Why Initiate War on Iraq? - By Dr. Ron Paul [FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif] 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.[/FONT] [FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif]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.[/FONT] [FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif]Number two, Iraq has not initiated aggression against the United States. Invading Iraq and deposing Saddam Hussein, no matter how evil a dictator he may be, has nothing to do with our national security. Iraq does not have a single airplane in its air force and is a poverty-ridden third world nation, hardly a threat to U.S. security. Stirring up a major conflict in this region will actually jeopardize our security.[/FONT] [FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif]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.[/FONT] [FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif]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.[/FONT] [FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif]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.[/FONT] [FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif]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 conscription in the name of patriotism, of course.[/FONT] [FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif]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.[/FONT] [FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif]The way these international events will eventually play out is unknown, and in the process we expose ourselves to great danger. Instead of replacing today's international government, (the United Nations, the IMF, the World Bank, the WTO, the international criminal court) with free and independent republics, it is more likely that we will see a rise of militant nationalism with a penchant for solving problems with arms and protectionism rather than free trade and peaceful negotiations.[/FONT] [FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif]The last thing this world needs is the development of more nuclear weapons, as is now being planned in a pretense for ensuring the peace. We would need more than an office of strategic information to convince the world of that.[/FONT] [FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif]What do we need? We need a clear understanding and belief in a free society, a true republic that protects individual liberty, private property, free markets, voluntary exchange and private solutions to social problems, placing strict restraints on government meddling in the internal affairs of others.[/FONT] [FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif]Indeed, we live in challenging and dangerous times.[/FONT]
I fear for my future and my childrens future. The Machine is taking my liberties and I don't like it at all.
What's important is the date. March 25, 2002 When you have a sound ideology, you can see failed policy before it bears it's rotten fruit.
Whats funny is not one of the neocon pro-war posters are commenting on this. RP stood up against this war when it was unpopular to do so, which shows he is a man of honor and integrity.
He really knows what he is talking and has a good grasp of the facts! Hope he is the one after Bush.....
As me and you both know they are very selective with their postings when it come to the utter disater that Bush and the rest of the insane lunatics created in Iraq.
They are busy fighting terrorism! Thanks to those brave fighters you can sleep safe tonight! They are on watch!