Ron Paul Floor Speech on Syria

[green73]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8rCvfwoRGMg

[Perry]

It was worth it just to hear him say "Bogus".

[Drex]

Epic.

[AuH20]

Pretty good explanation for the shenanigans being perpetrated by our state department.

[green73]

uh, yeah.

[Lucille]

I'm going to miss these.

I've seen a few on twitter saying he's "defending Assad." Um, not exactly. He's calling out the war propagandists, specifically wrt this:

Report: Rebels Responsible for Houla Massacre
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/302261/report-rebels-responsible-houla-massacre-john-rosenthal

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2012/06/reporting_conflict_in_syria.html

http://youtu.be/GLN3NvaMp5I

[paulbot24]

Typical conversation in the room with Ron Paul on televison:
Neocon1:There goes that crazy old guy, now he's siding with Assad.
Neocon2: Is he the guy that sympathized with bin Laden and blamed US for 9/11?
Neocon1: What? Really? Him too? Which guy are you talking about?
Neocon2: You know, that one old guy in Congress....every time we go to war or drop bombs on somebody, he's the only one that always says it's a foolish idea.
Neocon1: Yeah, that guy! That's who I was talking about!

They are right about one thing. You can always count on one guy, often standing alone, that will not buckle against TPTB. If you start thinking you're some kind of real badass, watch these videos and ask yourself if you'll be sticking it to the black hats when you're almost 80 the way he does. Ron Paul is the man.

[rpwi]

Well said by Ron Paul :)

Great to hear somebody be critical of our ALREADY military involvement in Syria and implicating that as a possible cause and escalation to this bloodshed. Don't believe me, read these articles:

http://kurdnas.com/en/index.php?opti...rts1&Itemid=56

http://www.rt.com/news/syria-arms-us-france-531/

http://www.boilingfrogspost.com/tag/exposing-msm/

What Ron could not afford to say politically...is that there is little doubt that Israel has been lobbying for their stealth war the US has been waging on Syria for quite some time. Israel hates Syria...yet knows it would be too messy to take on themselves. So they convince the US to fund/arm a astro-turf movement to overthrow the Syrian government.

[Lucille]

Doherty: Ron Paul: This is Why We Fight (http://reason.com/blog/2012/06/19/ron-paul-this-is-why-we-fight)

It's all going according to plan.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FAw2PnEnyow

[paulbot24]

It's all going according to plan.

How right you are. Interesting video. The fact that those countries are the only ones (with the exception of North Korea) left in the world not involved in the Federal Reserve cabal is a coincidence? Can you run down that list of countries again? lol

[AuH20]

How right you are. Interesting video. The fact that those countries are the only ones (with the exception of North Korea) left in the world not involved in the Federal Reserve cabal is a coincidence? Can you run down that list of countries again? lol

Those are "emerging" markets. ROFL

[truthspeaker]

This video is not mine. I am reposting.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OCKOJ_Z_A90&feature=related

[Xhin]

Another longer video in the same vein. Something about this one just *clicked* for me:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f7NsXFnzJGw&feature=related

[green73]

Doherty: Ron Paul: This is Why We Fight (http://reason.com/blog/2012/06/19/ron-paul-this-is-why-we-fight)

It's all going according to plan.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FAw2PnEnyow

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Lucille again.

[whippoorwill]

It was worth it just to hear him say "Bogus".
+rep HA!

[KingNothing]

Well said by Ron Paul :)

Great to hear somebody be critical of our ALREADY military involvement in Syria and implicating that as a possible cause and escalation to this bloodshed. Don't believe me, read these articles:

http://kurdnas.com/en/index.php?opti...rts1&Itemid=56

http://www.rt.com/news/syria-arms-us-france-531/

http://www.boilingfrogspost.com/tag/exposing-msm/

What Ron could not afford to say politically...is that there is little doubt that Israel has been lobbying for their stealth war the US has been waging on Syria for quite some time. Israel hates Syria...yet knows it would be too messy to take on themselves. So they convince the US to fund/arm a astro-turf movement to overthrow the Syrian government.


Nothing that is happening right now in Syria is simple.
The entire issue is complicated and insanely confusing, because of how many interests are involved. The only thing I know for sure is that we should take a principled stance against interventionism. By default I side with the US, against tyrants, and against Russia. Beyond that, I have no idea who the instigators are, who is the "bad guy" and which side has the most virtue.

[newbitech]

Nothing that is happening right now in Syria is simple.
The entire issue is complicated and insanely confusing, because of how many interests are involved. The only thing I know for sure is that we should take a principled stance against interventionism. By default I side with the US, against tyrants, and against Russia. Beyond that, I have no idea who the instigators are, who is the "bad guy" and which side has the most virtue.

Out of curiosity, do you know any Syrians? I recently had lunch with a young Syrian woman who's family finally decided to move away from their country due to the violence there. This young woman, while average class here in the US was clearly upper class in Syrian standards. She has a Western education, her family travels a lot etc etc..

What I learned in my conversation with her about Syria is that most people in the country support their leadership. In fact, the younger men in her family are all in the Syrian armed forces. Her cousin was recently killed by the "rebels" there. She is fearful that her brother who did not make the journey to the states with the family will be killed in the fighting. She says the violence that has flared up is recent. She says for the most part, Syrians live free lives. There are some rules and restrictions that come with living in a relative theocracy, but no more prohibitive than living in say Israel.

She is very well in tune with the culture and her biggest complaint (reason she loves America) is the sexual freedom that women enjoy here, and the overall freedom of expression, which translate in to, young people from morally strict countries like the very loose free wheeling lack of morals "enjoyed" here in the United States.

The cause for youthful rebellion is seeded in this desire for sexual and (relatively) immoral expression of freedom in all of these countries. This desire having been repressed naturally in this culture and society has never stoked the type of violence we are seeing there today.

She just totally did not understand what the queue for the violence is in her home country and in the surrounding countries. Until of course, I explained America's role in stoking that violence.

Make no mistake people. Ron Paul is absolutely correct. Our government and military are the interlopers here purposefully inciting the violence and putting the tools in the hand of the rebels and giving them the impetus to fight for their sexual and immoral desires with bombs and bullets.

WE are interfering with their culture and stirring the unrest ON PURPOSE in order to destabilize the region. RUSSIA sees this, CHINA sees this, powerful nations that would not be our allies see what we are doing. It's not right. We might as well be walking in to Amish country and giving their kids Iphones, internet porn, and Call of Duty III. BEHIND THEIR PARENTS BACKS!

[SilenceDewgooder]

http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2012/06/20/ron-paul-speaks-in-opposition-to-intervention-in-syria-on-house-floor/



http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=8rCvfwoRGMg


Transcript: (I can't watch the video at work, so I am assuming this is the transcript.)

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.

[Republicanguy]

Wesley Clark makes a good point, but ultimately America is in the Middle East and south Asia is because of the dependence on crude oil and natural gas, predominately Oil. We all understand this. Cheney himself said in 1999 that 2/3 of the world's oil, cheap oil is in the Middle East.

Yes, the western countries, a total of 38-40 in Afghanistan are there because of this, it isn't made obvious, but some of us out there who are informed understand this.

Not until people in America understand that, and in Europe can we deal with this problem and stop messing around in other countries. Essentially fighting for control, an energy war.

[newbitech]

Wesley Clark makes a good point, but ultimately America is in the Middle East and south Asia is because of the dependence on crude oil and natural gas, predominately Oil. We all understand this. Cheney himself said in 1999 that 2/3 of the world's oil, cheap oil is in the Middle East.

Yes, the western countries, a total of 38-40 in Afghanistan are there because of this, it isn't made obvious, but some of us out there who are informed understand this.

Not until people in America understand that, and in Europe can we deal with this problem and stop messing around in other countries. Essentially fighting for control, an energy war.

For the most part, I agree. But it's not just about energy. This region of the world has been a center of trade long before the discovery of the combustion engine or plastics.

This region is the cross roads of the world, strategic in every sense economically, militarily, culturally, politically, and historically (to name a few). International corporations want to control those routes. Military forces want the "high ground" in the world theater. Civilizations merge and co-mingle here. Religious and mythical dominance is rooted here. Power elites leverage here. Ancient books, artifacts, and monoliths are concentrated here.

The region is the most significant region in the world for all of those reason above and many not listed. Energy is relatively new, but has only added fuel to the fire that has been burning here since records began (pun intended).

[Republicanguy]

So are you saying that Uk and US policy is because of religious ties, and not pretty much about energy, I believe it is only because of that. Everything else is secondary.

Yes, the Middle East has a very long history of all sorts, but why America fights has been about energy since after world war 2, as you say to control the region's resources, for a powerful industry and wealth. President Roosevelt envisioned that America would be dependent on oil in the future so abandoned the constitution entirely after the war, and a made a deal with the Saudis. Even though he was more like a socialist thinker. A pension and a job for every American. He died not long after.

[newbitech]

So are you saying that Uk and US policy is because of religious ties, and not pretty much about energy, I believe it is only because of that. Everything else is secondary.

Yes, the Middle East has a very long history of all sorts, but why America fights has been about energy since after world war 2, as you say to control the region's resources, for a powerful industry and wealth. President Roosevelt envisioned that America would be dependent on oil in the future so abandoned the constitution entirely after the war, and a made a deal with the Saudis. Even though he was more like a socialist thinker. A pension and a job for every American. He died not long after.

No I am not saying that. I am speaking to the broader issue. However, if it is in fact all about energy and that is the dominant reason, I have to wonder why we go to such great lengths to collect this resource in arguably one of the hardest places to collect it?

Why no exploit our resources closer to home where it is easier to get? So there are other reason we are there. I can't say any reason is more or less dominant than the others to be honest.

You will notice how energy prices have done nothing but go up as we introduce more and more conflict through our military presence. In fact, it is pretty obvious that we are driving the market of energy away from us with our military dominance rather than capturing and controlling that resource.

This is obviously a strategic flaw, but at the same time, I think if the focus was so much on energy, then the flaw would be appreciated for what it is. The western countries will ultimately lose the resource war, not because of a weak military, but because the lack of resources closer to home.

I think energy is a big reason for current policy. I also think that policy is not a strict energy/resource dominating policy. Sometimes, the priority of getting energy takes a back seat to other priorities, which is why we are going broke in foreign ventures instead of spending that capital on exploiting resources that are much safer and probably much MUCH cheaper to get closer to home.

Just a quick example. Do you know that drilling for oil off the Florida cost has been outlawed? It continues to be outlawed. Imagine how much oil is under Florida. China knows this, which is why they side drill from Cuba.

So in this case it would appear that the preferred policy is to keep our beaches pristine instead of risking an oil spill. So we spill our young folks blood and the blood of others in the beautiful desert sands of the middle east so that way we don't get oil on our beaches in Florida.

Why not just drill here, and import the SAND from the middle east to extend those beaches and soak up any oil that MIGHT wash on the Florida shores in the unlikely event of a spill?

Hmmm...

[Republicanguy]

And that is it, all hunky dorey?:rolleyes:

America's forty eight states do not produce enough crude to supply the economy and increasing population. Here in the UK, the North sea shared with Norway went into decline in 1999, 2000. Why do we also have to get involved in the Middle East, there for energy agenda, we really shouldn't be. We import oil from many different countries, but no where has enough to supply each individual nation on it's own, Spain, Germany, are also examples. If we did we wouldn't have this policy.

You are correct that nation building is taking a front seat, its all in the plan.

[ZenBowman]

What a speech, magnificent.

[newbitech]

And that is it, all hunky dorey?:rolleyes:

America's forty eight states do not produce enough crude to supply the economy and increasing population. Here in the UK, the North sea shared with Norway went into decline in 1999, 2000. Why do we also have to get involved in the Middle East, there for energy agenda, we really shouldn't be. We import oil from many different countries, but no where has enough to supply each individual nation on it's own, Spain, Germany, are also examples. If we did we wouldn't have this policy.

You are correct that nation building is taking a front seat, its all in the plan.

I think you completely miss my point. We have resources, known resources that we actively refuse to exploit. For instance, the coast and eastern sea boards.

So why not attack Cuba and steal their oil?


Taking this geologic uncertainty into account, especially in the offshore area, the mean volumes of undiscovered resources in the composite TPS of the North Cuba Basin are estimated at (1) 4.6 billion barrels of oil (BBO), with means ranging from an F95 probability of 1 BBO to an F5 probability of 9 BBO; and (2) 8.6 trillion cubic feet of of gas (TCFG), of which 8.6 TCFG is associated with oil fields, and about 1.2 TCFG is in nonassociated gas fields in the North Cuba Foreland Basin AU.

http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2010/1029/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Offshore_drilling_on_the_US_Atlantic_coast

[Republicanguy]

According to energy files, Cuba peaked ten years ago in 2002. So that isn't an option. They import from Venezuela for their production.

You have to know about geology and rocks, and how fossil fuels works. Just because there is a small discovery over here or there, doesn't mean that can provide a country like America 5% of the world's population, using 20-5% of the world's energy.

[Lucille]

Details on US Aid to Syrian Rebels (http://www.antiwar.com/blog/2012/06/19/details-on-us-aid-to-syrian-rebels/)

Related:

US Plans to Surge Military Presence Across Middle East (http://news.antiwar.com/2012/06/19/us-plans-to-surge-military-presence-across-middle-east/)
Following the forced withdrawal of troops from Iraq, Washington is trying desperately to maintain regional hegemony


The US approach toward the Middle East has not changed since the end of WWII, and maintaining a presence and propping up obedient dictatorships is essential to Washington’s enduring aim of hegemony. As a Top Secret National Security Council briefing put it in 1954, “the Near East is of great strategic, political, and economic importance,” as it “contains the greatest petroleum resources in the world” as well as “essential locations for strategic military bases in any world conflict.”

[Republicanguy]

Spot on^ Just as Micheal T Klaire has said in his film 2008 Blood & Oil, he has written books on this subject too.

Richard Heinberg's The Party's over (2003) and The Last Oil Shock by David Strahan (2007)

Mr Paul has to confront this issue otherwise, you may as well say goodbye to liberty. Richard Heinberg as he put it, the leftwing is less preoccupied with defence than say the rightwing side of politics, just as that side believes more in out for yourself thinking than the left. Though it can differ depending on country. He says in his book that some of the 19th century political beliefs would have to be dropped to deal with this situation.

Even if we ignore this information, it is still a problem for all us that are young, because it will only get more pressing in future.

Lifestyle change, and energy has got to be local. But anyway, it will have to be a young person from the Libertarian or Liberty movement that would have to deal with this. A lot of us don't want to accept limits, or that there are limits to growth.

Human nature is no better than yeast, we expand and consume.