In the same category

Has The Tide Turned Against the Warmongers?

IMG Auteur
Published : September 17th, 2013
582 words - Reading time : 1 - 2 minutes
( 31 votes, 4.9/5 ) , 6 commentaries
Print article
  Article Comments Comment this article Rating All Articles  
Our Newsletter...
Category : Gold and Silver

Will the history books record these past couple of weeks as the point when the tide finally turned against our interventionist foreign policy?

We began September with the Obama Administration on the verge of launching Tomahawk missiles at Syria. The missiles were needed, the administration claimed, to punish the Syrian government for using poison gas on its own people. There were reports that in addition to missiles, the administration was planning airstrikes and possibly even more military action against Syria. The talks of a punishing "shot across the bow" to send a message to the Syrian government also escalated, as some discussed the need to degrade the Syrian military to help change the regime. They refused to rule out a US ground invasion of Syria.

Secretary of State John Kerry even invoked an old bogeymen that had worked so many times before. Assad was another Hitler, we were told, and failure to attack would equate to another Neville Chamberlain-like appeasement.

The administration released its evidence to back up the claim that the Syrian government was behind the gassing, and the president asked Congress to authorize him to use force against Syria. Polls showed that the American people had very little interest in getting involved in another war in the Middle East, and as the administration presented no solid evidence for its claim, public support eroded further. The media, as usual, was pushing war propaganda.

Then something incredible happened. It started in the British parliament, with a vote against participating in a US-led attack on Syria. The UK had always reliably backed the US when it came to war overseas, and the vote was a shock. Though the House and Senate leadership lined up behind the president's decision to attack Syria, the people did not. Support among the rank and file members of the Senate and House began to evaporate, as thousands of Americans contacted their representatives to express outrage over the president's plan. The vote looked to be lost in the House and uncertain in the Senate. Then even Senators began to feel the anger of the American people, and it looked like a devastating and historic loss for the president was coming.

The administration and its pro-war allies could not bear to lose a vote in Congress that would have likely shut the door completely on a US attack, so they called off the vote. At least for now. It would have been far better to have had the president's request for war authorization debated and voted down in the House and Senate, but even without a no vote it is clear that a major shift has taken place. A Russian proposal to secure and dismantle the Syrian government's chemical weapons was inspired, it seems, by John Kerry's accidental suggestion that such a move could avert a US strike. Though the details have yet to be fully worked out, it seems the Russia plan, agreed to by the Syrian government, gives us hope that a US attack will be avoided.

The American people have spoken out against war. Many more are now asking what I have been asking for quite some time: why is it always our business when there is civil strife somewhere overseas? Why do we always have to be the ones to solve the world's problems? It is a sea change and I am very encouraged. We have had a great victory for the cause of peace and liberty and let's hope we can further build on it.

Data and Statistics for these countries : Russia | Syria | All
Gold and Silver Prices for these countries : Russia | Syria | All
<< Previous article
Rate : Average note :4.9 (31 votes)
>> Next article
Congressman Ron Paul of Texas enjoys a national reputation as the premier advocate for liberty in politics today. Dr. Paul is the leading spokesman in Washington for limited constitutional government, low taxes, free markets, and a return to sound monetary policies based on commodity-backed currency. He is known among both his colleagues in Congress and his constituents for his consistent voting record in the House of Representatives: Dr. Paul never votes for legislation unless the proposed measure is expressly authorized by the Constitution. In the words of former Treasury Secretary William Simon, Dr. Paul is the "one exception to the Gang of 535" on Capitol Hill.
WebsiteMake a donation
Comments closed
  All Favorites Best Rated  
I respect a lot Mr. Paul, but in the last paragraph he makes the typical american mistake. It is NOT "always your business", and you are not "the ones to solve the world's problems". Indeed, its just the opposite: the empire doesn't give a damn about world's problems UNLESS there is a gain to make, in terms of strategic power or resource control. In fact, they create a lot more problems that they solve.

This is quite obvious: there are a lot of conflicts around the world that the US doesn't get involved on because there is no oil, arms sale, or other gains to make. In the moral side, there are regimes way worst and less democratic than Syria, Iraq or Iran, BUT they are allies so the empire doesn't mess with them and in fact support them.

With all the american media speaking about the 'world police role' the american people has assumed the concept, but it's a deeply false picture. US is only a militaristic empire protecting its interests, nothing more. The is no moral or humanistic attitude at all.
Rate :   3  2Rating :   1
In H1 2013 India Imported 3145 Tons of Silver.
Rate :   1  1Rating :   0
Perhaps the US government has forgotten what they did to Hiroshima and Nasgasake or what agent orange did in Vietnam. The effects just keep on giving too. Now the US has drones to do the job and feelings are no longer part of the equation. What benefit did these and all other wars bring to humanity? Was the profit for a few worth the devastation of all those who suffered or lost their lives? Now the government has turned on its own people with a brutality I find hard to believe. I hope it all ends soon, the magic of living has lost its allure.
Rate :   7  1Rating :   6
Mr Paul is absolutely right in opposing another US warlike adventure in the MIddle East. The only reason that makes sense to me is that perhaps the DOD wants to try out some new weapons and use up the old ones that have passed thei to their "use by" date. However perhaps this has not yet occurred to the masses. When it does they will probably be hopping mad. To me, Obama is not a bad person, but I do feel he is being manipulated by invisible groups in power. I am English and feel quite relieved by our parliamentary vote.
Rate :   2  3Rating :   -1
"Obama is not a bad person, but I do feel he is being manipulated by invisible groups in power"

An individual does not rise to the position of president of the United States by being a nice person. Make no mistake about it, Obama is as nasty as any who have preceded him in the White House. As an example, as a constitutional lawyer you would think he understands the constitution and what it stands for, would stand up for it, and abide by it but this guy has used all knowledge he possesses to get around or outright obliterate the Constitution. This is a president that hasn't lived up to one promise, he’s a war monger, if not greater than then certainly on the same level as Dubja Bush. How many wars would that be that Obama has either dragged out or started in the 5 years he's been in power? Before being elected the first time did he not promise to put a rapid end to wars in both Iraq and Afghanistan? Obviously this man has a very different idea of what it means to rapidly remove a nations military from foreign soil than the men and women that had to die there while Obama was making up his mind. War by his definition is militarily spanking some nations leader like Libya, so it’s not really a war. What he wanted to do in Syria wasn’t war, it was simply knocking the stuffing out of a sovereign nations military while engaged in a civil war because someone said the Syrian military used gas against the countries citizens. You see, the gas benefited Obama a lot more than it could ever have benefited Assad. Assad has, even still, a much higher popularity rating with his people, unlike Obama, so he had no need to use gas against nonmilitary personnel. The US however had a need to make it look like Assad used gas so they could puff up their chest, run in killing everything in sight and claim they were the good guys like in Vietnam and, well the list of other countries is getting long isn’t it?

Nice guy, I don't think so. When we look back in 15 or 20 years we'll see a better picture of just how nasty a piece of work he really is. But then, it will be too late.

It's a great thing the UK government did by rejecting the criminal military invasion of yet another sovereign middle east nation because without this 'no' vote the US would be going to war again. At least both Bush's only had one war each under their belt (ok I’m a little groggy today and maybe I forgot something) and I am in no way defending the policies of the Bush clan.
Rate :   10  2Rating :   8
And with that, Obama becomes The Lame Duck.
Rate :   7  0Rating :   7
Latest comment posted for this article
I respect a lot Mr. Paul, but in the last paragraph he makes the typical american mistake. It is NOT "always your business", and you are not "the ones to solve the world's problems". Indeed, its just the opposite: the empire doesn't give a damn about wor  Read more
jox - 9/17/2013 at 12:15 PM GMT
Rating :  3  2
Top articles
World PM Newsflow