Ron Paul condemns Propaganda Bill and Iran war Surge in Congress

Again, bear in mind the previous article "The Jews of Iran" as you read about this propaganda resolution which pre-emptively accuses Iran of "not preventing Genocide", overlooking the 25,000 Jews peacefully coexisting in Iran, without persecution, with complete freedom, and with representation in government--something Palestinians in Israel do not! Also, the "wipe off the map" translation of Ahmadinijad is also already refuted propaganda (bear in mind the need for accurate translations and impartial translators, for understanding) and hardly a "threat of genocide", but merely a quarrel about the true legality and justice of establishing the Zionist regime named "Israel", which has not been contained within the borders agreed upon either.

If Iran truly wanted to "wipe Israel off the map" by militarism they would have begun when Israel bombed the entire country and infrastructure, killing thousands of civilians of Lebanon, under the justification of defending a neighbor from hostile attack. In fact, Israel was trying to provoke war with Iran by this action, while the neoconservative Zionists, specifically James Woolsey and William Kristol were calling for the U.S. to strike both Syria and Iran (ramping up the provocation for Iran to enter the conflict) at that same time! Just who are the war-mongers and perpetrators but those who provoke and inflame unjust war! President Ahmadinejad of Iran, wisely did not fall for their craft, and maintained nothing but patience, as Israel bombed the civilians of Lebanon and their infrastructure into dust. But apparently Israel is entirely free to "wipe off the map" Lebanon, Syria, or whomever it pleases with entire impunity, and in fact the Project for New American Century neoconservative blueprint, from Sept. 2000, calls for "regime change" in all these countries for a "new middle east"! Just who has designs on "wiping" nations "off the map" in truth?

What kind of Christian morality or "conservative" principles do we see here by the neoconservative war-mongers except that of a gang mentality? Where are the Christian principles of "just war" here? Behind all this is the heresy and corrupt modern Christian doctrine of Zionism (new to the 20th century) which gives a superstitious reverence to the name, geography, peoples (despite less than half of Israel is Jewish) and corrupt government called "Israel"--a nation with questionable legal status, no legally defined borders (the UN however, who pretentiously granted the sovereignty does, define borders which Israel has violated and expanded), and not even a constitution (see CIA Factbook)! TALK ABOUT "ROGUE REGIMES", AND THEY POSSESS WMD, AND THREATEN TO USE THEM--EVEN PRE-EMPTIVELY!

Most all republican presidential candidates (owned by AIPAC and the Israeli lobby), except Ron Paul, have all agreed to the premise ("not off the table") of "preemptive nuclear attack" on Iran--like insane, psycopathic, genociders themselves! Again, the "just war theory of Christianity" (biblical strictures on when war becomes justified and moral) would PREVENT the present course of the neoconservative and Zionist war-mongers that incite the Congress to push these measures unjustly. That is what presidential candidate Ron Paul says is the "greatest moral problem" (i.e. the "shedding of innocent blood", like 655,000 Iraqi civilians, not "terrorists") that modern Christians turn a blind eye to while pretending to defend unborn fetuses (a clever political decoy scheme used to justify war policy by shifting the focus after Viet Nam)--ignoring that unjust war is murder as well, and the higher crime! Clearly, modern Christianity is corrupt and lacks Christian principles , being led by fake Christian leaders and very unconservative politicians who are liberal about what justifies war.

-------------------

June 21, 2007

Have We Forgotten 2003 Already?
Statement on H Con Res 21 by Rep. Ron Paul

This resolution is an exercise in propaganda that serves one purpose: to move us closer to initiating a war against Iran. Citing various controversial statements by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, this legislation demands that the United Nations Security Council charge Ahmadinejad with violating the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.

Having already initiated a disastrous war against Iraq citing UN resolutions as justification, this resolution is like déja-vu. Have we forgotten 2003 already? Do we really want to go to war again for UN resolutions? That is where this resolution, and the many others we have passed over the last several years on Iran, is leading us. I hope my colleagues understand that a vote for this bill is a vote to move us closer to war with Iran.

Clearly, language threatening to wipe a nation or a group of people off the map is to be condemned by all civilized people. And I do condemn any such language. But why does threatening Iran with a pre-emptive nuclear strike, as many here have done, not also deserve the same kind of condemnation? Does anyone believe that dropping nuclear weapons on Iran will not wipe a people off the map? When it is said that nothing, including a nuclear strike, is off the table on Iran, are those who say it not also threatening genocide? And we wonder why the rest of the world accuses us of behaving hypocritically, of telling the rest of the world "do as we say, not as we do."

I strongly urge my colleagues to consider a different approach to Iran, and to foreign policy in general. General William Odom, President Reagan's director of the National Security Agency, outlined a much more sensible approach in a recent article titled "Exit From Iraq Should Be Through Iran." General Odom wrote: "Increasingly bogged down in the sands of Iraq, the U.S. thrashes about looking for an honorable exit. Restoring cooperation between Washington and Tehran is the single most important step that could be taken to rescue the U.S. from its predicament in Iraq." General Odom makes good sense. We need to engage the rest of the world, including Iran and Syria, through diplomacy, trade, and travel rather than pass threatening legislation like this that paves the way to war. We have seen the limitations of force as a tool of U.S. foreign policy. It is time to try a more traditional and conservative approach. I urge a "no" vote on this resolution.

[from article at Bovard linked]