NEWSLETTER
Subscribe now to receive FPJ's free weekly news digest

Ron Paul Speaks in Opposition to Intervention in Syria on House Floor

When Will We Attack Syria? 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 It has been replaced by international entities like the United Nations and NATO, or the President himself, while ignoring the Congress.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.

Print Friendly

  • Eric Large

    Yes, yes, yes – please congressmen and congresswomen, say yes to common sense!

  • Tom

    This is logical, but the people don’t respond to logic. They respond to fear or pleasure. Propaganda is the only solution to control the minds of the masses, for better or worse. They know this…I know this…you should know this. “We” should use this propaganda tactic for the good of the people. We should use it on congress, like they did with the bailouts and Iraq! We should reverse their negative use of this powerful tool and use it for “good”.

  • rogeroger

    It must be lonely after 30+ years as the sole sane voice in Congress.

  • atiboy

    Syria is not Egypt or Libya. Syria has tough missile defense, just ask the Israeli’s and we will also be fighting Russia. This would be a bloodbath of American lives. We need to mind our own business and stop trying to interfere in Sovereign Countries affairs.

  • ConstitutionalRepublican

    Thank God for Ron Paul.

    Say no to more neo-con foreign policy disasters that bankrupt our country and send our soldiers to die and be maimed overseas.

    • XX

      Humanize the Syrians, the Libyans, the Iraqis, the Afghanis, the Pakistanis, the Sudanese, the Ugandans, the Kenyans, the Yemenis, the Somalians and all the other innocent victims of US Imperialism.

      By continually bantering on about a population of victims – US Troops – that comprise less than 1% of the casualties of the US’s unjustified and illegal, preemptive wars of unilateral aggression, you play right into the Fascist dogma of subservience to the Militarized Imperial State, ruled by unchecked Executive Privilege, complete secrecy and the lack of due process rights.

      Stop just decrying the slaughter of “our troops” and start acknowledging the immoral murder of the millions they slaughter.

  • Cade

    Why is this man, Ron Paul, not President of the United States of America ?

    • JD

      Because the omniscient glowing box told them that he was a racist lunatic who had no chance of winning, and we must never question the omniscient glowing box.

  • Jim Lennon

    Where can we find the names of the congressmen and congresswomen that vote against Ron Paul?

    • Bill Greenjeans

      here is an interesting interview as to why Ron Paul is crazy:

      http://www.france24.com/en/20120619-paul-smyth-military-expert-syria-assad

      • http://www.jeremyrhammond.com Jeremy R. Hammond

        Sum it up for us, Bill. Please tell us why you think Ron Paul is “crazy”?

        • Bill Greenjeans

          Ron Paul is crazy for the Constitution and what those Founding Father ideas of minding our own business. A modern day example is this: You hear a loud vociferous noise coming from next door and so you decide to “intervene” and settle the dispute. After about ten minutes of trying both parties hate your guts and wish you would have minded your own business. The Bible says it this way : before you can take the little tiny sliver of wood out of someone eye you have to first take the four by four out of your on eye.
          For people afraid of their own shadow and see a terrorist behind every bush Ron Paul is crazy to want to quit meddling in other peoples business. Please listen to the interview carefully. Mr. Paul Smyth knows what he is talking about. And it make sense.

          • http://www.jeremyrhammond.com Jeremy R. Hammond

            Will do.

  • EddieM

    Well.. I learned in the year 2000.. that the UN had plans to bomb Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, Syria, and the Suddan… all because they had no Central Bank. And they were going to use the United States to do it. And all 5 would be bombed by the year 2015.It seems as though all that is true so far. And you gotta love this propeganda you see on CNN and other ”news” outlets, just trying to trick americans into thinking its ok to bomb Syria. Im gonna let you in on a secret… whether you take up for the Syrian government, or the Terrorist Syrian civilians that are attacking their own government.. you are about 50% right on either stance… so why intervene? Maybe if the american people wanted to make more money or have more jobs.. we would stop bombing nations just to make the military industrial complex rich while our standard of living falls.

  • KittenJuggler

    I don’t understand how nayone can think that approving violence creates good in the world. If we pick a side and blow up the otherside, we are just the executioner. Yay USA!

  • Bob Waters

    America has no weapon that distinguishes between combatants and non-combatants. Civilian casualties are an unavoidable cost of war. Iraq civilian casualties are over 100k. It takes 62 civilians massacred in a town to start the war drums. I understand that we have to do something. Staying out of another countries civil war is doing more for the Syrian people than getting involved.