Friday, March 07, 2008

Ron Paul Stands Alone Against Gaza Bill (404-1)

What courage! God bless Ron Paul.

On Wednesday, March 5, the House passed H.R. 951, which condemns the ongoing Palestinian rocket attacks on Israeli civilians, holding both Iran and Syria responsible for "sponsoring terror attacks." Additionally, the resolution claims that "those responsible for launching rocket attacks against Israel routinely embed their production facilities and launch sites amongst the Palestinian civilian population, utilizing them as human shields". For the full text of House Resolution 951, click here.

This resolution problematically includes a strong defense of the recent Israeli incursions in Gaza.

The resolution passed the House with an unequivocal majority of 404 to 1 with four representatives voting present and nineteen abstaining. Who was the lone Member of Congress to stand up to the Israel Lobby? Congressman Ron Paul (R-TX) not only voted against HR 951, but also made a very strong statement explaining why he opposed such a biased pro-Israel statement.

Below is Rep. Paul's statement he gave to the House before the vote:
"Mr. Speaker I rise in opposition to H. Res. 951, a resolution to condemn Palestinian rocket attacks on Israeli civilians. As one who is consistently against war and violence, I obviously do not support the firing of rockets indiscriminately into civilian populations. I believe it is appalling that Palestinians are firing rockets that harm innocent Israelis, just as I believe it is appalling that Israel fires missiles into Palestinian areas where children and other non-combatants are killed and injured.

Unfortunately, legislation such as this is more likely to perpetuate violence in the Middle East than contribute to its abatement. It is our continued involvement and intervention - particularly when it appears to be one-sided - that reduces the incentive for opposing sides to reach a lasting peace agreement.

Additionally, this bill will continue the march toward war with Iran and Syria, as it contains provocative language targeting these countries. The legislation oversimplifies the Israel/Palestine conflict and the larger unrest in the Middle East by simply pointing the finger at Iran and Syria. This is another piece in a steady series of legislation passed in the House that intensifies enmity between the United States and Iran and Syria. My colleagues will recall that we saw a similar steady stream of provocative legislation against Iraq in the years before the US attack on that country.

I strongly believe that we must cease making proclamations involving conflicts that have nothing to do with the United States. We incur the wrath of those who feel slighted while doing very little to slow or stop the violence."

Labels: ,


Blogger Amanda said...

Wow, this is the only sensible thing I've ever heard Ron Paul say.

2:14 PM  
Blogger Puckpan said...

Well then Amanda, I would suggest you listen. Stop letting the media tell you who you should listen to.

3:47 PM  
Blogger Amanda said...

I don't let the media tell me who I should listen to. In fact, I rarely have anything to do with the media at all. I've listened. I think most of Ron Paul's ideas are wrong. Appauling, even. Scary.

And btw, it's sort of arrogant to assume that if people don't see things your way, they're just mindless media-sheep.

7:32 PM  
Blogger Puckpan said...

Perhaps; but his entire article is about people who don't share his point of view. And thinking the publicfollows too much the line of the press is not an extreme position. George Orwell wrote about it 50 years ago.

Besides, you seem to be the one complaining about your different point of view from Dr. Paul. And you're not according him any more respect.

7:57 PM  
Blogger Amanda said...

There's a difference between thinking the public as a whole follows the press too much and accusing individuals of doing so. No, it's not an uncommon or an extreme position, it's just arrogant to assume you know about strangers' lives.

It doesn't really matter. I'm not bothered by it. A little amused, perhaps. And I don't quite understand your last comment - how exactly am I complaining that I don't share Mr. Paul's views? I'm not complaining. I'm GLAD I don't share his views. And disagreeing with him isn't exactly the same thing as disrespecting him. If I think his views are generally nonsense and that this one is good, stating so is not disrespect. It's disagreement.

8:36 PM  
Blogger Puckpan said...

If it be a disagreement then you ought not label it "nonsense." That term judges you to be "right" and Dr. Paul (and we who agree with him) to be wrong. You harbor more than a disagreement - you harbor arrogance - the belief that you know right from wrong.

And you don't.

8:55 PM  
Blogger Amanda said...

Oh gracious! In no way do I think I know right and wrong. I'm actually of the belief that there is no universal right and wrong.

I don't label it nonsense. I label it as "I think it's nonsense." Me personally. Just because I think something doesn't make it right or wrong, nor have I tried to convince you from your beliefs. Just because others might not think his policies are nonsense doesn't mean I'm not allowed to. That would turn that arrogance around and say people like YOU are trying to determine right and wrong for others.

Besides, when I put up the first comment, I wasn't trying to disagree (or agree) with you. Your blog is not at all clear on your political, religious, moral, ethical, etc views. The only thing I get from this blog is that you don't like Israel, and that was from a comment that may or may not have been sarcastic, so I'm not even sure that's true. From this article, I had no idea if you support Ron Paul or if you, like me, thought this was one good thing Ron Paul has done. We have a problem in the electronic age of interpreting each other's voices in whatever we think we hear, with all the nuances we imply from words. You interpret me incorrectly, and I you.

6:42 AM  
Blogger Puckpan said...

Well then we are largely on the same page.

I also do not believe in universal right and wrong except that people do and should act in their own self-interest; I from mine and you from yours. We are both right to do so.

But when you say - "The only thing I get from this blog is that you don't like Israel" - it reflects your myopia. There are dozens of articles I post that have nothing to do with Israel but that I care passionately about.

You are right I don't like Israel. But if that's all you see in my blog - then you are evaluating everything from the point of view of - "Is it good for the Jews." And of course, since I'm not Jewish - that's entirely irrelevant to me.

7:35 AM  
Blogger Amanda said...

That was a bizarre jump in logic. I do see that you've posted many other subjects (and I've read them), I'm just not at all clear what your opinion is on them. I don't hear the nuances of what you're saying, and I can't tell what your opinions are. I think that has less to do with myopia and more to do with being strangers, unfamiliar with each others' voices. Just because YOU think you are clear doesn't mean everyone else will agree.

But it's the "But if that's all you see in my blog - then you are evaluating everything from the point of view of - "Is it good for the Jews."" response that doesn't make sense to me. Why, if I only understand part of your blog, does it mean I care one way or another about Jews? If you haven't been able to tell from MY comments, I don't like Israel. I'm passionately against American support of Israel. I've been to Isreal and the West Bank and I've seen what's going on over there. I have family who lives there (West Bank). I don't see why me noticing a subject that I care about - human rights violations in Israel, and American support of those violations - in someone's blog means that I'm judging (or dismissing) every post with regards to how it affects Jews. That's like saying I like ice cream because the milk is white. Related, perhaps, but irrelevant. Yeah.

I'm sorry that I haven't been able to pick up on your viewpoints in other posts. I've tried, and I simply can't tell when you're being sarcastic and when you're not. I can't figure out what you believe from them. Even in the posts in Israel, I wasn't sure what your thoughts were, except you left one comment about what a terrible country Isreal was and it seemed less sarcastic than the rest.

10:27 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home

eXTReMe Tracker