War Drums for Syria?

IMG Auteur
Published : June 05th, 2012
598 words - Reading time : 1 - 2 minutes
( 24 votes, 3.7/5 ) , 8 commentaries
Print article
  Article Comments Comment this article Rating All Articles  
Our Newsletter...
Category : Editorials





War drums are beating again in Washington. This time Syria is in the crosshairs after a massacre there last week left more than 100 dead. As might be expected from an administration with an announced policy of "regime change" in Syria, the reaction was to blame only the Syrian government for the tragedy, expel Syrian diplomats from Washington, and announce that the US may attack Syria even without UN approval. Of course, the idea that the administration should follow the Constitution and seek a Declaration of War from Congress is considered even more anachronistic now than under the previous administration.

It may be the case that the Syrian military was responsible for the events last week, but recent bombings and attacks have been carried out by armed rebels with reported al-Qaeda ties. With the stakes so high, it would make sense to wait for a full investigation -- unless the truth is less important than stirring up emotions in favor of a US attack.

There is ample reason to be skeptical about US government claims amplified in mainstream media reports. How many times recently have lies and exaggerations been used to push for the use of force overseas? It was not long ago that we were told Gaddafi was planning genocide for the people of Libya, and the only way to stop it was a US attack. Those claims turned out to be false, but by then the US and NATO had already bombed Libya, destroying its infrastructure, killing untold numbers of civilians, and leaving a gang of violent thugs in charge.

Likewise, we were told numerous falsehoods to increase popular support for the 2003 war on Iraq, including salacious stories of trans-Atlantic drones and WMDs. Advocates of war did not understand the complexities of Iraqi society, including its tribal and religious differences. As a result, Iraq today is a chaotic mess, with its ancient Christian population eliminated and the economy set back decades. An unnecessary war brought about by lies and manipulation never ends well.

Earlier still, we were told lies about genocide and massacres in Kosovo to pave the way for President Clinton's bombing campaign against Yugoslavia. More than 12 years later, that region is every bit as unstable and dangerous as before the US intervention – and American troops are still there.

The story about the Syrian massacre keeps changing, which should raise suspicions. First, we were told that the killings were caused by government shelling, but then it was discovered that most were killed at close range with handgun fire and knives. No one has explained why government forces would take the time to go house to house binding the hands of the victims before shooting them, and then retreat to allow the rebels in to record the gruesome details. No one wants to ask or answer the disturbing questions, but it would be wise to ask ourselves who benefits from these stories.

We have seen media reports over the past several weeks that the Obama administration is providing direct "non-lethal" assistance to the rebels in Syria while facilitating the transfer of weapons from other Gulf States. This semi-covert assistance to rebels we don't know much about threatens to become overt intervention. Last week Gen. Martin Dempsey, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said about Syria, "I think the military option should be considered." And here all along I thought it was up to Congress to decide when we go to war, not the generals.

We are on a fast track to war against Syria. It is time to put on the brakes.



Data and Statistics for these countries : Iraq | Syria | All
Gold and Silver Prices for these countries : Iraq | Syria | All
<< Previous article
Rate : Average note :3.7 (24 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  
Destroying other nations with bombs as a supposedly "humanitarian" way of solving their problems is pure madness. Our government knows this. These policies have other motives. Americans do not read serious foreign policy news, they take their information from the mainstream press and then think they have all the answers. We are like little children being manipulated by "mom and dad" in Washington, where vast profit is made from killing every day - and quite intentionally. Mom and Dad are not preserving democracy. They are not trying to help anyone. They are bent on global power and vast profit. Anyone who believes otherwise is a simpleton and very uninformed.

Before you jump on the war band-wagon try reading some serious foreign policy news. The Center for Research on Globalization is a good place to start.


Learn what your government is really doing. You can never understand the US government by taking your news from corporate media sources. There has been little real foreign news and foreign polcy news in the US for decades now. The public has been rendered ignorant and gullible by design. They manipulate us on behalf of the war profiteers, a group which happens to consist of many of our elected representatives. We do not need to reflexively defend them. Nothing good can come of such misguided loyalty. If you believe them, their contempt for you deepens. Understand this: they think you are an idiot if you are an American. These policies are not meant to help us as a nation. They are also not meant to help the people we bomb. Who benefits? That should always be your first question. Don't forget it.
Rate :   6  2Rating :   4
Lighten up people and listen to this, its too good to miss...boomboom, boomboom, boomboom
boomboom,boomboom,boomboom,da da da da da da,....djjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjj...diddle diddle diddle (etc etc) da da da da da.... Uh...............................:):) :)

Rate :   0  5Rating :   -5
Even as a non-American I seem to have a deeper understanding of the civil war and it most certainly was not about preserving the Union nor eliminating slavery. You may find it worth your time to do a real investigation on your own, then comment on a man who knows history and has a very firm grasp on what needs to be done. If you believe that he is somehow pro anarchy then you must believe that your Constitution was also pro anarchy.

Delve into history with a large amount of time spent studying the constitution. The enlightenment you get should be a cure for your pessimism. I see attitude’s such as yours as the root of all problems in the US today. People with a wide range of opinions but there are very few that can back themselves up with historical fact or at a minimum, the capability to grasp the real issues going on today facing the issue and explaining why the Eagle is losing its feathers.

If you’re going to offer criticism then also offer an alternative. If you can’t then it becomes obvious that you are one of the vulgar masses that can only chirp the same stuff the main stream media pushes out. Come to the bright side, go for the freedom to think outside of the mainstream media box!
Rate :   17  8Rating :   9
Civil War NOT about 'preserving the Union' or 'eliminating slavery'? How can ignorance of basic American history run so deep? We have here a 'graduate' of our failed progressive school system.
Rate :   15  13Rating :   2
Since you seem to be incapable of disconnecting issues that shouldn’t be connected allow me to offer some reasons why the north invaded the south under the guise of abolishing slavery before we can continue on.

First off slavery was legal in ALL of the states, the north included, yet no one bothers to mention the these northern slaves remained slaves for a year after the war and then it took a constitutional amendment to free them! How can this be if the war was fought to free the southern slaves? Makes a nice cover though doesn’t it?

The south seceded over States’ rights. Being able to keep slaves was an issue but it was far from the only one, and again keep in mind that the north also had slaves. Preserving the union or preserving control, financial control? The north was imposing tariffs on goods coming out of the south but not on goods headed to the south. This is financial control and is a major cause for the south wanting to secede. The north didn’t like that the economy in the south was growing much more rapidly than its own.

Why did the union fight when they categorically did not do so to free the black man. They generally didn’t care about the black man as the general feeling was that their freedom would inundate the cities with very cheap labor and force whites out of their jobs. They were fighting to preserve, as they saw it, the union. The soldiers felt Lincoln had compromised their reasons to fight when he signed the Emancipation Proclamation and refused to fight so Lincoln, often at the point of a gun, had to force soldiers back into battle. The Emancipation Proclamation was a political move intended to keep Europeans from joining the south in their struggle. England was in a horrific depression due in large part to Lincolns blockade on shipments of from the world’s largest producer of cotton, the southern states as England’s economy was heavily tied to the textile trade. This gave the south an excellent opportunity to gain ground financially.

He who wins the war gets to write the history from their perspective only and the victor always ends up looking like a shining knight.

There’s a lot more detail out there for anyone who wants to know the truth rather than spew the media fairy tales.

So back to the topic, spend time reading and listening to Ron Paul and it will soon occur to even you that he is the only politician who isn’t afraid to take the high ground and tell the truth.
Rate :   16  9Rating :   7
Classic Orwellian re-write of history. Lincoln was willing to bend over backwards to avoid war, saying nothing as President Elect to inflame the South, willing to keep the status quo thinking slavery would eventually die out. The South was not so willing, wishing to expand slavery into the newly created States - a violation of the Missouri Compromise.

It was the South that initiated violence by attacking Fort Sumter. That attack, without provocation, was an act of insurrection. Denying that fact places one in the category of a flake.

This rewrite of history is currently being pushed by Lew Rockwell, Tom DiLorenzo -- and Ron Paul -- to de-centralize America to the individual level, each man a judge, jury, and executioner. What, then, resolves disputes? Private armies because no larger social and impartial organization would be allowed to exist. Welcome to Ron Paul's universe.

Ron Paul's hero is Lysander Spooner (whose articles repeatedly appear on his various websites). Spooner's most famous quote is: "The Constitution is unfit to exist." So, to return to the article, any comment by Ron Paul decrying any American war cannot be taken seriously.
Rate :   14  8Rating :   6
Just as you have been, you as a person are able to ignore all historical facts that don't fit your perception. This doesn't mean that these "other" historical facts aren't valid, just that you and others chose to ignore them. You can cast doubt but it doesn't change history itself. The south MAY have fired the first shot, as in bullet, but consider why they felt they had to defend themselves? The north was being extremely aggressive and doing what it could to suppress the capabilities of the south to move along without the north.

It's much like the US vs. Iran debacle. The US keeps pushing until someone finally snaps and then they'll stand back and go "See we told you they were a bunch of no goodniks".

It's all dependant on the perspective, never ever lose sight of that one fact. Here’s an example, the US doesn’t want a rogue state, Iran, to have a nuke but they only gave off a few grunts when North Korea, a certified threat to peace, test fired a nuke and then tested a missile capable of carrying said nuke. Was there any military action, an invasion? It’s the perspective that’s important, and the people in power will always feed the masses disinformation till they achieve the control they want, this time around. It’s always been this way and unfortunately your one of the gullible masses.
Rate :   11  7Rating :   4
Ron Paul could be taken seriously if there would be any circumstance in which he would go to war to defend American. Sadly, there appears to be no such case: he is a pacifist pure and simple.

He has even argued that the Civil War ought not to have been fought either to preserve the Union or to eliminate slavery. Apparantely human freedom is worth no such effort.

Where is this coming from? I believe his antipathy to the State is so deep that anything initiated by such is morally suspect: taxes, the court system, and war making. His core belief is dangeriously close to anarchy and many of his supporters openly bang their chests about it.

He is as much a danger from the extreme right as Obama is from the left.
Rate :   15  15Rating :   0
Latest comment posted for this article
Destroying other nations with bombs as a supposedly "humanitarian" way of solving their problems is pure madness. Our government knows this. These policies have other motives. Americans do not read serious foreign policy news, they take their informat  Read more
pcanon - 6/7/2012 at 4:31 PM GMT
Rating :  6  2
Top articles
World PM Newsflow