2003 Ron Paul 70:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this measure. Of course we all deplore terrorism
and violence that any innocents are
forced to suffer. There is, sadly, plenty of this
in the world today. But there is more to this
resolution than just condemning the violence
in the Middle East. I have a problem with most
resolutions like this because they have the appearance
of taking one side or the other in a
conflict that has nothing to do with the United
States. Our responsibility is to the American
people and to the Constitution, not to adjudicate
age-old conflicts half-way around the
world.
2003 Ron Paul 70:2
When we take sides in these far off conflicts, we serve to antagonize the people affected
and end up no closer to peace than
when we started. This bill makes reference to
the need to have solidarity with Israel. Elsewhere
people say we should have solidarity
with the Palestinians and the Arabs. So, as I
have said before when bills such as this are
on the floor, it is sort of a contest: Should we
be pro-Israel or pro-Arab, or anti-Israel or anti-
Arab, and how are we perceived in doing this?
It is pretty important.
2003 Ron Paul 70:3
But I still believe, through all these bills attempting to intervene in the Middle East, that
there is a third option to this that we so often
forget about. Why can we not be pro-American?
What is in the best interests of the
United States? We do not hear much talk of
that, unfortunately.
2003 Ron Paul 70:4
As I keep saying when votes such as this come to the floor, the best foreign policy for
the United States is noninterventionism. It is a
policy American interests first, costs must less
money, and is in keeping with a long American
tradition so eloquently described by our
Founders.
2003 Ron Paul 70:5
I hope the peoples of the Middle East are able to resolve their differences, but because
whether they decide or not is not our business
I urge a no vote on this resolution.