Skip to comments.Statement Opposing Resolution on Iran
Posted on 06/20/2009 2:43:51 PM PDT by GoldStandard
I rise in reluctant opposition to H Res 560, which condemns the Iranian government for its recent actions during the unrest in that country. While I never condone violence, much less the violence that governments are only too willing to mete out to their own citizens, I am always very cautious about condemning the actions of governments overseas. As an elected member of the United States House of Representatives, I have always questioned our constitutional authority to sit in judgment of the actions of foreign governments of which we are not representatives. I have always hesitated when my colleagues rush to pronounce final judgment on events thousands of miles away about which we know very little. And we know very little beyond limited press reports about what is happening in Iran.
Of course I do not support attempts by foreign governments to suppress the democratic aspirations of their people, but when is the last time we condemned Saudi Arabia or Egypt or the many other countries where unlike in Iran there is no opportunity to exercise any substantial vote on political leadership? It seems our criticism is selective and applied when there are political points to be made. I have admired President Obamas cautious approach to the situation in Iran and I would have preferred that we in the House had acted similarly.
I adhere to the foreign policy of our Founders, who advised that we not interfere in the internal affairs of countries overseas. I believe that is the best policy for the United States, for our national security and for our prosperity. I urge my colleagues to reject this and all similar meddling resolutions.
He's a ignorant fool. Good riddance to him as prez material.
Good article. But in this case, we KNOW what the tyrant was doing.
I don’t really like Ron Paul but, other than the shout out to Clinton, I pretty much agree with him.
This was, I think, the best point he made in the statement.
Really? Rep. Paul, two words: Fox News.
Well, that’s not entirely true. The main difference is that Saudi Arabia is an ally for all intents and purposes so we’d probably be shooting ourselves in the foot by condemning the lack of elections (sham or otherwise) in Saudi Arabia.
Yes, I’m pretty much aware of the fact that I probably just contradicted myself. So there.
Historic relativism is as condemnable as moral relativism. Has Ron ever heard the phrase: “Strike while the iron is hot?” No and you see why Ron is irrelevant and doesnt get anything down.
By Ron’s gauge, how many years of prefect consistency in foreign policy will be required before we might take a stance against the worst of the worst thuggery...20, 50, 100 years? 1000 years?
and L. Ron Paul voted against condemning ahmadinejad when he spoke in NY.
I guess a dictator who wants America destroyed, Israel wiped off the map, denies the holocaust, and responsible
for thousands of deaths is just another guy who should have free speech.
L Ron Paul is a demagog and his supporters are delusional.
What a joke he is. Anyone who can look at the video of that woman getting shot, and find no ability to say it was evil, is nothing but a joke.
Another "idiot" I presume. Enough with the name calling. You may not agree with Ron Paul, but he is reasoned and principled in his arguments.
No, I’d say he’s an idiot. But 95% of the population pretty much knew that already.
Ron Paul would have fit in perfectly with the isolationist crowd of 1940.
Ron Paul Ping
God bless Dr. Paul...now that is REAL change that we can believe in!
So you don’t have a problem w/ us sticking our nose into the affairs of other nations?
Answer me this question (if you can): would you be upset if China, Russia, etc. condemned us for the outcome of the 2000 election? Would you tell them to “shut up...it’s none of your business!”, or would you have stood up & cheered?
W/ Fox News being all Iran all the time, I wonder what's going on in D.C. that they're NOT telling us about....kinda like that song "Things Goin' On" by Kynyrd Skynyrd.
You got a problem w/ that??? Hell, Pearl Harbor, our entry into WWII, & dropping the A-bomb might never have happened had we listened to the advice of "Mr. Republican" Sen. Robert Taft (R-OH).
And just WHOSE interests was Dr. Paul elected to represent? And (allegedly) whose interests was the Pres__ent hired to represent?
Oh, that’s right... AMERICAN interests. I realize that Obambi only represents American interests when it suits his socialist agenda, but Dr. Paul is quite correct when he asserts that it is none of our OFFICIAL business what is happening in Iran. While we, on this forum, as PRIVATE CITIZENS, are fully free to express our opinions, our support for the dissidents and our loathing of the regime in Tehran, our GOVERNMENT is supposed to be looking out for these UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, not sticking its nose into the internal affairs of another nation, not for ANY reason. And, as someone mentioned, it is totally hypocritical to want to condemn one nation whilst ignoring even worse behavior in another, just because it supposedly supports us (even as it exports the Wahhabism brand of evil islam, which is so anti-American it should make your eyes water. Dr. Paul is correct and he is properly representing his employers, the Americans who elected him to office.
I must admit that beyond reporting it I don't know of anything the US government can do here of any good. You cant help wonder if the democracy in Iraq is fueling this(many Iranians are jealous of Iraqis) , but we don't know what the outcome will be, good or bad.
Imagine this ending like the Berlin Wall falling in 1989 a year after Reagan, that could actually (partially) redeem the GWB disaster. The media would never admit it. just a thought I had watching the news today.
od bless you! I hope that Emo4SC doesn't mind if I snag & re-print that statement by George Washington (THANK YOU Emo!):
I have always given it as my decided opinion that no nation had a right to inter-meddle in the internal concerns of another; and that, if this country could, consistent with its engagements, maintain a strict neutrality and thereby preserve peace. George Washington Letter to James Monroe, August 25, 1796
Dream on, happy wishful thinking
What kind of ally permits fifteen of its citizens to commit mass homicide by slamming hijacked civilian jets into office buildings?
Suggesting that Saudi Arabia is our ally is like suggesting that the RINOs are conservatives' best friends.
Nice quote, but Iran has been the cause behind terrorism that has killed Americans from Teheran to Beirut to Baghdad for over 30 years. They are the nexus of Islamic terrorism.
They have meddled with us.
It is time they were paid back, especially for the IEDs and weapons that have taken the lives of hundreds of our servicemen in Iraq.
And that, George Washington would not only agree with, but he would act upon it.
Only because we have been meddling w/ them...whether it be putting The Shah into power back in the 50's or 60's, putting our military bases on what Muslims consider to be holy soil, having our Marines in Beirut, our involvement in Iraq (@ least twice that we know of), & who knows what else. Had we taken George Washington's advice decades ago, we wouldn't have had to deal w/ what we have now.
Muslims consider all their soil to be holy. Big deal.
Islam is not a religion, it is a political death cult.
Muslims are offended by the very act of breathing by infidels like us.
And who has the US fought the wars of the last 20 years on behalf of?
Oh yeah, Muslims—freed Kuwait, freed the Kurds, freed Iraq, freed Afghanistan—twice—once from the Russians and once from the Taliban. And help the Kosovans and Bosnians.
The US and the Muslims go back a long way, since before 1805. They meddled with us first.
We need to meddle with them last.
It doesn't matter....our military needs to be used to defend the United States, rather than fighting wars all over the world for other folks in the name of (BS) "democracy". Can you tell me where the Constitution gives the feds the power to police the world?
Actually, this is a legitimate point. Interfering in a lawful war makes one a belligerent nation. And, IMO, the acts of the Iranian state with regard to the Iraq war are considered acts of war against the United States. Furthermore, by any standard set forth, the assault on the U.S. Embassy in Tehran in the 1970s was an act of war, too.
We are in Iraq to defend the United States". I said Iran has been complicit in killing American soldiers in Iraq, and is responsible for terroristic acts that have killed Americans for over thirty years.
You argued that the Muzzies are justified in hating us, going back to the Shah of Iran and the coup in 1953.
I countered that Muzzies hate us because we are breathing and there is no pleasing them, in spite of the blood and treasure we have expended on Muslim countries in the last 20 years.
The Constitution does not say we are to be the world's supercop.
But in Afghanistan and Iraq, we are there to defend the US against terrorism.
And Iran is the nexus of that terrorism.
Knock off their leadership and the world instantly becomes a better place.
For the US.
Saying we are in Iraq to defend the US is an absolute joke. it’s a LIE. We halped create the foundation for today’s problems in Iran by meddling in their affairs decades ago.
I don't lie, Chris.
And I don't joke about the deaths of 4500 of my countrymen dying to protect your butt and mine.
The sickness that is Islam existed long before there was a US, or before we "meddled" in their affairs.
We could have been the greatest benefactors to Iran in decades past, and these mullahs would still consider us the Great Satan.
The only absolute joke I see is your understanding of the world you live in.
All I know is what the Constitution says...& have read the words of the Founding Fathers re: how our federal government should act. Our nation has drastically changed not only what it thinks the Constitution says, but also its attitudes concerning what the Founders wanted for us. We have failed miserably in continuing their legacy.
Your post 36, I agree with. Our ruling class in DC takes an oath to uphold the Constitution, and then ignores it.
But that is a separate issue from what we are discussing.
Your post 32 needs an edit from you. I cannot let that statement stand unchallenged.
Is that close to what he said?
This is the genius who was supposed to bring succor to our fallen system?
Have you ever even read a book in your life?
He is questioning whether or not Congress has the authority to make such judgments in the 1st place -- which, if you read what George Washington said in Emo4SC's post #12 (& my re-post on #23), they are inconsistent w/ ea other.
No...I’m completely illiterate. My dog is doing the typing for me.
Smart dog. Want to sell it?
Then how will I get the news? I don’t have a TV.
In fact there are few in this world who do impress me regardless of their station.
I think that it is cowardice indeed for elected officials to not take stands that are discernable.
If you believe that this fellow Ron Paul deserves more than a cursory review, then you ought to make a better presentation than what is in your profile and posts.
“what is happening in Iran”
What exactly is happening in Iran?
Because frankly, the only information that we are getting about Iran comes from the establishment media and the federal government.
I find it interesting that just as we were starting to talk about socializing X% of the Republic’s GDP through (more) unconstitutional federal intrusion in health care, all of a sudden we are plastered with wall to wall news about the national elections in a third world country. For what purpose? This is all a nice big distraction as the current administration takes over car companies, interferes with private contracts, puts just about everyone with a conservative or traditionalist view on a watch list, devalues the currency, goes after the 2A etc.
BTW...what about our electronic voting systems? Are they secure?
Once again Ron Paul gets it right. Meaningless resolutions are do gooder feel gooder exercises which amount to nada.
Too bad Americans don’t have the courage of some Iranians. Our last Presidential election was stolen without so much as a whimper. Part voter fraud , part count fraud, part precinct fraud, and govt supported ACORN fraud all contributed to a marxist being elected.
So what are we arguing about? We’re arguing about who supports or doesn’t support the voters of Iran.
We deserve everything Obama stiffs us with.
That IS a good question. I suppose it could well help cover up something much more sinister... and you KNOW our voting machines are not secure... never have been.
Makes for interesting contemplation!
WE, here, can properly argue that... But our “leaders” should not be... They need to tend to the LEGITIMATE business of AMERICA.
I'd say name-calling is pretty pathetic. I doubt if you ran for office and had your every word and thought scrutinized a thousand times over, most wouldn't think of you as a genius frankly.