Re: NBC: The Law of Opposites

You don't think much of Lampson, huh? We don't have much of a choice
in PA either. Weldon(he's the loop job who introduced that bill to
take away Smirk's Commander-in-Chief powers) seems to be as good as
gone .. it's why he's more of a loon then usual ... Gerlach(who is the
US House guy for where I live) is hopefully fried .. the same woman who
ran against him 2 years ago is running again ... hopefully she gets
over the top this time ... if she does .. it will certainly mean people
are fed up with Smirk .. which I think they are by now




gumboman wrote:
"Calvin Jones & the 13th Apostle" <Another_Thin_Line@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in
message news:1157818401.193459.240610@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Gumboman,
I thought you were in DeLay's district? Anyway, if this guy is
smacking down Bush likes this. then trouble is indeed brewing.



No, DeLay's district is on the other side of the lake that includes NASA,
etc. Actually, that's his new district that he set up after the bull***
redistricting that went on here in Texas. Previously he was over on the west
side of town, mainly in the Sugarland area. He gerrymandered what he thought
would be a safe district and included the NASA area that runs along the lake
(but not all of the NASA area).

I'm actually in Jack Brook's old district that used to include the
Beaumont/Galveston area but now runs mostly along the coast including more
south than in previous years. Paul has been representing the folks around
Freeport/Lake Jackson in various offices for years and years. A lot of
people think he's somewhat 'cranky' but in the area he has a good reputation
for honesty and I think a lot of people down here like his libertarian
views. I'll probably break ranks with some of the Democrats this year and
vote for him, Kinky Freidman and some other non-Democrats.

He beat the guy who is now running in DeLay's district. Truthfully, I'm not
so sure how high I am on him other than he's a Democrat and definitely beter
than DeLay. We'll see what happens if he gets elected. Let's hope he learned
a few lessons.



JH





gumboman wrote:
Another putdown of the smirkies from my Congressman. Damn, can November
get
here fast enough?


The Law of Opposites

by Rep. Ron Paul



Everyone is aware of the Law of Unintended Consequences. Most
members
of Congress understand that government actions can have unintended
consequences, yet few quit voting for government "solutions" - always
hoping
there won't be any particular unintended consequences this time. They
keep
hoping there will be less harmful complications from the "solution" that
they currently support. Economics teaches that for every government
action
to solve an economic problem, others are created. The same unwanted
results
occur with foreign policy meddling.

The Law of Opposites is just a variation of the Law of Unintended
Consequences. When we attempt to achieve a certain goal - like, "make the
world safe for democracy," a grandiose scheme of World War I - one can be
sure the world will become less safe and less democratic regardless of
the
motivation.

The 1st World War was sold to the American people as the war to end
all wars. Instead, history shows it was the war that caused the 20th
century
to be the most war-torn century in history. Our entry into World War I
helped lead us into World War II, the Cold War, the Korean War, and the
Vietnam War. Even our current crisis in the Middle East can be traced to
the
great wars of the 20th century. Though tens of millions of deaths are
associated with these wars, we haven't learned a thing.

We went into Korea by direction of the United Nations, not a
congressional declaration of war, to unify Korea. And yet that war
ensured
that Korea remains divided to this day; our troops are still there. South
Korea today is much more willing to reconcile differences with North
Korea,
and yet we obstruct such efforts. It doesn't make much sense.

We went into Vietnam and involved ourselves unnecessarily in a
civil
war to bring peace and harmony to that country. We lost 60,000 troops and
spent hundreds of billions of dollars, yet failed to achieve victory.
Ironically, since losing in Vietnam we now have a better relationship
with
them than ever. We now trade, invest, travel, and communicate with a
unified, western-leaning country that is catching on rather quickly to
capitalist ways. This policy, not military confrontation, is exactly what
the Constitution permits and the Founders encouraged in our relationship
with others.

This policy should apply to both friends and perceived enemies.
Diplomacy and trade can accomplish goals that military intervention
cannot -
and they certainly are less costly.

In both instances - Korea and Vietnam - neither country attacked
us,
and neither country posed a threat to our security. In neither case did
we
declare war. All of the fighting and killing was based on lies,
miscalculations, and the failure to abide by constitutional restraint
with
regards to war.

When goals are couched in terms of humanitarianism, sincere or not,
the results are inevitably bad. Foreign interventionism requires the use
of
force. First, the funds needed to pursue a particular policy require that
taxes be forcibly imposed on the American people, either directly or
indirectly through inflation. Picking sides in foreign countries only
increases the chances of antagonism toward us. Too often foreign economic
and military support means impoverishing the poor in America and
enhancing
the rich ruling classes in poor countries. When sanctions are used
against
one undesirable regime, it squelches resistance to the very regimes we're
trying to undermine. Forty years of sanctions against Castro have left
him
in power, and fomented continued hatred and blame from the Cuban people
directed at us. Trade with Cuba likely would have accomplished the
opposite,
as it has in Vietnam, China, and even in the Eastern Bloc nations of the
old
Soviet empire.

We spend billions of dollars in Afghanistan and Colombia to curtail
drug production. No evidence exists that it helps. In fact, drug
production
and corruption have increased. We close our eyes to it because the
reasons
we're in Colombia and Afghanistan are denied.

Obviously, we are not putting forth the full effort required to
capture Osama bin Laden. Instead, our occupation of Afghanistan further
inflames the Muslim radicals that came of age with their fierce
resistance
to the Soviet occupation of a Muslim country. Our occupation merely
serves
as a recruiting device for al-Qaeda, which has promised retaliation for
our
presence in their country. We learned nothing after first allying
ourselves
with Osama bin Laden when he applied this same logic toward the Soviets.
The
net result of our invasion and occupation of Afghanistan has been to miss
capturing bin Laden, assist al-Qaeda's recruitment, stimulate more drug
production, lose hundreds of American lives, and allow spending billions
of
American taxpayer dollars with no end in sight.

Bankruptcy seems to be the only way we will reconsider the
foolishness
of this type of occupation. It's time for us to wake up.

Our policy toward Iran for the past 50 years is every bit as
disconcerting. It makes no sense unless one concedes that our government
is
manipulated by those who seek physical control over the vast oil riches
of
the Middle East and egged on by Israel's desires.

We have attacked the sovereignty of Iran on two occasions, and are
in
the process of threatening her for the third time. In 1953, the U.S. and
British overthrew the democratically elected Mohammed Mossadegh and
installed the Shah. His brutal regime lasted over 25 years, and ended
with
the Ayatollah taking power in 1979. Our support for the Shah incited the
radicalization of the Shi'ite Clerics in Iran, resulting in the hostage
takeover.

In the 1980s we provided weapons - including poisonous gas - to
Saddam
Hussein as we supported his invasion of Iran. These events are not
forgotten
by the Iranians, who see us once again looking for another confrontation
with them. We insist that the UN ignore the guarantees under the NPT that
grant countries like Iran the right to enrich uranium. The pressure on
the
UN and the threats we cast toward Iran are quite harmful to the cause of
peace. They are entirely unnecessary and serve no useful purpose. Our
policy
toward Iran is much more likely to result in her getting a nuclear weapon
than prevent it.

Our own effort at democratizing Iran has resulted instead in
radicalizing a population whose instincts are to like Americans and our
economic system. Our meddling these past 50 years has only served to
alienate and unify the entire country against us.

Though our officials only see Iran as an enemy, as does Israel, our
policies in the Middle East these past 5 years have done wonders to
strengthen Iran's political and military position in the region. We have
totally ignored serious overtures by the Iranians to negotiate with us
before hostilities broke out in Iraq in 2003. Both immediately after
9/11,
and especially at the time of our invasion of Iraq in 2003, Iran,
partially
out of fear and realism, honestly sought reconciliation and offered to
help
the U.S. in its battle against al-Qaeda. They were rebuked outright. Now
Iran is negotiating from a much stronger position, principally as a
result
of our overall Middle East policy.

We accommodated Iran by severely weakening the Taliban in
Afghanistan
on Iran's eastern borders. On Iran's western borders we helped the
Iranians
by eliminating their arch enemy, Saddam Hussein. Our invasion in Iraq and
the resulting chaos have inadvertently delivered up a large portion of
Iraq
to the Iranians, as the majority Shi'ites in Iraq ally themselves with
Iranians.

The U.S./Israeli plan to hit Hezbollah in Lebanon before taking on
Iran militarily has totally backfired. Now Hezbollah, an ally of Iran,
has
been made stronger than ever with the military failure to rout Hezbollah
from southern Lebanon. Before the U.S./Israeli invasion of Lebanon,
Hezbollah was supported by 20% of the population, now it's revered by
80%. A
democratic election in Lebanon cannot now serve the interest of the U.S.
or
Israel. It would only support the cause of radical clerics in Iran.

Demanding an election in Palestinian Gaza resulted in enhancing the
power of Hamas. The U.S. And Israel promptly rejected the results. So
much
for our support for democratically elected government.

Our support for dictatorial Arab leaders is a thorn in the side of
the
large Muslim population in the Middle East, and one of the main reasons
Osama bin Laden declared war against us. We talk of democracy and
self-determination, but the masses of people in the Middle East see
through
our hypocrisy when we support the Sunni secular dictators in Saudi
Arabia,
Egypt, and Jordan and at one time, Saddam Hussein.

In the late 1970s and the 1980s the CIA spent over $4 billion on a
program called "Operation Cyclone." This was our contribution to setting
up
training schools in Pakistan and elsewhere, including the U.S. itself, to
teach "sabotage skills." The purpose was to use these individuals in
fighting our enemies in the Middle East, including the Soviets. But as
one
could predict, this effort has come back to haunt us, as our radical ally
Osama bin Laden turned his fury against us after routing the Soviets. It
is
estimated that over 12,000 fighters were trained in the camps we set up
in
Afghanistan. They were taught how to make bombs, carry out sabotage, and
use
guerilla war tactics. And now we're on the receiving end of this U.S.
financed program - hardly a good investment.

It's difficult to understand why our policy makers aren't more
cautious in their efforts to police the world, once it's realized how
unsuccessful we have been. It seems they always hope that next time our
efforts won't come flying back in our face.

Our failed efforts in Iraq continue to drain our resources, costing
us
dearly both in lives lost and dollars spent. And there's no end in sight.
No
consideration is given for rejecting our obsession with a worldwide
military
presence, which rarely if ever directly enhances our security. A much
stronger case can be made that our policy of protecting our worldwide
interests actually does the opposite by making us weaker, alienating our
allies, inciting more hatred, and provoking our enemies. The more we have
interfered in the Middle East in the last 50 years, the greater the
danger
has become for an attack on us. The notion that Arab/Muslim radicals are
motivated to attack us because of our freedoms and prosperity, and not
our
unwelcome presence in their countries, is dangerous and silly.

We were told we needed to go into Iraq because our old ally, Saddam
Hussein, had weapons of mass destruction - yet no weapons of mass
destruction were found.

We were told we needed to occupy Iraq to remove al-Qaeda, yet
al-Qaeda
was nowhere to be found and now it's admitted it had nothing to do with
9/11. Yet today, Iraq is infested with al-Qaeda - achieving exactly the
opposite of what we sought to do.

We were told that we needed to secure "our oil" to protect our
economy
and to pay for our invasion and occupation. Instead, the opposite has
resulted: Oil production is down, oil prices are up, and no oil profits
have
been used to pay the bills.

We were told that a regime change in Iraq would help us in our
long-time fight with Iran, yet everything we have done in Iraq has served
the interests of Iran.

We're being told in a threatening and intimidating fashion that,
"If
America were to pull out before Iraq could defend itself, the
consequences
would be absolutely predictable and absolutely disastrous." I'm convinced
that the Law of Opposites could well apply here. Going into Iraq we know
produced exactly the opposite results of what was predicted: Leaving also
likely will have results opposite of those we're being frightened with.
Certainly leaving Vietnam at the height of the Cold War did not result in
the disaster predicted by the advocates of the Domino Theory - an
inevitable
Communist takeover of the entire Far East.

We're constantly being told that we cannot abandon Iraq and we are
obligated to stay forever if necessary. This admonition is similar to a
rallying cry from a determined religious missionary bent on proselytizing
to
the world with a particular religious message. Conceding that leaving may
not be a panacea for Iraqi tranquility, this assumption ignores two
things.
One, our preemptive war ignited the Iraqi civil war, and two, abandoning
the
Iraqi people is not the question. The real question is whether or not we
should abandon the American people by forcing them to pay for an
undeclared
war with huge economic and human costs, while placing our national
security
in greater jeopardy by ignoring our borders and serious problems here at
home.

In our attempt to make Iraq a better place, we did great harm to
Iraqi
Christians. Before our invasion in 2003 there were approximately 1.2
million
living in Iraq. Since then over half have been forced to leave due to
persecution and violence. Many escaped to Syria. With the neocons wanting
to
attack Syria, how long will they be safe there? The answer to the
question,
"Aren't we better off without Saddam Hussein," is not an automatic yes
for
Iraqi Christians.

We've been told for decades that our policy of militarism and
preemption in the Middle East is designed to provide security for Israel.
Yet a very strong case can be made that Israel is more vulnerable than
ever,
with moderate Muslims being challenged by a growing majority of Islamic
radicals. As the vincibility of the American and Israeli military becomes
common knowledge, Israel's security is diminished and world opinion turns
against her, especially after the failed efforts to remove the Hezbollah
threat.

We were told that attacking and eliminating Hezbollah was required
to
diminish the Iranian threat against Israel. The results again were the
opposite. This failed effort has only emboldened Iran.

The lack of success of conventional warfare - the U.S. In Vietnam,
the
Soviets in Afghanistan, the U.S. In Iraq and Afghanistan, Israel in
Lebanon - should awaken our policy makers to our failure in war and
diplomacy. Yet all we propose are bigger bombs and more military force
for
occupation, rather than working to understand an entirely new generation
of
modern warfare.

Many reasons are given for our preemptive wars and military
approach
for spreading the American message of freedom and prosperity, which is an
obvious impossibility. Our vital interests are always cited for
justification, and it's inferred that those who do not support our
militancy
are unpatriotic. Yet the opposite is actually the case: Wise resistance
to
one's own government doing bad things requires a love of country,
devotion
to idealism, and respect for the Rule of Law.

In attempting to build an artificial and unwelcome Iraqi military,
the
harder we try, the more money we spend, and the more lives we lose, the
stronger the real armies of Iraq become: the Sunni insurgency, the Badr
Brigade, the Sadr Mahdi Army, and the Kurdish militia.

The Kurds have already taken a bold step in this direction by
hoisting
a Kurdish flag and removing the Iraqi flag - a virtual declaration of
independence. Natural local forces are winning out over outside political
forces.

We're looking in all the wrong places for an Iraqi army to bring
stability to that country. The people have spoken and these troops that
represent large segments of the population need no training. It's not a
lack
of training, weapons, or money that hinders our efforts to create a new
superior Iraqi military. It's the lack of inspiration and support for
such
an endeavor that is missing. Developing borders and separating the
various
factions, which our policy explicitly prohibits, is the basic flaw in our
plan for a forced, unified, western-style democracy for Iraq. Allowing
self-determination for different regions is the only way to erase the
artificial nature of Iraq - an Iraq designed by western outsiders nearly
80
years ago. It's our obsession with control of the oil in the region, and
imposing our will on the Middle East, and accommodating the demands of
Israel that is the problem. And the American people are finally getting
sick
and tired of their sacrifices. It's time to stop the bleeding.

Instead we continue to hear the constant agitation for us to
confront
the Iranians with military action. Reasons to attack Iran make no more
sense
than our foolish preemptive war against Iraq. Fictitious charges and
imaginary dangers are used to frighten the American people into accepting
an
attack on Iran. First it may only be sanctions, but later it will be
bombs
and possible ground troops if the neocons have their way. Many of the
chicken-hawk neoconservative advisors to the administration are highly
critical of our current policy because it's not aggressive enough. They
want
more troops in Iraq, they want to attack Syria and Iran, and escalate the
conflict in Lebanon.

We have a troop shortage, morale is low, and our military equipment
is
in bad shape, yet the neocons would not hesitate to spend, borrow,
inflate,
and reinstate the draft to continue their grandiose schemes in remaking
the
entire Middle East. Obviously a victory of this sort is not available, no
matter what effort is made or how much money is spent.

Logic would tell us there's no way we will contemplate taking on
Iran
at this time. But logic did not prevail with our Iraq policy, and look at
the mess we have there. Besides, both sides, the neocon extremists and
the
radical Islamists, are driven by religious fervor. Both are convinced
that
God is on their side.

Both sides of the war in the Middle East are driven by religious
beliefs of omnipotence. Both sides endorse an eschatological theory
regarding the forthcoming end of time. Both anticipate the return of God
personified and as promised to each. Both sides are driven by a
conviction
of perfect knowledge regarding the Creator, and though we supposedly
worship
the same God, each sees the other side as completely wrong and
blasphemous.
The religiously driven Middle East war condemns tolerance of the other's
view. Advocates of restraint and the use of diplomacy are ridiculed as
appeasers, and equivalent to supporting Nazism and considered un-American
and un-Christian.

I find it amazing that we in this country seem determined to
completely separate religious expression and the state, even to the
detriment of the 1st Amendment. Yet we can say little about how Christian
and Jewish religious beliefs greatly influences our policies in the
Middle
East. It should be the other way around. Religious expression, according
to
the 1st Amendment, cannot be regulated anywhere by Congress or the
federal
courts. But deeply held theological beliefs should never dictate our
foreign
policy. Being falsely accused of anti-Semitism and being a supporter of
radical fascism is not an enviable position for any politician. Most
realize
it's best to be quiet and support our Middle East involvement.

Believing we have perfect knowledge of God's will, and believing
government can manage our lives and world affairs, have caused a great
deal
of problems for man over the ages. When these two elements are combined
they
become especially dangerous. Liberty, by contrast, removes power from
government and allows total freedom of choice in pursuing one's religious
beliefs. The only solution to controlling political violence is to
prohibit
the use of force to pursue religious goals and reject government
authority
to mold the behavior of individuals.

Both are enamored with the so-called benefit that chaos offers to
those promoting revolutionary changes. Both sides in situations like this
always underestimate the determination of the opposition, and ignore the
law
of unintended consequences. They never consider that these policies might
backfire.

Declaring war against Islamic fascism or terrorism is vague and
meaningless. This enemy we're fighting at the expense of our own
liberties
is purposely indefinable. Therefore the government will exercise wartime
powers indefinitely. We've been fully warned to expect a long, long war.

The Islamic fascists are almost impossible to identify and cannot
be
targeted by our conventional weapons. Those who threaten us essentially
are
unarmed and stateless. Comparing them to Nazi Germany, a huge military
power, is ridiculous. Labeling them as a unified force is a mistake. It's
critical that we figure out why a growing number of Muslims are
radicalized
to the point of committing suicide terrorism against us. Our presence in
their countries represents a failed policy that makes us less safe, not
more.

These guerrilla warriors do not threaten us with tanks, gunboats,
fighter planes, missiles, or nuclear weapons, nor do they have a history
of
aggression against the United States. Our enemy's credibility depends
instead on the popular goal of ending our occupation of their country.

We must not forget that the 9/11 terrorists came principally from
Saudi Arabia, not Iraq, Iran, Lebanon, or Syria. Iran has never in modern
times invaded her neighbors, yet we worry obsessively that she may
develop a
nuclear weapon someday. Never mind that a radicalized Pakistan has
nuclear
weapons; our friend Musharraf won't lift a finger against bin Laden, who
most likely is hiding there. Our only defense against this emerging
nuclear
threat has been to use, and threaten to use, weapons that do not meet the
needs of this new and different enemy.

Since resistance against the Iraq war is building here at home,
hopefully it won't be too long before we abandon our grandiose scheme to
rule the entire Middle East through intimidation and military
confrontation.

Economic law eventually will prevail. Runaway military and
entitlement
spending cannot be sustained. We can tax the private economy only so
much,
and borrowing from foreigners is limited by the total foreign debt and
our
current account deficit. It will be difficult to continue this spending
spree without significantly higher interest rates and further devaluation
of
the dollar. This all spells more trouble for our economy and certainly
higher inflation. Our industrial base is shattered and our borders remain
open to those who exploit our reeling entitlement system.

Economic realities will prevail, regardless of the enthusiasm by
most
members of Congress for a continued expansion of the welfare state and
support for our dangerously aggressive foreign policy. The
welfare/warfare
state will come to an end when the dollar fails and the money simply runs
out.

The overriding goal should then be to rescue our constitutional
liberties, which have been steadily eroded by those who claim that
sacrificing civil liberties is required and legitimate in times of war -
even the undeclared and vague war we're currently fighting.

A real solution to our problems will require a better understanding
of, and greater dedication to, free markets and private property rights.
It
can't be done without restoring a sound, asset-backed currency. If we
hope
to restore any measure of constitutional government, we must abandon the
policy of policing the world and keeping troops in every corner of the
earth. Our liberties and our prosperity depend on it.


.