10 Years of War with Iraq

[SnyderShrugged]

Ron Paul Statement After

10 Years of War with Iraq

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

March 19, 2008

ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA – On the anniversary of the invasion of Iraq, Congressman Ron Paul, member of the House Foreign Relations Committee, issued the following statement:

“The occupation of Iraq began five years ago today, but few realize that the march to war began ten years ago under Bill Clinton, when regime change became official U.S. policy. In 1998, I took to the House floor in protest of the Iraqi Liberation Act to warn that, ‘I see this legislation as essentially being a declaration of virtual war. It is giving the President tremendous powers to pursue war efforts against a sovereign Nation.’ My warnings were largely dismissed at the time, but five years later, we were bombing Iraq.

“After five years of occupation, today is a good time for reflection. The cost to America has been great: 4,000 soldiers are dead, 30,000 have been severely wounded, and over 100,000 have applied for disability. In addition, the war has put a tremendous strain on our economy. As we spiral toward recession and experience an assault on our dollar, we spend $12 billion per month financing our Iraqi operations. The war has cost us nearly $1 trillion dollars, or over $3,300 per American man, woman, and child.

“In a recent presidential debate, I was asked whether the war was ‘worth it.’ I said, and still say, ‘absolutely not.’ In addition to the tremendous costs to America, the war has been helpful to our enemies. The war has strengthened Osama bin Laden, Al Qaeda, and Iran. And yet the other presidential candidates want to keep troops there for at least five more years. One even says we should keep American troops in Iraq for 100 years.

“As I have repeatedly said when discussing United States policy in Iraq, when you find yourself going the wrong way down a one-way street, you need to look for the nearest off-ramp. The only solution to the mess in Iraq is to promptly bring our troops home. Our bad policy spans at least ten years and two presidents and has had severe costs in lives and economic consequences. Continuing down the same road will solve nothing and compound our already substantial problems.”

[SnyderShrugged]

"The war has cost us nearly $1 trillion dollars, or over $3,300 per American man, woman, and child. "

This statement had a very profound effect on my "Pro-Iraq War" father a little while ago as he was planning what to do with his $600 tax rebate.

He is starting to rethink his position, just like I did not too long ago.

[GibbsFactor]

Ron Paul is truly a valued American asset!

[SnyderShrugged]

Ron Paul is truly a valued American asset!

Definitely an asset, but I fear that America has neglected the valued part despite that he has been consistant and correct in most of the main issues troubling us today. :2cents:

[Mass_SkinsFan]

Unfortuantely what Dr. Paul forgot to add was this line....

"Since there was never going to be a value in invading Iraq, what I would have done was NUKE the entire country and just left it as a giant radioactive crater so that other countries would realize what happens when you **** with the United States."

Instead Dr. Paul would have allowed the despotic dictator of Iraq to go on about his merry way, plotting to assassinate former US Presidents and probably actually looking to try and rebuild the arsenal of chemical and biological weapons he once had and maybe even attempting to build a nuclear weapon as well.

[SnyderShrugged]

Unfortuantely what Dr. Paul forgot to add was this line....

"Since there was never going to be a value in invading Iraq, what I would have done was NUKE the entire country and just left it as a giant radioactive crater so that other countries would realize what happens when you **** with the United States."

Instead Dr. Paul would have allowed the despotic dictator of Iraq to go on about his merry way, plotting to assassinate former US Presidents and probably actually looking to try and rebuild the arsenal of chemical and biological weapons he once had and maybe even attempting to build a nuclear weapon as well.

I used red highlights to point out why your post is so absurd.

yeah, Nuke based on "maybe's, and "Looking too's". :doh:

[Mass_SkinsFan]

SS, I'm sorry that you and Dr. Paul don't actually take American Security as seriously as some of us do. That's part of the reason I never could have supported his bid for the Republican nomination for POTUS.

[SnyderShrugged]

SS, I'm sorry that you and Dr. Paul don't actually take American Security as seriously as some of us do. That's part of the reason I never could have supported his bid for the Republican nomination for POTUS.

I take America's security much more seriously than you obviously.

First and formost, secure our economy from disaster, since it is the entire reason for our ongoing strength.

An absurd notion of Nuking a country that had no possible way of harming us simply paints you as the fool that you appear to be in your posts.

[Mass_SkinsFan]

..... simply paints you as the fool that you appear to be in your posts.

Then obviously we have no basis for any continued conversation on any topic. Buh Bye.

[SnyderShrugged]

Then obviously we have no basis for any continued conversation on any topic.

Thats fine. Have a nice day

[TrumanB]

I used red highlights to point out why your post is so absurd.

yeah, Nuke based on "maybe's, and "Looking too's". :doh:

Well, Hussein did plot to assassinate Bush 41. That's not a "maybe".

Anyhoo, Ron Paul? :laugh:

[SnyderShrugged]

Well, Hussein did plot to assassinate Bush 41. That's not a "maybe".

Anyhoo, Ron Paul? :laugh:

and did he succeed or even come close?

Is there or was there some iminent danger to the US from Iraq?

Doesnt history prove much, if not all of the points that the candidate you so love to hate as correct?

If not, please enlighten us as to how he was wrong.

thanks

[MurrayH81]

Well, Hussein did plot to assassinate Bush 41. That's not a "maybe".

Anyhoo, Ron Paul? :laugh:

So? I doubt SH was the first or last person to contemplate assassinating an former or current POTUS, or a former or current head of the CIA for that matter. I respect the Office, but they are just people after all (and quite frankly Bush Sr. was a disaster of a President for a variety of reasons).

In a round about way, I guess what I am saying is 2 things:

1) If you are the President, don't piss off powerful people in other countries and hide behind the office.

2) Being POTUS doesn't make you the next incarnation of God, so if they are assassinated, it's not such a big deal (we actually have survived quite a few of them as a country)..

[twa]

I used red highlights to point out why your post is so absurd.

yeah, Nuke based on "maybe's, and "Looking too's". :doh:

I guess you dismiss Saddam's own testimony and records as to his intentions?

I guess you don't realize how close he was in 91.

I don't think Mass is the one being absurd.

Do you really believe RP's foreign policy would ever be put in force?

If not,then you need to deal with the reality of effects Saddam and his sons would have had over time..

[TrumanB]

So? I doubt SH was the first or last person to contemplate assassinating an former or current POTUS, or a former or current head of the CIA for that matter. I respect the Office, but they are just people after all (and quite frankly Bush Sr. was a disaster of a President for a variety of reasons).

Uhh, Hussein did more than "contemplate" assassinating Bush. He had an actual plan to blow him up when he visited Kuwait.

In a round about way, I guess what I am saying is 2 things:

1) If you are the President, don't piss off powerful people in other countries and hide behind the office.

If you are a dictator, don't piss off the United States and hide behind your dictatorship. Eventually, judgement day will come and you will be on the losing end. Unfortunately, we had to wait until Clinton finished staining dresses before anything was done.

2) Being POTUS doesn't make you the next incarnation of God, so if they are assassinated, it's not such a big deal (we actually have survived quite a few of them as a country)..

:doh: I don't even know how to respond to this.

[Koolblue13]

Maybe if we saw what a threat the ME was even ten years ago, we would have made an aggressive attempt to get off oil then and we wouldn't be in such a pickle.

[twa]

Maybe if we saw what a threat the ME was even ten years ago, we would have made an aggressive attempt to get off oil then and we wouldn't be in such a pickle.

Thats fair enough,even though it was plain 30 yrs ago trouble was coming nothing really changed....perhaps 4 or 5 dollar gas will be the nudge needed.

[Mad Mike]

Ron Paul is a moron and he is making **** up. Bin laden is stronger? Al Qaeda is stronger? Iran is stronger? Because of Iraq? The guy will say anything. He's a loon. I cant believe ANYONE would take him seriously.

And I'm going to keep beating this horse till hell freezes over. Is Saddam someone you want in power for the next 20-50 years? How many terrorist would he push through his camps in that time.

http://a.abcnews.com/images/pdf/Pentagon_Report_V1.pdf

Training foreign terrorists

Captured Iraqi archives reveal that Saddam was training Arab fighters (non-Iraqi) in Iraqi training camps more than a decade prior to OPERATION DESERT STORM (1991). A Saddam memorandum directed the IIS to submit a list of foreign nationals who were trained in Iraq and carried out operations during the 1991 war against the United States. 33 In response, the IIS sent a list of one-hundred names of foreign national fighters, categorized by country

Terrorism against american interests

In the first (memorandum), from January 1993, and coinciding with the start of the US humanitarian intervention in Somalia, the Presidential Secretary informed the council member of Saddam's decision to "form a group to start hunting Americans present on Arab soil; especially Somalia."

In the second memorandum, Saddam orders the IIS Director to revise a

plan the IIS director had previously forwarded to include setting up

operations inside Somalia. The overlap between bin Laden's and

Saddam's interests in Somalia provides a tactical example of the parallel

between Iraq and radical Islam: at the same time Saddam was ordering action in Somalia aimed at the American presence, Osama bin Laden was doing the same thing.

Other documents show Saddam's terror organizations could be

deadly. They were willing to target not only Western interests but also to directly attack Americans. Uday Hussein reports to his father the results of one such terrorist strike that specifically targeted American aid workers with the UN

This and other attacks were not isolated incidents but part of a state-directed program of significant scale.

al Qaeda

When attacking Western interests, the competitive terror cartel came into play, particularly in the late 1990s. Captured documents reveal that the regime was willing to co-opt or support organizations it knew to be part of al Qaeda-as long as that organization's near-term goals supported Saddam's long term vision.

Some aspects of the indirect cooperation between Saddam's regional terror enterprise and al Qaeda's more global one are somewhat analogous to the Cali and Medellin drug cartels. Both drug cartels (actually loose collections of families and criminal gangs) were serious national security concerns to the United States. Both cartels competed for a share of the illegal drug market. However, neither cartel was reluctant to cooperate with the other when it came to the pursuit of a common objective-expanding and facilitating their illicit trade.

Nevertheless, these similarities created more than just the appearance of cooperation. Common interests, even without common cause, increased the aggregate terror threat.

Ron Paul can kiss my...

[SnyderShrugged]

Mike, time for a new cut and paste. You are getting lazy

[Teller]

Hindsight. It's even better than LASIK.

[SnyderShrugged]

HH, it was pauls foresight that we should acknowledge. Its the others that are stuck with hindsight in this case.

[Teller]

HH, it was pauls foresight that we should acknowledge. Its the others that are stuck with hindsight in this case.

Wonderful.

I hope the next time, when Ahmedinejad postures, in violation of U.N. resolutions, and we do nothing, that he's bluffing. Because it's becoming increasingly clear that next time around we're going to roll the dice and hope for the best.

[Mad Mike]

Mike, time for a new cut and paste. You are getting lazy

In notice you don't have a damn thing to say about Ron Paul's Lies.

I'll tell you what. I'll stop, the same time I see people stop claiming Iraq had nothing to do with the war on terrorism. Hows that?

[Old Bay]

What I don't totally understand is the idea of just pulling out of Iraq now. If you thought it was bad before, it's only going to get worse with an unstable government. I don't really like that our guys are over there, but if the task isn't finished then it will be worse then when we started.

[SnyderShrugged]

In notice you don't have a damn thing to say about Ron Paul's Lies.

I'll tell you what. I'll stop, the same time I see people stop claiming Iraq had nothing to do with the war on terrorism. Hows that?

I really don t care if you use the same tired old links that reach in trying to paint a silly threat from a country that was lucky to have a few fighter jets in the air let alone attack us with weapons they didn't even have.

It will take a lot more evidence to prove to this former hard core supporter of the Iraq war, that it was worth spending nearly a trillion dollars of our tax dollars for it. Sorry, but once in a while we have to admit we were wrong in the face of overwhelming evidence. I know that its hard to have that courage because I fought it for years too.