Doug Henwood wrote:
> [excerpts from a speech by Alex Cockburn's favorite Congressperson]
>
> <http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2001/cr092501.htm>
>
> Ron Paul speech in the House of Representatives
>
> Mr. Speaker:
>
> [...]
>
> Following the September 11th disasters a militant Islamic group in
> Pakistan held up a sign for all the world to see. It said: AMERICANS,
> THINK! WHY YOU ARE HATED ALL OVER THE WORLD. We abhor the messenger,
> but we should not ignore the message.
>
> Here at home we are told that the only reason for the suicidal mass
> killing we experienced on September 11th is that we are hated because
> we are free and prosperous. If these two conflicting views are not
> reconciled we cannot wisely fight nor win the war in which we now
> find ourselves. We must understand why the hatred is directed toward
> Americans and not other western countries.
>
> In studying history, I, as many others, have come to the conclusion
> that war is most often fought for economic reasons. But economic wars
> are driven by moral and emotional overtones.
>
> Our own revolution was fought to escape from excessive taxation but
> was inspired and driven by our desire to protect our God-given right
> to liberty.
>
> The War between the States, fought primarily over tariffs, was
> nonetheless inspired by the abhorrence of slavery. It is this moral
> inspiration that drives people to suicidally fight to the death as so
> many Americans did between 1861 and 1865.
>
> Both economic and moral causes of war must be understood. Ignoring
> the importance of each is dangerous. We should not casually ignore
> the root causes of our current fight nor pursue this fight by merely
> accepting the explanation that they terrorize us out of jealously.
>
> It has already been written that Islamic militants are fighting a
> "holy war"- a jihad. This drives them to commit acts that to us are
> beyond comprehension. It seems that they have no concern for economic
> issues since they have no regard even for their own lives. But an
> economic issue does exist in this war: OIL!
>
> When the conflict broke out between Iraq and Iran in the early 1980s
> and we helped to finance and arm Iraq, Anwar Sadat of Egypt
> profoundly stated: "This is the beginning of the war for oil." Our
> crisis today is part of this long lasting war over oil.
>
> Osama bin Laden, a wealthy man, left Saudi Arabia in 1979 to join
> American- sponsored so-called freedom fighters in Afghanistan. He
> received financial assistance, weapons and training from our CIA,
> just as his allies in Kosovo continue to receive the same from us
> today.
>
> Unbelievably, to this day our foreign aid continues to flow into
> Afghanistan, even as we prepare to go to war against her. My
> suggestion is, not only should we stop this aid immediately, but we
> should never have started it in the first place.
>
> It is during this time bin Laden learned to practice terror;
> tragically, with money from the US taxpayers. But it wasn't until
> 1991 during what we refer to as the Persian Gulf War that he turned
> fully against the United States. It was this war, said to protect our
> oil that brought out the worst in him.
>
> Of course, it isn't our oil. The oil in fact belongs to the Arabs and
> other Muslim nations of the Persian Gulf. Our military presence in
> Saudi Arabia is what most Muslims believe to be a sacred violation of
> holy land. The continuous bombing and embargo of Iraq, has
> intensified the hatred and contributed to more than over 1,000,000
> deaths in Iraq. It is clear that protecting certain oil interests and
> our presence in the Persian Gulf help drive the holy war.
>
> Muslims see this as an invasion and domination by a foreign enemy
> which inspires radicalism. This is not new. This war, from their
> viewpoint, has been going on since the Crusades 1000 year ago. We
> ignore this history at our own peril.
>
> [...]
>
> Lives could be saved, billions of dollars could be saved, and
> escalation due to needless and senseless killing could be prevented.
> Mr. Speaker, we must seriously consider this option. This answer is a
> world apart from the potential disaster of launching nuclear weapons
> or endless bombing of an unseen target. "Marque and reprisal" demands
> the enemy be seen and precisely targeted with minimal danger to
> others. It should be considered and, for various reasons, is far
> superior to any effort that could be carried out by the CIA.
>
> We must not sacrifice the civil liberties that generations of
> Americans have enjoyed and fought for over the past 225 years. Unwise
> decisions in response to the terror inflicted on us may well fail to
> destroy our enemy, while undermining our liberties here at home. That
> will not be a victory worth celebrating. The wise use of marque and
> reprisal would negate the need to undermine the privacy and rights of
> our citizens.
>
> As we work through this difficult task, let us resist the temptation
> to invoke the most authoritarian of all notions that, not too many
> years ago, tore this nation apart; the military draft. The country is
> now unified against the enemy. The military draft does nothing to
> contribute to unity nor, as the Pentagon again has confirmed, does it
> promote an efficient military.
>
> Precise identification of all travelers on all our air flights is a
> desired goal. A national ID issued by the federal government would
> prove to be disastrous to our civil liberties and should not be
> considered. This type of surveillance power should never be given to
> an intrusive overbearing government, no matter how well intentioned
> the motives.
>
> [...]
>
> The call for a non-interventionist foreign policy over past years has
> fallen on deaf ears. My suggestions made here today may meet the same
> fate. Yet, if truth is spoken, ignoring it will not negate it. In
> that case something will be lost. But, if something is said to be
> true and it is not and is ignored, nothing is lost. My goal is to
> contribute to the truth and to the security of this nation.
>
> What I have said today is different from what is said and accepted in
> Washington as conventional wisdom, but it is not in conflict with our
> history or our constitution. It's a policy that has, whenever tried,
> generated more peace and prosperity than any other policy for dealing
> with foreign affairs. The authors of the Constitution clearly
> understood this. Since the light of truth shines brightest in the
> darkness of evil and ignorance, we should all strive to shine that
> light.
--
Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929
Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail michael at ecst.csuchico.edu