2004    2004 Ron Paul 81:67
Here are a few reasons why conservatives ought to reject the current policy of pre-emptive war:

war
Where To From Here?
November 20, 2004    2004 Ron Paul 81:68
1. The Constitution is on the side of peace. Under the Constitution — the law of the land — only Congress can declare war. The president is prohibited from taking us to war on his own.

war
Where To From Here?
November 20, 2004    2004 Ron Paul 81:69
2. The Founders and all the early presidents argued the case for non-intervention overseas, with the precise goals of avoiding entangling alliances and not involving our people in foreign wars unrelated to our security.

war
Where To From Here?
November 20, 2004    2004 Ron Paul 81:70
3. The American tradition and sense of morality for almost all our history rejected the notion that we would ever deliberately start a war, even with noble intentions.

war
Where To From Here?
November 20, 2004    2004 Ron Paul 81:71
4. The Christian concept of just war rejects all the excuses given for marching off to Iraq with the intention of changing the whole region into a western-style democracy by force, with little regard for the cost in life and limb and the economic consequences here at home.

war
Where To From Here?
November 20, 2004    2004 Ron Paul 81:72
5. America faces a 7.5 trillion dollar national debt that is increasing by 600 billion dollars per year. Fiscal conservatives cannot dismiss this, even as they clamor for wars we cannot afford.

war
Where To From Here?
November 20, 2004    2004 Ron Paul 81:73
6. History shows the size of the state always grows when we’re at war. Under conditions of war civil liberties are always sacrificed — thus begging the point. We go hither and yon to spread our message of freedom, while sacrificing our freedoms here at home and eating away at the wealth of the country.

war
Where To From Here?
November 20, 2004    2004 Ron Paul 81:75
8. The best way to prevent terrorism is to change our policies, stop playing crusader, and stop picking sides in religious civil wars or any other civil wars. “Blowback” from our policies is not imaginary.

war
Introducing The Identity Theft protection Act
4 January 2005    2005 Ron Paul 2:6
Nationalizing standards for drivers’ licenses and birth certificates creates a national ID system pure and simple. Proponents of the national ID understand that the public remains wary of the scheme, so proponents attempt to claim they are merely creating new standards for existing State IDs. However, the “intelligence” reform legislation imposed Federal standards in a Federal bill, thus creating a federalized ID regardless of whether the ID itself is still stamped with the name of your State. It is just a matter of time until those who refuse to carry the new licenses will be denied the ability to drive or board an airplane. Domestic travel restrictions are the hallmark of authoritarian States, not free republics.

war
Government IDs and Identity Theft
January 6, 2005    2005 Ron Paul 5:6
Nationalizing standards for driver’s licenses and birth certificates creates a national ID system pure and simple. Proponents of the national ID understand that the public remains wary of the scheme, so proponents attempt to claim they are merely creating new standards for existing state IDs. However, the “intelligence” reform legislation imposed federal standards in a federal bill, thus creating a federalized ID regardless of whether the ID itself is still stamped with the name of your state. It is just a matter of time until those who refuse to carry the new licenses will be denied the ability to drive or board an airplane. Domestic travel restrictions are the hallmark of authoritarian states, not free republics.

war
America’s Foreign Policy Of Intervention
26 January 2005    2005 Ron Paul 6:13
We have spent over $200 billion in these occupations, as well as hundreds of billions of dollars here at home hoping to be safer. We have created the Department of Homeland Security, passed the PATRIOT Act, and created a new super CIA agency. Our government is now permitted to monitor the Internet, read our mail, search us without proper search warrants, to develop a national ID card, and to investigate what people are reading in libraries. Ironically, illegal aliens flow into our country and qualify for driver’s licenses and welfare benefits with little restraint.

war
America’s Foreign Policy Of Intervention
26 January 2005    2005 Ron Paul 6:16
We do not understand the difference between a vague threat of terrorism and the danger of a guerilla war. One prompts us to expand and nationalize domestic law enforcement while limiting the freedoms of all Americans. The other deals with understanding terrorists like bin Laden who declared war against us in 1998. Not understanding the difference makes it virtually impossible to deal with the real threats.

war
America’s Foreign Policy Of Intervention
26 January 2005    2005 Ron Paul 6:19
All too often government acts perversely, promising to advance liberty while actually doing the opposite. Dozens of new bills passed since 9/11 promise to protect our freedoms and our securities. In time we will realize there is little chance our security will be enhanced or our liberties protected. The powerful and intrusive TSA certainly will not solve our problems. Without a full discussion, greater understanding, and ultimately a change in our foreign policy that incites those who declare war against us, no amount of patdowns at airports will suffice.

war
America’s Foreign Policy Of Intervention
26 January 2005    2005 Ron Paul 6:24
Governments do not have a right to use blanket discrimination such as that which led to the incarceration of Japanese Americans in World War II. However, local law enforcement agencies should be able to target their searches if the description of a suspect is narrowed by sex, race or religion. But we are dealing with an entirely different matter when it comes to safety on airplanes. The Federal Government should not be involved in local law enforcement and has no right to discriminate.

war
America’s Foreign Policy Of Intervention
26 January 2005    2005 Ron Paul 6:33
What if the American people really knew that more than 20,000 American troops have suffered serious casualties or died in the Iraq war, and 9 percent of our forces already have been made incapable of returning to battle?

war
America’s Foreign Policy Of Intervention
26 January 2005    2005 Ron Paul 6:36
What if Secretary Rumsfeld is replaced for the wrong reasons, and things become worse under a defense secretary who demands more troops and an expansion of the war?

war
America’s Foreign Policy Of Intervention
26 January 2005    2005 Ron Paul 6:38
What if those who correctly warned of the disaster awaiting us in Iraq are never asked for their opinion of what should be done now?

war
America’s Foreign Policy Of Intervention
26 January 2005    2005 Ron Paul 6:45
What if the Pentagon, as reported by its Defense Science Board, actually recognized the dangers of our policy before the invasion, and their warnings were ignored or denied?

war
America’s Foreign Policy Of Intervention
26 January 2005    2005 Ron Paul 6:48
What if the principle of preemptive war is adopted by Russia, China, Israel, India, Pakistan, and others, and justified by current U.S. policy?

war
America’s Foreign Policy Of Intervention
26 January 2005    2005 Ron Paul 6:49
What if preemptive war and preemptive guilt stem from the same flawed policy of authoritarianism, though we fail to recognize it?

war
America’s Foreign Policy Of Intervention
26 January 2005    2005 Ron Paul 6:51
What if plans are being laid to provoke Syria and/or Iran into actions that would be used to justify a military response and preemptive war against them?

war
America’s Foreign Policy Of Intervention
26 January 2005    2005 Ron Paul 6:52
What if our policy of democratization of the Middle East fails and ends up fueling a Russian-Chinese alliance that we regret; an alliance not achieved even at the height of the Cold War?

war
America’s Foreign Policy Of Intervention
26 January 2005    2005 Ron Paul 6:57
What if the stop-loss program is actually an egregious violation of trust and a breach of contract between the government and soldiers; what if this is actually a back-door draft, leading to unbridled cynicism and rebellion against a voluntary army and generating support for a draft of both men and women? Will lying to troops lead to rebellion and anger toward the political leaderships running this war?

war
America’s Foreign Policy Of Intervention
26 January 2005    2005 Ron Paul 6:60
What if we suddenly discover we are the aggressors and we are losing an unwinnable guerilla war? What if we discover too late that we cannot afford this war, and that our policies have led to a dollar collapse, rampant inflation, high interest rates, and a severe economic downturn?

war
Regulating The Airwaves
16 February 2005    2005 Ron Paul 22:16
Even the proponents of the commercial speech doctrine agreed that the Federal Government should never restrict political speech. Yet, this Congress, this administration, and this Supreme Court have restricted political speech with the campaign finance reform law. Meanwhile, the Department of Justice has indicated it will use the war against terrorism to monitor critics of the administration’s foreign policy, thus chilling anti-war political speech. Of course, on many college campuses students have to watch what they say lest they run afoul of the rules of “political correctness.” Even telling a “politically incorrect” joke can bring a student up on charges before the thought police. Now, self-proclaimed opponents of political correctness want to use Federal power to punish colleges that allow the expression of views they consider “unpatriotic” and/or punish colleges when the composition of the facility does not meet their definition of diversity.

war
Honoring The Life And Legacy Of Former Lebanese Prome Minister Rafik Hariri
16 February 2005    2005 Ron Paul 24:3
The problem is that these calls for U.S. intervention ignore the complexities of Lebanon’s tragic recent history, and its slow return from the chaos of the civil war — a revival in which Mr. Hariri played a praiseworthy role. We should remember, however, that it was the Lebanese government itself that requested assistance from Syria in 1976, to help keep order in the face of a civil war where Maronite Christians battled against Sunnis and Druze. This civil war dragged on until a peace treaty was agreed to in 1989. The peace was maintained by the Syrian presence in Lebanon. So, while foreign occupation of any country against that country’s will is to be condemned, it is not entirely clear that this is the case with Syrian involvement in Lebanon. Hariri himself was not a supporter of immediate Syrian withdrawal from Lebanon. What most won’t say here is that Syria has indeed been slowly withdrawing forces from Lebanon. Who is to say that this is not the best approach to avoid a return to civil war? Yet, many are convinced that we must immediately blame Syria for this attack and we must “do something” to avenge something that has nothing whatsoever to do with the United States.

war
Continuity In Representation Act
3 March 2005    2005 Ron Paul 26:8
Mr. Chairman, this country has faced the possibility of threats to the continuity of this body several times in our history. Yet no one suggested removing the people’s right to vote for Members of Congress. For example, the British in the War of 1812 attacked the city of Washington, yet nobody suggested the States could not address the lack of a quorum in the House of Representatives through elections. During the Civil War, the neighboring State of Virginia, where today many Capitol Hill staffers reside and many Members stay while Congress is in session, was actively involved in hostilities against the United States Government. Yet, Abraham Lincoln never suggested that non-elected persons serve in the House. Adopting any of the proposals to deny the people the ability to choose their own Representatives would let the terrorists know that they can succeed in altering our republican institutions. I hope all my colleagues who are considering rejecting H.R. 841 in favor of a constitutional amendment will question the wisdom of handing terrorists a preemptive victory over republican government.

war
Introducing The American Sovereignty Restoration Act Of 2005
8 March 2005    2005 Ron Paul 27:24
While no previous United Nations’ secretary general has been so bold, Annan’s proclamation of universal jurisdiction over “human rights and fundamental freedoms” simply reflects the preamble of the Charter of the United Nations which contemplated a future in which the United Nations operates in perpetuity “to save succeeding generations from the scourge of ware . . . to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights . . . to establish conditions under which justice . . . can be maintained, and to promote social progress and between standards of life in larger freedom.” Such lofty goals and objectives are comparable to those found in the preamble to the Constitution of the United States of America: “to . . . establish Justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare and secure the Blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity . . .”

war
Consequences Of Foreign Policy — Part 1
16 March 2005    2005 Ron Paul 30:15
It is fully endorsed. The American people certainly have not been up in arms about it and have endorsed it, along with the large majority in the Congress. But long term it does not work. Just look how long the American people supported Vietnam, until finally they had to throw up their arms and demand an end to the senseless war.

war
Consequences Of Foreign Policy — Part 2
16 March 2005    2005 Ron Paul 31:7
We see civil strife precipitating a civil war in Iraq, and I think what our involvement here now is liable to lead to that type of situation, rather than peace and prosperity and elections.

war
Consequences Of Foreign Policy — Part 2
16 March 2005    2005 Ron Paul 31:9
But there is a theory that some of the radical Muslims in Syria that object to Assad, because he is too moderate, because he endorsed the Persian Gulf War and because he takes some of our prisoners and he participates in the interrogations of our prisoners, that he is seen as too liberal, too friendly with the West, and some suppose that that could have been the reason that the murder had occurred, believing that it would bring down the government of Assad.

war
The Deficit
16 March 2005    2005 Ron Paul 33:12
Really, there are only two areas that would have to be cut if we were to strive for a constitutional budget. There are only two things that we would have to cut, and it would be welfare and warfare. And then we would get back to some fundamentals. During World War I, a gentleman by the name of Randolph Bourne wrote a pamphlet called “War is the Health of the State,” and I truly believe that. When we are at war, we are more likely to sacrifice our liberties; and, of course, we spend more money that we really have. I would like to suggest a corollary, that peace is the foundation of liberty because that is what the goal of all government should be: the preservation of liberty.

war
Hypocrisy and the Ordeal of Terri Schiavo
April 6, 2005    2005 Ron Paul 34:14
Practically speaking, welfare rarely works. The hundreds of billions of dollars spent on the war on poverty over the last 50 years has done little to eradicate poverty. Matter-of-fact, worthwhile studies show that poverty is actually made worse by government efforts to eradicate poverty. Certainly the whole system does nothing to build self-esteem and more often than not does exactly the opposite.

war
Hypocrisy and the Ordeal of Terri Schiavo
April 6, 2005    2005 Ron Paul 34:17
The biggest shortcoming of the Christian Right position is its adamancy for protecting life in the very early, late, and weakened stages, while enthusiastically supporting aggressive war that results in hundreds of thousands of unnecessary deaths. While the killing of the innocent unborn represents a morally decadent society, and all life deserves an advocate, including Terri Schiavo, promoting a policy of deadly sanctions and all-out war against a nation that committed no act of aggression against us cannot come close to being morally consistent or defendable under our Constitution.

war
Hypocrisy and the Ordeal of Terri Schiavo
April 6, 2005    2005 Ron Paul 34:20
A society and a government that lose respect for life help create dilemmas of this sort. Today there is little respect for life-- witness the number of abortions performed each year. There is little respect for liberty-- witness the rules and laws that regulate our every move. There is little respect for peace-- witness our eagerness to initiate war to impose our will on others. Tragically, government financing of the elderly, out of economic necessity, will usher in an age of euthanasia.

war
Who’s Better Off?
April 6, 2005    2005 Ron Paul 35:1
Whenever the administration is challenged regarding the success of the Iraq war, or regarding the false information used to justify the war, the retort is: “Aren’t the people of Iraq better off?” The insinuation is that anyone who expresses any reservations about supporting the war is an apologist for Saddam Hussein and every ruthless act he ever committed. The short answer to the question of whether the Iraqis are better off is that it’s too early to declare, “Mission Accomplished.” But more importantly, we should be asking if the mission was ever justified or legitimate. Is it legitimate to justify an action that some claim yielded good results, if the means used to achieve them are illegitimate? Do the ends justify the means?

war
Who’s Better Off?
April 6, 2005    2005 Ron Paul 35:2
The information Congress was given prior to the war was false. There were no weapons of mass destruction; the Iraqis did not participate in the 9/11 attacks; Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein were enemies and did not conspire against the United States; our security was not threatened; we were not welcomed by cheering Iraqi crowds as we were told; and Iraqi oil has not paid any of the bills. Congress failed to declare war, but instead passed a wishy-washy resolution citing UN resolutions as justification for our invasion. After the fact we’re now told the real reason for the Iraq invasion was to spread democracy, and that the Iraqis are better off. Anyone who questions the war risks being accused of supporting Saddam Hussein, disapproving of democracy, or “supporting terrorists.” It’s implied that lack of enthusiasm for the war means one is not patriotic and doesn’t support the troops. In other words, one must march lock-step with the consensus or be ostracized.

war
Who’s Better Off?
April 6, 2005    2005 Ron Paul 35:3
However, conceding that the world is better off without Saddam Hussein is a far cry from endorsing the foreign policy of our own government that led to the regime change. In time it will become clear to everyone that support for the policies of pre-emptive war and interventionist nation-building will have much greater significance than the removal of Saddam Hussein itself. The interventionist policy should be scrutinized more carefully than the purported benefits of Saddam Hussein’s removal from power. The real question ought to be: “Are we better off with a foreign policy that promotes regime change while justifying war with false information?” Shifting the stated goals as events unravel should not satisfy those who believe war must be a last resort used only when our national security is threatened.

war
Who’s Better Off?
April 6, 2005    2005 Ron Paul 35:5
Praise for the recent election in Iraq has silenced many critics of the war. Yet the election was held under martial law implemented by a foreign power, mirroring conditions we rightfully condemned as a farce when carried out in the old Soviet system and more recently in Lebanon. Why is it that what is good for the goose isn’t always good for the gander?

war
Who’s Better Off?
April 6, 2005    2005 Ron Paul 35:8
Some have described Baghdad and especially the green zone, as being surrounded by unmanageable territory. The highways in and out of Baghdad are not yet secured. Many anticipate a civil war will break out sometime soon in Iraq; some claim it’s already underway.

war
Who’s Better Off?
April 6, 2005    2005 Ron Paul 35:9
We have seen none of the promised oil production that was supposed to provide grateful Iraqis with the means to repay us for the hundreds of billions that American taxpayers have spent on the war. Some have justified our continuous presence in the Persian Gulf since 1990 because of a need to protect “our” oil. Yet now that Saddam Hussein is gone, and the occupation supposedly is a great success, gasoline at the pumps is reaching record highs approaching $3 per gallon.

war
Who’s Better Off?
April 6, 2005    2005 Ron Paul 35:12
The whole process is corrupt. It just doesn’t make sense to most Americans to see their tax dollars used to fight an unnecessary and unjustified war. First they see American bombs destroying a country, and then American taxpayers are required to rebuild it. Today it’s easier to get funding to rebuild infrastructure in Iraq than to build a bridge in the United States. Indeed, we cut the Army Corps of Engineers’ budget and operate on the cheap with our veterans as the expenditures in Iraq skyrocket.

war
Who’s Better Off?
April 6, 2005    2005 Ron Paul 35:13
One question the war promoters don’t want to hear asked, because they don’t want to face up to the answer, is this: “Are Christian Iraqis better off today since we decided to build a new Iraq through force of arms?” The answer is plainly no.

war
Who’s Better Off?
April 6, 2005    2005 Ron Paul 35:16
But there’s another question that is equally important: “Are the American people better off because of the Iraq war?”

war
Who’s Better Off?
April 6, 2005    2005 Ron Paul 35:19
The American taxpayers are not better off having spent over 200 billion dollars to pursue this war, with billions yet to be spent. The victims of the inflation that always accompanies a guns-and-butter policy are already getting a dose of what will become much worse.

war
Who’s Better Off?
April 6, 2005    2005 Ron Paul 35:20
Are our relationships with the rest of the world better off? I’d say no. Because of the war, our alliances with the Europeans are weaker than ever. The anti-American hatred among a growing number of Muslims around the world is greater than ever. This makes terrorist attacks more likely than they were before the invasion. Al Qaeda recruiting has accelerated. Iraq is being used as a training ground for al Qaeda terrorists, which it never was under Hussein’s rule. So as our military recruitment efforts suffer, Osama bin Laden benefits by attracting more terrorist volunteers.

war
Who’s Better Off?
April 6, 2005    2005 Ron Paul 35:21
Oil was approximately $27 a barrel before the war, now it’s more than twice that. I wonder who benefits from this?

war
Who’s Better Off?
April 6, 2005    2005 Ron Paul 35:22
Because of the war, fewer dollars are available for real national security and defense of this country. Military spending is up, but the way the money is spent distracts from true national defense and further undermines our credibility around the world.

war
Who’s Better Off?
April 6, 2005    2005 Ron Paul 35:23
The ongoing war’s lack of success has played a key role in diminishing morale in our military services. Recruitment is sharply down, and most branches face shortages of troops. Many young Americans rightly fear a coming draft-- which will be required if we do not reassess and change the unrealistic goals of our foreign policy.

war
Who’s Better Off?
April 6, 2005    2005 Ron Paul 35:24
The appropriations for the war are essentially off-budget and obscured, but contribute nonetheless to the runaway deficit and increase in the national debt. If these trends persist, inflation with economic stagnation will be the inevitable consequences of a misdirected policy.

war
Who’s Better Off?
April 6, 2005    2005 Ron Paul 35:25
One of the most significant consequences in times of war that we ought to be concerned about is the inevitable loss of personal liberty. Too often in the patriotic nationalism that accompanies armed conflict, regardless of the cause, there is a willingness to sacrifice personal freedoms in pursuit of victory. The real irony is that we are told we go hither and yon to fight for freedom and our Constitution, while carelessly sacrificing the very freedoms here at home we’re supposed to be fighting for. It makes no sense.

war
Who’s Better Off?
April 6, 2005    2005 Ron Paul 35:26
This willingness to give up hard-fought personal liberties has been especially noticeable in the atmosphere of the post-September 11th war on terrorism. Security has replaced liberty as our main political goal, damaging the American spirit. Sadly, the whole process is done in the name of patriotism and in a spirit of growing militant nationalism.

war
Who’s Better Off?
April 6, 2005    2005 Ron Paul 35:27
These attitudes and fears surrounding the 9-11 tragedy, and our eagerness to go to war in the Middle East against countries not responsible for the attacks, have allowed a callousness to develop in our national psyche that justifies torture and rejects due process of law for those who are suspects and not convicted criminals.

war
Who’s Better Off?
April 6, 2005    2005 Ron Paul 35:28
We have come to accept pre-emptive war as necessary, constitutional, and morally justifiable. Starting a war without a proper declaration is now of no concern to most Americans or the U.S. Congress. Let’s hope and pray the rumors of an attack on Iran in June by U.S. Armed Forces are wrong.

war
Who’s Better Off?
April 6, 2005    2005 Ron Paul 35:29
A large segment of the Christian community and its leadership think nothing of rationalizing war in the name of a religion that prides itself on the teachings of the Prince of Peace, who instructed us that blessed are the peacemakers-- not the warmongers.

war
Who’s Better Off?
April 6, 2005    2005 Ron Paul 35:31
We have lost our way by rejecting the beliefs that made our country great. We no longer trust in trade, friendship, peace, the Constitution, and the principle of neutrality while avoiding entangling alliances with the rest of the world. Spreading the message of hope and freedom by setting an example for the world has been replaced by a belief that use of armed might is the only practical tool to influence the world-- and we have accepted, as the only superpower, the principle of initiating war against others.

war
Honoring Pope John Paul II- A Consistent Pro-life Figure
April 6, 2005    2005 Ron Paul 36:2
The Pope’s commitment to human dignity, grounded in the teachings of Christ, led him to become one of the most eloquent spokesmen for the consistent ethic of life, exemplified by his struggles against abortion, war, euthanasia, and the death penalty.

war
Honoring Pope John Paul II- A Consistent Pro-life Figure
April 6, 2005    2005 Ron Paul 36:3
Unfortunately, few in American politics today adhere to the consistent ethic of life, thus we see some who cheered the Pope’s stand against the war and the death penalty while downplaying or even openly defying his teachings against abortion and euthanasia.

war
Honoring Pope John Paul II- A Consistent Pro-life Figure
April 6, 2005    2005 Ron Paul 36:4
Others who cheered the Pope’s opposition to abortion and euthanasia were puzzled or hostile to his opposition to war. Many of these “pro-life supporters of war” tried to avoid facing the inherent contradictions in their position by distorting the Just War doctrine, which the Pope properly interpreted as denying sanction to the Iraq war. One prominent conservative commentator even suggested that the pope was the “enemy” of the United States.

war
Honoring Pope John Paul II- A Consistent Pro-life Figure
April 6, 2005    2005 Ron Paul 36:5
In conclusion, I am pleased to pay tribute to Pope John Paul II. I would encourage those who wish to honor his memory to reflect on his teachings regarding war and the sanctity of life, and consider the inconsistencies in claiming to be pro-life but supporting the senseless killing of innocent people that inevitably accompanies militarism, or in claiming to be pro-peace and pro-compassion but supporting the legal killing of the unborn.

war
Repeal Sarbanes-Oxley!
April 14, 2005    2005 Ron Paul 39:3
Many of the major problems stem from section 404 of Sarbanes-Oxley, which requires Chief Executive Officers to certify the accuracy of financial statements. It also requires that outside auditors “attest to” the soundness of the internal controls used in preparing the statements-- an obvious sop to auditors and accounting firms. The Public Company Accounting Oversight Board defines internal controls as “controls over all significant accounts and disclosures in the financial statements.” According to John Berlau, a Warren Brookes Fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, the definition of internal controls is so broad that a CEO possibly could be found liable for not using the latest version of Windows! Financial analysts have identified Section 404 as the major reason why American corporations are hoarding cash instead of investing it in new ventures.

war
Gang Deterrence And Community Protection Act
11 May 2005    2005 Ron Paul 47:2
H.R. 1279 broadly defines “criminal street gangs” and “gang activity.” This is a major expansion of Federal criminal jurisdiction. Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and former U.S. Attorney General Ed Meese, two men who no one has ever accused of being “soft on crime,” have both warned that, although creating more Federal crimes may make politicians feel good, it is neither constitutionally sound nor prudent. Rehnquist has stated that, “[t]he trend to federalize crimes that traditionally have been handled in state courts . . . threatens to change entirely the nature of our federal system.” Meese stated that Congress’s tendency in recent decades to make federal crimes out of offenses that have historically been state matters has dangerous implications both for the fair administration of justice and for the principle that states are something more than mere administrative districts of a nation governed mainly from Washington.

war
Military Appropriations
26 May 2005    2005 Ron Paul 53:4
I also strongly object to the appropriation of U.S.taxpayer funds for, as the bill states, “the acquisition and construction of military facilities and installations (including international military headquarters) and for related expenses for the collective defense of the North Atlantic Treaty Area.” NATO is a relic of the Cold War and most certainly has no purpose some fifteen years after the fall of the Soviet Union. As we saw in the NATO invasion of Yugoslavia, having outlived its usefulness as a defensive alliance, the Organization has become an arm of aggressive militarism and interventionism. NATO deserves not a dime of American taxpayer’s money, nor should the United States remain a member.

war
United States Should Leave World Trade Organization
9 June 2005    2005 Ron Paul 57:17
So I ask Members to consider, why should we not reclaim some of our prerogatives, our authorities, our responsibility? We have given up too much over the years. We have clearly given up our prerogatives on the declaration of war, and on monetary issues. That has been given away by the Congress. And here it is on the trade issue.

war
The Hidden Cost of War
June 14, 2005    2005 Ron Paul 58:1
The cost of war is always more than anticipated. If all the costs were known prior to the beginning of a war, fewer wars would be fought. At the beginning, optimism prevails. Denial and deception override the concern for the pain and penalties yet to come. Jingoistic patriotism and misplaced militarism too easily silence those who are cautious about the unforeseen expenses and hardships brought on by war. Conveniently forgotten are the goals never achieved by armed conflict, and the negative consequences that linger for years. Even some who recognize that the coming war will be costly easily rationalize that the cost will be worth it Others claim it’s unmanly or weak to pursue a negotiated settlement of a political dispute, which helps drive the march toward armed conflict.

war
The Hidden Cost of War
June 14, 2005    2005 Ron Paul 58:2
It has been argued by proponents of modern technological warfare in recent decades that sophisticated weapons greatly reduce the human costs by using a smaller number of troops equipped with smart weapons that minimize battle deaths and collateral damage. This belief has led some to be more willing to enter an armed conflict. The challenge will be deciding whether or not modern weapons actually make war more acceptable and less costly. So far the use of sanctions, the misjudgments of resistance to occupation, and unintended consequences reveal that fancy weapons do not guarantee fancy and painless outcomes. Some old-fashioned rules relating to armed conflicts cannot be easily repealed despite the optimism of the “shock and awe” crowd. It seems that primitive explosive weapons can compete quite effectively with modern technology when the determination exists and guerrilla tactics are used. The promised efficiency and the reduced casualties cannot yet be estimated.

war
The Hidden Cost of War
June 14, 2005    2005 Ron Paul 58:3
Costs are measured differently depending on whether or not a war is defensive or offensive in nature. Costs in each situation may be similar but are tolerated quite differently. The determination of those defending their homeland frequently is underestimated, making it difficult to calculate costs. Consider how long the Vietnamese fought and suffered before routing all foreign armies. For 85 years the Iraqis steadfastly have resisted all foreign occupation, and even their previous history indicates that meddling by western and Christian outsiders in their country would not be tolerated. Those who fight a defensive war see the cost of the conflict differently. Defenders have the goal of surviving and preserving their homeland, religious culture, and their way of life-- despite the shortcomings their prior leaders. Foreigners are seen as a threat. This willingness to defend to the last is especially strong if the society they fight for affords more stability than a war-torn country.

war
The Hidden Cost of War
June 14, 2005    2005 Ron Paul 58:4
Hardships can be justified in defensive wars, and use of resources is more easily justified than in an unpopular far-away conflict. Motivations are stronger, especially when the cause seems to be truly just and the people are willing to sacrifice for the common goal of survival. Defensive war provides a higher moral goal, and this idealism exceeds material concerns. In all wars, however, there are profiteers and special interests looking after their own selfish interests.

war
The Hidden Cost of War
June 14, 2005    2005 Ron Paul 58:5
Truly defensive wars never need a draft to recruit troops to fight. Large numbers voluntarily join to face the foreign threat.

war
The Hidden Cost of War
June 14, 2005    2005 Ron Paul 58:6
In a truly defensive war, huge costs in terms of money, lives, and property are endured because so much is at stake. Total loss of one’s country is the alternative.

war
The Hidden Cost of War
June 14, 2005    2005 Ron Paul 58:8
But societies that do not enjoy maximum freedom and economic prosperity still pull together to resist invaders. A spirit of nationalism brings people together when attacked, as do extreme religious beliefs. The cause of liberty or a “divine” emperor or radical Islam can inspire those willing to fight to the death to stop a foreign occupation. These motivations make the costs and risks necessary and justifiable, where a less popular offensive war will not be tolerated as long. Idealism inspires a strong defense; cynicism eventually curtails offensive wars.

war
The Hidden Cost of War
June 14, 2005    2005 Ron Paul 58:9
The cost of offensive war over time is viewed quite differently by the people who must pay. Offensive wars include those that are initiated by one country to seek some advantage over another without provocation. This includes needless intervention in the internal affairs of others and efforts at nation building, even when well intentioned. Offensive war never achieves the high moral ground in spite of proclamations made by the initiators of the hostilities. Offensive wars eventually fail, but tragically only after much pain and suffering. The cost is great, and not well accepted by the people who suffer and have nothing to gain. The early calls for patriotism and false claims generate initial support, but the people eventually tire.

war
The Hidden Cost of War
June 14, 2005    2005 Ron Paul 58:10
At the beginning of an offensive war the people are supportive because of the justifications given by government authorities, who want the war for ulterior reasons. But the demands to sacrifice liberty at home to promote freedom and democracy abroad ring hollow after the cost and policy shortcomings become evident. Initially, the positive propaganda easily overshadows the pain of the small number who must fight and suffer injury.

war
The Hidden Cost of War
June 14, 2005    2005 Ron Paul 58:11
Offensive wars are fought without as much determination as defensive wars. They tend to be less efficient and more political, causing them to linger and drift into stalemate or worse.

war
The Hidden Cost of War
June 14, 2005    2005 Ron Paul 58:12
In almost all wars, governments use deception about the enemy that needs to be vanquished to gain the support of the people. In our recent history, just since 1941, our government has entirely ignored the requirement that war be fought only after a formal congressional declaration-- further setting the stage for disenchantment once the war progresses poorly. Respect for the truth is easily sacrificed in order to rally the people for the war effort. Professional propagandists, by a coalition of the media and government officials, beat the war drums. The people follow out of fear of being labeled unpatriotic and weak in the defense of our nation-- even when there is no national security threat at all.

war
The Hidden Cost of War
June 14, 2005    2005 Ron Paul 58:13
Joining in support for the war are the special interest groups that have other agendas to pursue: profits, religious beliefs, and partisan political obligations.

war
The Hidden Cost of War
June 14, 2005    2005 Ron Paul 58:14
Ideologues use war to pursue personal ambitions unrelated to national defense, and convert the hesitant with promises of spreading democracy, freedom, and prosperity. The tools they use are unrestrained state power to force their ideals on others, no matter how unjust it seems to the unfortunate recipients of the preemptive war. For some, the more chaos the greater the opportunity to jump in and remake a country or an entire region. At times in history the opening salvo has been deliberately carried out by the ones anxious to get the war underway while blaming the opposition for the incident. The deceptions must stir passion for the war through an appeal to patriotism, nationalism, machismo, and jingoistic manliness of proving oneself in great feats of battle.

war
The Hidden Cost of War
June 14, 2005    2005 Ron Paul 58:15
This early support, before the first costs are felt, is easily achieved. Since total victory may not come quickly, however, support by the people is gradually lost. When the war is questioned, the ill-conceived justifications for getting involved are reexamined and found to have been distorted. Frequently, the people discover they were lied to, so that politicians could gain support for a war that had nothing to do with national security.

war
The Hidden Cost of War
June 14, 2005    2005 Ron Paul 58:16
These discoveries and disenchantments come first to those directly exposed to danger in the front lines, where soldiers die or lose their limbs. Military families and friends bear the burden of grief, while the majority of citizens still hope the war will end or never affect them directly in any way. But as the casualties grow the message of suffering spreads, and questions remain unanswered concerning the real reason an offensive war was necessary in the first place.

war
The Hidden Cost of War
June 14, 2005    2005 Ron Paul 58:17
Just when the human tragedy becomes evident to a majority of the citizens, other costs become noticeable. Taxes are raised, deficits explode, inflation raises its ugly head and the standard of living for the average citizen is threatened. Funds for the war, even if immediate direct taxes are not levied, must come from the domestic economy and everyone suffers. The economic consequences of the Vietnam War were felt throughout the 1970s and into the early 1980s.

war
The Hidden Cost of War
June 14, 2005    2005 Ron Paul 58:18
As the problems mount, the falsehoods and distortions on which the war was based become less believable and collectively resented. The government and the politicians who pursued the policy lose credibility. The tragedy, however, is that once even the majority discovers the truth, much more time is needed to change the course of events. This is the sad part.

war
The Hidden Cost of War
June 14, 2005    2005 Ron Paul 58:19
Political leaders who needlessly dragged us into the war cannot and will not admit an error in judgment. In fact they do the opposite to prove they were right all along. Instead of winding down, the war gets a boost to prove the policy was correct and to bring the war to a victorious conclusion. This only motivates the resistance of those fighting the defensive side of the war. More money and more troops must be sacrificed before the policy changes. Using surrogate foreign troops may seem to cut domestic troop loses in the country starting the war, but will only prolong the agony, suffering, and costs and increase the need for even more troops.

war
The Hidden Cost of War
June 14, 2005    2005 Ron Paul 58:20
Withdrawing financial support for the effort is seen as being even more unpatriotic than not having supported the war in the first place. Support for the troops becomes equivalent to supporting the flawed policy that led to the mess.

war
The Hidden Cost of War
June 14, 2005    2005 Ron Paul 58:21
No matter how unwise the policy and how inevitable the results, changing course becomes almost impossible for those individuals who promoted the war. This fear of being labeled unpatriotic and not supportive of the troops on the battlefield ironically drives a policy that is more harmful to the troops and costly to the folks at home. Sometimes it requires a new group of politicians, removed from the original decision makers who initiated the war, to bring about a shift in policy. Johnson couldn’t do it in Vietnam, and Nixon did it slowly, awkwardly and not without first expanding the war before agreeing enough was enough.

war
The Hidden Cost of War
June 14, 2005    2005 Ron Paul 58:22
With the seemingly inevitable delays in altering policy, the results are quite predictable. Costs escalate and the division between supporters and non-supporters widens. This adds to economic problems while further eroding domestic freedoms, as with all wars. On occasion, as we’ve seen in our own country, dissent invites harsh social and legal repercussions. Those who speak out in opposition will not only be ostracized, but may feel the full force of the law coming down on them. Errors in foreign affairs leading to war are hard to reverse. But even if deliberate action doesn’t change the course of events, flawed policies eventually will fail as economic laws will assert themselves.

war
The Hidden Cost of War
June 14, 2005    2005 Ron Paul 58:23
The more people have faith in and depend upon the state, the more difficult it is to keep the state from initiating wars. If the state is seen as primarily responsible for providing personal and economic security, obedience and dependency becomes a pervasive problem. If the state is limited to protecting liberty, and encourages self-reliance and personal responsibility, there’s a much better chance for limiting pro-war attitudes. The great danger of war, especially unnecessary war, is that it breeds more dependency while threatening liberty-- always allowing the state to grow regardless of existing attitudes before the war. War unfortunately allows the enemies of liberty to justify the sacrifice of personal freedoms, and the people all too often carelessly sacrifice precisely what they are supposed to be fighting for: freedom. Our revolution was a rare exception. It was one war where the people ended up with more freedom not less.

war
The Hidden Cost of War
June 14, 2005    2005 Ron Paul 58:24
Economics and War Almost every war has an economic component, some more obvious than others. Our own civil war dealt with slavery, but tariffs and economic oppression by the North were also major factors. Remember, only a small number of southern soldiers personally owned slaves, yet they were enthusiastic in their opposition to the northern invasion. The battles fought in the Middle East since WWI have had a lot to do with securing Arab oil fields for the benefit of western nations. Not only are wars fought for economic reasons, wars have profound economic consequences for the countries involved, even if one side is spared massive property damage. The economic consequences of war play a major role in bringing hostilities to an end. The consequences are less tolerated by the citizens of countries whose leaders drag them into offensive and unnecessary wars. The determination to fight on can’t compete with those who see their homeland threatened by foreign invaders.

war
The Hidden Cost of War
June 14, 2005    2005 Ron Paul 58:26
There’s essentially no one, not even among the neo-con crowd, claiming that the Iraqi war is defensive in nature for America. Early on there was an attempt to do so, and it was successful to a large degree in convincing the American people that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and was connected to al Qaeda. Now the justification for the war is completely different and far less impressive. If the current justification had been used to rally the American people and Congress from the beginning, the war would have been rejected. The fact that we are bogged down in an offensive war makes it quite difficult to extricate ourselves from the mess. Without the enthusiasm that a defensive war generates, prolonging the Iraq war will play havoc with our economy. The insult of paying for the war in addition to the fact that the war was not truly necessary makes the hardship less tolerable. This leads to domestic turmoil, as proponents become more vocal in demanding patriotic support and opponents become angrier for the burden they must bear.

war
The Hidden Cost of War
June 14, 2005    2005 Ron Paul 58:27
So far the American people have not yet felt the true burden of the costs of this war. Even with 1,700 deaths and 13,000 wounded, only a small percentage of Americans have suffered directly-- but their pain and suffering is growing and more noticeable every day. Taxes have not been raised to pay the bills for the current war, so annual deficits and national debt continue to grow. This helps delay the pain of paying the bills, but the consequences of this process are starting to be felt. Direct tax increases, a more honest way to finance foreign interventionism, would serve to restrain those who so cavalierly take us to war. The borrowing authority of governments permit wars to be started and prolonged which otherwise would be resisted if the true cost were known to the people from the beginning.

war
The Hidden Cost of War
June 14, 2005    2005 Ron Paul 58:28
Americans have an especially unique ability to finance our war efforts while minimizing the immediate effect. As the issuer of the world’s reserve currency, we are able to finance our extravagance through inflating our dollars. We have the special privilege of printing that which the world accepts as money in lieu of gold. This is an invitation to economic disaster, permitting an ill-founded foreign policy that sets the stage for problems for years to come. A system of money that politicians and central bankers could not manipulate would restrain those with grandiose ideas of empire.

war
The Hidden Cost of War
June 14, 2005    2005 Ron Paul 58:29
The Federal Reserve was created in 1913, and shortly thereafter the Fed accommodated the Wilsonians bent on entering WWI by inflating and deficit financing that ill-begotten involvement. Though it produced the 1921 depression and many other problems since, the process subsequently has become institutionalized in financing our militarism in the 20 th Century and already in the 21 st . Without the Fed’s ability to create money out of thin air, our government would be severely handicapped in waging wars that do not serve our interests. The money issue and the ability of our government to wage war are intricately related. Anyone interested in curtailing wartime spending and our militarism abroad is obligated to study the monetary system, through which our government seductively and surreptitiously finances foreign adventurism without the responsibility of informing the public of its cost or collecting the revenues required to finance the effort.

war
The Hidden Cost of War
June 14, 2005    2005 Ron Paul 58:30
Being the issuer of the world’s premier currency allows for a lot more abuse than a country would have otherwise. World businesses, governments, and central banks accept our dollars as if they are as good as gold. This is a remnant of a time when the dollar was as good as gold. That is no longer the case. The trust is still there, but it’s a misplaced trust. Since the dollar is simply a paper currency without real value, someday confidence will be lost and our goose will no longer be able to lay the golden egg. That’s when reality will set in and the real cost of our extravagance, both domestic and foreign, will be felt by all Americans. We will no longer be able to finance our war machine through willing foreigners, who now gladly take our newly printed dollars for their newly produced goods and then loan them back to us at below market interest rates to support our standard of living and our war effort.

war
The Hidden Cost of War
June 14, 2005    2005 Ron Paul 58:31
The payment by American citizens will come as the dollar loses value, interest rates rise, and prices increase. The higher prices become the tax that a more honest government would have levied directly to pay for the war effort. An unpopular war especially needs this deception as a method of payment, hiding the true costs which are dispersed and delayed through this neat little monetary trick. The real tragedy is that this “inflation tax” is not evenly distributed among all the people, and more often than not is borne disproportionately by the poor and the middle class as a truly regressive tax in the worst sense. Politicians in Washington do not see inflation as an unfair seductive tax. Our monetary policy unfortunately is never challenged even by the proponents of low taxes who care so little about deficits, but eventually it all comes to an end because economic law overrides the politicians’ deceit.

war
The Hidden Cost of War
June 14, 2005    2005 Ron Paul 58:33
This ability to print the reserve currency of the world, and the willingness of foreigners to take it, causes gross distortions in our current account deficits and total foreign indebtedness. It plays a major role in the erosion of our manufacturing base, and causes the exporting of our jobs along with our dollars. Bashing foreigners, in particularly the Chinese and the Japanese, as the cause of our dwindling manufacturing and job base is misplaced. It prevents the evaluation of our own policies-- policies that undermine and increase the price of our own manufacturing goods while distorting the trade balance. Though we continue to benefit from the current circumstances, through cheap imports on borrowed money, the shaky fundamentals make our economy and financial system vulnerable to sudden and severe adjustments. Foreigners will not finance our excessive standard of living and our expensive war overseas indefinitely. It will end! What we do in the meantime to prepare for that day will make all the difference in the world for the future of freedom in this country. It’s the future of freedom in this country that is truly the legitimate responsibility of us as Members of Congress.

war
The Hidden Cost of War
June 14, 2005    2005 Ron Paul 58:35
These economic laws will limit our ability to pursue our foreign interventions no matter how well intentioned and “successful” they may seem. The Soviet system collapsed of its own weakness. I fear an economic collapse here at home much more than an attack by a foreign country. Above all, the greatest concern should be for the systematic undermining of our personal liberties since 9/11, which will worsen with an ongoing foreign war and the severe economic problems that are coming.

war
The Hidden Cost of War
June 14, 2005    2005 Ron Paul 58:36
Since we are not fighting the war to defend our homeland and we abuse so many of our professed principles, we face great difficulties in resolving the growing predicament in which we find ourselves. Our options are few, and admitting errors in judgment is not likely to occur. Moral forces are against us as we find ourselves imposing our will on a people six thousand miles from our shores. How would the American people respond if a foreign country, with people of a different color, religion, and language imposed itself on us to make us conform to their notions of justice and goodness? None of us would sit idly by. This is why those who see themselves as defenders of their homeland and their way of life have the upper hand regardless of the shock and awe military power available to us. At this point our power works perversely. The stronger and more violent we are the greater the resistance becomes.

war
The Hidden Cost of War
June 14, 2005    2005 Ron Paul 58:37
The neo-conservatives who took us to war under false pretenses either didn’t know or didn’t care about the history and traditions of the Iraqi people. Surely they must have heard of an Islamic defensive jihad that is easy to promote when one’s country is being attacked by foreign forces. Family members have religious obligations to avenge all killings by foreign forces, which explains why killing insurgents only causes their numbers to multiply. This family obligation to seek revenge is closely tied to achieving instant eternal martyrdom through vengeful suicide attacks. Parents of martyrs do not weep as the parents of our soldiers do; they believe the suicide bombers and their families are glorified. These religious beliefs cannot simply be changed during the war. The only thing we can do is remove the incentives we give to the religious leaders of the jihad by leaving them alone. Without our presence in the Middle East, whether on the Arabian Peninsula or in Iraq, the rallying cry for suicidal jihadists would ring hollow. Was there any fear for our national security from a domestic terrorist attack by Islamists before we put a base in Saudi Arabia?

war
The Hidden Cost of War
June 14, 2005    2005 Ron Paul 58:39
A free society produces more wealth for more people than any other. That wealth for many years can be confiscated to pay for the militarism advocated by those who promote preemptive war. But militarism and its costs undermine the very market system that provided the necessary resources to begin with. As this happens, productivity and wealth is diminished, putting pressure on authorities to ruthlessly extract even more funds from the people. For what they cannot collect through taxes they take through currency inflation-- eventually leading to an inability to finance unnecessary and questionable warfare and bringing the process to an end. It happened to the Soviets and their military machine collapsed. Hitler destroyed Germany’s economy, but he financed his aggression for several years by immediately stealing the gold reserves of every country he occupied. That, too, was self-limited and he met his military defeat. For us it’s less difficult since we can confiscate the wealth of American citizens and the savers of the world merely by printing more dollars to support our militarism. Though different in detail, we too must face the prospect that this system of financing is seriously flawed, and our expensive policy of worldwide interventionism will collapse. Only a profound change in attitudes regarding our foreign policy, our fiscal policy, and our monetary policy will save us from ourselves.

war
The Hidden Cost of War
June 14, 2005    2005 Ron Paul 58:41
This type of society would be greatly enhanced with a worldwide commodity standard of money. This would prevent the imbalances that are a great burden to today’s economy. Our current account deficits and total foreign indebtedness would not occur under an honest non-political commodity money. Competitive devaluations and abnormally fixed exchanged rates would not be possible as tools of protectionism. We can be certain that the distortions in trade balance and the WTO trade wars that are multiplying will eventually lead to a serious challenge to worldwide trade. The tragedy of trade wars is that they frequently lead to military wars between nations, and until the wealth is consumed and young men are no longer available to fight and die the process will cost plenty.

war
The Hidden Cost of War
June 14, 2005    2005 Ron Paul 58:43
Summary 1. The costs of war are always much more than anticipated, while the benefits are much less.

war
The Hidden Cost of War
June 14, 2005    2005 Ron Paul 58:44
2. The cost of war is more than just the dollars spent; it includes deaths, injuries, and destruction along with the unintended consequences that go on for decades.

war
The Hidden Cost of War
June 14, 2005    2005 Ron Paul 58:45
3. Support for offensive wars wears thin; especially when they are not ended quickly.

war
The Hidden Cost of War
June 14, 2005    2005 Ron Paul 58:46
4. The Iraq war now has been going on for 15 years with no end in sight.

war
The Hidden Cost of War
June 14, 2005    2005 Ron Paul 58:47
5. Ulterior motives too often preempt national security in offensive wars.

war
The Hidden Cost of War
June 14, 2005    2005 Ron Paul 58:50
8. World government is no panacea for limiting war.

war
The Hidden Cost of War
June 14, 2005    2005 Ron Paul 58:51
9. Most wars could be avoided with better diplomacy, a mutual understanding of minding one’s own business, and respect for the right of self-determination.

war
Belief In The Constitution Is A Conservative View
14 June 2005    2005 Ron Paul 60:2
I think the points the gentleman made about the issue of whether the conservative position is for the war or against the war is, I think, very appropriate, because too often it is assumed if there is a war going on, the conservative position is you have to promote that war.

war
Belief In The Constitution Is A Conservative View
14 June 2005    2005 Ron Paul 60:3
As a matter of fact, sometimes I like to think of the term, which is conservative, and that is belief in the Constitution, which is a very conservative view. I believe if we adhered more strictly to the Constitution, we would probably be involved much less so in these kinds of wars.

war
Belief In The Constitution Is A Conservative View
14 June 2005    2005 Ron Paul 60:4
During the time when this resolution came up, I am on the Committee on International Relations, I offered an amendment to declare war, not that I supported the war nor would I vote for the amendment, but to make the point that if this country, this Congress wants to go to war, they ought to be up front with it and make a declaration of war, decide what we have to do and go and win it. But not one single person voted to declare war. As a matter of fact, it was turned back to me and said, why would I think of bringing up such a frivolous notion about the Constitution and declaration of war? Another Member said, That part of the Constitution is anachronistic. We don’t look at that anymore. Mr. DUNCAN. If the gentleman will yield, just one brief comment. Probably, unfortunately, one of the weakest arguments up here against any legislation is that it is unconstitutional, but it should be the strongest argument.

war
Belief In The Constitution Is A Conservative View
14 June 2005    2005 Ron Paul 60:5
Mr. PAUL. If we do not use that argument, what good is our oath of office? What good is our oath to our people when we talk to them at home? I think that is our obligation. Sometimes I will take a vote that I am not particularly happy with, but I will do it because I believe I am adhering to my oath of office and believe it is the process that is not correct and we have to change the Constitution if we need to do it. I think this is so important, because I do not think we have the authority in the Constitution to start preemptive war, to go into nationbuilding and to change regimes. I just cannot see that it is there. I think that has led us to get into these problems since World War II especially.

war
Belief In The Constitution Is A Conservative View
14 June 2005    2005 Ron Paul 60:6
Of course, I did mention in my prepared text that declaration of war is important but also if we would restrain, as the Constitution does, the monetary authorities from printing money at will to finance wars like this, I think we would be fighting a lot less wars.

war
PATRIOT Act Violates Fourth Amendment
15 June 2005    2005 Ron Paul 64:3
One of the arguments is that success has been proven that these easy-to-obtain search warrants have produced success in catching certain criminals, but that does not prove that we could not have done it legitimately by following the fourth amendment; so we do not know whether they would not have been caught or not. Another thing is; does sacrificing security and liberty ever justify more catching of so-called criminals? What if we had a total police state? What if we turned our whole country into a concentration camp? We could make sure there would be no crimes whatsoever.

war
Protect Privacy
15 June 2005    2005 Ron Paul 65:3
I just do not understand how anybody would feel safer by the government being able to get a list of books that the American people read. Now, if there is a special condition that exists where they want to know about a particular individual, nothing precludes a legitimate search warrant to find out exactly what this information is about. But I just think that it is totally unnecessary to have this.

war
Protect Privacy
15 June 2005    2005 Ron Paul 65:4
This morning, the gentleman from Vermont was on C–SPAN; and after he left the studio, a woman called in that I found very fascinating. She was from Russia and she talked about how things were started in Russia and how the police had an ability to come into their homes without search warrants. Then she said her family had an exposure in Germany and the same thing happened. It was unrestrained government’s ability to come in and know what people were doing. She spoke about this in generalities; and she was, in an alarmist sense, she was saying, and right now, in America, that is what we are doing with the PATRIOT Act, and she talked about it in general.

war
Amendment No. 11 Offered By Mr. Paul
16 June 2005    2005 Ron Paul 66:12
The first thing it would do is it would change the definition of terrorism as related to United Nations, and it would change the ability and the responsibility of the United Nations to become involved. Today it is currently understood that if there is an invasion of one country by another, the United Nations is called up, and they assume responsibility, and then they can put in troops to do whatever they think is necessary. But if this new policy is adopted, it will literally institutionalize the policy that was used by our own government to go into Iraq, and that is preemptive war, preemptive strikes, to go in and either support an insurgency, or in order to get rid of a regime, or vice versa. This is a significant change and an expansion of U.N. authority. I, quite frankly, think that this is a move in the wrong direction.

war
Rebutting the Critics of the Iraq Withdrawal Resolution
June 21, 2005    2005 Ron Paul 69:6
But what we convey or do not convey to the Iraqi people is not the most crucial issue. The more important issues are: Do the American people deserve to know more about our goals, the length of time we can expect to be in Iraq, and how many more Americans are likely to be killed and wounded; will there be a military draft; what is the likelihood of lingering diseases that our veterans may suffer (remember Agent Orange and Persian Gulf War Syndrome?); and how many more tax dollars are required to fight this war indefinitely?

war
Rebutting the Critics of the Iraq Withdrawal Resolution
June 21, 2005    2005 Ron Paul 69:9
Continuing to justify our presence in Iraq because we must punish those responsible for 9/11 is disingenuous to say the least. We are sadly now at greater risk than before 9/11. We refuse to deal with our own borders while chastising the Syrians for not securing their borders with Iraq. An end game needs to be in place, and the American people deserve to know exactly what that plan is. They are the ones who must send their sons and daughters off to war and pay the bills when they come due.

war
Introduction of the Industrial Hemp Farming Act
June 22, 2005    2005 Ron Paul 70:5
Industrial hemp is a crop that was grown legally throughout the United States for most of our history. In fact, during World War II the federal government actively encouraged American farmers to grow industrial hemp to help the war effort. The Department of Agriculture even produced a film, “Hemp for Victory,” encouraging the plant’s cultivation.

war
Statement on the Flag Burning Amendment
June 22, 2005    2005 Ron Paul 71:16
It is assumed that many in the military support this amendment, but in fact there are veterans who have been great heroes in war on both sides of this issue. I would like to quote a past national commander of the American Legion, Keith Kreul. He said:

war
Tribute To Rear Admiral John D. Butler
24 June 2005    2005 Ron Paul 74:2
Many of us have come to know and recognize Rear Admiral Butler over the past two years as he has served as the Program Executive Officer (Submarines) since February 2003. During his tenure as the Navy’s top submarine acquisition officer, Rear Admiral Butler delivered USS Virginia (SSN 774) and USS Jimmy Carter (USS 23). Virginia’s commissioning in October 2004 ended the longest drought of submarine commissioning in that service’s 105-year history. Whereas Virginia is the first of her class, Jimmy Carter is the last of the Sea Wolf Class. Jimmy Carter brings a host of new and revolutionary capabilities to the fleet that will help the United States to win the Global War on Terror.

war
Tribute To Rear Admiral John D. Butler
24 June 2005    2005 Ron Paul 74:4
Admiral Butler has also made great efforts in converting four Ohio Class Trident Ballistic Missile Submarines into the transformation SSGNs. Each of these 560-feet long, 18,000- ton submarines will be able to carry up to 154 precision-guided Tomahawk Land-Attack cruise missiles, 66 Navy S and to support covert Special Operations, each SSGN will be able to carry two Dry-Deck Shelters, two Advanced SEAL Delivery Systems, or one of each top the ships’ integrated lock-in/lock-out trunks. With the Ohio Class’ inherent stealth, these SSGNs, the first of which delivers in November 2005, will be a potent warfighter in the Global War on Terror.

war
Tribute To Rear Admiral John D. Butler
24 June 2005    2005 Ron Paul 74:7
Admiral Butler’s shore assignments have included: Attack Submarine Training Head for the Deputy Chief of Naval Operations (Submarine Warfare); AN/BSY–1 Submarine Combat and Acoustic System (PMS417) Chief Engineer for Program Executive Officer, Submarine Combat and Weapons Systems; Sea Wolf Class Submarine (PMS350) Assistant Program Manager (Design and Construction) for Program Executive Officer, Submarines; Strategic and Attack Submarines (PMS392) Major Program Manager for Naval Sea Systems Command; and Executive Assistant and Naval Aide to the Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Research, Development and Acquisition). He has also served in temporary assignments attached to the Applied Physics Laboratory Ice Station, Arctic Ocean; Supervisor of Shipbuilding, Groton, CT, and Newport News, VA; and attached in support of U.S. Embassies at Cairo, Egypt; Moscow, Russia; and Panama City, Panama. Over the course of his career, Admiral Butler has helped to design, build, and deliver a total of 23 submarines — nearly one-third of today’s total force.

war
Introducing The Freedom From Unnecessary Litigation Act
27 June 2005    2005 Ron Paul 77:3
The malpractice crisis has contributed to the closing of a maternity ward in Philadelphia and a trauma center in Nevada. Meanwhile, earlier this year, surgeons in West Virginia walked off the job to protest increasing liability rates. These are a few of the examples of how access to quality health care is jeopardized by the epidemic of large (and medically questionable) malpractice awards, and the resulting increase in insurance rates.

war
Foreign Aid
28 June 2005    2005 Ron Paul 81:5
I was here in 2000 when this debate was going on and strongly opposed it for various reasons, but I remember the pretext for Plan Colombia. The pretext was the drug war and this is what we have heard about today. The evidence is very flimsy. If there was any success on the drug war, production would be down and prices would be up. Production is up and prices are down, and that is an economic absolute.

war
SUICIDE TERRORISM
July 14, 2005    2005 Ron Paul 84:1
Mr. Speaker, more than half of the American people now believe that the Iraqi war has made the U.S. less safe. This is a dramatic shift in sentiment from 2 years ago. Early support for the war reflected a hope for a safer America, and it was thought to be an appropriate response to the 9/11 attacks. The argument was that the enemy attacked us because of our freedom, our prosperity, and our way of life. It was further argued that it was important to engage the potential terrorists over there rather than here. Many bought this argument and supported the war. That is now changing.

war
Amend The PATRIOT Act — Part 1
21 July 2005    2005 Ron Paul 87:4
It seems like this should go without saying. I cannot imagine anybody disagreeing with this. But our history shows that there has been abuse in this area. As far back as the Civil War, World War I, and World War II, very often speaking out on political issues were met with law enforcement officials actually charging them with crimes and even having individuals imprisoned. In the 1960s we remember that there was wiretapping of Martin Luther King and other political organizations. In the 1970s we know about the illegal wiretapping and other activities associated with Watergate, and also in the 1990s we are aware of IRS audits of a political and religious organization based only on the fact that they were religious and political.

war
Amend The PATRIOT Act — Part 2
21 July 2005    2005 Ron Paul 88:10
H.R. 3199 continues to violate the constitution by allowing searches and seizures of American citizens and their property without a warrant issued by an independent court upon a finding of probable cause. The drafters of the Bill of Rights considered this essential protection against an overreaching government. For example, Section 215 of the PATRIOT Act, popularly known as the libraries provision, allows Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Courts, whose standards hardly meet the constitutional requirements of the Fourth Amendment, to issue warrants for individual records, including medical and library records. H.R. 3199 does reform this provision by clarifying that it can be used to acquire the records of an American citizen only during terrorist investigations. However, this marginal change fails to bring the section up to the constitutional standard of probable cause.

war
Amend The PATRIOT Act — Part 2
21 July 2005    2005 Ron Paul 88:11
Requiring a showing of probable cause before a warrant may be issued will in no way hamper terrorist investigations. For one thing, federal authorities would still have numerous tools available to investigate and monitor the activities of non-citizens suspected of terrorism. Second, restoring the Fourth Amendment protections would in no way interfere with the provisions of the PATRIOT Act that removed the firewalls that prevented the government’s law enforcement and intelligence agencies from sharing information.

war
Amend The PATRIOT Act — Part 2
21 July 2005    2005 Ron Paul 88:12
The probable cause requirements will not delay a terrorist investigation. Preparations can be made for the issuance of a warrant in the event of an emergency and allowances can be made for cases where law enforcement does not have time to obtain a warrant. In fact, a requirement that law enforcement demonstrate probable cause may help law enforcement focus their efforts on true threats, thus avoiding the problem of information overload that is handicapping the government’s efforts to identify sources of terrorists’ financing.

war
Amend The PATRIOT Act — Part 2
21 July 2005    2005 Ron Paul 88:13
The requirement that law enforcement demonstrate probable cause before a judge preserves the Founders’ system of checks and balances that protects against one branch gathering too much power. The Founders recognized that one of the chief dangers to liberty was the concentration of power in a few hands, which is why they carefully divided power among the three branches. I would remind those of my colleagues who will claim that we must set aside the constitutional requirements during war that the founders were especially concerned about the consolidation of power during times of war and national emergencies. My colleagues should also keep in mind that PATRIOT Act powers have already been used in non-terrorism related cases, most notably in a bribery investigation in Nevada.

war
Don’t Reauthorize the Patriot Act
July 21, 2005    2005 Ron Paul 89:4
HR 3199 continues to violate the constitution by allowing searches and seizures of American citizens and their property without a warrant issued by an independent court upon a finding of probable cause. The drafters of the Bill of Rights considered this essential protection against an overreaching government. For example, Section 215 of the PATRIOT Act, popularly known as the library provision, allows Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Courts, whose standards hardly meet the constitutional requirements of the Fourth Amendment, to issue warrants for individual records, including medical and library records. HR 3199 does reform this provision by clarifying that it can be used to acquire the records of an American citizen only during terrorist investigations. However, this marginal change fails to bring the section up to the constitutional standard of probable cause.

war
Don’t Reauthorize the Patriot Act
July 21, 2005    2005 Ron Paul 89:5
Requiring a showing of probable cause before a warrant may be issued will in no way hamper terrorist investigations. For one thing, federal authorities still would have numerous tools available to investigate and monitor the activities of non-citizens suspected of terrorism. Second, restoring the Fourth Amendment protections would in no way interfere with the provisions of the PATRIOT Act removing the firewalls that prevented the government’s law enforcement and intelligence agencies from sharing information.

war
Don’t Reauthorize the Patriot Act
July 21, 2005    2005 Ron Paul 89:6
The probable cause requirements will not delay a terrorist investigation. Preparations can be made for the issuance of a warrant in the event of an emergency, and allowances can be made for cases where law enforcement does not have time to obtain a warrant. In fact, a requirement that law enforcement demonstrate probable cause may help law enforcement focus their efforts on true threats, thus avoiding the problem of information overload that is handicapping the government’s efforts to identify sources of terrorist financing.

war
Don’t Reauthorize the Patriot Act
July 21, 2005    2005 Ron Paul 89:7
The requirement that law enforcement demonstrate probable cause before a judge preserves the Founders’ system of checks and balances that protects against one branch gathering too much power. The Founders recognized that one of the chief dangers to liberty was the concentration of power in a few hands, which is why they carefully divided power among the three branches. I would remind those of my colleagues who claim that we must set aside the constitutional requirements during war that the founders were especially concerned about the consolidation of power during times of war and national emergences. My colleagues should also keep in mind that PATRIOT Act powers have already been used in non-terrorism related cases, most notably in a bribery investigation in Nevada.

war
Statement on HR 3283, the United States Trade Rights Enforcement Act
July 26, 2005    2005 Ron Paul 90:1
Mr. Speaker: I rise in strong opposition to this legislation. Isn’t it ironic that the proponents of “free trade agreements” like CAFTA are lining up squarely behind a bill like this that threatens a trade war with China, and at the least calls for the United States to initiate protectionist measures such as punitive tariffs against “subsidized” sectors of the Chinese economy? In reality, this bill, which appeared out of the blue on the House Floor as a suspension bill, is part of a deal made with several Members in return for a few votes on CAFTA. That is why it is ironic: to get to “free trade” with Central America we first need to pass protectionist legislation regarding China.

war
Introducing The Rice Farmers Fairness Act
6 September 2005    2005 Ron Paul 93:2
This is a “something for nothing” subsidy of the worst kind! As a result of this provision, there is a very real threat to the agricultural infrastructure. With landowners receiving subsidies in spite of lack of production, the entire warehousing, processing and “value-added” industries are put at risk.

war
Why We Fight
September 8, 2005    2005 Ron Paul 95:1
Many reasons have been given for why we fight and our youth must die in Iraq. The reasons now given for why we must continue this war bear no resemblance to the reasons given to gain the support of the American people and the United States Congress prior to our invasion in March of 2003. Before the war, we were told we faced an imminent threat to our national security from Saddam Hussein. This rationale, now proven grossly mistaken, has been changed. Now we’re told we must honor the fallen by “completing the mission.” To do otherwise would demean the sacrifice of those who have died or been wounded. Any lack of support for “completing the mission” is said, by the promoters of the war, to be unpatriotic, un-American, and detrimental to the troops. They insist the only way one can support the troops is to never waver on the policy of nation building, no matter how ill-founded that policy may be. The obvious flaw in this argument is that the mission, of which they so reverently speak, has changed constantly from the very beginning.

war
Why We Fight
September 8, 2005    2005 Ron Paul 95:2
Though most people think this war started in March of 2003, the seeds were sown many years before. The actual military conflict, involving U.S. troops against Iraq, began in January 1991. The prelude to this actually dates back over a hundred years, when the value of Middle East oil was recognized by the industrialized West.

war
Why We Fight
September 8, 2005    2005 Ron Paul 95:4
The desire by American policymakers to engineer regime change in Iraq had been smoldering since the first Persian Gulf conflict in 1991. This reflected a dramatic shift in our policy, since in the 1980s we maintained a friendly alliance with Saddam Hussein as we assisted him in his war against our arch nemesis, the Iranian Ayatollah. Most Americans ignore that we provided assistance to this ruthless dictator with biological and chemical weapons technology. We heard no complaints in the 1980s about his treatment of the Kurds and Shiites, or the ruthless war he waged against Iran. Our policy toward Iraq played a major role in convincing Saddam Hussein he had free reign in the Middle East, and the results demonstrate the serious shortcomings of our foreign policy of interventionism that we have followed now for over a hundred years.

war
Why We Fight
September 8, 2005    2005 Ron Paul 95:5
In 1998 Congress capitulated to the desires of the Clinton administration and overwhelmingly passed the Iraq Liberation Act, which stated quite clearly that our policy was to get rid of Saddam Hussein. This act made it official: “The policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein.” This resolution has been cited on numerous occasions by neo-conservatives as justification for the pre-emptive, deliberate invasion of Iraq. When the resolution was debated, I saw it as a significant step toward a war that would bear no good fruit. No legitimate national security concerns were cited for this dramatic and serious shift in policy.

war
Why We Fight
September 8, 2005    2005 Ron Paul 95:6
Shortly after the new administration took office in January 2001, this goal of eliminating Saddam Hussein quickly morphed into a policy of remaking the entire Middle East, starting with regime change in Iraq. This aggressive interventionist policy surprised some people, since the victorious 2000 campaign indicated we should pursue a foreign policy of humility, no nation building, reduced deployment of our forces overseas, and a rejection of the notion that we serve as world policemen. The 9/11 disaster proved a catalyst to push for invading Iraq and restructuring the entire Middle East. Though the plan had existed for years, it quickly was recognized that the fear engendered by the 9/11 attacks could be used to mobilize the American people and Congress to support this war. Nevertheless, supposedly legitimate reasons had to be given for the already planned pre-emptive war, and as we now know the “intelligence had to be fixed to the policy.”

war
Why We Fight
September 8, 2005    2005 Ron Paul 95:9
Behind the scenes many were quite aware that Israel’s influence on our foreign policy played a role. She had argued for years, along with the neo-conservatives, for an Iraqi regime change. This support was nicely coordinated with the Christian Zionists’ enthusiasm for the war.

war
Why We Fight
September 8, 2005    2005 Ron Paul 95:10
As these reasons for the war lost credibility and support, other reasons were found for why we had to fight. As the lone superpower, we were told we had a greater responsibility to settle the problems of the world lest someone else gets involved. Maintaining and expanding our empire is a key element of the neo-conservative philosophy. This notion that we must fight to spread American goodness was well received by these neo-Jacobins. They saw the war as a legitimate moral crusade, arguing that no one should be allowed to stand in our way! In their minds using force to spread democracy is legitimate and necessary.

war
Why We Fight
September 8, 2005    2005 Ron Paul 95:11
We also were told the war was necessary for national security purposes because of the threat Saddam Hussein presented, although the evidence was fabricated. Saddam Hussein’s ability to attack us was non-existent, but the American people were ripe for alarming predictions by those who wanted this war.

war
Why We Fight
September 8, 2005    2005 Ron Paul 95:12
Of course the routine canard for our need to fight, finance, and meddle around the world ever since the Korean War was repeated incessantly: UN Resolutions had to be enforced lest the United Nations be discredited. The odd thing was that on this occasion the United Nations itself did everything possible to stop our pre-emptive attack. And as it turned out, Saddam Hussein was a lot closer to compliance than anyone dreamed. It wasn’t long before concern for the threat of Saddam Hussein became near hysterical, drowning out any reasoned opposition to the planned war.

war
Why We Fight
September 8, 2005    2005 Ron Paul 95:13
The one argument that was not publicly used by those who propagandized for the war may well be the most important-- oil. Though the administration in 1990 hinted briefly that we had to eject Saddam Hussein from Kuwait because of oil, the stated reasons for that conflict soon transformed into stopping a potential Hitler and enforcing UN resolutions.

war
Why We Fight
September 8, 2005    2005 Ron Paul 95:14
Publicly oil is not talked about very much, but behind the scenes many acknowledge this is the real reason we fight. This is not only the politicians who say this. American consumers have always enjoyed cheap gasoline and want it kept that way. The real irony is that the war has reduced Iraqi oil production by one-half million barrels per day and prices are soaring-- demonstrating another unintended economic consequence of war.

war
Why We Fight
September 8, 2005    2005 Ron Paul 95:15
Oil in the Middle East has been a big issue since the industrial revolution, when it was realized that the black substance bubbling out of the ground in places like Iraq had great value. It’s interesting to note that in the early 20 th century Germany, fully aware of oil’s importance, allied itself with the Turkish Ottoman Empire and secured the earliest rights to drill Iraqi oil. They built the Anatalia railroad between Baghdad and Basra, and obtained oil and mineral rights on twenty kilometers on each side of this right-of-way. World War I changed all this, allowing the French and the British to divide the oil wealth of the entire Middle East.

war
Why We Fight
September 8, 2005    2005 Ron Paul 95:17
After World War II the U.S. emerged as the #1 world power, and moved to assume what some believed was our responsibility to control Middle East oil in competition with the Soviets. This role prompted us to use our CIA, along with the help of the British, to oust democratically elected Mohammed Mosadeh from power in Iran and install the Shah as a U.S. puppet.

war
Why We Fight
September 8, 2005    2005 Ron Paul 95:18
We not only supported Saddam Hussein against Iran, we also supported Osama bin Laden in the 1980s-- aggravating the situation in the Middle East and causing unintended consequences. With CIA assistance we helped develop the educational program to radicalize Islamic youth in many Arab nations, especially in Saudi Arabia to fight the Soviets. We even provided a nuclear reactor to Iran in 1967-- which today leads us to threaten another war. All of this has come back to haunt us. Meddling in the affairs of others has consequences.

war
Why We Fight
September 8, 2005    2005 Ron Paul 95:19
Finally, after years of plotting and maneuvering, the neo-conservative plan to invade Iraq came before the U.S. House in October 2002 to be rubber-stamped. Though the plan was hatched years before, and the official policy of the United States government was to remove Saddam Hussein ever since 1998, various events delayed the vote until this time. By October the vote was deemed urgent, so as to embarrass anyone who opposed it. This would make them politically vulnerable in the November election. The ploy worked. The resolution passed easily, and it served the interests of proponents of war in the November election.

war
Why We Fight
September 8, 2005    2005 Ron Paul 95:20
The resolution, HJ RES 114, explicitly cited the Iraqi Liberation Act of 1998 as one of the reasons we had to go to war. The authorization granted the President to use force against Iraq cited two precise reasons:

war
Why We Fight
September 8, 2005    2005 Ron Paul 95:24
The fact that Congress is not permitted under the Constitution to transfer the war power to a president was ignored. Only Congress can declare war, if we were inclined to follow the rule of law. To add insult to injury, HJ RES 114 cited United Nations resolutions as justifications for the war. Ignoring the Constitution while using the UN to justify the war showed callous disregard for the restraints carefully written in the Constitution. The authors deliberately wanted to make war difficult to enter without legislative debate, and they purposely kept the responsibility out of the hands of the executive branch. Surely they never dreamed an international government would have influence over our foreign policy or tell us when we should enter into armed conflict.

war
Why We Fight
September 8, 2005    2005 Ron Paul 95:25
The legal maneuvering to permit this war was tragic to watch, but the notion that Saddam Hussein-- a third world punk without an air force, navy, and hardly an army or any anti-aircraft weaponry-- was an outright threat to the United States six thousand miles away, tells you how hysterical fear can be used to pursue a policy of needless war for quite different reasons.

war
Why We Fight
September 8, 2005    2005 Ron Paul 95:26
Today, though, all the old reasons for going to war have been discredited, and are no longer used to justify continuing the war. Now we are told we must “complete the mission,” and yet no one seems to know exactly what the mission is or when it can be achieved. By contrast, when war is properly declared against a country we can expect an all-out effort until the country surrenders. Without a declaration of war as the Constitution requires, it’s left to the President to decide when to start the war and when the war is over. We had sad experiences with this process in Korea and especially in Vietnam.

war
Why We Fight
September 8, 2005    2005 Ron Paul 95:27
Pursuing this war merely to save face, or to claim it’s a way to honor those who already have died or been wounded, is hardly a reason that more people should die. We’re told that we can’t leave until we have a democratic Iraq. But what if Iraq votes to have a Shiite theocracy, which it looks like the majority wants as their form of government-- and women, Christians, and Sunnis are made second-class citizens? It’s a preposterous notion and it points out the severe shortcomings of a democracy where a majority rules and minorities suffer.

war
Why We Fight
September 8, 2005    2005 Ron Paul 95:28
Thankfully, our founding fathers understood the great dangers of a democracy. They insisted on a constitutional republic with a weak central government and an executive branch beholden to the legislative branch in foreign affairs. The sooner we realize we can’t afford this war the better. We’ve gotten ourselves into a civil war within the Islamic community.

war
Why We Fight
September 8, 2005    2005 Ron Paul 95:29
But could it be, as it had been for over a hundred years prior to our invasion, that oil really is the driving issue behind a foreign presence in the Middle East? It’s rather ironic that the consequence of our intervention has been skyrocketing oil prices, with Iraqi oil production still significantly below pre-war levels.

war
Why We Fight
September 8, 2005    2005 Ron Paul 95:30
If democracy is not all it’s cracked up to be, and a war for oil is blatantly immoral and unproductive, the question still remains-- why do we fight? More precisely, why should we fight? When is enough killing enough? Why does man so casually accept war, which brings so much suffering to so many, when so little is achieved? Why do those who suffer and die so willingly accept the excuses for the wars that need not be fought? Why do so many defer to those who are enthused about war, and who claim it’s a solution to a problem, without asking them why they themselves do not fight? It’s always other men and other men’s children who must sacrifice life and limb for the reasons that make no sense, reasons that are said to be our patriotic duty to fight and die for. How many useless wars have been fought for lies that deserved no hearing? When will it all end?

war
Why We Fight
September 8, 2005    2005 Ron Paul 95:32
Since no logical answers can be given for why we fight, it might be better to talk about why we should not fight. A case can be made that if this war does not end soon it will spread and engulf the entire region. We’ve already been warned that war against Iran is an option that remains on the table for reasons no more reliable than those given for the pre-emptive strike against Iraq. Let me give you a few reasons why this war in Iraq should not be fought.

war
Why We Fight
September 8, 2005    2005 Ron Paul 95:33
It is not in our national interest. On the contrary, pursuing this war endangers our security, increases the chances of a domestic terrorist attack, weakens our defenses, and motivates our enemies to join together in opposition to our domineering presence around the world. Does anyone believe that Russia, China, and Iran will give us free reign over the entire Middle East and its oil? Tragically, we’re setting the stage for a much bigger conflict. It’s possible that this war could evolve into something much worse than Vietnam.

war
Why We Fight
September 8, 2005    2005 Ron Paul 95:34
This war has never been declared. It’s not a constitutional war, and without a proper beginning there can be no proper ending. The vagueness instills doubts in all Americans, both supporters and non-supporters, as to what will be accomplished. Supporters of the war want total victory, which is not achievable with a vague mission. Now the majority of Americans are demanding an end to this dragged-out war that many fear will spread before it’s over.

war
Why We Fight
September 8, 2005    2005 Ron Paul 95:36
Those who argue that it’s legitimate to protect “our oil” someday must realize that it’s not our oil, no matter how strong and sophisticated our military is. We know the war so far has played havoc with oil prices, and the market continues to discount problems in the region for years to come. No end is in sight regarding the uncertainty of Middle East oil production caused by this conflict.

war
Why We Fight
September 8, 2005    2005 Ron Paul 95:37
So far our policies inadvertently have encouraged the development of an Islamic state, with Iranian-allied Shiites in charge. This has led to Iranian support for the insurgents, and has placed Iran in a position of becoming the true victor in this war as its alliance with Iraq grows. This could place Iran and its allies in the enviable position of becoming the oil powerhouse in the region, if not the world, once it has control over the oil fields near Basra.

war
Why We Fight
September 8, 2005    2005 Ron Paul 95:39
One of the original stated justifications for the war has been accomplished. Since 1998 the stated policy of the United States government was to bring about regime change and get rid of Saddam Hussein. This has been done, but instead of peace and stability we have sown the seeds of chaos. Nevertheless, the goal of removing Saddam Hussein has been achieved and is a reason to stop the fighting.

war
Why We Fight
September 8, 2005    2005 Ron Paul 95:41
No evidence existed to show an alliance between Iraq and al Qaeda before the war, and ironically our presence there is now encouraging al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden to move in to fill the vacuum we created. The only relationship between Iraq and 9/11 is that our policy in the Middle East continues to increase the likelihood of another terrorist attack on our homeland.

war
Why We Fight
September 8, 2005    2005 Ron Paul 95:43
Eventually, we will come to realize that the Wilsonian idealism of using America’s resources to promote democracy around the world through force is a seriously flawed policy. Wilson pretended to be spreading democracy worldwide, and yet women in the U.S. at that time were not allowed to vote. Democracy, where the majority dictates the rules, cannot protect minorities and individual rights. And in addition, using force to impose our will on others almost always backfires. There’s no reason that our efforts in the 21 st century to impose a western style government in Iraq will be any more successful than the British were after World War I. This especially can’t work if democracy is only an excuse for our occupation and the real reasons are left unrecognized.

war
Why We Fight
September 8, 2005    2005 Ron Paul 95:44
It boils down to the fact that we don’t really have any sound reasons for continuing this fight. The original reasons for the war never existed, and the new reasons aren’t credible. We hear only that we must carry on so those who have already suffered death and injury didn’t do so in vain. If the original reasons for starting the war were false, simply continuing in the name of those fallen makes no sense. More loss of life can never justify earlier loss of life if they died for false reasons. This being the case, it’s time to reassess the policies that have gotten us into this mess.

war
Why We Fight
September 8, 2005    2005 Ron Paul 95:47
By rejecting the advice of the Founders and our early presidents, our leaders have drifted away from the admonitions against entangling alliances and nation building. Policing the world is not our calling or our mandate. Besides, the Constitution doesn’t permit it. Undeclared wars have not enhanced our national security.

war
Why We Fight
September 8, 2005    2005 Ron Paul 95:48
The consensus on foreign interventionism has been pervasive. Both major parties have come to accept our role as the world’s policeman, despite periodic campaign rhetoric stating otherwise. The media in particular, especially in the early stages, propagandize in favor of war. It’s only when the costs become prohibitive and the war loses popular support that the media criticize the effort.

war
Why We Fight
September 8, 2005    2005 Ron Paul 95:49
It isn’t only our presidents that deserve the blame when they overstep their authority and lead the country into inappropriate wars. Congress deserves equally severe criticism for acquiescing to the demands of the executive to go needlessly to war. It has been known throughout history that kings, dictators, and the executive branch of governments are always overly eager to go to war. This is precisely why our founders tried desperately to keep decisions about going to war in the hands of the legislature. But this process has failed us for the last 65 years. Congress routinely has rubber stamped the plans of our presidents and even the United Nations to enter into war through the back door.

war
Why We Fight
September 8, 2005    2005 Ron Paul 95:50
Congress at any time can prevent or stop all undue foreign entanglements pursued by the executive branch merely by refusing to finance them. The current Iraq war, now going on for 15 years, spans the administration of three presidents and many congresses controlled by both parties. This makes Congress every bit as responsible for the current quagmire as the president. But the real problem is the acceptance by our country as a whole of the principle of meddling in the internal affairs of other nations when unrelated to our national security. Intervention, no matter how well intended, inevitably boomerangs and comes back to haunt us. Minding our own business is not only economical; it’s the only policy that serves our national security interests and the cause of peace.

war
Why We Fight
September 8, 2005    2005 Ron Paul 95:51
The neo-conservatives who want to remake the entire Middle East are not interested in the pertinent history of this region. Creating an artificial Iraq after World War I as a unified country was like mixing water and oil. It has only led to frustration, anger, and hostilities-- with the resulting instability creating conditions ripe for dictatorships. The occupying forces will not permit any of the three regions of Iraq to govern themselves. This is strictly motivated by a desire to exert control over the oil. Self-determination and independence for each region, or even a true republican form of government with a minimalist central authority is never considered-- yet it is the only answer to the difficult political problems this area faces. The relative and accidental independence of the Kurds and the Shiites in the 1990s served those regions well, and no suicide terrorism existed during that decade.

war
Why We Fight
September 8, 2005    2005 Ron Paul 95:53
Instead, we have been forcing on the people of Iraq a type of democracy that, if implemented, will mean an Islamic state under Sharia’ law. Already we read stories of barbers no longer being safe shaving beards; Christians are threatened and forced to leave the country; and burqas are returning out of fear. Unemployment is over 50%, and oil production is still significantly below pre-war levels. These results are not worth fighting and dying for.

war
Why We Fight
September 8, 2005    2005 Ron Paul 95:54
In this war, like all others, the propagandists and promoters themselves don’t fight, nor do their children. It’s always worth the effort to wage war when others must suffer and die. Many of those who today pump the nation up with war fever were nowhere to be found when their numbers were called in the 1960s-- when previous presidents and Congresses thought so little about sending young men off to war. Then it was in their best interests to find more important things to do-- despite the so-called equalizing draft.

war
Why We Fight
September 8, 2005    2005 Ron Paul 95:55
The inability of taxpayers to fund both guns-and-butter has not deterred those who smell the glory of war. Notoriously, great nations fall once their appetite for foreign domination outstrips their citizens’ ability or willingness to pay. We tried the guns-and-butter approach in the 1960s with bad results, and the same will happen again as a consequence of the current political decision not to cut back on any expenditure, domestic or foreign. Veto nothing is current policy! Tax, borrow, and print to pay the bills is