Why We Fight

House.Gov ^ | 9/8/2005 | Congressman Ron Paul

[xt5rt45]

I would imagine those on this site are opposed to the above heresy, but I am curious about the reaction.

[hflynn]

We fight so we don't have to fight. If Clinton had learned that in 8 years in the Oral Office, he wouldn't have left the Presidency with the training wheels still on his limo.

[BykrBayb]

My son is fighting so that hopefully I won't have to.

[txroadkill]

No evidence existed to show an alliance between Iraq and al Qaeda before the war

The fall of Baghdad has produced new evidence to buttress the Bush administration's prewar contention that Saddam Hussein's regime and Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda had a long history of contacts. The most conclusive evidence comes in a highly detailed list of intelligence reports revealed last month in the Weekly Standard. Senior Iraqis were said to have traveled to Sudan in the mid-1990s to teach bin Laden's operatives how to make sophisticated truck bombs. Terrorists subsequently used such bombs to hit targets in Saudi Arabia and at two U.S. embassies in Africa. ---Iraq-al Qaeda link comes in focus by Rowan Scarborough THE WASHINGTON TIMES December 01, 2003

[Alberta's Child]

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.

This just about sums up my reasons for opposing this stupid war since Day 1.

[sheltonmac]

The "We're fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them here" argument certainly didn't work for Spain or Great Britain. But I guess the fact that we haven't had a terrorist attack on our soil in four whole years is all the proof some people need that the war in Iraq is working to thwart a global terrorist network. Well, it's either that or the magic anti-terrorist crystals I bought on eBay.

[bayourod]

"Before the war, we were told we faced an imminent threat to our national security from Saddam Hussein. "

No true. President Bush never said that the threat was "imminent".

Ron Paul is just gearing up to raise more money from his third party wacko supporters.

When he ran for President I asked him point blank if he was in favor of legalizing all drugs and if he supported abortion on demand. He refused to give a definitive answer, but instead talked in general terms about room for compromise on party platforms.

[Marine_Uncle]

Here's my reaction. The asshol* should be stuffed into a shredder.

[kublia khan]

Actually the premise is correct, we are at war with all of Islam but if you don't have the stomach for nation building than how could you ever accept the alternative which is not inaction but scorched earth. Your assertion that there is a better way to conduct ourselves throughout the world may be true, however in the history of man all other avenues that have been attempted have met an abysmal end and left more people hurting, displaced and effectively eliminated as a cultural entity.
I do agree that nation building is a failed cause, when the enemy is destroyed victory is never in dispute, I believe that the war in Iraq would have been better prosecuted with a strategy of carpet bombing every major metropolitan area in Iraq. History dictates that the will of an opponent is rather quickly broken with such tactics. In our own war between the states Sherman did what Lee would not as he marched on Atlanta. The duration if not the course of WWII was changed by the bombing of Dresden, even the American Indian (I suppose you might prefer the less accurate term "Native American") has never risen from the ashes of their defeat as their villages and towns were attacked by the forces of westward expansion. If you were really desirous of a new world policy towards correcting wrongs wouldn't the logical place to start be in moving all non indigenous peoples from the North American continent?

[BykrBayb]

You obviously have a very limited intellect. My son is not the only person holding back terrorism. He is part of the solution. You are part of the problem.

[robowombat]

The Versailles Treaty created the artificial nation of Iraq, and it wasn’t long before American oil companies were drilling and struggling to participate in the control of "Middle East oil. But it was never smooth sailing for any occupying force in Iraq. After WWI, the British generals upon arriving to secure “their” oil said: “Our armies do not come into your cities and lands as conquerors or enemies, but as liberators.” Not long afterward a jihad was declared against Britain and eventually they were forced to leave. The more things change, the more they stay the same! Too bad we are not better at studying history."

This paragraph is a good example of the problems of shoehorning history into polemic, which this essay is.
The Mesopotamian Campaign began as an operation to push the Turks back from the Persian oilfields around Abadan that were vital to Great Britain since new classes of capital ships were to be oil fired rather than coal fired.

Military commanders on the ground kept pushing operations further inland and the India Office rather than the War Office really called the shots encouraging the mission creep with more troops to encourage the Russians to push deeper into Persia to link up with Brit forces.

Unfortunately the very ambitious Gen Townshend tried to capture Baghdad with insufficient forces and ended up having his force captured in the biggest British defeat since Saratoga. This made massive escalation inevitable to save British face before the Arabs and Muslims in India. A large force well supported logistically captured Baghdad and in the final weeks of the war captured areas far in the north known to hold oil.
After the war the British faced a large tribal uprising. however they did not leave. The rebellion was put down decisively with the RAF effectively terrorizing the revolting Arabs. To cut costs a puppet dynasty was put on the throne of the invented country of Iraq. The British held on to the overwhelming bulk of the oil deposits and Iraq became a British satellite state with a substantial RAF presences to overawe the Arabs and a 'defense treaty' which effectively made HM's ambassador have veto power over Iraqi foreign and defense policy.

In World War 2 pro-Axis Iraqi politicians led by Rashid Ali tried to expel the British and invite in the Germans. The British mounted a brilliant little expeditionary operation and crushed the revolt and turned Iraq into a British training and maneuver area for the rest of the war.

British retreat from Iraq in the late 40s was connected to the general retreat of British power in the Middle East and the US picked up a vague sort of defense protectorate over Iraq.

Just saying a jihad was declared and the British were forced to leave can be said to be charitably at best to be a gross misstatement of events. Polemicists of all hues regularly engage in this sort of historical distortion which is so great as to often be little more than lies.

[sheltonmac]

You are part of the problem.

Please explain how. Is it because I don't get behind every undeclared war?

[BykrBayb]

Because you took the opportunity to belittle the work our troops do. Because you tried to chip away at the morale of the troops and their families. Shame on you.

[BykrBayb]

And in case you hadn't noticed, Islam declared war on us. Have you forgotten so quickly?

[sheltonmac]

Because you took the opportunity to belittle the work our troops do. Because you tried to chip away at the morale of the troops and their families. Shame on you.

So the "work our troops do" is always noble and necessary, no matter what? I'm not trying to chip away at anyone's morale. I simply agree with Rep. Paul. But I suppose you consider him to be a treasonous scoundrel as well.

[kublia khan]

History is a B**tch,I believe that both of our posts illustrate that

[Alberta's Child]

If your statement that "Islam declared war on us" is factually correct, then can we agree that any commander in chief of the U.S. military who stands up and calls Islam a "religion of peace" should be thrown out of office immediately?

[BykrBayb]

You specifically attacked my position that my son is fighting so that hopefully I won't have to. You suggested that I don't know what the hell is going on because I value the service of my son. Shove it!

[BykrBayb]

I'm discussing the attack against our troops, not your political bickering.

[Migraine]

Today, though, all the old reasons for going to war have been discredited...

Here's what is discredited, IMHO:
...a member of Congress, sworn to uphold the Constitution, overtly giving aid and comfort to the enemy (especially in the wider war vs. islamofacsists -- which is largely, like the cold war, a PR war for the minds and sympathies of a worldwide audience); thanks, Ron -- you JUST DON'T DO THAT while our people are "over there".
...a member of Congress, parroting Barbra Streisand and Michael Moore...
...a member of Congress, parroting bin Laden, Zarqawi, i.e., the enemy...
...a member of Congress, parroting Sheehan, the French, Castro, Chavez, and various other and assorted America-haters...
...THAT'S what, for my money, is DISCREDITED!