Tuesday, January 8, 2008

Wisdom on Iraq in 2002

This is from a speech given by Ron Paul back in 2002 standing up for the Constitution, saying why we shouldn't attack Iraq. The full speech is in the title link.



Claim: Saddam Hussein will use weapons of mass destruction against us - he has already used them against his own people (the Kurds in 1988 in the village of Halabja).

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:

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.

Having looked at all the evidence that was available to us, we find it impossible to confirm the State Department's claim that gas was used in this instance. To begin with, there were never any victims produced. International relief organizations who examined the Kurds - in Turkey where they had gone for asylum - failed to discover any. Nor were there ever any found inside Iraq. The claim rests solely on testimony of the Kurds who had crossed the border into Turkey, where they were interviewed by staffers of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee...

It appears that in seeking to punish Iraq, the Congress was influenced by another incident that occurred five months earlier in another Iraqi-Kurdish city, Halabjah. In March 1988, the Kurds at Halabjah were bombarded with chemical weapons, producing many deaths. Photographs of the Kurdish victims were widely disseminated in the international media. Iraq was blamed for the Halabjah attack, even though it was subsequently brought out that Iran too had used chemicals in this operation and it seemed likely that it was the Iranian bombardment that had actually killed the Kurds.

Thus, in our view, the Congress acted more on the basis of emotionalism than factual information, and without sufficient thought for the adverse diplomatic effects of its action.

Claim: Iraq harbors al-Qaeda and other terrorists.

Reality: The administration has claimed that some Al-Qaeda elements have been present in Northern Iraq. This is territory controlled by the Kurds - who are our allies - and is patrolled by U.S. and British fighter aircraft. Moreover, dozens of countries - including Iran and the United States - are said to have al-Qaeda members on their territory. Of the other terrorists allegedly harbored by Iraq, all are affiliated with Palestinian causes and do not attack the United States.

Claim: President Bush said in his speech on 7 October 2002: ' Many people have asked how close Saddam Hussein is to developing a nuclear weapon. Well, we don't know exactly, and that's the problem...'

Reality: An admission of a lack of information is justification for an attack?"

Thought Crime Bill: HR1955 passed

Well, welcome to the police state! I hope you have read 1984 cause that will give you an idea of what we are now living in! HR1955 passed the house in a vote of 404-6! I am convinced this is one of those bills where they looked at the name and voted for it because it sounded important. The title of this is Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007. The full text of the bill is here(from the Library of Congress). You can see why they would vote for it even if they haven't read it: it looks good on their record(in their minds). The problem with this bill is not what's IN the bill, but what's NOT IN the bill: specifics. The language of the bill is WAY too vague. It is so vague that, if they wished, you could be called a terrorist simply for saying or writing "I don't agree with this war" or anything else. It leaves plenty of room to allow vocal and written dissent of any magnitude to be labeled as terrorism. Now, I'm all for violent people being locked up, but when you can't even voice your opinion because of "terrorism prevention", that is just fucking nuts! Also, this is in DIRECT violation of the Bill of Rights. The Constitution places limits on what the government can do. They have to work within those limits to do whatever it is they have to do. If they need to keep an eye on people to prevent violence they have to do it within the limits of the Constitution. This means that according to the Constitution, every congressman that voted FOR this must be removed from office due to violation of oath of office and treason. They swore to uphold the constitution and this directly contradicts the Bill of Rights. What part of "Congress shall make no law..." do they not understand? This is also a betrayal of the trust of the american people.
When I read 1984 years ago, I never dreamed that I would see it become reality. What's next, TeleScreens? Thought police? They just passed a thought crime bill. Why not?

I have a few good reasons to say this "terrorism crisis" is all bullshit. First is Norway. That country has more liberty, is cleaner, and more humane than the US has ever been. Do they get mysteriously attacked and are paranoid about the muslim boogeymen? NO! There are many other countries: Iceland, Sweden, Switzerland, New Zealand, and Canada to name a few. They all are great countries, but are they paranoid about terrorists? NO! If "terrorists" attacked countries(which is what Bush says was the reason for 9/11) because of freedom and prosperity, those countries would all be toast. So, BushCo's reasoning is bullshit. That must mean there are other reasons. If, and that is a huge miraculous IF, ANY of the "terrorist" attacks on the US in its history have been genuine attacks from radical groups NOT AIDED IN ANY WAY BY THE US GOVERNMENT, what would their reasoning be? Well, maybe it's because we force our presence where it is not wanted or needed. Think about it. If any other nation had a nuclear arsenal the size of the US arsenal and started threatening us and started building permanent military bases on our land and started attacking us and then would never leave and then violently overthrow our government, bomb our cities, and kill a million civilians, then steal our oil to make money, don't you think many citizens would be just a little pissed? Plus, there are some fucking psycho people in this country! Don't you think they would fight back and do whatever they could to get those bases and people off our land for good?

So all that must lead us to the conclusion that we are fucking up royally somehow. It won't help to initiate a police state where there is thought crime, which is what this bill does: it allows for thought crime. If Ron Paul or any of the Democrat candidates(excluding Clinton) don't get elected in November, you better hurry and leave this shit-hole police state while you can still get out and move to Canada or Europe. And will someone please bitch-slap Congress into realizing that people don't want their freedom taken away at the expense of Congress looking like it's being tough on a non-existent enemy so they think they can get reelected?