[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 100 (Wednesday, June 20, 2007)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E1363-E1364]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




CALLING ON UNITED NATIONS SECURITY COUNCIL TO CHARGE IRANIAN PRESIDENT 
 WITH CERTAIN VIOLATIONS BECAUSE OF HIS CALLS FOR DESTRUCTION OF ISRAEL

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                             HON. RON PAUL

                                of texas

                    in the house of representatives

                         Monday, June 18, 2007

  Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this 
resolution. 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 U.N. 
resolutions as justification, this resolution is like deja-vu. Have we 
forgotten 2003 already? Do we really want to go to war again for U.N. 
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. GEN William Odom, President

[[Page E1364]]

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 US 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.

                          ____________________