Re: RMPJC: Banner, Rally and March against the war on Memorial Day

[Roger Ko <rko2000@xxxxxxxxx>]

You might have read this.  But, this is one of the best anti Iraq War
speech - worth re-reading.

====
http://antiwar.com/paul/?articleid=5485

April 7, 2005

Who's Better Off?
by Rep. Ron Paul

Whenever the administration is challenged regarding the success of the Iraq
war, or regarding the false information used to justify the war, the retort
is: "Aren't the people of Iraq better off?" The insinuation is that anyone
who expresses any reservations about supporting the war is an apologist for
Saddam Hussein and every ruthless act he ever committed. The short answer
to the question of whether the Iraqis are better off is that it's too early
to declare, "Mission Accomplished." But more importantly, we should be
asking if the mission was ever justified or legitimate. Is it legitimate to
justify an action that some claim yielded good results, if the means used
to achieve them are illegitimate? Do the ends justify the means?

The information Congress was given prior to the war was false. There were
no weapons of mass destruction; the Iraqis did not participate in the 9/11
attacks; Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein were enemies and did not
conspire against the United States; our security was not threatened; we
were not welcomed by cheering Iraqi crowds as we were told; and Iraqi oil
has not paid any of the bills. Congress failed to declare war, but instead
passed a wishy-washy resolution citing UN resolutions as justification for
our invasion. After the fact, we're now told the real reason for the Iraq
invasion was to spread democracy, and that the Iraqis are better off.
Anyone who questions the war risks being accused of supporting Saddam
Hussein, disapproving of democracy, or "supporting terrorists." It's
implied that lack of enthusiasm for the war means one is not patriotic and
doesn't support the troops. In other words, one must march lockstep with
the consensus or be ostracized.

However, conceding that the world is better off without Saddam Hussein is a
far cry from endorsing the foreign policy of our own government that led to
the regime change. In time it will become clear to everyone that support
for the policies of preemptive war and interventionist nation-building will
have much greater significance than the removal of Saddam Hussein itself.
The interventionist policy should be scrutinized more carefully than the
purported benefits of Saddam Hussein's removal from power. The real
question ought to be: "Are we better off with a foreign policy that
promotes regime change while justifying war with false information?"
Shifting the stated goals as events unravel should not satisfy those who
believe war must be a last resort used only when our national security is
threatened.

How much better off are the Iraqi people? Hundreds of thousands of former
inhabitants of Fallujah are not better off with their city flattened and
their homes destroyed. Hundreds of thousands are not better off living with
foreign soldiers patrolling their street, curfews, and the loss of basic
utilities. One hundred thousand dead Iraqis, as estimated by the Lancet
medical journal, certainly are not better off. Better to be alive under
Saddam Hussein than lying in some cold grave.

Praise for the recent election in Iraq has silenced many critics of the
war. Yet the election was held under martial law implemented by a foreign
power, mirroring conditions we rightfully condemned as a farce when carried
out in the old Soviet system and more recently in Lebanon. Why is it that
what is good for the goose isn't always good for the gander?

Our government fails to recognize that legitimate elections are the
consequence of freedom, and that an artificial election does not create
freedom. In our own history we note that freedom was achieved first and
elections followed ? not the other way around.

One news report claimed that the Sh'iites actually received 56 percent of
the vote, but such an outcome couldn't be allowed for fear of a theocracy
forming. This reminds us of the statement made months ago by Secretary
Rumsfeld when asked about a Shi'ite theocracy emerging from a majority
democratic vote, and he assured us that would not happen. Democracy, we
know, is messy and needs tidying up a bit when we don't like the results.

Some have described Baghdad, and especially the Green Zone, as being
surrounded by unmanageable territory. The highways in and out of Baghdad
are not yet secured. Many anticipate a civil war will break out sometime
soon in Iraq; some claim it's already underway.

We have seen none of the promised oil production that was supposed to
provide grateful Iraqis with the means to repay us for the hundreds of
billions that American taxpayers have spent on the war. Some have justified
our continuous presence in the Persian Gulf since 1990 because of a need to
protect "our" oil. Yet now that Saddam Hussein is gone, and the occupation
supposedly is a great success, gasoline at the pumps is reaching record
highs approaching $3 per gallon.

Though the Iraqi election has come and gone, there still is no government
in place, and the next election? supposedly the real one? is not likely to
take place on time. Do the American people have any idea who really won the
dubious election at all?

The oil-for-food scandal under Saddam Hussein has been replaced by
corruption in the distribution of U.S. funds to rebuild Iraq. Already there
is an admitted $9 billion discrepancy in the accounting of these funds. The
over-billing by Halliburton is no secret, but the process has not changed.

The whole process is corrupt. It just doesn't make sense to most Americans
to see their tax dollars used to fight an unnecessary and unjustified war.
First they see American bombs destroying a country, and then American
taxpayers are required to rebuild it. Today, it's easier to get funding to
rebuild infrastructure in Iraq than to build a bridge in the United States.
Indeed, we cut the Army Corps of Engineers' budget and operate on the cheap
with our veterans as the expenditures in Iraq skyrocket.

One question the war promoters don't want to hear asked, because they don't
want to face up to the answer, is this: "Are Christian Iraqis better off
today since we decided to build a new Iraq through force of arms?" The
answer is plainly no.

Sure, there are only 800,000 Christians living in Iraq, but under Saddam
Hussein they were free to practice their religion. Tariq Aziz, a Christian,
served in Saddam Hussein's cabinet as foreign minister? something that
would never happen in Saudi Arabia, Israel, or any other Middle Eastern
country. Today, the Christian churches in Iraq are under attack and
Christians are no longer safe. Many Christians have been forced to flee
Iraq and migrate to Syria. It's strange that the human rights advocates in
the U.S. Congress have expressed no concern for the persecution now going
on against Christians in Iraq. Both the Sunni and the Shi'ite Muslims
support the attacks on Christians. In fact, persecuting Christians is one
of the few areas in which they agree ? the other being the removal of all
foreign forces from Iraqi soil.

Considering the death, destruction, and continual chaos in Iraq, it's
difficult to accept the blanket statement that the Iraqis all feel much
better off with the U.S. in control rather than Saddam Hussein. Security in
the streets and criminal violence are not anywhere near being under
control.

But there's another question that is equally important: "Are the American
people better off because of the Iraq war?"

One thing's for sure: the 1,500-plus dead American soldiers aren't better
off. The nearly 20,000 severely injured or sickened American troops are not
better off. The families, the wives, the husbands, children, parents, and
friends of those who lost so much are not better off.

The families and the 40,000 troops who were forced to reenlist against
their will ? a de facto draft ? are not feeling better off. They believe
they have been deceived by their enlistment agreements.

The American taxpayers are not better off having spent over $200 billion to
pursue this war, with billions yet to be spent. The victims of the
inflation that always accompanies a guns-and-butter policy are already
getting a dose of what will become much worse.

Are our relationships with the rest of the world better off? I'd say no.
Because of the war, our alliances with the Europeans are weaker than ever.
The anti-American hatred among a growing number of Muslims around the world
is greater than ever. This makes terrorist attacks more likely than they
were before the invasion. Al-Qaeda recruiting has accelerated. Iraq is
being used as a training ground for al-Qaeda terrorists, which it never was
under Hussein's rule. So, as our military recruitment efforts suffer, Osama
bin Laden benefits by attracting more terrorist volunteers.

Oil was approximately $27 a barrel before the war, now it's more than twice
that. I wonder who benefits from this?

Because of the war, fewer dollars are available for real national security
and the defense of this country. Military spending is up, but the way the
money is spent distracts from true national defense and further undermines
our credibility around the world.

The ongoing war's lack of success has played a key role in diminishing
morale in our military services. Recruitment is sharply down, and most
branches face shortages of troops. Many young Americans rightly fear a
coming draft ? which will be required if we do not reassess and change the
unrealistic goals of our foreign policy.

The appropriations for the war are essentially off-budget and obscured, but
contribute nonetheless to the runaway deficit and increase in the national
debt. If these trends persist, inflation with economic stagnation will be
the inevitable consequences of a misdirected policy.

One of the most significant consequences in times of war that we ought to
be concerned about is the inevitable loss of personal liberty. Too often in
the patriotic nationalism that accompanies armed conflict, regardless of
the cause, there is a willingness to sacrifice personal freedoms in pursuit
of victory. The real irony is that we are told we go hither and yon to
fight for freedom and our Constitution, while carelessly sacrificing the
very freedoms here at home we're supposed to be fighting for. It makes no
sense.

This willingness to give up hard-fought personal liberties has been
especially noticeable in the atmosphere of the post-September 11th war on
terrorism. Security has replaced liberty as our main political goal,
damaging the American spirit. Sadly, the whole process is done in the name
of patriotism and in a spirit of growing militant nationalism.

These attitudes and fears surrounding the 9/11 tragedy, and our eagerness
to go to war in the Middle East against countries not responsible for the
attacks, have allowed a callousness to develop in our national psyche that
justifies torture and rejects due process of law for those who are suspects
and not convicted criminals.

We have come to accept preemptive war as necessary, Constitutional, and
morally justifiable. Starting a war without a proper declaration is now of
no concern to most Americans or the U.S. Congress. Let's hope and pray the
rumors of an attack on Iran in June by U.S. Armed Forces are wrong.

A large segment of the Christian community and its leadership think nothing
of rationalizing war in the name of a religion that prides itself on the
teachings of the Prince of Peace, who instructed us that blessed are the
peacemakers ? not the warmongers.

We casually accept our role as world policeman, and believe we have a moral
obligation to practice nation building in our image regardless of the
number of people who die in the process.

We have lost our way by rejecting the beliefs that made our country great.
We no longer trust in trade, friendship, peace, the Constitution, and the
principle of neutrality while avoiding entangling alliances with the rest
of the world. Spreading the message of hope and freedom by setting an
example for the world has been replaced by a belief that use of armed might
is the only practical tool to influence the world ? and we have accepted,
as the only superpower, the principle of initiating war against others.

In the process, Congress and the people have endorsed a usurpation of their
own authority, generously delivered to the executive and judicial branches
? not to mention international government bodies. The concept of national
sovereignty is now seen as an issue that concerns only the fringe in our
society.

Protection of life and liberty must once again become the issue that drives
political thought in this country. If this goal is replaced by an effort to
promote world government, use force to plan the economy, regulate the
people, and police the world, against the voluntary desires of the people,
it can be done only with the establishment of a totalitarian state. There's
no need for that. It's up to Congress and the American people to decide our
fate, and there is still time to correct our mistakes.


--- Some Guy <someguy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> From the Rocky Mountain Peace and Justice Center -- sg
> 
> >Just want to make sure that everyone has our anti-war events for
> Memorial
> >Day. Monday May 30 on their calendar. We hope to get a large turnout and
> >to demonstrate that the anti-war movement is alive and well in Boulder
> and
> >beyond! Please pass on to your friends and neighbors.
> >
> >Monday, May 30  Memorial Days Events against the war.
> >
> >Bannering at Folsom  Stadium in the morning during the Bolder Boulder.
> >Please let us know if you'd like to help with the morning
> >bannering.  303-444-6981x2.
> >
> >Daniel DeCaussin is organizing a peace contingent to walk in the Bolder
> >Boulder  (call him to find out about joining the contingent at
> 303-543-1224).
> >
> >Anti-war Rally and March starting at 2 p.m. at the Boulder County
> >Courthouse, 14th and Pearl Streets in Boulder. At a little before 3 p.m.
> >we will march over to Speakers Corner at the Boulder Creek Fest, where
> we
> >will have additional speeches and songs. Speakers will mainly be
> anti-war
> >veterans, since Memorial Day is when we remember vets who have died in
> war.
> >
> >Also Boulder High School students are putting together a display
> >commemorating the people who have died in Iraq for the the entire
> weekend.
> >The display will be outside on one of the fields at Boulder High. It
> will
> >consist of 1600 small flags stuck in the ground. Each flag will have the
> >picture of one of the military people who have died in Iraq.
> 
> 
> --
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
> Version: 7.0.322 / Virus Database: 266.11.15 - Release Date: 05/22/2005
> 
> 
> 
> ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> 
> DonorsChoose. A simple way to provide underprivileged children resources 
> often lacking in public schools. Fund a student project in NYC/NC today!
> http://us.click.yahoo.com/EHLuJD/.WnJAA/cUmLAA/JdSolB/TM
> --------------------------------------------------------------------~-> 
> 
> lpboulder email list:
>   Post message: lpboulder@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>   Unsubscribe:  lpboulder-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>   Subscribe:    lpboulder-subscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>   Questions:    info@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>  
> Yahoo! Groups Links
> 
> <*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
>     http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lpboulder/
> 
> <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>     lpboulder-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> 
> <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
>     http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>  
> 
> 
> 

Roger Ko

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com