Question:
HON. RON PAUL OF TEXAS
BEFORE THE US HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
October 26, 2005
http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2005/cr102605.htm
We Have Been Warned
We have been warned. Prepare for a broader war in the Middle East, as plans are being laid for the next U.S. led regime change-- in Syria. A UN report on the death of Lebanese Prime Minister Rafig Hariri elicited this comment from a senior U.S. policy maker: “Out of tragedy comes an extraordinary strategic opportunity.” This statement reflects the continued neo-conservative, Machiavellian influence on our foreign policy. The “opportunity” refers to the long-held neo-conservative plan for regime change in Syria, similar to what was carried out in Iraq.
This plan for remaking the Middle East has been around for a long time. Just as 9/11 served the interests of those who longed for changes in Iraq, the sensationalism surrounding Hariri’s death is being used to advance plans to remove Assad.
Congress already has assisted these plans by authorizing the sanctions placed on Syria last year. Harmful sanctions, as applied to Iraq in the 1990s, inevitably represent a major step toward war since they bring havoc to so many innocent people. Syria already has been charged with developing weapons of mass destruction based on no more evidence than was available when Iraq was similarly charged.
Syria has been condemned for not securing its borders, by the same U.S. leaders who cannot secure our own borders. Syria was castigated for placing its troops in Lebanon, a neighboring country, although such action was invited by an elected government and encouraged by the United States. The Syrian occupation of Lebanon elicited no suicide terrorist attacks, as was suffered by Western occupiers.
Condemning Syria for having troops in Lebanon seems strange, considering most of the world sees our 150,000 troops in Iraq as an unwarranted foreign occupation. Syrian troops were far more welcome in Lebanon.
Secretary Rice likewise sees the problems in Syria-- that we helped to create-- as an opportunity to advance our Middle Eastern agenda. In recent testimony she stated that it was always the administration’s intent to redesign the greater Middle East, and Iraq was only one part of that plan. And once again we have been told that all options are still on the table for dealing with Syria-- including war.
The statement that should scare all Americans (and the world) is the assurance by Secretary Rice that the President needs no additional authority from Congress to attack Syria. She argues that authority already has been granted by the resolutions on 9/11 and Iraq. This is not true, but if Congress remains passive to the powers assumed by the executive branch it won’t matter. As the war spreads, the only role for Congress will be to provide funding lest they be criticized for not supporting the troops. In the meantime, the Constitution and our liberties here at home will be further eroded as more Americans die.
This escalation of conflict with Syria comes as a result of the UN report concerning the Hariri death. When we need an excuse for our actions, it’s always nice to rely on the organization that our administration routinely condemns, one that brought us the multi-billion dollar oil-for-food scandal and sexual crimes by UN representatives.
It’s easy to ignore the fact that the report did not implicate Assad, who is targeted for the next regime change. The UN once limited itself to disputes between nations; yet now it’s assumed the UN, like the United States, has a legal and moral right to inject itself into the internal policies of sovereign nations. Yet what is the source of this presumed wisdom? Where is the moral imperative that allows us to become the judge and jury of a domestic murder in a country 6,000 miles from our shores?
Moral, constitutional, and legal arguments for a less aggressive foreign policy receive little attention in Washington. But the law of unintended consequences serves as a thorough teacher for the slow learners and the morally impaired.
Is Iraq not yet enough of a headache for the braggarts of the shock and awe policy?
Are 2,000 lives lost not enough to get their attention?
How many hundreds of billions of dollars must be drained from our economy before it’s noticed?
Is it still plausible that deficits don’t matter?
Is the apparent victory for Iran in the Shiite theocracy we’ve created in Iraq not yet seen as a disturbing consequence of the ill-fated Iraq regime change effort?
When we have our way with the next election in Lebanon and Hezbollah wins, what do we do?
If our effort to destabilize Syria is no more successful than our efforts in Iraq, then what?
If destabilizing Syria leads to the same in Iran, what are our options?
If we can’t leave now, we’ll surely not leave then-- we’ll be told we must stay to honor the fallen to prove the cause was just.
We should remember Ronald Reagan’s admonition regarding this area of the world. Ronald Reagan reflected on Lebanon in his memoirs, describing the Middle East as a jungle and Middle East politics as irrational. It forced him to rethink his policy in the region. It’s time we do some rethinking as well.
Answer:
I hope we do go to war eventually with Syria and Iran. Turkey so far seems to be one of the only calm middle-eastern countries.
Syria and Iran are fanatical, which would make the war much more bloody. Espically Iran, with it's rumored eventual participation in the anti-nato, which would bring russia and china into the picture.
If anything, if we don't do it, the Israeli's will.
Answer:
I hope we do go to war eventually with Syria and Iran. Turkey so far seems to be one of the only calm middle-eastern countries.
Syria and Iran are fanatical, which would make the war much more bloody. Espically Iran, with it's rumored eventual participation in the anti-nato, which would bring russia and china into the picture.
how fanatical do you view them? The government in both countries is definitely no where near as bad as Saddam's Iraq, and from personal experiences, the people are definitely fiercely patriotic. Syria has long been a secular gov't, who's main problem is their continued support of anti-Israel groups and Lebanon. Other than that, they've little influence over anything else.
As for Iran.. like I said in the other thread. This Anti-Nato alliance with Russia and China will not form. There's too much conflict of interest. Although a bilateral agreement between Iran and China is certainly possible. Fanatical here is more likely.. but can you blame the Iranians? They've spent their first years as a nation having their resources and exports controlled by the British.. when they tried to take control of their economy, the Brits (and later the US) retaliated and installed a puppet leader who hated his own country. This all led towards the rise of the Shah, who from my experience, still hate..but found him to be the lesser evil... then an Iran-Iraq war where the latter used chemical weapons and was supported by most of the western world, and the continuing anti-Iranian policies being imposed upon them.. it's no wonder they have gotten very angry. In comparison with the middle east, Iran is much more demorcratic than some of our allies (i.e Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, etc). People can elect their president (but not the spiritual leader).. there's two clear bi partisan camps (similar to the US) where there's always large public protests against each other, and the country is relatively modern. It's no N.Korea.. you got malls there, freeways, traffic congestion, universities, etc.
As for a war, I think the administration would have a hard time convincing the american people to go with it.. although I'm pretty sure they want to do it (part of the neocon plans). Syria's military has grown obsolete and probably weaker (at least in number and type of equipment) to Iraq at it's height.. but Iran is a totally different scenario. It's a large country with one of the largest populations in the region (thus more manpower available), and has a developed indigenous arms industry. They have the resources, technology, and engineers that allow them to produce their own weapons. They're the only country in the middle east to have built their own tanks, aircraft, etc (Israel makes their own AFVs, but haven't made very many aircraft).
Not sure of the quality of their ground forces, but one thing for sure is that it's Air Force achieved the 3rd best kill ratio in the world, behind Israel and the US.
If anything, if we don't do it, the Israeli's will.
That's for sure, and when the Israeli's do it (even if the US warns them not to).. we will be dragged into it as in Lebanon.
Answer:
hrm, I don't think Israel would be dumb enough to engage in a war with Syria...
Answer:
hrm, I don't think Israel would be dumb enough to engage in a war with Syria...
probably not a full scale war, but precision strikes (probably through use of air force) is very possible. They've done it in the past.
Answer:
I don't see Israel making a successful case for punitive strikes against Syria and convincing the UN that they were justified; of course the gov't may not care about the UN or world opinion but it won't help their case in Europe.
Answer:
Correct me if I'm wrong, as I understand it, the US foreign policy has always been that if it doesn't benefit the US then it won't do anything or do little to intervene with another country's affair--in this case destabilizing Syria and implement a new regime, if I read the article correctly. Waging war with Syria and Iran will benefit the US how? Don't tell me it's oil.
Answer:
I smell DRAFT...
at least I will be a E-3 at least when I get drafted (IMG:style_emoticons/default/cool.gif)
Answer:
Correct me if I'm wrong, as I understand it, the US foreign policy has always been that if it doesn't benefit the US then it won't do anything or do little to intervene with another country's affair--in this case destabilizing Syria and implement a new regime, if I read the article correctly. Waging war with Syria and Iran will benefit the US how? Don't tell me it's oil.
depends on the administration. This current administration follows policies produced by the Neoconservatives.. in fact most of the administration is Neoconservative (Rumsfeld, Libby, Wolfowitz, Ashcroft, Abrams, etc). Their ideas and suggestions towards foreign policy is radically different than other conservatives. They seek a permanent presence in the middle east. One reason that they've stated, is to maintain US hegemony in the region (especially since China and Russia having a history of luring countries to their sphere). Why? because of energy needs. Installing a democratic regime would allow another country to have more influence in domestic politics, and whose actions could easily be justified if the regime being replaced.. is a regime that does not benefit the other country and whose leaders are not under the influence of the other.
Then there is the Israel factor. The following is debatable.. but many believe there is a strong Jewish factor, especially with the Neocons being predominantly of Eastern European Jewish ancestry. Syria being perhaps the most active against Israel at the moment.
Answer:
ah yes, Syrian oil...
which reminds me, watch SYRIANA (IMG:style_emoticons/default/tongue.gif)
(I hope the movie isn't trash.)
But seriously, I hope we don't get entangled in another mess, even if we are oil-dependent. Unfortunately mobilizing people to become aware of peak oil has not been easy; transforming this into a political movement may be impossible.
Answer:
Great.............just what we need.....more wars.....
::hense my sarcasm::
Answer:
ah yes, Syrian oil...
which reminds me, watch SYRIANA (IMG:style_emoticons/default/tongue.gif)
(I hope the movie isn't trash.)
definitely, I hope it's accurate to Baer's book. So they say Clooney had to put on some weight in order to portray him.
Answer:
alas, unfortunately it's fictional, and supposedly they don't even use Robert Baer's name
so it's fictional account, much like the movie Traffic, meant to illustrate what is really going in, without having to use real people, etc.
Answer:
If Iraq had gone swimmingly, then I could theorectically see how Iran or to a lesser extent Syria might next be on the table. But it didn't.
And while I agree with you, Range, as to some of the underlying motivations for war/policy, whether for Iraq or the other two, vis a vis the neocons and whats in Isreal's interest, I think you're discounting the local politics. Bush was a man who lived in his father's shadow, a father who was popular for winning a war and yet still lost reelection. That was the state Bush was in after Afghanistan, and he knew better than anyone that his popularity could wane and guarantee him nothing. And so Iraq was in his best political interests as well, and it certainly paid off, both in the runup to the congressional/senate elections three years ago and his subsequent re-election last year. But's what's in it for Bush now? And twice fooled you don't fool me again as he says.
