[GJM] In Congress, Opposing the War but Doing Nothing to Stop It

[marguerite hampton]

This message is rather ambiguous in that while Ron Paul
seemingly wants to end the war, he also wants to preserve 
both the American lifestyle and the current monetary system. 

Someone needs to understand that we can't have it both 
ways. We can't have our cake and eat it too.

Recall again, that as we became the most prosperous
nation in the history of the world, (since World War II) 
we also created more environmental devastation than 
at any time in previous recorded history.  And have 
increasingly created a larger and larger rift between 
"the Haves" and "the Have-not's" using legal means to 
do so.   

The main driver (although there are others which act in 
sync) of our social system (and its sub-systems, e.g., 
education, religion, medical, communications, 
agriculture, etc.) is the Global Monetocracy System 
which is based in capitalism.  The bottom line motive 
of this system is "profit" for the elite who control it. 

"He who controls the money has the power". 

However, money in and of itself has no conscience
other than what we as humans give to it.  

In order to solve the problem, the human family must
go to another level/dimension of consciousness.  
We are still in flatland. 

So, isn't the question:  "How do we transform ourselves
to attain a higher level of consciousness"? 

eco  
  


(To change your settings or unsubscribe please go to 
http://lists.riseup.net/www/info/globalnetnews-summary) 
  
http://www.antiwar.com/paul/?articleid=10523 
February 15, 2007 
In Congress, Opposing the War but Doing Nothing to Stop It 
by Rep. Ron Paul 
  
Watch Ron Paul's speech on video. 
  
  This grand debate is welcomed but it could be that this is nothing  
more than a distraction from the dangerous military confrontation  
approaching with Iran and supported by many in leadership on both  
sides of the aisle. 
This resolution, unfortunately, does not address the disaster in  
Iraq. Instead, it seeks to appear opposed to the war while at the  
same time offering no change of the status quo in Iraq. As such, it  
is not actually a vote against a troop surge. A real vote against a  
troop surge is a vote against the coming supplemental appropriation  
that finances it. I hope all of my colleagues who vote against the  
surge today will vote against the budgetary surge when it really  
counts: when we vote on the supplemental. 
  
The biggest red herring in this debate is the constant innuendo that  
those who don't support expanding the war are somehow opposing the  
troops. It's nothing more than a canard to claim that those of us who  
struggled to prevent the bloodshed and now want it stopped are  
somehow less patriotic and less concerned about the welfare of our  
military personnel. 
  
Osama bin Laden has expressed sadistic pleasure with our invasion of  
Iraq and was surprised that we served his interests above and beyond  
his dreams on how we responded after the 9/11 attacks. His pleasure  
comes from our policy of folly getting ourselves bogged down in the  
middle of a religious civil war, 7,000 miles from home that is  
financially bleeding us to death. Total costs now are reasonably  
estimated to exceed $2 trillion. His recruitment of Islamic  
extremists has been greatly enhanced by our occupation of Iraq. 
  
Unfortunately, we continue to concentrate on the obvious  
mismanagement of a war promoted by false information and ignore  
debating the real issue which is: Why are we determined to follow a  
foreign policy of empire building and preemption which is unbecoming  
of a constitutional republic? 
  
Those on the right should recall that the traditional conservative  
position of non-intervention was their position for most of the 20th  
Century – and they benefited politically from the wars carelessly  
entered into by the political left. Seven years ago the right  
benefited politically by condemning the illegal intervention in  
Kosovo and Somalia. At the time conservatives were outraged over the  
failed policy of nation building. 
  
It's important to recall that the left, in 2003, offered little  
opposition to the preemptive war in Iraq, and many are now not  
willing to stop it by defunding it or work to prevent an attack on Iran. 
  
The catch-all phrase, "War on Terrorism," in all honesty, has no more  
meaning than if one wants to wage a war against criminal gangsterism.  
It's deliberately vague and nondefinable to justify and permit  
perpetual war anywhere, and under any circumstances. Don't forget:  
the Iraqis and Saddam Hussein had absolutely nothing to do with any  
terrorist attack against us including that on 9/11. 
  
Special interests and the demented philosophy of conquest have driven  
most wars throughout history. Rarely has the cause of liberty, as it  
was in our own revolution, been the driving force. In recent decades  
our policies have been driven by neoconservative empire radicalism,  
profiteering in the military industrial complex, misplaced do-good  
internationalism, mercantilistic notions regarding the need to  
control natural resources, and blind loyalty to various governments  
in the Middle East. 
  
For all the misinformation given the American people to justify our  
invasion, such as our need for national security, enforcing UN  
resolutions, removing a dictator, establishing a democracy,  
protecting our oil, the argument has been reduced to this: If we  
leave now Iraq will be left in a mess – implying the implausible that  
if we stay it won't be a mess. 
  
Since it could go badly when we leave, that blame must be placed on  
those who took us there, not on those of us who now insist that  
Americans no longer need be killed or maimed and that Americans no  
longer need to kill any more Iraqis. We've had enough of both! 
  
Resorting to a medical analogy, a wrong diagnosis was made at the  
beginning of the war and the wrong treatment was prescribed. Refusing  
to reassess our mistakes and insist on just more and more of a failed  
remedy is destined to kill the patient-in this case the casualties  
will be our liberties and prosperity here at home and peace abroad. 
  
There's no logical reason to reject the restraints placed in the  
Constitution regarding our engaging in foreign conflicts unrelated to  
our national security. The advice of the founders and our early  
presidents was sound then and it's sound today. 
  
We shouldn't wait until our financial system is completely ruined and  
we are forced to change our ways. We should do it as quickly as  
possible and stop the carnage and financial bleeding that will bring  
us to our knees and force us to stop that which we should have never  
started. 
  
We all know, in time, the war will be de-funded one way or another  
and the troops will come home. So why not now?