Ron Paul to Warmongers: Leave Syria Alone!

Ron Paul: Plans, rumors, and war propaganda for attacking Syria and deposing Assad have been around for many months.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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 It has been replaced by international entities like the United Nations and NATO, or the President himself, while ignoring the Congress.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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Controlling Iranian oil, just as we have done in Saudi Arabia and are attempting to do in Iraq, is the real goal of the neo-conservatives who have been in charge of our foreign policy for the past couple of decades.

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.

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.

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.

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.

It’s time to bring our troops home and establish a non-interventionist foreign policy, which is the only road to peace and prosperity.

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.

  • acotytamwiesz

    reality check: writing with ‘caps lock’ turned on does not equal ‘spelling simple and strong’ .. Go suck a cock and then die

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  • UserOfArtz

    Vote Dream2016 dotcom !

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  • galegregory97comcast



    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  • schmoborama

    “So stop the U.S from funding Armed aggressors” Ok I’ll just flip this little switch over here and it’ll all stop. Then there will *never* be any wars anywhere ever again, b/c it’s only the US that creates them. All I can do is vote, contribute and discuss – and I save all that to fight Rightwing douchebags.

    Clark was talking about a NEOCON plan, and who gives a fuck if al qaeda tries to fight a murderous dictator??

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  • Romagatyr

    And this same logic worked so well in Rwanda. Shake hands with the devil, my friends, shake hands with the devil.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  • schmoborama

    IF YOU DIDN’T CARE WHAT OTHER PEOPLE THOUGHT, YOU WOULD NOT HAVE RESPONDED TO WHAT I THOUGHT ABOUT YOU RP DOUCHEBAGS. Now, was *that* spelled out simple enough and strong enough to get through your 6ft-thick skull… I doubt it

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  • 1955moko

    Well said President Ron Paul.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  • 3536ize

    the United States is the new phenomenon of fascism, fascism of the 21st century! animal grin under the mask of democracy

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  • matwil74

    Ron Paul needs to get on stage one day soon and strongly recommend his supporters arm themselves. The next step would be him to declare war on this corrupt Govt and activate the people. Sorry, but I can’t see this being won peacefully. The criminals running this country are not reasonable and the elections are rigged. There is perhaps no other way.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  • Jangaboo

    people thought the same of obama because his name appeared muslim and he didn’t look anything like previous “presidents” but he continued doing what previous presidents have done and thats killing lots of people and making lots of people fight for wars they had no say in.

    what ron paul says makes sense but its always a leap of faith, an almost religious hoping that one person will change or give the masses what they want

    people outnumber the politicians forcing them to die in wars

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  • Victortheruler

    Ron paul for president

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  • FederalReverse

    Thumbs up if you are Jewish or Muslim and believe Ron Paul is the key to Middle East peace, world peace, and prosperity through trade via voluntary open capitalist world markets, rather than violence through anti-capitalist, fascist government-business collusive control.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  • chibabargo

    Оказывается есть достойные люди и в США. Люди доброй воли, которым претит убийство женщин и детей на деньги, которые их правительство платит убийцам и фанатикам в Сирии, которые пытаются ввергнуть весь регион в Средние века. Молодец конгрессмен! Привет Вам из России от таких же людей, которые хотят мира на всей планете!

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  • agafonoff2000

    What are help you talking about? Are you like Libya’s help USA do? Syria doesn’t need help!

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  • UserOfArtz

    There is a new answer,
    a new way and a new
    candidate for republicans.
    Get out the word.
    Let us not waste time.
    NOW is the time, let us start.
    Vote DREAM2016 dotcom !
    Time to choose.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  • vasiasamosval

    Listen carefully)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  • Surfisher

    Ron Paul Keeps Winning the Battles, but What About the War?

    LONG ARTICLE — but must read material!!!

    Joe Wolverton, II
    New American
    June 24, 2012

    Word out of Iowa is that Ron Paul won a majority of that state’s delegates to the Republican National Convention to be held in August in Tampa, Florida. This is contrary to the story told on election night in January when first Mitt Romney and then, after a recount, Rick Santorum was declared the winner of the Hawkeye State’s caucus.

    After what the Des Moines Register described as a “two-day tug-of-war marked by bouts of angry shouting,” backers of the Libertarian-leaning Texas congressman won 23 of the state’s 28 total delegates.

    This isn’t the first such example of a Paul Paradox. State convention delegates elected pro-Paul slates in Minnesota, Maine, Nevada, and Louisiana, although Paul didn’t win the popular vote in any of those states (or any other state for that matter). The results are indisputable, but the million-dollar question is whether the Republican National Committee will allow these delegates to vote their consciences or will “bind” them to vote for the “presumptive nominee,” former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney.

    Some who support Ron Paul have decided not to wait on the RNC to rule and have taken their case to the courts.

    As we have reported, a lawsuit was filed by the law firm of Gilbert & Marlowe in Santa Ana, California, asking a federal court to determine:

    … whether Plaintiffs are free to vote their conscience on the first and all ballots at the Federal Election known as the Republican National Convention or whether Plaintiffs are bound to vote for a particular candidate as instructed by Defendants’ State Party Bylaws, or State Laws, or the preference of political operatives….

    Named as defendants in the lawsuit are the chairmen of every state’s Republican Party, as well as the state party itself.

    A d v e r t i s e m e n t

    In all a total of over 143 delegates (presumably national delegates, otherwise the federal court would have no jurisdiction) have joined or asked to join as plaintiffs in the suit.

    Among other complaints, the lawsuit alleges that the RNC violated its own rules and applicable federal voting statutes by:

    Certifying “unlawful slates of Delegates that were not elected in accordance with the US Statues and US Supreme Court Decisions cited, nor in accordance with the proper Bylaws of Defendants;”

    Engaging “in a scheme to intimidate and harass Delegates who were supporting a Candidate that Defendants did not approve of;”

    Forcing delegates to “sign affidavits under penalty of perjury with the threat of criminal prosecution for perjury as well as financial penalties and fines if the Delegate fails to vote as instructed by Defendants rather than vote the Delegate’s conscience as mandated by the US Statutes and US Supreme Court;”

    Denying “a quorum or to manipulate Delegates supporting a particular Candidate to be deprived of a fair election as a Delegate;”

    Using “threats of violence including dressing security type people in dark clothing searching out supporters of a Candidate Defendants do not approve of to harass and intimidate said Delegates from voting their conscience;”

    Unlawfully using “State Bylaws and in some cases State Laws to harass and intimidate Delegates from voting their conscience;” and

    Altering “the voting ballot results to fraudulently reflect an outcome that is inconsistent with the actual voting ballot results for the purpose of certifying a fraudulently selected slate of Delegates to support the Candidate of Defendants’ choice rather than the Delegates properly elected.”

    If the court does not issue an immediate injunction blocking these actions, the plaintiffs argue, they will suffer irreparable harm.

    This notion of “binding” delegates to vote for one candidate despite their own allegiances (and the allegiances of those state convention delegates who voted for them) is one of the many bones of contention being fought over by those loyal to Ron Paul and those who accept Mitt Romney as the “presumptive nominee.”

    The RNC argues that the winner of the popular vote (Mitt Romney in most cases) should also received at least a corresponding percentage of that state’s delegates elected at the state conventions, while the plaintiffs in this lawsuit (and the Paul campaign itself) insist that delegates are empowered by RNC Rule 38 to vote their consciences and cannot be forced to vote for the winner of the state primaries.

    Promising to “carry on the fight,” the executive committee of the Lawyers for Ron Paul is actively seeking new plaintiffs to add to the lawsuit and they continue to promote the message that the war is not over and that despite the fact (as they see it) that Ron Paul’s national campaign staff has “thrown in the towel,” the grassroots supporters around the country still have the power to get their man into the White House.

    Assuming for a moment that a federal judge rules that all Republican delegates to the national nominating convention are unbound and may vote for the candidate of their choice, what would the practical effect of such a holding be? Ron Paul himself has conceded that he does not have the numbers necessary to put him over the top and onto the top of the ticket. Is there any scenario that can convert these victories into anything other than the Pyrrhic variety?

    First, Ron Paul maintains that he is not ready to follow in his senator son’s footsteps and endorse Mitt Romney.

    In an interview on CNN’s The Situation Room, Ron Paul said, “No. Not ready. No way,” when asked by the host Wolf Blitzer if he was ready to throw his support behind Romney. That firm denial seems to indicate that despite having suspended his active campaign in May, Ron Paul remains a candidate for president.

    Then again, there is the message to supporters posted last week on YouTube where Ron Paul told viewers that he had “a lot of good news,” describing a roster of goals for all the delegates and alternates elected to represent him at the Republican National Convention in Tampa in August.

    First, delegates should work to “influence the platform.” Next, they should “fight for our values,” and finally, “do whatever they can to promote the cause of liberty.”

    Running about eight minutes, Dr. Paul’s message does not sound like an attempt to either compromise or concede. He sounds confident that the fight for liberty and limited government will continue.

    But without him in the Oval Office.

    Another Paul Paradox is the man’s adamant denials that he will mount a third party campaign for president. This hardline would seem to indicate that Ron Paul considers the GOP to be the most reliable vehicle for taking his message to the masses. Why then does he refuse to endorse the Party’s candidate?

    Principle. The answer is that in a world where pseudo-statesmen trip over themselves to be the first to get to the Party’s altars so they can sacrifice all their principles to the god of Power, Ron Paul stands back, humbly and boldly proclaiming liberty like the voice of one crying in the wilderness.

    Whatever the outcome, when the smoke clears on this Republican war of ideas, there is little doubt that there will remain yet alive millions of American freedom fighters devoted to the cause of the Constitution and to the protection of our civil liberties.

    Many of these patriots are young, so they must be reminded that there will come others from their ranks that will run for office and promote this cause and stand firm against the Establishment’s gradual march toward absolutism.

    Truly, Ron Paul is not the first and he will not be the last candidate to lead the fight for freedom, but he may be the best.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  • ArcanaL0rd

    So who help Syria? USA? Russia? China or nobody ?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

  • mlawson84

    I’m not sure what you’re getting at as I’m in agreement with you — I was making a point that to most politicians, if not all, the Constitution is a complete afterthought, if not dead. The Oath means nothing to them, and it’s quite sad.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  • bonedog23able

    The consttution is very clear and that is against the constitution you don’t know to what your talking about pipeliner

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0