By Ron Paul | RPI | Feb. 11, 2019

Last week’s bipartisan Senate vote to rebuke President Trump for his decision to remove troops from Syria and Afghanistan unfortunately tells us a lot about what is wrong with Washington, DC. While the two parties loudly bicker about minor issues, when it comes to matters like endless wars overseas they enthusiastically join together. With few exceptions, Republicans and Democrats lined up to admonish the president for even suggesting that it’s time for US troops to come home from Afghanistan and Syria.

The amendment, proposed by the Senate Majority Leader and passed overwhelmingly by both parties, warns that a “precipitous withdrawal of United States forces from the on-going fight…in Syria and Afghanistan, could allow terrorists to regroup.” As one opponent of the amendment correctly pointed out, a withdrawal of US troops from Afghanistan is hardly “precipitous” since they’ve been there for nearly 18 years! And with al-Qaeda and ISIS largely defeated in Syria a withdrawal from that country would hardly be “precipitous” after almost five years of unauthorized US military action.

Senators supporting the rebuke claim that US troops cannot leave until every last ISIS fighter is killed or captured. This is obviously a false argument. Al-Qaeda and ISIS did not emerge in Iraq because US troops left the country – they emerged because the US was in the country in the first place. Where was al-Qaeda in Iraq before the 2003 US invasion the neocons lied us into? There weren’t any.

US troops occupying Iraqi territory was, however, a huge incentive for Iraqis to join a resistance movement. Similarly, US intervention in Syria beginning under the Obama Administration contributed to the growth of terrorist groups in that country.

We know that US invasion and occupation provides the best recruiting tools for terrorists, including suicide terrorists. So how does it make sense that keeping troops in these countries in any way contributes to the elimination of terrorism? As to the “vacuum” created in Syria when US troops pull out, how about allowing the government of Syria to take care of the problem? After all, it’s their country and they’ve been fighting ISIS and al-Qaeda since the US helped launch the “regime change” in 2011. Despite what you might hear in the US mainstream media, it’s Syria along with its allies that has done most of the fighting against these groups and it makes no sense that they would allow them to return.

Congress has the Constitutional responsibility and obligation to declare war, but this has been ignored for decades. The president bombs far-off lands and even sends troops to fight in and occupy foreign territory and Congress doesn’t say a word. But if a president dares seek to end a war suddenly the sleeping Congressional giant awakens!

I’ve spent many years opposing Executive branch over-reach in matters where the president has no Constitutional authority, but when it comes to decisions on where to deploy or re-deploy troops once in battle it is clear that the Constitution grants that authority to the commander-in-chief. The real question we need to ask is why is Congress so quick to anger when the president finally seeks to end the longest war in US history? 


Contributed by Ron Paul of Ron Paul Institute.

The Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity is a project of Dr. Paul’s Foundation for Rational Economics and Education (F.R.E.E.), founded in the 1970s as an educational organization. The Institute continues and expands Dr. Paul’s lifetime of public advocacy for a peaceful foreign policy and the protection of civil liberties at home.


SHARE:

By Mac Slavo | SHTFplan | January 21, 2019

An Iranian air force commander has warned that the country is prepared to “eliminate Israel from Earth.” Tehran’s fighting words come just after Israel launched air raids on alleged Iranian targets inside Syria, killing 4 Syrian soldiers.

Brigadier General Aziz Nasirzadeh, the commander of the Islamic Republic of Iran Air Force (IRIAF), issued the provocative statement to the Young Journalist Club news agency, according to reports from the Iranian media.  Should Iran attempt to eliminate Israel from Earth, however, a third world war would be the most likely result. According to RT, the commander said: “the young people in the air force are fully ready and impatient to confront the Zionist regime and eliminate it from the Earth! Our future generations are learning required know-how for the promised day to destroy Israel!”

Nazirzaheh implied that Iran’s high level of military preparedness has deterred the country’s enemies from attacking the Islamic Republic. But they aren’t above verbal aggression. Israel has defended its actions against Syria. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu described the air raid against Syria as retribution against those who wish to destroy Israel. “We are operating both against Iran and against the Syrian forces that are abetting the Iranian aggression,” Netanyahu said in a speech. “We will strike at anyone who tried to harm us. Whoever threatens to eliminate us, bears full responsibility.”

Israel is believed to have fired dozens of missiles and guided bombs at targets inside Syria over the last 48 hours, purportedly targeting Iranian forces stationed in the country.

The strikes have killed four Syrian soldiers and left six others injured, the Russian Defense Ministry has said, as well as causing damage to Damascus International Airport. The ministry claims that Syrian forces have intercepted 30 Israeli missiles over the past 48 hours. –RT

War rhetoric and aggressions between Iran and Israel are nothing new, but heightened attacks and military assaults could propel one or the other to snap causing irreversible damage and ignite a third world war. Tensions are high, but they could still be higher.  The real question is how much time does the world have?


Contributed by Mac Slavo of SHTFplan.com


SHARE:

By Ron Paul | RPI | January 7, 2019

I’m starting to wonder whether President Trump has any power over US foreign policy at all. Many people believe that the US president is just a figurehead, with actual foreign policy firmly in the hands of the deep state. Trump’s latest dramatic U-turn on pulling troops from Syria certainly feeds such theories.

When President Trump announced just a couple of weeks ago that the US was removing its troops from Syria and possibly reducing troops from Afghanistan, the neocons, the media, the military-industrial complex, and the left-wing “never-Trump” people were livid. They were silent when President Obama made the horrible decision to overthrow Assad in Syria and sent weapons to jihadists to do so. They never said a word when billions of dollars were committed to this immoral and dangerous “regime change” policy. They weren’t interested in the rule of law when President Obama thumbed his nose at Congress and sent troops into Syria.

But when President Trump declared the obvious – that ISIS was effectively defeated and that we had no business being in Syria – these above groups in unison declared that actually bringing US troops home was a “gift to Russia.” They said bringing US troops home would create instability in the regions they left. Well, is there any proof that occupation by US troops actually brings stability?

No sooner did President Trump announce our departure than his neocon advisors began walking his words back. First he had to endure a lunch with Sen. Lindsey Graham reading him the riot act, where, according to the Senator, Trump agreed to no timetables for departure. Then his National Security Advisor, John Bolton, and his Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo, began to tell the world that President Trump’s statements on troop pullout were just empty words, not US policy.

While Syrian Christians newly liberated from the rule of US-backed extremists celebrated Christmas for the first time in years, John Bolton dusted off the old warning to Assad that the US would attack if he “again” gassed his people. With the Syrian president personally taking part in some of the Christmas celebrations, does anybody really believe he’d go back to his office and order a gas attack?




Bolton then claimed that the US would shift troops from Syria to Iraq to continue fighting ISIS and that the US fully backs Israeli airstrikes on Syrian territory. Did President Trump even agree to any of this?

Even worse, Secretary of State Pompeo is embarking on a Middle East tour where he will essentially tell leaders in the region that the US president is a liar. According to one State Department official quoted in a report on Sunday, Pompeo’s message to the Middle East will be, “Despite reports to the contrary and false narratives surrounding the Syria decision, we are not going anywhere. The secretary will reinforce that commitment to the region and our partners.”

Calling the US president’s actual words on Syria “false narratives”? How is this not insubordination?

Will President Trump stand by and watch this coup taking place under his nose? Does he realize how his credibility suffers when he boldly announces a US withdrawal and the does a U-turn days later? Has he noticed recent polls showing that the majority of the American people agree with him? Why is he so intimidated by the neocons?


Contributed by Ron Paul of Ron Paul Institute.

The Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity is a project of Dr. Paul’s Foundation for Rational Economics and Education (F.R.E.E.), founded in the 1970s as an educational organization. The Institute continues and expands Dr. Paul’s lifetime of public advocacy for a peaceful foreign policy and the protection of civil liberties at home.


SHARE:

By Ron Paul | RPI | November 12, 2018

It’s not often that US Government officials are honest when they talk about our foreign policy. The unprovoked 2003 attack on Iraq was called a “liberation.” The 2011 US-led destruction of Libya was a “humanitarian intervention.” And so on.

So, in a way, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo was refreshingly honest last week when, speaking about newly-imposed US sanctions, he told the BBC that the Iranian leadership “has to make a decision that they want their people to eat.” It was an honest admission that new US sanctions are designed to starve Iranians unless the Iranian leadership accepts US demands.

His statement also reveals the lengths to which the neocons are willing to go to get their “regime change” in Iran. Just like then-Secretary of State Madeleine Albright said it was “worth it” that half a million Iraqi children died because of our sanctions on that country, Pompeo is letting us know that a few million dead Iranians is also “worth it” if the government in Tehran can be overthrown.

The US Secretary of State has demanded that Iran “act like a normal country” or the US would continue its pressure until Iran’s economy crumbles. How twisted is US foreign policy that Washington considers it “normal” to impose sanctions specifically designed to make life miserable – or worse – for civilians!

Is it normal to threaten millions of people with starvation if their leaders refuse to bow down to US demands? Is the neoconservative obsession with regime change “normal” behavior? Is training and arming al-Qaeda in Syria to overthrow Assad “normal” behavior? If so, then perhaps Washington’s neocons have a point. As Iran is not imposing sanctions, is not invading its neighbors, is not threatening to starve millions of Americans unless Washington is “regime-changed,” perhaps Iran is not acting “normal.”




So what is normal?

The continued Saudi genocide in Yemen does not bother Washington a bit. In fact, Saudi aggression in Yemen is viewed as just another opportunity to strike out at Iran. By making phony claims that Yemen’s Houthis are “Iran-backed,” the US government justifies literally handing the Saudis the bombs to drop on Yemeni school busses while claiming it is fighting Iranian-backed terrorism! Is that “normal”?

Millions of Yemenis face starvation after three years of Saudi attacks have destroyed the economy and a Saudi blockade prohibits aid from reaching the suffering victims, but Secretary Pompeo recently blamed Yemeni starvation on, you guessed it: Iran!

And in a shocking display of cynicism, the US government is reportedly considering listing Yemen’s Houthis as a “terrorist” organization for the “crime” of fighting back against Saudi (and US) aggression. Labeling the Yemeni resistance a “terrorist” organization would effectively “legalize” the ongoing Saudi destruction of Yemen, as it could be justified as just another battle in the “war on terror.” It would also falsely identify the real culprits in the Yemen tragedy as Iran, which is repeatedly and falsely called the “number one sponsor of terrorism” by Pompeo and the rest of the Trump Administration neocons.

So yes, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo told one wicked truth last week. But before he demands that countries like Iran start acting “normal” or face starvation, perhaps he should look in the mirror. Are Pompeo and the neocons “normal”? I don’t think so.


Contributed by Ron Paul of Ron Paul Institute.

The Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity is a project of Dr. Paul’s Foundation for Rational Economics and Education (F.R.E.E.), founded in the 1970s as an educational organization. The Institute continues and expands Dr. Paul’s lifetime of public advocacy for a peaceful foreign policy and the protection of civil liberties at home.


SHARE:

By Kurt Nimmo | Another Day In The Empire | Sept. 24, 2018

Russia has decided to do something about the Israelis setting up its surveillance plane to be shot down by Syria’s outdated S-200 missile system last week. It will now install its latest snd more advanced version of the antiaircraft system, the S-300. It is reportedly capable of identifying friend from foe.

No doubt this is freaking out the Israelis. Prior to this development, they had pretty much a free hand to target anything they wanted in Syria. It’s said they have so far conducted over 200 bombing raids inside the country without fear of a response from the Syrians or the Russians.

Russia doesn’t want an escalation and that’s the primary reason they have not responded to free-wheeling Israeli attacks. That’s the reason Putin talked with Netanyahu.

The Likudnik PM made a fool out of Putin by then “framing” the Russian surveillance plane to take the hit. Putin played down this angle. He said the shoot-down was a “chain of tragic, fatal circumstances.”

Russia’s Defense Ministry said something different when it announced the delivery of advanced S-300s on Putin’s orders.

“[Krelmin spokesman Dmitry Peskov]… repeated Moscow’s accusations that Israel was to blame for the crash: ‘No doubt that according to our military experts, deliberate action by Israeli pilots was the reason for the tragedy and this cannot but harm our (Russia-Israeli) ties,’” Reuters reports.

Israel shot back by saying it would “work to improve” what turned out to be a worthless “deconfliction” agreement between the two countries. The Israelis also said they won’t stop killing people in Syria. If Russia is serious, the missile placement will put a damper on Israel’s freedom to target and bomb whatever it wants in Syria.

“Israel says its air strikes on Syria are not a threat to Russia’s ally Assad, but that it must carry them out to halt arms shipments to Iranian-backed Lebanese group Hezbollah. It has made repeated efforts to persuade Moscow not to sell S-300s to Syria, as it fears this would hinder its aerial capability.”




It appears the S-300 message wasn’t strictly limited to the Israelis.

I have yet to see this reported anywhere else, but if true it will give the Russian-hating war party an excuse to further ratchet up hostilities and possibly lead to a direct confrontation between Russia and the United States.

Others claim S-300 batteries are already in Syria.

It remains to be seen what will happen if the Russian system takes out an Israeli fighter jet. This may be used by the Israelis to beg the Americans to start hitting Russian targets. On the other hand, it may shut down Israel’s wanton and murderous behavior for good.

Like the Sword of Damocles, WWIII hangs above on heads suspended by a thread.


Originally published by Kurt Nimmo at Another Day In The Empire.

Kurt Nimmo has blogged on political issues since 2002. In 2008, he worked as lead editor and writer at Infowars, and is currently a content producer for Newsbud.


SHARE: