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.
Showing posts with label NATO. Show all posts
Showing posts with label NATO. Show all posts
Saturday, July 14, 2012
Ron Paul: If the US kept out of it, Syria wouldn't be in a Civil War.
Labels:
Al-Assad,
China,
Civil War,
Cold War,
Dictator,
Korean War,
Libya,
NATO,
Presdient Bush,
Presdient Obama,
Propaganda,
Reality,
Resolutions,
Ron Paul,
Russia,
Syria,
UN,
US,
Vietnam War
Thursday, May 17, 2012
Alex Jones thinks that the U.S shouldn't help out NATO.
Well, I'm back because...I am. Let's get right to this crap. It's going to be a short one but more will be coming. It seems that Alex Jones doesn't like Defense Secretary Panetta says that we need the UN (United Nations) to ok wars instead of just using our U.S Constitution to go to war...this is why it's going to be short. Here's the website for Alex Jones and his nut-job of a rant: http://www.infowars.com/panetta-authority-of-un-trumps-congress-in-getting-approval-for-war-on-syria/ Let's get it on...
-----------
1st paragraph - Following controversy over his assertion that seeking "international permission" from the UN to launch wars trumps the authority of Congress, Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta re-affirmed this premise during recent testimony in which he again stated that Congress would play second fiddle to the international community.
------
Yeah, it's not like we're going to go to war with another nation. Wait...Syria isn't a part of the US? Damn it!
-----------
2nd paragraph - Asked by Congressman Walter Jones, who has launched a resolution re-affirming the limits to Presidential power by making the launching of war without Congressional approval an impeachable offense, whether President Obama would seek authorization from Congress before attacking Iran or Syria, Panetta stopped short of answering in the affirmative.
-------
Ok, to be fair, I do think that Congress should have an up or down vote, or whatever, to start up a war if we are attacked, but Syria has been killing their own people in a Civil War since, what, 2010. So, this isn't a war, this would be considered an humanitarian mission to save the people of Syria from death of the Al - Assad regime.
-----------
3rd paragraph - "We will clearly work with Congress if it comes to the issue of the use of force," said Panetta, backing away from comments made in March when he told a Senate Armed Services Committee, "Our goal would be to seek international permission. And we would come to the Congress and inform you and determine how best to approach this, whether or not we would want to get permission from the Congress."
------
Ok...and?
------------
4th paragraph - However, Panetta later told Congressman Randy Forbes during the House Armed Services Committee meeting, "The commander in chief has the authority to take action that involves the vital interests of this country," adding that the President would have to "take steps" to get Congressional approval under the War Powers Act.
"Would the approval be required before you could take military action against Syria?" asked Forbes.
"The President could in fact deploy forces if he had to if our vital interests were at stake," said Panetta.
"So you get the support of Congress after you began military operations?" asked Forbes.
"In that particular situation, yes," said Panetta, re-affirming that Congressional authorization would not be needed.
-----
I guess we're just choosing to not ask what "vital interest" would be at stake to take that drastic move...kind of like Reagan getting the troops to take back control of Granada for no reason execpt to stop the sperad of (bum bum bummmm) COMMUNISM!
---------
5th paragraph - Asked by Forbes if the Obama administration’s position was that a consensus of opinion from the international community would be required before military action was taken, but that no such permission would be required from Congress, Panetta responded in the affirmative.
"In that situation if the international action is taken pursuant to a Security Council resolution or under our treaty obligations with regard to NATO that obviously we would participate with the international community," said Panetta, adding that Congress would only have an influence later when it came to questions about funding the effort.
----
So, what Panetta is saying here is if other UN / NATO forces are already engaging whoever they are going after, we would then help out if we can. That's it. I have no idea how Alex Jones took so much stuff out of context...it's amazing.
------------
6th paragraph - Although not as brazenly as in the first instance, Panetta’s testimony once again highlights the Obama administration’s unconstitutional position in believing it has the power to launch foreign military interventions without Congressional approval.
-----
See what I mean? It's only after the UN / NATO would go after someone that we would then help out anyway we could.
------------
7th paragraph - In June of last year, President Obama arrogantly expressed his hostility to the rule of law when he dismissed the need to get congressional authorization to commit the United States to a military intervention in Libya, churlishly dismissing criticism and remarking, "I don’t even have to get to the Constitutional question."
-----
Yeah, forget about the Civil War that was started by Col.Gaddaffi and all the bloodshed and violence towards peaceful protesters in the Captial of Libya. I bet if Roanld Reagan did something like that, he'd be hailed as a hero, but wait...what's this. OH SNAP! (Click on the words What's this...it's a hell of a surprise for you. No, it's not anything scary.)
------------
8th paragraph - Obama tried to legitimize his failure to obtain Congressional approval for military involvement by sending a letter to Speaker of the House John Boehner in which he said the military assault was "authorized by the United Nations (U.N.) Security Council."
----
Well, it probably was. Now if we started going over there while the UN was still trying to tell Gaddiffi to step down, then we'd have a small problem, but the UN was all ready to go into Libya and ready to fight for the people to stop Gaddiffi killing his own people, so it looks like President Obama is in the green on this.
And that's it for right now. I'll have another one up tomorrow.
See ya later.
-----------
1st paragraph - Following controversy over his assertion that seeking "international permission" from the UN to launch wars trumps the authority of Congress, Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta re-affirmed this premise during recent testimony in which he again stated that Congress would play second fiddle to the international community.
------
Yeah, it's not like we're going to go to war with another nation. Wait...Syria isn't a part of the US? Damn it!
-----------
2nd paragraph - Asked by Congressman Walter Jones, who has launched a resolution re-affirming the limits to Presidential power by making the launching of war without Congressional approval an impeachable offense, whether President Obama would seek authorization from Congress before attacking Iran or Syria, Panetta stopped short of answering in the affirmative.
-------
Ok, to be fair, I do think that Congress should have an up or down vote, or whatever, to start up a war if we are attacked, but Syria has been killing their own people in a Civil War since, what, 2010. So, this isn't a war, this would be considered an humanitarian mission to save the people of Syria from death of the Al - Assad regime.
-----------
3rd paragraph - "We will clearly work with Congress if it comes to the issue of the use of force," said Panetta, backing away from comments made in March when he told a Senate Armed Services Committee, "Our goal would be to seek international permission. And we would come to the Congress and inform you and determine how best to approach this, whether or not we would want to get permission from the Congress."
------
Ok...and?
------------
4th paragraph - However, Panetta later told Congressman Randy Forbes during the House Armed Services Committee meeting, "The commander in chief has the authority to take action that involves the vital interests of this country," adding that the President would have to "take steps" to get Congressional approval under the War Powers Act.
"Would the approval be required before you could take military action against Syria?" asked Forbes.
"The President could in fact deploy forces if he had to if our vital interests were at stake," said Panetta.
"So you get the support of Congress after you began military operations?" asked Forbes.
"In that particular situation, yes," said Panetta, re-affirming that Congressional authorization would not be needed.
-----
I guess we're just choosing to not ask what "vital interest" would be at stake to take that drastic move...kind of like Reagan getting the troops to take back control of Granada for no reason execpt to stop the sperad of (bum bum bummmm) COMMUNISM!
---------
5th paragraph - Asked by Forbes if the Obama administration’s position was that a consensus of opinion from the international community would be required before military action was taken, but that no such permission would be required from Congress, Panetta responded in the affirmative.
"In that situation if the international action is taken pursuant to a Security Council resolution or under our treaty obligations with regard to NATO that obviously we would participate with the international community," said Panetta, adding that Congress would only have an influence later when it came to questions about funding the effort.
----
So, what Panetta is saying here is if other UN / NATO forces are already engaging whoever they are going after, we would then help out if we can. That's it. I have no idea how Alex Jones took so much stuff out of context...it's amazing.
------------
6th paragraph - Although not as brazenly as in the first instance, Panetta’s testimony once again highlights the Obama administration’s unconstitutional position in believing it has the power to launch foreign military interventions without Congressional approval.
-----
See what I mean? It's only after the UN / NATO would go after someone that we would then help out anyway we could.
------------
7th paragraph - In June of last year, President Obama arrogantly expressed his hostility to the rule of law when he dismissed the need to get congressional authorization to commit the United States to a military intervention in Libya, churlishly dismissing criticism and remarking, "I don’t even have to get to the Constitutional question."
-----
Yeah, forget about the Civil War that was started by Col.Gaddaffi and all the bloodshed and violence towards peaceful protesters in the Captial of Libya. I bet if Roanld Reagan did something like that, he'd be hailed as a hero, but wait...what's this. OH SNAP! (Click on the words What's this...it's a hell of a surprise for you. No, it's not anything scary.)
------------
8th paragraph - Obama tried to legitimize his failure to obtain Congressional approval for military involvement by sending a letter to Speaker of the House John Boehner in which he said the military assault was "authorized by the United Nations (U.N.) Security Council."
----
Well, it probably was. Now if we started going over there while the UN was still trying to tell Gaddiffi to step down, then we'd have a small problem, but the UN was all ready to go into Libya and ready to fight for the people to stop Gaddiffi killing his own people, so it looks like President Obama is in the green on this.
And that's it for right now. I'll have another one up tomorrow.
See ya later.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)