Monday, October 31, 2005

NEXT STOP: SYRIA

From Information Clearing House:
(You may want to enlarge this for easier reading, that is if your eyes are like mine...bad.)

We Have Been Warned

By U.S. Representative Ron Paul (R-TX)

Watch Ron Paul's speech on video.

Before the US House of Representatives, October 26, 2005

We have been warned. Prepare for a broader war in the Middle East, as plans are being laid for the next U.S.-led regime change – in Syria. A UN report on the death of Lebanese Prime Minister Rafig Hariri elicited this comment from a senior U.S. policy maker: “Out of tragedy comes an extraordinary strategic opportunity.” This statement reflects the continued neo-conservative, Machiavellian influence on our foreign policy. The “opportunity” refers to the long-held neo-conservative plan for regime change in Syria, similar to what was carried out in Iraq.

This plan for remaking the Middle East has been around for a long time. Just as 9/11 served the interests of those who longed for changes in Iraq, the sensationalism surrounding Hariri’s death is being used to advance plans to remove Assad.

Congress already has assisted these plans by authorizing the sanctions placed on Syria last year. Harmful sanctions, as applied to Iraq in the 1990s, inevitably represent a major step toward war since they bring havoc to so many innocent people. Syria already has been charged with developing weapons of mass destruction based on no more evidence than was available when Iraq was similarly charged.

Syria has been condemned for not securing its borders, by the same U.S. leaders who cannot secure our own borders. Syria was castigated for placing its troops in Lebanon, a neighboring country, although such action was invited by an elected government and encouraged by the United States. The Syrian occupation of Lebanon elicited no suicide terrorist attacks, as was suffered by Western occupiers.

Condemning Syria for having troops in Lebanon seems strange, considering most of the world sees our 150,000 troops in Iraq as an unwarranted foreign occupation. Syrian troops were far more welcome in Lebanon.

Secretary Rice likewise sees the problems in Syria – that we helped to create – as an opportunity to advance our Middle Eastern agenda. In recent testimony she stated that it was always the administration’s intent to redesign the greater Middle East, and Iraq was only one part of that plan. And once again we have been told that all options are still on the table for dealing with Syria – including war.

The statement that should scare all Americans (and the world) is the assurance by Secretary Rice that the President needs no additional authority from Congress to attack Syria. She argues that authority already has been granted by the resolutions on 9/11 and Iraq. This is not true, but if Congress remains passive to the powers assumed by the executive branch it won’t matter. As the war spreads, the only role for Congress will be to provide funding lest they be criticized for not supporting the troops. In the meantime, the Constitution and our liberties here at home will be further eroded as more Americans die.

This escalation of conflict with Syria comes as a result of the UN report concerning the Hariri death. When we need an excuse for our actions, it’s always nice to rely on the organization that our administration routinely condemns, one that brought us the multi-billion dollar oil-for-food scandal and sexual crimes by UN representatives.

It’s easy to ignore the fact that the report did not implicate Assad, who is targeted for the next regime change. The UN once limited itself to disputes between nations; yet now it’s assumed the UN, like the United States, has a legal and moral right to inject itself into the internal policies of sovereign nations. Yet what is the source of this presumed wisdom? Where is the moral imperative that allows us to become the judge and jury of a domestic murder in a country 6,000 miles from our shores?

Moral, constitutional, and legal arguments for a less aggressive foreign policy receive little attention in Washington. But the law of unintended consequences serves as a thorough teacher for the slow learners and the morally impaired.

  • Is Iraq not yet enough of a headache for the braggarts of the shock and awe policy?
  • Are 2,000 lives lost not enough to get their attention?
  • How many hundreds of billions of dollars must be drained from our economy before it’s noticed?
  • Is it still plausible that deficits don’t matter?
  • Is the apparent victory for Iran in the Shiite theocracy we’ve created in Iraq not yet seen as a disturbing consequence of the ill-fated Iraq regime change effort?
  • When we have our way with the next election in Lebanon and Hezbollah wins, what do we do?
  • If our effort to destabilize Syria is no more successful than our efforts in Iraq, then what?
  • If destabilizing Syria leads to the same in Iran, what are our options?

If we can’t leave now, we’ll surely not leave then – we’ll be told we must stay to honor the fallen to prove the cause was just.

We should remember Ronald Reagan’s admonition regarding this area of the world. Ronald Reagan reflected on Lebanon in his memoirs, describing the Middle East as a jungle and Middle East politics as irrational. It forced him to rethink his policy in the region. It’s time we do some rethinking as well.

October 28, 2005

Dr. Ron Paul is a Republican member of Congress from Texas.

10 comments:

adgrad said...

Not only are you warned about Syria, but Iran is on the hit list, too, with their whole anti-Jew statement last week. We should have leveled the entire region instead of trying to fight politically correct war.

Bush's message to all the terrorist nations, "Who's your daddy?"

Grandpa Eddie said...

Shelley,
I detect a great amount of hatred in your comment. Why is it that you hate muslims so much? Is it all muslims, or just certain ones? If it is just certain ones, then why is it that you want to destroy so many in such a large area?

We have no right to invade Syria...just as we had no right to invade Iraq...neither one attacked this country. We have no right to attack Iran, for they have not attacked us. As for the statement from Iran of which you speak, they have backed down from that.

Tina said...

Grandpa Eddie: Hmm... do ya suppose Shelley will be strapping on the combat boots to level the entire region? Do ya think her loved ones will be strapping on the combat boots to level the entire region, also?
Do ya think Shelley will willingly have her taxes raised to pay for this leveling of the entire region? Do ya think Shelley will bankrupt her loved ones' futures economically and physically by leveling the entire region?

Calling for the mass killing of an entire region of our planet will make 2 wrongs become a right, huh?...Dear God... and I bet she calls herself a Christian, too.

Grandpa Eddie said...

Tina,
I really don't think Shelly will be willing to do any of the things that you asked about above, simply because I believe she is like so many of the other members of the 101st Keyboardists...she's a chickenhawk chicken-shit.

The only thing I can see her doing is bitchin' about her taxes and blaming the Dems for that.

"... will make 2 wrongs become a right..."
In the bubble-world she lives in it will.

via said...

There was a disturbing statement on Syria by Talabani:
Iraqi President Jalal Talabani said Tuesday before the United Nations: "I categorically refuse the use of Iraqi soil to launch a military strike against Syria or any other Arab country . . . "But at the end of the day my ability to confront the US military is limited and I cannot impose on them my will."

That was some strange kind of "Freedom" that marched into Iraq with combat boots.......

Grandpa Eddie said...

Via,
That's just it. How the hell would he be able to stop Bush from doing what he wants.

You are right...some kind of freedom they got from those combat boots.

hazey-jane said...

with regards to your statement on Iran, that they have "backed down" on their "wipe [isreal] off the map" talk - this isnt strictly true. in fact, the opposite has been happening.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,251-1854018,00.html

"Ahmadinejad, has ordered an unprecedented purge of senior ambassadors who are regarded as too liberal for the policies of his administration"

in short - any ambassador who disagreed with his views on the destruction of Isreal has been recalled ... this includes the ambassadors to London, Paris, Berlin and the representative to the United Nations in Geneva. all of whom tried to limit the diplomatic fallout of this crazed idiots comments.

i agree it was not our place to attack Iraq, but surely we must make a stand when the President of a country advocates the complete and utter anniliation of another. God knows what will happen if Tehran aquires nukes. Its a tradjedy that the fuck up in Iraq will get in the way of action (be it military, diplomatic etc) against the cardinal 'rogue state' in the middle east - Iran.

any comments/feedback much appreciated.

Grandpa Eddie said...

Hazey-Jane,
I thank you for that link. I will be sure to check that out.

As far as the US...or anyone else for that matter...attacking Iran prior to their possible attack on Israel...or anyone else...would be against our Constitution and illegal, just as the invasion of Iraq was. Lies and deceit were what got the US into Iraq.

This is not the first time an arab country has expressed the desire to "wipe Isreal from the map". Egypt has said it as well as Syria, Libya, Iraq, Yemen, and Jordan.

There is no evidence that Iran has any WMD's, specifically nukes. If the US or Britian were to do a pre-emptive nuclear strike against Iran, what would prevent any other country with nukes from doing the same thing to a country they may feel has nuclear capabilities. This would be sure to usher in WWIII and the end of civilization as we know it.

The world community has gotten thru this before and we can do it again.

hazey-jane said...

Attacking Iran may be illegal but it could well be argued that it’s a necessity. I’m not suggesting all out war, that’s both irresponsible and dangerous, and obviously I wish this matter could be resolved diplomatically.

However, as shown with the UN/EU’s failed ‘softly softly approach’ in trying to stop Iranian nuclear development, perhaps a show of force is required.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4134614.stm

This link shows the timeline for the Iranian standoff. While Iranian nukes are several years away, we cannot let down our guard. While technically illegal, I seriously think a strike on Iran’s Bushehr reactor could be required, if the current diplomatic failings continue.

I use the analogy of Israel’s 1981 pre-emptive bombing of the Osirak reactor in Iraq to justify my position. Saddam was several years away from developing a nuke, however had he done so, he would undoubtedly have used it against the Israelis, or against ‘us’ when we liberated Kuwait in the early 1990’s.

Ahmadinejad is very similar to Saddam. Both would be glad to see Israel destroyed (the fact that many other Arab states have expressed this view through the last 50 years does not diminish from its gravity. None, barring Iraq, were close to acquiring a nuclear weapon). Both want/wanted to create an Arab (in the case of Saddam) or Islamic (in the case of Ahmadinejad) super-state across the middle-east. Both are hard-line totalitarians who violently suppress any signs of liberalism and progress in their own countries. Both men, in my opinion, are evil.

Ahmadinejad wants Israel “wiped off the map” – this talk is akin to Hitler’s. With a modern day Hitler, do we go down the Chamberlain route and appease his fascism, or do we make a stand and bomb his nuclear reactor with diplomacy clearly failing?

I don’t think we can risk leaving things too late.

Again, any comments/feedback is much appreciated. May assessment may be mistaken.

Grandpa Eddie said...

Hazey-Jane,
Your analogy of Israel's 1981 pre-emptive strike was a point well taken. One must remember, though, that at that time Israel had not completed it's work on the developement of it's nuclear capability and rightly felt threatened by Iraq. I am not trying to defend Israel's actions, I am just stating the threat they felt.

Since then, not only has Israel developed nuclear weapons, but so have India and Pakistan...all three of which are our allies. Don't you think that all the Arab countries around Isreal felt threatened by their nuclear developement? And just what do you think would have happened if one of them did a pre-emptive strike against Israel? The US would have stepped in and bombed that country in defense of Israel. Just as Israel felt threatened by Iraq, Iran may very well feel threatened by Israel, Pakistan, India, and the US.

When Israel, Pakistan, and India were developing their technology there were voices being raised against them. But both the US and Britian stood by them and their right to defend themselves.

Alot of the problem comes from the fact that for centuries western Europeans...United States included...have formed or changed the Middle East to fit to their liking. Governments have been installed and removed at will. Borders have been changed to suit "our" needs. We installed the Shah in Iran, which is just one reason Iran has such a problem with us. To quote another, "Sadaam was a bastard, but he was our bastard." We are the ones that made sure Sadaam stayed in power, we supplied him with weapons and technology during the Iran-Iraq war. He became to powerful and uncontrolable and had to be removed, because he wasn't serving the purpose we intended him to.

The talk that has developed over this problem of Iran building their nuclear capability has led to the discussion of using a nuclear strike to prevent them from continuing. If this were done, what would prevent any other country with nukes from striking another country they feel is a threat to them? If we do it, they too should have the same right of pre-emptive strikes. This could lead to a chain-reaction and global war.

Your Chamberlain comment is interesting in the fact that Hitler had already occupied land that was not part of the Germany that France, Britian, and the US set up post WWI. At the time there was no one in Europe with the ability to stop or prevent him militarily. The US didn't want to get involved in another war, of which Dec, 7, 1941 changed all that.

I believe that a pre-emptive strike would not improve things in the Middle East, only make them worse. Not just there either, but all over the world.