[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Sign-in]  [Mail]  [Setup]  [Help] 

Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

Texas Flood

Why America Built A Forest From Canada To Texas

Tucker Carlson Interviews President of Iran Mosoud Pezeshkian

PROOF Netanyahu Wants US To Fight His Wars

RAPID CRUSTAL MOVEMENT DETECTED- Are the Unusual Earthquakes TRIGGER for MORE (in Japan and Italy) ?

Google Bets Big On Nuclear Fusion

Iran sets a world record by deporting 300,000 illegal refugees in 14 days

Brazilian Women Soccer Players (in Bikinis) Incredible Skills

Watch: Mexico City Protest Against American Ex-Pat 'Invasion' Turns Viole

Kazakhstan Just BETRAYED Russia - Takes gunpowder out of Putin’s Hands

Why CNN & Fareed Zakaria are Wrong About Iran and Trump

Something Is Going Deeply WRONG In Russia

329 Rivers in China Exceed Flood Warnings, With 75,000 Dams in Critical Condition

Command Of Russian Army 'Undermined' After 16 Of Putin's Generals Killed At War, UK Says

Rickards: Superintelligence Will Never Arrive

Which Countries Invest In The US The Most?

The History of Barbecue

‘Pathetic’: Joe Biden tells another ‘tall tale’ during rare public appearance

Lawsuit Reveals CDC Has ZERO Evidence Proving Vaccines Don't Cause Autism

Trumps DOJ Reportedly Quietly Looking Into Criminal Charges Against Election Officials

Volcanic Risk and Phreatic (Groundwater) eruptions at Campi Flegrei in Italy

Russia Upgrades AGS-17 Automatic Grenade Launcher!

They told us the chickenpox vaccine was no big deal—just a routine jab to “protect” kids from a mild childhood illness

Pentagon creates new military border zone in Arizona

For over 200 years neurological damage from vaccines has been noted and documented

The killing of cardiologist in Gaza must be Indonesia's wake-up call

Marandi: Israel Prepares Proxies for Next War with Iran?

"Hitler Survived WW2 And I Brought Proof" Norman Ohler STUNS Joe Rogan

CIA Finally Admits a Pyschological Warfare Agent from the Agency “Came into Contact” with Lee Harvey Oswald before JFK’s Assassination

CNN Stunned As Majority Of Americans Back Trump's Mass Deportation Plan


Editorial
See other Editorial Articles

Title: Bad for America, Bad for Israel, Bad for the World (Dr. Ron Paul)
Source: antiwar.com
URL Source: http://original.antiwar.com/paul/20 ... -for-israel-bad-for-the-world/
Published: May 10, 2012
Author: Dr. Ron Paul
Post Date: 2012-05-10 08:12:53 by F.A. Hayek Fan
Keywords: None
Views: 3741
Comments: 134

Mr. Speaker: I rise in opposition to H.R. 4133, the United States-Israel Enhanced Security Cooperation Act, which unfortunately is another piece of one-sided and counterproductive foreign policy legislation. This bill’s real intent seems to be more saber-rattling against Iran and Syria, and it undermines U.S. diplomatic efforts by making clear that the U.S. is not an honest broker seeking peace for the Middle East.

The bill calls for the United States to significantly increase our provision of sophisticated weaponry to Israel, and states that it is to be U.S. policy to “help Israel preserve its qualitative military edge” in the region.

While I absolutely believe that Israel — and any other nation — should be free to determine for itself what is necessary for its national security, I do not believe that those decisions should be underwritten by U.S. taxpayers and backed up by the U.S. military.

This bill states that it is the policy of the United States to “reaffirm the enduring commitment of the United States to the security of the State of Israel as a Jewish state.” However, according to our Constitution, the policy of the United States government should be to protect the security of the United States, not to guarantee the religious, ethnic, or cultural composition of a foreign country. In fact, our own Constitution prohibits the establishment of any particular religion in the U.S.

More than 20 years after the reason for NATO’s existence — the Warsaw Pact — has disappeared, this legislation seeks to find a new mission for that anachronistic alliance: the defense of Israel. Calling for “an expanded role for Israel within the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), including an enhanced presence at NATO headquarters and exercises,” it reads like a dream for interventionists and the military-industrial complex. As I have said many times, NATO should be disbanded, not expanded.

This bill will not help the United States, it will not help Israel, and it will not help the Middle East. It will implicitly authorize much more U.S. interventionism in the region at a time when we cannot afford the foreign commitments we already have. It more likely will lead to war against Syria, Iran, or both. I urge my colleagues to vote against this bill.

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 33.

#1. To: F.A. Hayek Fan, 4 (#0)

This bill states that it is the policy of the United States to “reaffirm the enduring commitment of the United States to the security of the State of Israel as a Jewish state.” However, according to our Constitution, the policy of the United States government should be to protect the security of the United States, not to guarantee the religious, ethnic, or cultural composition of a foreign country. In fact, our own Constitution prohibits the establishment of any particular religion in the U.S.

This is such a simple and well articulated point.

It's no wonder RP wasn't invited to speak before influential Jewish groups this past December.

Jethro Tull  posted on  2012-05-10   8:31:21 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#2. To: Jethro Tull (#1)

While I absolutely believe that Israel — and any other nation — should be free to determine for itself what is necessary for its national security, I do not believe that those decisions should be underwritten by U.S. taxpayers and backed up by the U.S. military.

This is such a simple and well articulated point.

I agree with you.

However, being a cynic, I must look beyond the correctness of the statement, and ask myself, why has Ron Paul been reelected twelve times, run for president three times, always with an anti ISRAEL agenda and is tolerated and ignored? No combined effort by anyone to rid the Congress of such a person?

Cynicom  posted on  2012-05-10   9:11:35 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#3. To: Cynicom, 4um (#2)

Cyni, I'm sensing that your well founded cynicism has morphed into a personal dislike, which tends to shade your opinion of RP from criticism to harshness. He's a good man, he has a solid message and this run isn't anything like '08. It's far better and he's staying in it till the end. He has grabbed the interest of some in the younger set and hopes of a movement far larger than one man is a possibility. Since no one I know is willing to stick a rifle out of their window yet, he's about the best we got right now.

Jethro Tull  posted on  2012-05-10   9:39:57 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#5. To: Jethro Tull (#3)

personal dislike,

You need a new sensor young man.

I suspect we all will have a different perspective on Ron Paul by November. I will not be shocked at whatever course he takes, you may well be.

We have to remember, Romney CANNOT WIN WITHOUT Ron Paul being for or neutral. A negative Paul and we have the black queer again. Wish and reality are NOT bed mates.

Cynicom  posted on  2012-05-10   9:59:23 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#7. To: Cynicom (#5)

We have to remember, Romney CANNOT WIN WITHOUT Ron Paul being for or neutral. A negative Paul and we have the black queer again.

Your suggestion here is that RP, for the good of the party, will toss aside his principles for a Republican victory. I can honestly say you are nearly alone in your assessment for a number of reasons, the main one being fellow Rs despise him and an endorsement would not only cripple all RP has tried to build, but also it would hamstring his son's future, one you feel strongly is tied to his presidential run. Cyni, IMO he isn't going to Tampa with his delegates to back Romney.

Jethro Tull  posted on  2012-05-10   10:14:01 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#13. To: Jethro Tull (#7)

Your suggestion here is that RP, for the good of the party, will toss aside his principles for a Republican victory. I can honestly say you are nearly alone in your assessment for a number of reasons, the main one being fellow Rs despise him and an endorsement would not only cripple all RP has tried to build, but also it would hamstring his son's future, one you feel strongly is tied to his presidential run. Cyni, IMO he isn't going to Tampa with his delegates to back Romney.

1) He (or rather his delegates) may fight in Tampa, but when the nomination process is over and done, Paul will endorse Romney.

2) Paul's not trying to build or destroy anything. My dog has more will to power than Paul. Corollary: Paul does not care that a Romney endorsement will hurt his "cause." He simply does not understand.

3) A Romney endorsement will help Paul Jr., because most Paul Jr. voters will vote for Romney. Do you seriously think Paul Jr. himself isn't going to endorse Romney after Romney secures the nomination? Paul Jr. is less radical than daddy.

Prefrontal Vortex  posted on  2012-05-10   10:37:44 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#15. To: Prefrontal Vortex, Jethro Tull (#13)

Paul Jr. is less radical than daddy.

Since Rand arrived I have taken care to read as much about his views as possible.

Rand tells us that "big labor" is to blame for the national debt, to blame for the deficit, to blame for lack of jobs, etc etc.

Thats fair but he neglects to tell his readers that big labor is now but eight per cent of the American work force.......

He is for all right to work laws as workers have no rights, then he announces that "doctors have the right to earn a COMFORTABLE living.

Paul has made a deal. If not I maintain the right to use as much ketchup as I like while eating crow.

Cynicom  posted on  2012-05-10   10:47:19 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#18. To: Cynicom, 4um (#15)

He is for all right to work laws as workers have no rights, then he announces that "doctors have the right to earn a COMFORTABLE living.

Paul has made a deal. If not I maintain the right to use as much ketchup as I like while eating crow.

As I've said before, I haven't followed Rand Paul so I haven't a clue what his policies are. I do feel that the movement RP is building won't fit comfortably on the foot of just anyone, including his son. The young people, and the growing number of vets aren't party pods and leadership will have to be earned, not handed down which is the essence of elitism.

Jethro Tull  posted on  2012-05-10   10:58:01 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#24. To: Jethro Tull (#18)

The young people, and the growing number of vets aren't party pods and leadership will have to be earned, not handed down which is the essence of elitism.

That is true, and that's another reason I don't think Paul has made a deal.

A Paul endorsement won't actually help Romney much.

---

This communication from Paul about this bill is 100% establishment respectable.

It is not revolutionary. It is not heretical.

HERESY would be basically the same communication, except to OMIT whether it's good for Israel.

HERESY would then be, when asked whether it's bad for Israel, to say "I don't know." Period.

Prefrontal Vortex  posted on  2012-05-10   11:22:09 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#25. To: Prefrontal Vortex (#24)

A Paul endorsement won't actually help Romney much.

That being the case, what would be the effect of a neutral stance or vocal opposition?

Cynicom  posted on  2012-05-10   11:29:42 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#27. To: Cynicom (#25)

Not much besides maybe hurting Jr.

But Paul will endorse Romney out of a sense of duty to the country.

If Paul actually did have some will to power, more people on the left would bolt his way.

Most Paul supporters are of no use to anybody but Paul. It's either Paul or stay home.

Prefrontal Vortex  posted on  2012-05-10   12:47:11 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#33. To: Prefrontal Vortex (#27)

But Paul will endorse Romney out of a sense of duty to the country.

Has Paul's duty morphed a 180 since he refused to back McCain?

abraxas  posted on  2012-05-10   14:30:01 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


Replies to Comment # 33.

#34. To: abraxas (#33)

Has Paul's duty morphed a 180 since he refused to back McCain?

Paul no play, another four years for black idiot.

We now have a third party choice in Johnson.

Cynicom  posted on  2012-05-10 15:11:18 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#37. To: abraxas (#33)

Hey, I could be wrong. But the choices are not the same this time.

Foreign policy not much difference; Romney will save money.

Prefrontal Vortex  posted on  2012-05-10 18:22:14 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


End Trace Mode for Comment # 33.

TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest


[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Sign-in]  [Mail]  [Setup]  [Help]