Yep, that's what Ron Paul states in this second part of the what does Ron Paul think about Syrias' civil war. You might rememeber yesterday that I had written a post about how Ron Paul thinks that the Kosovo Genocide didn't really happen and how he thinks it was just propaganda. So, here's the other part. Ron Paul enititles this one as "When Will We Attack Syria?" Propably never, if Russia and China doesn't stop sticking up for a dictator that is killing his own people because he's own people don't like him.
----------
Plans, rumors, and war propaganda for attacking Syria and deposing Assad have been around for many months.
-------------
What "war propaganda" are you talking about? What, the Homs shelling? No, that was real.
----------
This past week however, it was reported that the Pentagon indeed has finalized plans to do just that. In my opinion, all the evidence to justify this attack is bogus. It is no more credible than the pretext given for the 2003 invasion of Iraq or the 2011 attack on Libya.
---------------
WHAT? Holy Damn! So, Ron Paul thinks the US going into Iraq on actual false pretense of "WMD's in Iraq" is just like going into Libya, with the UN and NATO, intervening in a Civil War, under the real life pretenses, to stop Col. Gaddaffi from killing more of his own people. Wow, that's a hell of a leap you made!
--------
The total waste of those wars should cause us to pause before this all-out effort at occupation and regime change is initiated against Syria.
---------------
Libya didn't cost that much because we didn't put troops on the ground, kind of like what the Republicans wanted to do to get Libyan oil. And there was no occupation of Libya, though they did thank the "Fantastic 4" for helping them take down Col. Gaddaffi.
---------
There are no national security concerns that require such a foolish escalation of violence in the Middle East. There should be no doubt that our security interests are best served by completely staying out of the internal strife now raging in Syria.
-----------------
Yeah, why would we want to go into Syria? Could it be because the dictator is killing thier own people? Well, if it is, we should really take notice of what Ron Paul had to say about WW2 and the Jews that were being killed in Nazi Germany. From the Daily Kos:
---
Following a controversial revelation by a former aide to the congressman, saying that Paul "wishes Israel didn't exist," another blogger said Tuesday that in 2009 Paul went on the record as saying that if he were the president of the United States during WWII he "wouldn't have risked American lives to end the Holocaust."
Journalist Jeffrey Shapiro posted a 2009 interview he held with the GPO's leading candidate, in which Paul clearly states that if it were up to him at the time, saving the Jews from annihilation in Europe would not have been a "moral imperative."
"I asked Congressman Paul: If he were president of the United States during World War II would he have sent American troops to Nazi Germany to save the Jews? And the Congressman answered: No, I wouldn't."
----
So, to Ron Paul's own ideas, we shouldn't help the Jews during WW2. We propabaly shouldn't have even faught in WW2 with England and the Soviet Union to stop the Fascist. We should have just let them take over the world and killed whom ever they wanted, as long as they don't do anything to us, what should we care? Let's get back to Ron Paul.
-----------
We are already too much involved in supporting the forces within Syria anxious to overthrow the current government. Without outside interference, the strife – now characterized as a civil war – would likely be non-existent.
-----------------
"Without outside interference, the strife – now characterized as a civil war – would likely be non-existent."
Yeah, because the Arab Spring didn't pop up because of the opperesion people were under and those opperesed people wanting freedom, it was totally because of the US. Just like with Libya, Eqypt and Algeria and the starting country Tunisia. Wait, we weren't in Algeria, nor were we in Eqypt, and nor were we in Tunisia where the Arab Spring started. How does Ron Paul explain this?
----------
Whether or not we attack yet another country, occupying it and setting up a new regime that we hope we can control poses a serious Constitutional question: From where does a president get such authority?
------------
" (...) occupying it and setting up a new regime (...)"
I'm sorry, did we set up a new regime in Egypt? How about Algeria or Tunisia? Oh wait, we didn't play any part in that, execpt that we condeming the actions to put down the protestors by the Governments of those countries.
---------
Since World War II the proper authority to go to war has been ignored. It has been replaced by international entities like the United Nations and NATO, or the President himself, while ignoring the Congress. And sadly, the people don't object.
----------------
Really? Because the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution (starting up the Vietnam War) was passed by Congress on Augest 7, 1964 and was repealed in January 1971.
--------
Our recent presidents explicitly maintain that the authority to go to war is not the U.S. Congress. This has been the case since 1950 when we were taken into war in Korea under UN Resolution and without Congressional approval.
-----------
I guess you forget, Ron Paul, that it was not the US who started the Korean War, it was North Korea, who stated the war, by over running the DMZ zone and attacking South Korea. The South Korean Army put itself under the UN. That's possibly the reason why we had a UN resolution instead of passing something through the Congress.
-------
And once again, we are about to engage in military action against Syria and at the same time irresponsibly reactivating the Cold War with Russia. We're now engaged in a game of "chicken" with Russia which presents a much greater threat to our security than does Syria.
------------
" (...) we are about to engage in military action against Syria (...)"
If Russia and China would stop vetoing the resolutions, we might actually do something...
"(...) and at the same time irresponsibly reactivating the Cold War with Russia."
What? I'm sorry...what? You know, Gramps, the Soviet Union fell in 1991. The "Cold War" hasn't been effective since then. So, what the hell are you talking about?
"We're now engaged in a game of "chicken" with Russia which presents a much greater threat to our security than does Syria."
Um...not anymore.(?) When did the Cold War come back into play? So, how is Russia vetoing resolutions so they can make more money by giving Al-Assads Army more weapons, a greater threat then Syria killing it's own people be using weapons that come from Russia. Hey, Ron Paul, you forgot China.
--------
How would we tolerate Russia in Mexico demanding a humanitarian solution to the violence on the U.S.-Mexican border? We would consider that a legitimate concern for us. But, for us to be engaged in Syria, where the Russian have a legal naval base, is equivalent to the Russians being in our backyard in Mexico.
-------------
"How would we tolerate Russia in Mexico demanding a humanitarian solution to the violence on the U.S.-Mexican border?"
Well, first of all, most of the violence is in Mexico, even if the news states that it's "along the US-Mexico border", it's mostly in Mexico. Second, the US Government overrules the UN. How do you think that "small guns ban", or whatever it was, never became law here? So, there's your answer.
--------
We are hypocritical when we condemn Russian for protecting their neighborhood interests for exactly what we have been doing ourselves, thousands of miles away from our shores. There's no benefit for us to be picking sides, secretly providing assistance and encouraging civil strife in an effort to effect regime change in Syria.
-------------
"There's no benefit for us to be picking sides, secretly providing assistance and encouraging civil strife in an effort to effect regime change in Syria."
Who said we were picking sides? We are with the people who want to overthrow Al-Assad. How is that too hard for you to understand?
---------
Falsely charging the Russians with supplying military helicopters to Assad is an unnecessary provocation. Falsely blaming the Assad government for a so-called massacre perpetrated by a violent warring rebel faction is nothing more than war propaganda.
-----------
Yeah, who cares about reality, just keep living in your own little world that isn't real.
"Falsely blaming the Assad government for a so-called massacre perpetrated by a violent warring rebel faction is nothing more than war propaganda."
What the fuck is this? What, you think the opposition people have all the Syrian tanks? What a bunch of bullshit! So, who killed al those people in Homs, Ron? Who killed those 30,000 people in Homs bakc in the 1980's Ron? Can you tell me? Let me guess. It's the people who rose up in opposition to Al-Assads father like it is no, right Ron? What a dumbass!
-------
Most knowledgeable people now recognize that the planned war against Syria is merely the next step to take on the Iranian government, something the neo-cons openly admit.
-------------
Ok, Ron Paul is right about the neo-con thing, but the neo-cons aren't in charge and everytime that the Obama Adminastration does something (passing resolutions and helping the people of Libya and Syria), some douch, like you, screams out that we're taking over their country, yet we don't do that at all. This is not the Bush Adminastration!
---------
"(...) just as we have done in Saudi Arabia (...)"
Um...we don't "control" the Saudi Arabian oil, the Saudis do (Yes we have companies over there but that doesn't mean we steal the oil). They give us oil in exchange for money. You know this, right? We're not taking it from them, we're paying them.
----------
War is inevitable without a significant change in our foreign policy, and soon. Disagreements between our two political parties are minor. Both agree the sequestration of any war funds must be canceled. Neither side wants to abandon our aggressive and growing presence in the Middle East and South Asia.
-----------------
"Both agree the sequestration of any war funds must be canceled."
Why? Wouldn't this be a good thing? Then we can get the military down to the size that we need instead of the bloated size it is now.
"Neither side wants to abandon our aggressive and growing presence in the Middle East and South Asia."
Oh, execpt for the Democrats who already got us out of Iraq...did you forget that Ron?
----------
This crisis building can easily get out of control and become a much bigger war than just another routine occupation and regime change that the American people have grown to accept or ignore.
---------------
"This crisis building can easily get out of control and become a much bigger war than just another routine occupation (...)"
Yeah, like Libya...oh wait!
-------
It's time the United States tried a policy of diplomacy, seeking peace, trade, and friendship. We must abandon our military effort to promote and secure an American empire.
-----------
"It's time the United States tried a policy of diplomacy, seeking peace, trade, and friendship."
Because we never tried this before...
"We must abandon our military effort to promote and secure an American empire."
Tell that to Mitt Romeny.
-------------
Besides, we're broke, we can't afford it, and worst of all, we're fulfilling the strategy laid out by Osama bin Laden whose goal had always been to bog us down in the Middle East and bring on our bankruptcy here at home.
------------------
Yeah, we're broke, but the rich aren't Tax the rich fat cats already. Of course, Ron Paul would stop all taxes so that no one will need to pay taxes. Have fun fixing the roads and all the other stuff that the Government does for you, with tax money, for free!
----------
It's time to bring our troops home and establish a non-interventionist foreign policy, which is the only road to peace and prosperity
-------------
Well, Ron Paul better have a really good jobs and educational bill for this nation if everyone is coming home from all the bases that we have. These guys will really want to get a job and a good education. Too bad that Ron Paul wants to cut things out of this Government that would be handy to do just that. Do you know how many people that would be? According to the number of military personel in 1998, that would be 519,742 people. I'm pretty sure there is more then that, but that was back in '98, so that will give you some what of a reference to how many will be coming home if Ron Paul wins.
-----------
This week I am introducing legislation to prohibit the Administration, absent a declaration of war by Congress, from supporting – directly or indirectly – any military or paramilitary operations in Syria. I hope my colleagues will join me in this effort.
-------------
Yeah, he said this on the House Floor. Don't worry, I don't really think anyone was listening.
Thank you for looking.
Shydude89.
No comments:
Post a Comment