GOP Congressman Warns of new Gulf of Tonkin incident

[reprehensor]

Run time: 01:50 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6d8MIENVtKw   Posted on YouTube: January 14, 2007 By YouTube Member: reprehensor Views on YouTube: 89571   Posted on DU: January 15, 2007 By DU Member: reprehensor Views on DU: 2403

 
Texas GOP congressman Ron Paul warns of a Gulf of Tonkin type incident to initiate a shooting war with Iran, on Thursday, January 11, 2007.

When a Republican congressman is willing to take this to the floor of the House, you know things are bad. Congressman Paul doesn't care much for the Neocons in general.

[bleever]

1. Good for him.

:kick:

[seemslikeadream]

2. ESCALATION IS HARDLY THE ANSWER

:hi:

ESCALATION IS HARDLY THE ANSWER -- (House of Representatives - January 11, 2007) Ron Paul
Mr. Speaker, a military victory in Iraq is unattainable, just as it was in the Vietnam War. At the close of the Vietnam War in 1975, a telling conversation took place between a North Vietnamese colonel named Tu and an American colonel named Harry Summers. Colonel Summers said to Tu, You know, you never beat us on the battlefield. And Tu replied, That may be so, but it is also irrelevant.

It is likewise irrelevant to seek military victory in Iraq. As conditions deteriorate in Iraq, the American people are told more blood must be spilled to achieve just such a military victory. 21,000 additional troops and another $100 billion are needed for a surge, yet the people remain rightfully skeptical.

Though we have been in Iraq for nearly 4 years, the meager goal today simply is to secure Baghdad. This hardly shows that the mission is even partly accomplished.

Astonishingly, American taxpayers now will be forced to finance a multi-billion dollar jobs program in Iraq. Suddenly the war is about jobs. We export our manufacturing jobs to Asia, and now we plan to export our welfare jobs to Iraq, all at the expense of the poor and the middle class here at home.

Plans are being made to become more ruthless in achieving stability in Iraq. It appears Muqtada al Sadr will be on the receiving end of our military efforts, despite his overwhelming support among large segments of the Iraqi people.

It is interesting to note that one excuse given for our failure is leveled at the Iraqis themselves: they have not done enough, we are told, and are difficult to train. Yet no one complains that the Mahdi or the Kurdish militias, the Badr Brigade, the real Iraqi Government, not our appointed government, are not well trained. Our problems obviously have nothing to do with training Iraqis to fight, but instead with loyalties and motivations.

We claim to be spreading democracy in Iraq. But al Sadr has far more democratic support with the majority Shiites than our troops enjoy. The problem is not a lack of democratic consensus; it is the antipathy among most Iraqis.

In real estate, the three important considerations are: location, location, location. In Iraq, the three conditions are: occupation, occupation, occupation. Nothing can improve in Iraq until we understand that our occupation is the primary source of the chaos and killing. We are a foreign occupying force strongly resented by the majority of Iraqi citizens.

Our inability to adapt to the tactics of fourth-generation warfare compounds our military failure. Unless we understand this, even doubling our troop strength will not solve the problems created by our occupation.

The talk of a troop surge and jobs program in Iraq only distracts Americans from the very real possibility of an attack on Iran. Our growing naval presence in the region and our harsh rhetoric towards Iran are unsettling. Securing the Horn of Africa and sending Ethiopian troops into Somalia do not bode well for world peace, yet these developments are almost totally ignored by Congress.

Rumors are flying about when, not if, Iran will be bombed by either Israel or the United States, possibly with nuclear weapons. Our CIA says Iran is 10 years away from producing a nuclear bomb and has no delivery system, but this does not impede our plans to keep everything on the table when dealing with Iran.

We should remember that Iran, like Iraq, is a third world nation without a significant military. Nothing in history hints that she is likely to invade a neighboring country, let alone do anything to America or Israel.

I am concerned, however, that a contrived Gulf of Tonkin type incident may well occur to gain popular support for an attack on Iran. Even if such an attack is carried out by Israel over U.S. objections, we will be politically and morally culpable, since we provided the weapons and dollars to make it possible.

Mr. Speaker, let's hope I am wrong about this one.

[FredStembottom]

3. That's a WOW!

If it takes a Republican to speak plainly about possible phony "incidents" to get us into war......... so be it!

Let the Dems stop pretending like this man has stopped.

We are not in a politics as usual situation.

History has arrived.

[Jackpine Radical]

4. Ron Paul is pretty nuts.

But that doesn't mean he's wrong on this one.

[Hissyspit]

6. That's it in a nutshell. n/t

[Morgana LaFey]

11. I don't know how he's nuts -- everything I've seen from him

(posted to DU) has been right on the money.

[Jackpine Radical]

13. He's sort of a libertarian Pat Buchanan.

In these times much of what he says sounds sane.

Check him out in the Wikipedia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Paul

[Morgana LaFey]

19. I know he's Libertarian, and runs as a Republican, and

has been re-elected from his TX district a bunch of times. Libertarian does not, in my book equal nuts. I don't have the time or energy to read all that at Wikipedia. If you want to defend your "nuts" statement, please do. Otherwise, I'll take it as hyperbole.

I'm not trying to defend Paul, tho I have often found his positions and principled statements on the floor of the House admirable, but I think it's not a good practice to demean people without cause. You got cause? I'd like to hear about it.

[Usrename]

21. Yep, I wish we had about a dozen more like him.

He is much, much better than most Dems, especially his anti-war and pro-impeachment positions. A principled guy, I would say.

[cyclezealot]

26. Hardly would vote for the guy.

But, unlike the Repukes, Paul would never put our liberties at risk.

[Morgana LaFey]

30. Better than most Dems?

Ummm, not sure I'd go that far. Definitely better than most Repugs, from what I know about him.

[Usrename]

33. Looks like most Dems support the war and oppose impeachment.

So yes, he is definitely better than most Dems.

[rman]

24. But what kind of libertarian?

That's the question.
He looks to be less of corporatist in libertarian clothing than a traditional ('left-wing') libertarian.

[bajamary]

5. chilling

Thanks for the post.

It's chilling to think another Gulf of Tonkin can happen but with the current administration all bets are off.

The Madness of King George 43.

[Harper_is_Bush]

7. kicked and RECOMMENDED. nt

[AX10]

8. K & R!

[bonito]

9. Ron Paul tells it like he sees it K&R n/t

[Tom Joad]

10. This congressperson is not liked by AIPAC. Wonder why?

[quiet.american]

12. With Republicans speaking out like this, it's starting to feel a little like U.S. I grew up in.

Instead of the fascist nightmare it's been for the last six years.

[expatriot]

14. Ron Paul has been speaking out against Bush since the beginning

He's an antiwar libertarian type, like the folks who run antiwar.com... he's been anti-war for years.... I am sure Bush wishes he could make like Stalin and purge him from the GOP.

[Independent_Liberal]

15. K&R! Way to go Congressman Paul!

:patriot:

[Jcrowley]

16. Paul's an interesting character

and actually not a Republican by today's criteria.

K&R

[Independent_Liberal]

17. I consider him to be an Eisenhower Republican.

He's somebody I have a lot of respect for.

[Robson]

18. Marches to the beat of his own drummer...do you like that?

There's something about elected officials such as Paul that march to the beat of their own drummer, as opposed to party hacks that march lock step with each other, that many find quite respectable.

Personally I'd prefer if those in Congress did what they thought was righteous for their own constituents instead of what special interests and party leaders prefer.

[rman]

23. Well it seems he did get reelected several times

So it looks like according to his constituents he's doing something right.

[Octafish]

20. Phony wars for phony Americans.

Thanks for the heads-up, reprehensor.

Dr. Paul puts the nation and the Constitutions ahead of his "party."

Regarding the Gulf of Tonkin: 58,000 Americans and as many as 6 million people from southeast Asia died as a result of LBJ's lie.

[uberllama42]

25. That's why I get confused when people say Bush lied into war as though

that has never happened before. Don't get me wrong, I hope he is tried and convicted for his lies, as all the liars before him should have been. But most of America's wars have been based on lies. Most notably:

In order to start the Mexican War, James Polk lied, saying that American blood had been "spilled on American soil." American troops had started a skirmish miles into Mexican territory.

In order to start the Spanish-American War, Bill McKinley lied, adopting the lie of Bill Hearst and Joe Pulitzer that the Maine had been destroyed by the Spanish Navy. No one knew at the time what had sunk the Maine.

In order to enter World War I, Woodrow Wilson lied, claiming that the Lusitania was a civilian transport ship which had been mercilessly destroyed by the Germans, killing dozens of Americans. In fact the ship was heavily laden with arms which the U.S. was selling to the British Navy.

[wildbilln864]

22. Kicked and recommended!

This warning needs to be spread across the country in order to try to pre-empt any false flags IMHO.

[freedomfries]

27. K & R

Ron Paul is right - unfortunately.
Thanks for posting!

[El Supremo]

28. Iran not a big military power?

This guy is nuts.

GlobalFirepower.com ranks them 16th in strength. Ahead of North Korea!

Here are their facts:

Available Military Manpower: 18,319,545
Total Military Personnel: 11,770,000
Active Frontline Personnel: 420,000

Yearly Military Expenditure: $4,300,000,000
Available Purchasing Power: $552,800,000,000
Reported Gold Reserves: $40,060,000,000

Aircraft: 954
Armor: 2,380
Artillery Systems: 4,594
Missile Defense Systems: 1,760
Infantry Support Systems: 12,500
Naval Units: 65
Merchant Marine Strength: 143

http://www.globalfirepower.com/country_detail.asp?country_id=25

[rman]

29. "without a significant military"

Spends only 1/100th of what the US spends, and unlike the US has no nuclear weapons, and does not have a history of military aggression.

The fact that some nations have an even less significant military than Iran does not mean Iran is a big military power, especially when compared to Israel and the US.

[reprehensor]

31. Global Military Spending

[reprehensor]

32. Federal Spending

[Ignacio Upton]

34. Ron Paul is a RINO in the literal sense

He was the Libertarian candidate for President back in 1988, and then ran for a Texas House seat as a Republican in order to be taken more seriously.