Congressman Ron Paul
WHY ARE AMERICANS SO ANGRY? - PART II
Thu Jul 13, 2006 16:46
Reckoning PRESENTS: As Congressman Ron Paul pointed out in the
first part of this essay, the American people are fed up for a lot of
legitimate reasons...but almost all polls show the mess in Iraq leads the
list of why the anger is so intense. Read on...
WHY ARE AMERICANS SO ANGRY? - PART II
by Hon. Ron Paul
http://www.house.gov/paul/index.shtml
Short wars, with well-defined victories, are tolerated by the American
people even when they are misled as to the reasons for the war. Wars
entered into without a proper declaration tend to be politically motivated
and not for national security reasons. These wars, by their very nature,
are prolonged, costly, and usually require a new administration to finally
end them.
This certainly was true with the Korean and Vietnam wars. The lack of a
quick military success, the loss of life and limb, and the huge economic
costs of lengthy wars precipitate anger. This is overwhelmingly true when
the war propaganda that stirred up illegitimate fears is exposed as a
fraud. Most soon come to realize the promise of guns and butter is an
illusion. They come to understand that inflation, a weak economy, and a
prolonged war without real success are the reality.
The anger over the Iraq war is multifaceted. Some are angry believing they
were lied to in order to gain their support at the beginning. Others are
angry that the forty billion dollars we spend every year on intelligence
gathering failed to provide good information. Proponents of the war too
often are unable to admit the truth. They become frustrated with the
progress of the war and then turn on those wanting to change course,
angrily denouncing them as unpatriotic and un-American.
Those accused are quick to respond to the insulting charges made by those
who want to fight on forever without regard to casualties. Proponents of
the war do not hesitate to challenge the manhood of war critics, accusing
them of wanting to cut and run. Some war supporters ducked military
service themselves while others fought and died, only adding to the anger
of those who have seen battle up close and now question our campaign in
Iraq.
When people see a $600 million embassy being built in Baghdad, while
funding for services here in the United States is hard to obtain, they
become angry. They can't understand why the money is being spent,
especially when they are told by our government that we have no intention
of remaining permanently in Iraq.
The bickering and anger will not subside soon, since victory in Iraq is
not on the horizon and a change in policy is not likely either.
The neoconservative instigators of the war are angry at everyone: at the
people who want to get out of Iraq; and especially at those prosecuting
the war for not bombing more aggressively, sending in more troops, and
expanding the war into Iran.
As our country becomes poorer due to the cost of the war, anger surely
will escalate. Much of it will be justified.
It seems bizarre that it's so unthinkable to change course if the current
policy is failing. Our leaders are like a physician who makes a wrong
diagnosis and prescribes the wrong medicine, but because of his ego can't
tell the patient he made a mistake. Instead he hopes the patient will get
better on his own. But instead of improving, the patient gets worse from
the medication wrongly prescribed. This would be abhorrent behavior in
medicine, but tragically it is commonplace in politics.
If the truth is admitted, it would appear that the lives lost and the
money spent have been in vain. Instead, more casualties must be sustained
to prove a false premise. What a tragedy! If the truth is admitted,
imagine the anger of all the families that already have suffered such a
burden. That burden is softened when the families and the wounded are told
their great sacrifice was worthy, and required to preserve our freedoms
and our Constitution.
But no one is allowed to ask the obvious. How have the 2,500 plus deaths,
and the 18,500 wounded, made us more free? What in the world does Iraq
have to do with protecting our civil liberties here at home? What national
security threat prompted America's first pre-emptive war? How does our
unilateral enforcement of UN resolutions enhance our freedoms?
These questions aren't permitted. They are not politically correct. I
agree that the truth hurts, and these questions are terribly hurtful to
the families that have suffered so much. What a horrible thought it would
be to find out the cause for which we fight is not quite so noble.
I don't believe those who hide from the truth and refuse to face the
reality of the war do so deliberately. The pain is too great. Deep down,
psychologically, many are incapable of admitting such a costly and
emotionally damaging error. They instead become even greater and more
determined supporters of the failed policy.
I would concede that there are some-- especially the die-hard
neoconservatives, who believe it is our moral duty to spread American
goodness through force and remake the Middle East-- who neither suffer
regrets nor are bothered by the casualties. They continue to argue for
more war without remorse, as long as they themselves do not have to fight.
Criticism is reserved for the wimps who want to "cut and run."
Due to the psychological need to persist with the failed policy, the war
proponents must remain in denial of many facts staring them in the face.
They refuse to accept that the real reason for our invasion and occupation
of Iraq was not related to terrorism.
They deny that our military is weaker as a consequence of this war.
They won't admit that our invasion has served the interests of Osama Bin
Laden. They continue to blame our image problems around the world on a few
bad apples.
They won't admit that our invasion has served the interests of Iran's
radical regime.
The cost in lives lost and dollars spent is glossed over, and the deficit
spirals up without concern.
They ridicule those who point out that our relationships with our allies
have been significantly damaged.
We have provided a tremendous incentive for Russia and China, and others
like Iran, to organize through the Shanghai Cooperation Organization. They
entertain future challenges to our plans to dominate South East Asia, the
Middle East, and all its oil.
Radicalizing the Middle East will in the long term jeopardize Israel's
security, and increase the odds of this war spreading.
War supporters cannot see that for every Iraqi killed, another family
turns on us-- regardless of who did the killing. We are and will continue
to be blamed for every wrong done in Iraq: all deaths, illness, water
problems, food shortages, and electricity outages.
As long as our political leaders persist in these denials, the war won't
end. The problem is that this is the source of the anger, because the
American people are not in denial and want a change in policy.
Policy changes in wartime are difficult, for it is almost impossible for
the administration to change course since so much emotional energy has
been invested in the effort. That's why Eisenhower ended the Korean War,
and not Truman. That's why Nixon ended the Vietnam War, and not LBJ. Even
in the case of Vietnam the end was too slow and costly, as more then
30,000 military deaths came after Nixon's election in 1968. It makes a lot
more sense to avoid unnecessary wars than to overcome the politics
involved in stopping them once started. I personally am convinced that
many of our wars could be prevented by paying stricter attention to the
method whereby our troops are committed to battle. I also am convinced
that when Congress does not declare war, victory is unlikely.
The most important thing Congress can do to prevent needless and foolish
wars is for every member to take seriously his or her oath to obey the
Constitution. Wars should be entered into only after great deliberation
and caution. Wars that are declared by Congress should reflect the support
of the people, and the goal should be a quick and successful resolution.
Our undeclared wars over the past 65 years have dragged on without precise
victories. We fight to spread American values, to enforce UN resolutions,
and to slay supposed Hitlers. We forget that we once spread American
values by persuasion and setting an example-- not by bombs and preemptive
invasions. Nowhere in the Constitution are we permitted to go to war on
behalf of the United Nations at the sacrifice of our national sovereignty.
We repeatedly use military force against former allies, thugs we helped
empower-like Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden-even when they pose no
danger to us.
The 2002 resolution allowing the president to decide when and if to invade
Iraq is an embarrassment. The Constitution authorizes only Congress to
declare war. Our refusal to declare war transferred power to the president
illegally, without a constitutional amendment. Congress did this with a
simple resolution, passed by majority vote. This means Congress reneged on
its responsibility as a separate branch of government, and should be held
accountable for the bad policy in Iraq that the majority of Americans are
now upset about. Congress is every bit as much at fault as the president.
Constitutional questions aside, the American people should have demanded
more answers from their government before they supported the invasion and
occupation of a foreign country.
Some of the strongest supporters of the war declare that we are a
Christian nation, yet use their religious beliefs to justify the war. They
claim it is our Christian duty to remake the Middle East and attack the
Muslim infidels. Evidently I have been reading from a different Bible. I
remember something about "Blessed are the peacemakers."
My beliefs aside, Christian teaching of nearly a thousand years reinforces
the concept of "The Just War Theory." This Christian theory emphasizes six
criteria needed to justify Christian participation in war. Briefly the six
points are as follows:
War should be fought only in self defense;
War should be undertaken only as a last resort;
A decision to enter war should be made only by a legitimate authority;
All military responses must be proportional to the threat;
There must be a reasonable chance of success; and
A public declaration notifying all parties concerned is required.
The war in Iraq fails to meet almost all of these requirements. This
discrepancy has generated anger and division within the Christian
community.
Some are angry because the war is being fought out of Christian duty, yet
does not have uniform support from all Christians. Others are angry
because they see Christianity as a religion as peace and forgiveness, not
war and annihilation of enemies.
Constitutional and moral restraints on war should be strictly followed. It
is understandable when kings, dictators, and tyrants take their people
into war, since it serves their selfish interests-- and those sent to
fight have no say in the matter. It is more difficult to understand why
democracies and democratic legislative bodies, which have a say over the
issue of war, so readily submit to the executive branch of government. The
determined effort of the authors of our Constitution to firmly place the
power to declare war in the legislative branch has been ignored in the
decades following WWII.
Many members have confided in me that they are quite comfortable with this
arrangement. They flatly do not expect, in this modern age, to formally
declare war ever again. Yet no one predicts there will be fewer wars
fought. It is instead assumed they will be ordered by the executive branch
or the United Nations-- a rather sad commentary.
What about the practical arguments against war, since no one seems
interested in exerting constitutional or moral restraints? Why do we
continue to fight prolonged, political wars when the practical results are
so bad? Our undeclared wars since 1945 have been very costly, to put it
mildly. We have suffered over one hundred thousand military deaths, and
even more serious casualties. Tens of thousands have suffered from serious
war-related illnesses. Sadly, we as a nation express essentially no
concern for the millions of civilian casualties in the countries where we
fought.
The cost of war since 1945, and our military presence in over 100
countries, exceeds two trillion dollars in today's dollars. The cost in
higher taxes, debt, and persistent inflation is immeasurable. Likewise,
the economic opportunities lost by diverting trillions of dollars into war
is impossible to measure, but it is huge. Yet our presidents persist in
picking fights with countries that pose no threat to us, refusing to
participate in true diplomacy to resolve differences. Congress over the
decades has never resisted the political pressures to send our troops
abroad on missions that defy imagination.
When the people object to a new adventure, the propaganda machine goes
into action to make sure critics are seen as unpatriotic Americans or even
traitors.
The military-industrial complex we were warned about has been transformed
into a military-media-industrial-government complex that is capable of
silencing the dissenters and cheerleading for war. It's only after years
of failure that people are able to overcome the propaganda for war and
pressure their representatives in Congress to stop the needless killing.
Many times the economic costs of war stir people to demand an end. This
time around the war might be brought to a halt by our actual inability to
pay the bills due to a dollar crisis. A dollar crisis will make borrowing
2.5 billion dollars per day from foreign powers like China and Japan
virtually impossible, at least at affordable interest rates.
That's when we will be forced to reassess the spending spree, both at home
and abroad.
The solution to this mess is not complicated; but the changes needed are
nearly impossible for political reasons. Sound free market economics,
sound money, and a sensible foreign policy would all result from strict
adherence to the Constitution. If the people desired it, and Congress was
filled with responsible members, a smooth although challenging transition
could be achieved. Since this is unlikely, we can only hope that the rule
of law and the goal of liberty can be reestablished without chaos.
We must move quickly toward a more traditional American foreign policy of
peace, friendship, and trade with all nations; entangling alliances with
none. We must reject the notion that we can or should make the world safe
for democracy. We must forget about being the world's policeman. We should
disengage from the unworkable and unforgiving task of nation building. We
must reject the notion that our military should be used to protect natural
resources, private investments, or serve the interest of any foreign
government or the United Nations. Our military should be designed for one
purpose: defending our national security. It's time to come home now,
before financial conditions or military weakness dictates it.
The major obstacle to a sensible foreign policy is the fiction about what
patriotism means. Today patriotism has come to mean blind support for the
government and its policies. In earlier times patriotism meant having the
willingness and courage to challenge government policies regardless of
popular perceptions.
Today we constantly hear innuendos and direct insults aimed at those who
dare to challenge current foreign policy, no matter how flawed that policy
may be. I would suggest it takes more courage to admit the truth, to admit
mistakes, than to attack others as unpatriotic for disagreeing with the
war in Iraq.
Remember, the original American patriots challenged the abuses of King
George, and wrote and carried out the Declaration of Independence.
Yes Mr. Speaker, there is a lot of anger in this country. Much of it is
justified; some of it is totally unnecessary and misdirected. The onl
first part of this essay, the American people are fed up for a lot of
legitimate reasons...but almost all polls show the mess in Iraq leads the
list of why the anger is so intense. Read on...
WHY ARE AMERICANS SO ANGRY? - PART II
by Hon. Ron Paul
http://www.house.gov/paul/index.shtml
Short wars, with well-defined victories, are tolerated by the American
people even when they are misled as to the reasons for the war. Wars
entered into without a proper declaration tend to be politically motivated
and not for national security reasons. These wars, by their very nature,
are prolonged, costly, and usually require a new administration to finally
end them.
This certainly was true with the Korean and Vietnam wars. The lack of a
quick military success, the loss of life and limb, and the huge economic
costs of lengthy wars precipitate anger. This is overwhelmingly true when
the war propaganda that stirred up illegitimate fears is exposed as a
fraud. Most soon come to realize the promise of guns and butter is an
illusion. They come to understand that inflation, a weak economy, and a
prolonged war without real success are the reality.
The anger over the Iraq war is multifaceted. Some are angry believing they
were lied to in order to gain their support at the beginning. Others are
angry that the forty billion dollars we spend every year on intelligence
gathering failed to provide good information. Proponents of the war too
often are unable to admit the truth. They become frustrated with the
progress of the war and then turn on those wanting to change course,
angrily denouncing them as unpatriotic and un-American.
Those accused are quick to respond to the insulting charges made by those
who want to fight on forever without regard to casualties. Proponents of
the war do not hesitate to challenge the manhood of war critics, accusing
them of wanting to cut and run. Some war supporters ducked military
service themselves while others fought and died, only adding to the anger
of those who have seen battle up close and now question our campaign in
Iraq.
When people see a $600 million embassy being built in Baghdad, while
funding for services here in the United States is hard to obtain, they
become angry. They can't understand why the money is being spent,
especially when they are told by our government that we have no intention
of remaining permanently in Iraq.
The bickering and anger will not subside soon, since victory in Iraq is
not on the horizon and a change in policy is not likely either.
The neoconservative instigators of the war are angry at everyone: at the
people who want to get out of Iraq; and especially at those prosecuting
the war for not bombing more aggressively, sending in more troops, and
expanding the war into Iran.
As our country becomes poorer due to the cost of the war, anger surely
will escalate. Much of it will be justified.
It seems bizarre that it's so unthinkable to change course if the current
policy is failing. Our leaders are like a physician who makes a wrong
diagnosis and prescribes the wrong medicine, but because of his ego can't
tell the patient he made a mistake. Instead he hopes the patient will get
better on his own. But instead of improving, the patient gets worse from
the medication wrongly prescribed. This would be abhorrent behavior in
medicine, but tragically it is commonplace in politics.
If the truth is admitted, it would appear that the lives lost and the
money spent have been in vain. Instead, more casualties must be sustained
to prove a false premise. What a tragedy! If the truth is admitted,
imagine the anger of all the families that already have suffered such a
burden. That burden is softened when the families and the wounded are told
their great sacrifice was worthy, and required to preserve our freedoms
and our Constitution.
But no one is allowed to ask the obvious. How have the 2,500 plus deaths,
and the 18,500 wounded, made us more free? What in the world does Iraq
have to do with protecting our civil liberties here at home? What national
security threat prompted America's first pre-emptive war? How does our
unilateral enforcement of UN resolutions enhance our freedoms?
These questions aren't permitted. They are not politically correct. I
agree that the truth hurts, and these questions are terribly hurtful to
the families that have suffered so much. What a horrible thought it would
be to find out the cause for which we fight is not quite so noble.
I don't believe those who hide from the truth and refuse to face the
reality of the war do so deliberately. The pain is too great. Deep down,
psychologically, many are incapable of admitting such a costly and
emotionally damaging error. They instead become even greater and more
determined supporters of the failed policy.
I would concede that there are some-- especially the die-hard
neoconservatives, who believe it is our moral duty to spread American
goodness through force and remake the Middle East-- who neither suffer
regrets nor are bothered by the casualties. They continue to argue for
more war without remorse, as long as they themselves do not have to fight.
Criticism is reserved for the wimps who want to "cut and run."
Due to the psychological need to persist with the failed policy, the war
proponents must remain in denial of many facts staring them in the face.
They refuse to accept that the real reason for our invasion and occupation
of Iraq was not related to terrorism.
They deny that our military is weaker as a consequence of this war.
They won't admit that our invasion has served the interests of Osama Bin
Laden. They continue to blame our image problems around the world on a few
bad apples.
They won't admit that our invasion has served the interests of Iran's
radical regime.
The cost in lives lost and dollars spent is glossed over, and the deficit
spirals up without concern.
They ridicule those who point out that our relationships with our allies
have been significantly damaged.
We have provided a tremendous incentive for Russia and China, and others
like Iran, to organize through the Shanghai Cooperation Organization. They
entertain future challenges to our plans to dominate South East Asia, the
Middle East, and all its oil.
Radicalizing the Middle East will in the long term jeopardize Israel's
security, and increase the odds of this war spreading.
War supporters cannot see that for every Iraqi killed, another family
turns on us-- regardless of who did the killing. We are and will continue
to be blamed for every wrong done in Iraq: all deaths, illness, water
problems, food shortages, and electricity outages.
As long as our political leaders persist in these denials, the war won't
end. The problem is that this is the source of the anger, because the
American people are not in denial and want a change in policy.
Policy changes in wartime are difficult, for it is almost impossible for
the administration to change course since so much emotional energy has
been invested in the effort. That's why Eisenhower ended the Korean War,
and not Truman. That's why Nixon ended the Vietnam War, and not LBJ. Even
in the case of Vietnam the end was too slow and costly, as more then
30,000 military deaths came after Nixon's election in 1968. It makes a lot
more sense to avoid unnecessary wars than to overcome the politics
involved in stopping them once started. I personally am convinced that
many of our wars could be prevented by paying stricter attention to the
method whereby our troops are committed to battle. I also am convinced
that when Congress does not declare war, victory is unlikely.
The most important thing Congress can do to prevent needless and foolish
wars is for every member to take seriously his or her oath to obey the
Constitution. Wars should be entered into only after great deliberation
and caution. Wars that are declared by Congress should reflect the support
of the people, and the goal should be a quick and successful resolution.
Our undeclared wars over the past 65 years have dragged on without precise
victories. We fight to spread American values, to enforce UN resolutions,
and to slay supposed Hitlers. We forget that we once spread American
values by persuasion and setting an example-- not by bombs and preemptive
invasions. Nowhere in the Constitution are we permitted to go to war on
behalf of the United Nations at the sacrifice of our national sovereignty.
We repeatedly use military force against former allies, thugs we helped
empower-like Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden-even when they pose no
danger to us.
The 2002 resolution allowing the president to decide when and if to invade
Iraq is an embarrassment. The Constitution authorizes only Congress to
declare war. Our refusal to declare war transferred power to the president
illegally, without a constitutional amendment. Congress did this with a
simple resolution, passed by majority vote. This means Congress reneged on
its responsibility as a separate branch of government, and should be held
accountable for the bad policy in Iraq that the majority of Americans are
now upset about. Congress is every bit as much at fault as the president.
Constitutional questions aside, the American people should have demanded
more answers from their government before they supported the invasion and
occupation of a foreign country.
Some of the strongest supporters of the war declare that we are a
Christian nation, yet use their religious beliefs to justify the war. They
claim it is our Christian duty to remake the Middle East and attack the
Muslim infidels. Evidently I have been reading from a different Bible. I
remember something about "Blessed are the peacemakers."
My beliefs aside, Christian teaching of nearly a thousand years reinforces
the concept of "The Just War Theory." This Christian theory emphasizes six
criteria needed to justify Christian participation in war. Briefly the six
points are as follows:
War should be fought only in self defense;
War should be undertaken only as a last resort;
A decision to enter war should be made only by a legitimate authority;
All military responses must be proportional to the threat;
There must be a reasonable chance of success; and
A public declaration notifying all parties concerned is required.
The war in Iraq fails to meet almost all of these requirements. This
discrepancy has generated anger and division within the Christian
community.
Some are angry because the war is being fought out of Christian duty, yet
does not have uniform support from all Christians. Others are angry
because they see Christianity as a religion as peace and forgiveness, not
war and annihilation of enemies.
Constitutional and moral restraints on war should be strictly followed. It
is understandable when kings, dictators, and tyrants take their people
into war, since it serves their selfish interests-- and those sent to
fight have no say in the matter. It is more difficult to understand why
democracies and democratic legislative bodies, which have a say over the
issue of war, so readily submit to the executive branch of government. The
determined effort of the authors of our Constitution to firmly place the
power to declare war in the legislative branch has been ignored in the
decades following WWII.
Many members have confided in me that they are quite comfortable with this
arrangement. They flatly do not expect, in this modern age, to formally
declare war ever again. Yet no one predicts there will be fewer wars
fought. It is instead assumed they will be ordered by the executive branch
or the United Nations-- a rather sad commentary.
What about the practical arguments against war, since no one seems
interested in exerting constitutional or moral restraints? Why do we
continue to fight prolonged, political wars when the practical results are
so bad? Our undeclared wars since 1945 have been very costly, to put it
mildly. We have suffered over one hundred thousand military deaths, and
even more serious casualties. Tens of thousands have suffered from serious
war-related illnesses. Sadly, we as a nation express essentially no
concern for the millions of civilian casualties in the countries where we
fought.
The cost of war since 1945, and our military presence in over 100
countries, exceeds two trillion dollars in today's dollars. The cost in
higher taxes, debt, and persistent inflation is immeasurable. Likewise,
the economic opportunities lost by diverting trillions of dollars into war
is impossible to measure, but it is huge. Yet our presidents persist in
picking fights with countries that pose no threat to us, refusing to
participate in true diplomacy to resolve differences. Congress over the
decades has never resisted the political pressures to send our troops
abroad on missions that defy imagination.
When the people object to a new adventure, the propaganda machine goes
into action to make sure critics are seen as unpatriotic Americans or even
traitors.
The military-industrial complex we were warned about has been transformed
into a military-media-industrial-government complex that is capable of
silencing the dissenters and cheerleading for war. It's only after years
of failure that people are able to overcome the propaganda for war and
pressure their representatives in Congress to stop the needless killing.
Many times the economic costs of war stir people to demand an end. This
time around the war might be brought to a halt by our actual inability to
pay the bills due to a dollar crisis. A dollar crisis will make borrowing
2.5 billion dollars per day from foreign powers like China and Japan
virtually impossible, at least at affordable interest rates.
That's when we will be forced to reassess the spending spree, both at home
and abroad.
The solution to this mess is not complicated; but the changes needed are
nearly impossible for political reasons. Sound free market economics,
sound money, and a sensible foreign policy would all result from strict
adherence to the Constitution. If the people desired it, and Congress was
filled with responsible members, a smooth although challenging transition
could be achieved. Since this is unlikely, we can only hope that the rule
of law and the goal of liberty can be reestablished without chaos.
We must move quickly toward a more traditional American foreign policy of
peace, friendship, and trade with all nations; entangling alliances with
none. We must reject the notion that we can or should make the world safe
for democracy. We must forget about being the world's policeman. We should
disengage from the unworkable and unforgiving task of nation building. We
must reject the notion that our military should be used to protect natural
resources, private investments, or serve the interest of any foreign
government or the United Nations. Our military should be designed for one
purpose: defending our national security. It's time to come home now,
before financial conditions or military weakness dictates it.
The major obstacle to a sensible foreign policy is the fiction about what
patriotism means. Today patriotism has come to mean blind support for the
government and its policies. In earlier times patriotism meant having the
willingness and courage to challenge government policies regardless of
popular perceptions.
Today we constantly hear innuendos and direct insults aimed at those who
dare to challenge current foreign policy, no matter how flawed that policy
may be. I would suggest it takes more courage to admit the truth, to admit
mistakes, than to attack others as unpatriotic for disagreeing with the
war in Iraq.
Remember, the original American patriots challenged the abuses of King
George, and wrote and carried out the Declaration of Independence.
Yes Mr. Speaker, there is a lot of anger in this country. Much of it is
justified; some of it is totally unnecessary and misdirected. The onl
- THE Astonishing Story the News Media Are Afraid to Break — Tim Huckabay, Thu Jul 13 16:28
- Iraqi antiquities ripoff + pentagon looters — bradm, Thu Jul 13 22:41
- WHY ARE AMERICANS SO ANGRY? - PART II — Congressman Ron Paul, Thu Jul 13 16:46
Main Page -
Thursday, 07/13/06
Message Board by American Patriot Friends Network [APFN]
