Frank Reichert posted:
by Ron Paul
Not my favorite Congresscritter.
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.
Please, God, let this be true!
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.
Years too late, if you ask me.
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.
Today's Friday. That's a good enough excuse as far as I'm concerned. Syria
has been supporting terrorism against the US and Israel for years and has
actively aided the foreigners fighting against us in Iraq by, among other
things, providing safe passage into Iraq from Syria, plus allowing guns and
money to flow through (supplied by Iran, btw).
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.
Bull! The sanctions hurt Iraqis only because Saddam was diverting the
oil-for-food money into bribes, palaces, weapons and cash hoards. IOW, it
wasn't the sanctions, it was Saddam.
Syria already has been charged with
developing weapons of mass destruction based on no more evidence than
was available when Iraq was similarly charged.
Iraq had them. Bush dawdled so long before attacking that Iraq had time to
ship its WMDs to Syria. There's satellite evidence supporting this.
Syria has been condemned for not securing its borders, by the same U.S.
leaders who cannot secure our own borders.
Non sequitur. The U.S. isn't a police state and we have major opposition to
securing our borders. Not the case with Syria.
Syria was castigated for placing its troops in Lebanon, a neighboring
country, although such
action was invited by an elected government
An elected govt.? A serious misreading of the Lebanese Civil War. Syria was
invited in by the Arab League with the odd purpose of saving the Christians
from defeat (at the hands of the Palestinians, btw). After Syria succeeded
at saving the Christians, it then began fighting them. Later "elected"
govt.s asked the Syrians to stay, mainly because they were Syrian puppets.
And those, like Bashir Gemayel, who opposed the Syrian occupation had rather
short life expectancies.
and encouraged by the United States. The Syrian occupation of Lebanon
elicited no suicide
terrorist attacks, as was suffered by Western occupiers.
Because the people who committed suicide attacks were on the side of the
Syrians. This last statement is pretty stupid, even for Ron Paul.
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.
Untrue. Not only did the majority of Christians want them gone, but the
Syrians managed the unbelievable: they got the Sunni Muslims, Druse and
Christians to agree - at least on getting the Syrians out.
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.
I always hoped Iraq was step 1 of 4. Personally I thought Bush should have
moved west as soon as the Iraqis were defeated and offered air support to
help the Iranian unrest. That would have wiped out the main Mideast
terrorism supporters other than the Saudis (step 4) and Palestinians (I have
my own ideas regarding them, which you can probably guess, but sadly the US
is too stupid to allow the Israelis to do.).
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,
Yes, it is. Ron Paul should read the resolution Congress passed. Since Syria
is clearly supporting international terrorism, the resolution Congress
passed gives Pres. Bush the right to attack without further approval by
Congress. In fact, since Syria has become a base for attacks on the U.S.
forces in Iraq, the U.S. could attack Syria on that basis alone, resolution
or no resolution.
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.
Wrong, except that Americans will die, sadly.
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.
Right. Assad runs a police state, supports terrorism, has any opponents
killed or imprisoned, but there were some rogue officials acting against his
wishes carrying out a major assassination. Even Ron Paul can't be so stupid
as to believe that. He must think others are stupid enough to believe him.
The UN once limited itself to disputes between nations;
Ron Paul's theme song should be "Don't know much about history." Congo
crisis of the early 1960s. Internal.
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?
Domestic murder? Syria assassinates a Lebanese PM. That's international,
unless Ron Paul is accepting Syria's claim that Lebanon is a Syrian
province.
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?
There is no Shiite theocracy in Iraq. Not yet anyway. If one does arise,
then it's safe to say Iraq will disintegrate as the Kurds secede, and
probably the Sunnis too. Knocking off the mullahs in Iran would be one way
to keep them from winning anything.
* When we have our way with the next election in Lebanon and
Hezbollah wins, what do we do?
Won't happen, not a majority anyway. As for what we do, if they support
international terrorism, we kill their leaders.
* If our effort to destabilize Syria is no more successful than our
efforts in Iraq, then what?
Gee, Iraq was pretty successful. I'd say the Saddam Hussein regime was
destabilized.
* If destabilizing Syria leads to the same in Iran, what are our
options?
Syria already is Iran in effect. Not a theocracy, but an Islamic fascist
state that supports international terrorism. Syria could not possibly get
worse. The same is true for Iran, btw. And for Iraq under Saddam. A Shiite
theocracy, even if one arose contrary to what I just said, would not be
worse than Saddam.
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.
Reagan screwed up in Lebanon. He accepted this stupid idea that our troops
should have unloaded weapons. Had the guards' rifles been loaded, the bomber
would not have gotten close to the Marine barracks. Reagan also did not give
the troops a clear mission, but that's a whole other discussion.
I have little doubt that if Ron Paul were in charge, we'd be fighting the
terrorists in Philadelphia, Los Angeles, Chicago and Kansas City, along with
New York and Washington, rather than in Baghdad. I'm saddened that 2,000
American soldiers have died in Iraq, but if we hadn't invaded, there would
be 10,000 dead civilians in the U.S. Maybe more.
Doug Friedman
_______________________________________________
Libnw mailing list
Libnw@immosys.com
List info and subscriber options: http://immosys.com/mailman/listinfo/libnw
Archives: http://immosys.com/mailman//pipermail/libnw
