Ron Paul on the Next War

Congressman Ron Paul’s been pretty spot on with issues concerning the Iraq War. He just provided us an advance view on the next U.S. war — if the neo-cons get their way, that is. Here’s how he begins:

It’s been three years since the U.S. launched its war against Saddam Hussein and his weapons of mass destruction. Of course now almost everybody knows there were no WMDs, and Saddam Hussein posed no threat to the United States. Though some of our soldiers serving in Iraq still believe they are there because Saddam Hussein was involved in 9/11, even the administration now acknowledges there was no connection. Indeed, no one can be absolutely certain why we invaded Iraq. The current excuse, also given for staying in Iraq, is to make it a democratic state, friendly to the United States. There are now fewer denials that securing oil supplies played a significant role in our decision to go into Iraq and stay there. That certainly would explain why U.S. taxpayers are paying such a price to build and maintain numerous huge, permanent military bases in Iraq. They’re also funding a new billion dollar embassy- the largest in the world.

The significant question we must ask ourselves is: What have we learned from three years in Iraq? With plans now being laid for regime change in Iran, it appears we have learned absolutely nothing. There still are plenty of administration officials who daily paint a rosy picture of the Iraq we have created. But I wonder: If the past three years were nothing more than a bad dream, and our nation suddenly awakened, how many would, for national security reasons, urge the same invasion? Would we instead give a gigantic sigh of relief that it was only a bad dream, that we need not relive the three-year nightmare of death, destruction, chaos and stupendous consumption of tax dollars. Conceivably we would still see oil prices under $30 a barrel, and most importantly, 20,000 severe U.S. causalities would not have occurred. My guess is that 99% of all Americans would be thankful it was only a bad dream, and would never support the invasion knowing what we know today.

And here’s his conclusion:

I smell an expanded war in the Middle East, and pray that I’m wrong. I sense that circumstances will arise that demand support regardless of the danger and cost. Any lack of support, once again, will be painted as being soft on terrorism and al Qaeda. We will be told we must support Israel, support patriotism, support the troops, and defend freedom. The public too often only smells the stench of war after the killing starts. Public objection comes later on, but eventually it helps to stop the war. I worry that before we can finish the war we’re in and extricate ourselves, the patriotic fervor for expanding into Iran will drown out the cries of, “enough already!”

The agitation and congressional resolutions painting Iran as an enemy about to attack us have already begun. It’s too bad we can’t learn from our mistakes.

This time there will be a greater pretense of an international effort sanctioned by the UN before the bombs are dropped. But even without support from the international community, we should expect the plan for regime change to continue. We have been forewarned that “all options” remain on the table. And there’s little reason to expect much resistance from Congress. So far there’s less resistance expressed in Congress for taking on Iran than there was prior to going into Iraq. It’s astonishing that after three years of bad results and tremendous expense there’s little indication we will reconsider our traditional non-interventionist foreign policy. Unfortunately, regime change, nation building, policing the world, and protecting “our oil” still constitute an acceptable policy by the leaders of both major parties.

It’s already assumed by many in Washington I talk to that Iran is dead serious about obtaining a nuclear weapon, and is a much more formidable opponent than Iraq. Besides, Mahmoud Almadinjad threatened to destroy Israel and that cannot stand. Washington sees Iran as a greater threat than Iraq ever was, a threat that cannot be ignored.

Iran’s history is being ignored, just as we ignored Iraq’s history. This ignorance or deliberate misrepresentation of our recent relationship to Iraq and Iran is required to generate the fervor needed to attack once again a country that poses no threat to us. Our policies toward Iran have been more provocative than those towards Iraq. Yes, President Bush labeled Iran part of the axis of evil and unnecessarily provoked their anger at us. But our mistakes with Iran started a long time before this president took office.

I know many of you are feeling excited about the recent changes in public sentiment about the war in Iraq and have hopes for a least a gradual withdrawal from that country before too long. Just keep one thing in mind: Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia.

14 Comments
  1. I would have to say Ron Paul is not too far off.

    We will go into Iran. It will not be pretty. We will wipe them out in a matter of days.

    Then we will occupy them for decades…

    Mike Sylvester

  2. Freeedom is not free. The sacrifice of our volunteer heroes is needed. Our losses are miniscule compared to prior wars. This is very obvious but obfuscated by the weak hearted among us. If Iran is next, it will be for a good purpose. The President will make the correct decision once again. We must stop terrorism in its tracks. Too many Americans are faint hearted and have forgotten the sacrifices that have ensured the freedom we enjoy.

    We need to have a massive effort toward energy independence based on the many technologies we have available. The first and easiest, is to replace natural gas and fuel oil with biomass heating , using corn and pellets. This can be easily done. The switchover wil benefit the economy and create many jobs in agriculture and transportation, as well as building the stoves and furnaces. The exhaust is clean.
    Biomass can also be used for producing electricity, along with windpower and solarpower etc. We are far too complacent with our oil dependence.

  3. Wagner,

    “Freeedom is not free. The sacrifice of our volunteer heroes is needed. Our losses are miniscule compared to prior wars. This is very obvious but obfuscated by the weak hearted among us. If Iran is next, it will be for a good purpose. The President will make the correct decision once again. We must stop terrorism in its tracks. Too many Americans are faint hearted and have forgotten the sacrifices that have ensured the freedom we enjoy.”

    That sounded better in the original German, with the music.

  4. Ron Wagner

    Watch your back on this site. This is an antiwar site. I am a libertarian and not all of us agree with the 13 percenters in the Party that are libertarians in disguise (anarchists and leftists) and we are working to purge the Party of them.

    I support your position. Paulie Cannoli believes the best action is no action and the best government is no government. I believe in the best government is the least government possible.

  5. Julian, so you are a Wagner fan? I’m not surprised.

    I am a libertarian

    self-proclaimed, but we’ve yet to see proof

    and not all of us agree with the 13 percenters in the Party that are libertarians in disguise (anarchists and leftists) and we are working to purge the Party of them.

    Julian (if he is even telling the truth) joined the LP within the last months or so (when he was making his categorical statements about all libertarians, which are still in the archives and can be easily pulled up) and commited fraud if/when he signed the pledge.

    Now he wants to purge the party of real, philosphically consistent libertarians who have built it all along.

    He’s failed to explain exactly, specifically why he is not a conservative.

    Anarchists and leftists ARE the real libertarians, and to see why read

    http://www.lewrockwell.com/long/left-and-right.html

  6. Paulie Cannoli believes the best action is no action

    False

    and the best government is no government. I believe in the best government is the least government possible.

    By definition, that would be none.

  7. I’m not too familiar with libertarianism (it’s not to common up here in Canada) but I always thought they were in favour of at least limited government, not no government. They’re hands off until fundamental freedoms are violated, right? Im wondering how a state in anarchy can protect that?

    I’m also wondering why people are so opposed to the Iraq war, Saddam has just been accused of genocide in the trial and they continue to dig up hundreds of graves across the country. I would say the shia majoritie’s rights had been violated and it warranted some kind of intervention. No? I’m for letting people live their lives the way they want, but anarchy is ridiculous. Also, for paulie, you cant merge the left with anarchists, they are COMPLETE opposites.

    Also, with Iran, you guys are jumping the gun on Iran. Consider Bush’s support in the polls. Consider the differences between Iran and Iraq. (geography, military strength, population, cost-benefit)

  8. I’m also wondering why people are so opposed to the Iraq war, Saddam has just been accused of genocide in the trial and they continue to dig up hundreds of graves across the country.

    If genocide and mass graves were a justification for invasion, the US military would be stretched much thinner than it is.

    You can’t really expect us to believe that you don’t understand the opposition to an illegal war being fought for vague objectives and under deliberately false pretenses.

    In case you can’t grasp that obviousness, perhaps you can admit that it is folly to occupy an Islamic country and breed terrorists by our very presence while claiming to be fighting a war on terror. Or perhaps the number of dead soldiers, having died for nothing more than the whim of their government, can help explain the righteous opposition to this abortion of a conflict.

  9. Indeed, Iraqi’s rights were violated and the libertarian philosophy allows for the defense of rights. But forcing people who agreed to defend their country to cross the globe and invade a country that posed no threat and forcibly substitute one tyrannical regime for another is hardly in line with the libertarian position of self-defense

  10. I’m not too familiar with libertarianism (it’s not to common up here in Canada) but I always thought they were in favour of at least limited government, not no government. They’re hands off until fundamental freedoms are violated, right?

    Some libertarians are for no forcible government at all (anarchists), and believe that any level of forcible government is itself a violation of rights; whereas some believe a lower level of state regulation constitutes a form of libertarianism (minarchists).

    Im wondering how a state in anarchy can protect that?

    There are numerous answers. You can read some of them here.

    http://www.lewrockwell.com/hoppe/hoppe5.html

  11. I’m also wondering why people are so opposed to the Iraq war, Saddam has just been accused of genocide in the trial and they continue to dig up hundreds of graves across the country.

    The US has killed far more Iraqis than Saddam ever did. Most of the Iraqis that Saddam did kill were either killed while he was a US ally (which he was prior to 1990), or after the US stirred up a Shiite rebellion in 1991 and then did not back them up as promised.

    I would say the shia majoritie’s rights had been violated and it warranted some kind of intervention.

    One does not lead to the other. The US has no business being the world’s police state. Both Iraq and the US are worse off as a result of the invasions and blockade.

    I’m for letting people live their lives the way they want, but anarchy is ridiculous. Also, for paulie, you cant merge the left with anarchists, they are COMPLETE opposites.

    I see you didn’t read the link I posted which proves otherwise.

  12. Also, with Iran, you guys are jumping the gun on Iran. Consider Bush’s support in the polls. Consider the differences between Iran and Iraq. (geography, military strength, population, cost-benefit)

    The invasion and occupation of either of these nations has great cost and no benefit. If you are for letting people live their lives as you claim, how can you justify taking money from me by force to support a war I’m against? Or any other government “service” for that matter.

    Also, is your statement in opposition to an invasion of Iran, or did I misunderstand you?