Right Wing
08-31-2013, 03:31 AM
On Andrea Tantaros’ radio show on Friday, conservative commentator Pat Buchanan warned against taking military action in Syria, especially without knowing a lot of the facts on the ground.
“There is a natural healthy reluctance to launch a new war based on an incident, which appears to be the use of some kind of chemical weapon,” Buchanan said. “We don’t know who ordered it. We don’t know how it was delivered. We don’t know whether it was chlorine or serine. We have no idea or we have not gotten proof as far as I’ve seen that [Syrian President Bashar al-] Assad ordered this done. And the idea that we would launch unilaterally a war against a country that has not attacked us or threatened us without the authorization of the Congress, which has the power to declare war — it seems to me is an act of almost insanity.”
“The neocons realize that if they can get us to attack Syria and there’s a real possibility that there will be retaliatory attacks on Americans or attacks on Israel which will then cause the Israelis or the Americans to attack Syria’s allies in Iran — Syria is the backdoor to war with Iran,” Buchanan said. “That’s been the objective of the neocons down the road all along. With the new Iranian government, which looks like it is anxious to negotiate with the Americans for the simple reason it is really hurting under the sanctions and the new president, [Hassan] Rouhani was elected basically to lift the sanctions and bring Iran back into the community of nations and to establish a working relationship with the United States. I believe the real hidden motive here is to get the United States into Syria, into making war and this war will naturally spread, they feel, and we will end up with a war on Iran.”
Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2013/08/30/buchanan-on-why-neocons-supports-syria-strike-syria-is-the-backdoor-to-war-with-iran/#ixzz2dX7CkMSP
Assad is more of a secular dictator compared to the rest of the region and his opposition, the rebels, are led by the Al-Nasra front which is aligned with Al-Qaeda. As Assad is a dictator, and the U.S. through hegemony attempts to export democracy to countries who really don’t want it, but are told it will make them free, it sounds good on the surface. However, the democracies often resulting from our intervention result in radical Islamic regimes rising to power in which the people are oppressed and ruled with the likes of Sharia Law. This is what happened in Iraq, Egypt, and Libya. This is why I would say the situation in Syria is more similar to Iraq.
Saddam opposed his political enemies and he was a ruthless dictator. However, he was not an Islamic radical and he opposed Iran, whom Iraq was at war with for years. Saddam kept Iran in check in this region, so to speak. He brutally tortured political enemies and yes, he gassed the Kurds, with gas we gave him. However, he also left many of the peaceful religious Iraqi citizens alone as they minded their own business. Now, there is a new government in Iraq, which is radically Islamic and rules with Sharia Law and is friendly toward Iran. So, Iran is unchecked in this region, Arab Christians are not allowed to vote (I thought democracy was supposed to make them free), they are second class citizens, their homes have been burned down, churches burned down, and many have fled from the country. What started this whole thing, the invasion and regime change, is the excuse used of possession of weapons of mass destruction. This is what we are being told about Syria today.
We have been told in the media Syria has WMD and I am sure you heard of the gas attack on civilians last week. The funny thing is, there has been strong speculation recently supported by various sources saying the rebels are the ones who used the gas, not the Assad regime. This has also led to speculation the gas attack could be a false flag set up to excuse military action against Assad. The rebels have committed mass murder, to include decimating entire villages consisting of peaceful Arab Christians. There is a town in Syria in which the people speak Aramaic, the language of Christ. It is known as possibly the last town in the world to have Aramaic as the official or widely used language. Many of the people there are descendants of people from the first century Christian church, which is why they still speak Aramaic. They have said they feel shielded and protected by the Assad regime from the radical Islamics, and their town would probably be destroyed if Assad fell.
Not to mention the fact it is ironic we would be aiding an entity intertwined with Al-Qaeda while we were attacked and are at war with Al-Qaeda. But, it is eerily similar to Iraq in that supposed WMD are used as an excuse to get involved to depose a dictator and assist with instilling a democratically elected regime. This is likely to ultimately happen if we use any force at all, and the elected regime will probably be connected with the rebels, thus it will be radically Islamic ruled with Sharia Law and many people will be persecuted.
It's interesting this could be used as a back door to war with Iran, even while the possibility exists Iran wants to negotiate and this is why Rouhani was elected. Yet, we may be in two more wars.
It all comes down to the fact we need to have commerce with all, but entangling alliances with none and have a noninterventionist foreign policy like many of the founders envisioned. We should use force only to defend our country and our citizens and go to war only when necessary and with a constitutional declaration by Congress.
“There is a natural healthy reluctance to launch a new war based on an incident, which appears to be the use of some kind of chemical weapon,” Buchanan said. “We don’t know who ordered it. We don’t know how it was delivered. We don’t know whether it was chlorine or serine. We have no idea or we have not gotten proof as far as I’ve seen that [Syrian President Bashar al-] Assad ordered this done. And the idea that we would launch unilaterally a war against a country that has not attacked us or threatened us without the authorization of the Congress, which has the power to declare war — it seems to me is an act of almost insanity.”
“The neocons realize that if they can get us to attack Syria and there’s a real possibility that there will be retaliatory attacks on Americans or attacks on Israel which will then cause the Israelis or the Americans to attack Syria’s allies in Iran — Syria is the backdoor to war with Iran,” Buchanan said. “That’s been the objective of the neocons down the road all along. With the new Iranian government, which looks like it is anxious to negotiate with the Americans for the simple reason it is really hurting under the sanctions and the new president, [Hassan] Rouhani was elected basically to lift the sanctions and bring Iran back into the community of nations and to establish a working relationship with the United States. I believe the real hidden motive here is to get the United States into Syria, into making war and this war will naturally spread, they feel, and we will end up with a war on Iran.”
Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2013/08/30/buchanan-on-why-neocons-supports-syria-strike-syria-is-the-backdoor-to-war-with-iran/#ixzz2dX7CkMSP
Assad is more of a secular dictator compared to the rest of the region and his opposition, the rebels, are led by the Al-Nasra front which is aligned with Al-Qaeda. As Assad is a dictator, and the U.S. through hegemony attempts to export democracy to countries who really don’t want it, but are told it will make them free, it sounds good on the surface. However, the democracies often resulting from our intervention result in radical Islamic regimes rising to power in which the people are oppressed and ruled with the likes of Sharia Law. This is what happened in Iraq, Egypt, and Libya. This is why I would say the situation in Syria is more similar to Iraq.
Saddam opposed his political enemies and he was a ruthless dictator. However, he was not an Islamic radical and he opposed Iran, whom Iraq was at war with for years. Saddam kept Iran in check in this region, so to speak. He brutally tortured political enemies and yes, he gassed the Kurds, with gas we gave him. However, he also left many of the peaceful religious Iraqi citizens alone as they minded their own business. Now, there is a new government in Iraq, which is radically Islamic and rules with Sharia Law and is friendly toward Iran. So, Iran is unchecked in this region, Arab Christians are not allowed to vote (I thought democracy was supposed to make them free), they are second class citizens, their homes have been burned down, churches burned down, and many have fled from the country. What started this whole thing, the invasion and regime change, is the excuse used of possession of weapons of mass destruction. This is what we are being told about Syria today.
We have been told in the media Syria has WMD and I am sure you heard of the gas attack on civilians last week. The funny thing is, there has been strong speculation recently supported by various sources saying the rebels are the ones who used the gas, not the Assad regime. This has also led to speculation the gas attack could be a false flag set up to excuse military action against Assad. The rebels have committed mass murder, to include decimating entire villages consisting of peaceful Arab Christians. There is a town in Syria in which the people speak Aramaic, the language of Christ. It is known as possibly the last town in the world to have Aramaic as the official or widely used language. Many of the people there are descendants of people from the first century Christian church, which is why they still speak Aramaic. They have said they feel shielded and protected by the Assad regime from the radical Islamics, and their town would probably be destroyed if Assad fell.
Not to mention the fact it is ironic we would be aiding an entity intertwined with Al-Qaeda while we were attacked and are at war with Al-Qaeda. But, it is eerily similar to Iraq in that supposed WMD are used as an excuse to get involved to depose a dictator and assist with instilling a democratically elected regime. This is likely to ultimately happen if we use any force at all, and the elected regime will probably be connected with the rebels, thus it will be radically Islamic ruled with Sharia Law and many people will be persecuted.
It's interesting this could be used as a back door to war with Iran, even while the possibility exists Iran wants to negotiate and this is why Rouhani was elected. Yet, we may be in two more wars.
It all comes down to the fact we need to have commerce with all, but entangling alliances with none and have a noninterventionist foreign policy like many of the founders envisioned. We should use force only to defend our country and our citizens and go to war only when necessary and with a constitutional declaration by Congress.