Posts Tagged ‘antiwar’

These articles by debkafile are interesting. According to them, Assad said he would consider the attack on Syria by the US as originating from Israel and will respond accordingly. Is Israel confident that it can prevent Syrian rocket attack? Or is the government of Israel ready to sacrifice its own people?

The highest commanders of the US, UK, French, German, and Italian militaries along with totalitarian Arab Suni states of Saudi Arabia, Quatar, and Jordan are meeting in Jordan for the last meeting before the attack on Syria. If Syria waits until the bombs start raining it may not have a chance and from its view, it should start the conflict that is unavoidable at its own timing and terms. Or Assad will end up like Sadam and Gadhafi that too waiting until the US invaded.

The US and world economy will tank and Obama and Democrats and Western governments should be removed from power. Bankrupt governments ready to borrow more to start new wars until their houses explode. The problem is that there is no real opposition anywhere in the “democratic” world. The only response the people have is a revolution.

 

London, Jan 30 (ANI): The Obama administration gave green signal to a chemical weapons attack plan in Syria that could be blamed on President Bashar al Assad’s regime and in turn, spur international military action in the devastated country, leaked documents have shown.

But who would attack their own people? Al-Qaida would. Now they are America’s allies again. Dejavu Osama bin Laden.

The US accused Syrian government of using chemical weapons. The source of the accusation was … the rebels! Now that is a very independent and disinterested source that should be trusted with accusations that their opponent, Syrian government did what Obama said would start US aggression against Syria.

But what if Assad used the chemical weapons? Is killing with conventional weapons OK but with chemical weapons not?

The US has the biggest world arsenal of WMDs: nuclear, chemical, and biological. It is also the only country that has ever used nuclear weapons against a civilian population or against any country for that matter. Why does US have those weapons? To use them. Why other countries cannot use them in their own self-preservation? If Soviet Union had attacked, would not US have used them, too? Would that “crossed somebody’s line”?

debka files

A few observations:

US invasion will happen without Egypt that is now against Islamic Caliphate and Otoman Empire that the US is so desperatel trying to recreate in the Middle East.

US invasion will be limited as long as Syria surenders. If not, the US will be forced to increase its involvement, in self defense of course.

US may try to set up a Druze bantustan on Israeli and Jordanian border to prevent Al-Qaida reaching those countries. The experience with South Lebanon border zone that was manned by Lebanese Christians and run by Israel and then abandoned suggests that it will not work long term.

Turkey will start re-establishing Otoman empire, starting with Syria. That will help Turkish government to refocus citizens from worsening economy and unemployment at home. But they will only import more chaos home.

Nobel Peace Laureate’s adventure will make Americans to forget not only the bad economy that is not improving 5 years after the crash but also that the whole country is under the watchful eye of Big Brother.

If successful, the US will cause removal the ancient Christian population from Syria and help masacre Alawites. Of course, because of no boots on the ground, Barak will be innocent of war crimes committed by Al-Qaida against minorities in Syria.

Syrian moslems will long after the times when Asad family ruled, so good the new rulers will be.

Israel will long after the times when Asad family ruled, so good the Al-Qaida on its border will be.

by Rep. Ron Paul, December 10, 2011
The Soviet Union detonated its first nuclear bomb on August 29, 1949, leading to the doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction, shared by both the USA and the Soviets. The unwritten agreement by the two superpowers deterred nuclear war with an implied threat to blow up the world, if need be, to defend each of their interests.

I well remember the Cuban missile crisis of October 1962, having been drafted into the military at that time. Mutually Assured Destruction had significant meaning to the whole world during this period. This crisis, along with the escalating ill-advised Vietnam War, made me very much aware of the problems the world faced during the five years I served as a USAF flight surgeon.

It was with great pleasure and hope that I observed the collapse of the Soviet Empire between 1989 and 1991. This breakup verified the early predictions by the free market economists, like Ludwig von Mises, that communism would self-destruct because of the deeply flawed economic theories embedded in socialism. Our nukes were never needed because ideas are more powerful than the weapons of war.

Many Americans at the time were boldly hopeful that we would benefit from a generous peace dividend. Sadly, it turned out to be a wonderful opportunity wasted. There was to be no “beating their swords into plowshares,” even though history shows that without weapons and war there’s more food and prosperity for the people. Unfortunately, our leaders decided on another course that served the special interests who benefit from constant wars and the arbitrary rearrangement of national borders for control of national resources.

Instead of a peace dividend from ending the policy of Mutually Assured Destruction, US leaders opted for a foreign policy of American world domination as its sole superpower. It was all in the spirit of Woodrow Wilson’s idealistic goal of “making the world safe for democracy” by pursuing a war to end all wars.

The mantra became that American exceptionalism morally required us to spread our dominance world-wide by force. US world dominance, by whatever means, became our new bipartisan foreign policy. There was to be no peace dividend, though our enemies were virtually non-existent.

In many ways America had been “exceptional” but in an opposite manner from the neocon driven foreign policy of the last 20 years. If America indeed has something good to offer the cause of peace, prosperity, and liberty it must be spread through persuasion and by example; not by intimidation, bribes, and war.

Maintaining world domination is based on an intellectually and financially bankrupt idea that generates dependency, war, loss of civil liberties, inflation, and debt, all of which contribute to our economic crisis.

Saddest of all, this policy of American domination and exceptionalism has allowed us to become an aggressor nation, supporting pre-emptive war, covert destabilization, foreign occupations, nation building, torture, and assassinations. This policy has generated hatred toward Americans and provides the incentive for almost all of the suicide attacks against us and our allies.

To continue to believe the fiction that the militants hate us for our freedoms and wealth may even result in more attacks against us — that is, unless our national bankruptcy brings us to our knees and forces us to bring our troops home.

Expanding our foreign military intervention overseas as a cure for the attacks against us, tragically, only guarantees even more attacks. We must someday wake up, be honest with ourselves, and reject the notion that we’re spreading freedom and America’s goodness around the world. We cannot justify our policy by claiming our mission is to secure American freedoms and protect our Constitution. That is not believable. This policy is doomed to fail on all fronts.

The policy of Mutually Assured Destruction has been gone now for 20 years, and that is good.

The policy of American domination of the world, as nation builder-in-chief and policeman of the world, has failed and must be abandoned — if not as a moral imperative, then certainly out of economic necessity.

My humble suggestion is to replace it with a policy of Mutually Assured Respect. This requires no money and no weapons industry, or other special interests demanding huge war profits or other advantages.

This requires simply tolerance of others’ cultures and their social and religious values, and the giving up of all use of force to occupy or control other countries and their national resources. Many who disagree choose to grossly distort the basic principles shared by the world’s great religions: the Golden Rule, the Ten Commandments, and the cause of peace. Religions all too often are distorted and used to justify the violence engaged in for arbitrary power.

A policy of Mutually Assured Respect would result in the U.S.:

Treating other nations exactly as we expect others to treat us.

Offering friendship with all who seek it.

Participating in trade with all who are willing.

Refusing to threaten, bribe, or occupy any other nation.

Seeking an honest system of commodity money that no single country can manipulate for a trade advantage. Without this, currency manipulation becomes a tool of protectionism and prompts retaliation with tariffs and various regulations. This policy, when it persists, is dangerous and frequently leads to real wars.

Mutually Assured Respect offers a policy of respect, trade, and friendship and rejects threats, sanctions, and occupations.

This is the only practical way to promote peace, harmony, and economic well-being to the maximum number of people in the world.

Mutually Assured Respect may not be perfect but far better than Mutually Assured Destruction or unilateral American dominance.

Is this the demonstration of Romney’s business skills, to borrow money to wage a new useless war? But he is being financed by big business, so there must be money to be made … just not for the middle class. Yet middle class is going to vote for those crack heads?! Is the American middle class crack heads, then, too?

Return of the War Party?
By Patrick J. Buchanan

Is a vote for the Republican Party in 2012 a vote for war?

Is a vote for Mitt Romney or Newt Gingrich a vote for yet another unfunded war of choice, this time with a nation, Iran, three times as large and populous as Iraq?

Mitt says that if elected he will move carriers into the Persian Gulf and “prepare for war.” Newt is even more hawkish. America should continue “taking out” Iran’s nuclear scientists — i.e., assassinating them — but military action will probably be needed.

Newt is talking up uber-hawk John Bolton for secretary of state.

Rick Santorum has already called for U.S.-Israeli strikes: “Either we’re going to stop them … or take the long term consequences of having a nuclear Iran trying to wipe out the state of Israel.”

But if Iran represents, as Bibi Netanyahu is forever reminding us, an “existential threat,” why does not Israel itself, with hundreds of nuclear weapons, deal with it?

Bibi’s inaction speaks louder than Bibi’s words.

He wants the Americans to do it.

For the retired head of Mossad, Meir Dagan, calls attacking Iran “the stupidest thing I have ever heard of.” He means stupid for Israel.

Why? Because an Israeli attack would be costly in planes and pilots, and only set back Iran’s nuclear program. And such a pre-emptive strike would unify Iranians behind the regime.

Moreover, Israel would be inviting Tehran’s ally Hezbollah to rain down rockets on Israel, igniting another of the bloody Lebanon wars that Israel was desperate to end the last time.

As for the United States, the only way we could eliminate Iran’s nuclear program would be days of air and missile strikes.

Iran could retaliate by cutting off oil exports and mining the Strait of Hormuz, tripling the world price of oil, and hurling the European Union and United States into recession.

Iran could also turn Hezbollah loose on Americans in Lebanon and urge Shias to attack U.S. troops, diplomats and civilians in Bahrain, Iraq and Afghanistan, and here in the United States.

No one knows how this would end. A U.S.-Iran war could force us to march to Tehran to remove the Islamic regime and scour that huge country to ensure that it was shorn of weapons of mass destruction — for an Islamic regime that survived a U.S. war would be hellbent on acquiring the bomb to pay us back. Yet, we lack a large enough army to occupy Iran.

And why should thousands more Americans have to die or come home to be fitted for metal limbs so Israel can remain sole proprietor of a nuclear weapon from Morocco to Afghanistan?

And where is the hard evidence Iran is acquiring nukes?

The U.S. intelligence community declared in December 2007, with “high confidence,” that Iran was no longer seeking nuclear weapons. It has never rescinded that declaration.

And there is no conclusive evidence in that media-hyped report last week from the International Atomic Energy Agency that Iran is for certain building nuclear weapons. Indeed, that report was exposed as the work of incompetents within hours.

Relying on intelligence agencies, the IAEA said a top Russian nuclear weapons scientist had been instructing Iranians for years. The scientist turns out to be V.I. Danilenko, who has no expertise in nuclear weapons, but is a specialist in using conventional explosives to produce nanodiamonds for the manufacture of lubricants and rubber.

Are we being lied and stampeded into yet another war by the same propagandists who gave us the yellow-cake-from-Niger forgeries?

Bibi calls Mahmoud Ahmadinejad another Hitler and says we are all in 1939 again. But is this credible?

True, Ahmadinejad hosted a Holocaust conference featuring David Duke and said Israel should be wiped off the map, but he does not control Iran’s military, has lost favor with the ayatollah, and has been threatened with impeachment. Ahmadinejad is a lame duck with less than two years left in his term. Is mighty Israel afraid of this man?

Told that the IAEA said Iran was actively pursuing nuclear weapons, Ahmadinejad laughed: “The Iranian nation is wise. It won’t build two bombs against 20,000 (nuclear) bombs you (Americans) have.”

Does he not have a point? How would an Iranian bomb secure Iran, when Israel’s nuclear arsenal would be put on a hair trigger, and Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Egypt would then rush to get their own bombs?

In that South Carolina debate, Ron Paul, the one person there proven right on Iraq, was given less than 90 seconds to speak.

Under the Constitution, said Paul, no president has the right to launch an unprovoked attack on Iran without congressional authorization.

Before America goes to war with Iran, let Congress, whose members are forever expressing their love for the Constitution, follow it, and vote on war with Iran. And before we go to the polls in 2012, let’s find out if the GOP is becoming again the same old War Party that bankrupted the nation.

90 seconds

That’s how much of the first hour of tonight’s GOP debate was given to Ron Paul. 90 measly seconds out of 3,600 seconds.

The remaining 3,510 seconds were spent with the other major candidates:

** Declaring their desire to start wars in Iran, Pakistan, and Syria;
** Rehashing their support for torture;
** Agreeing that President Obama has the right to unilaterally assassinate an American citizen without a court conviction;
** Explaining their plans to continue nation-building, policing, and occupying countries across the globe.

Ron Paul was silenced, in perhaps the most important debate of the cycle.

You have to ask yourself why.

I think I know the answer. Both parties have perpetuated the foreign policy that is bankrupting our nation and tearing apart the world.

Both parties have started wars without proper congressional authorization.

Both parties have fabricated reasons for war.

Both parties’ outrageous spending has taken us to the brink of disaster.

And if the other candidates on the stage tonight are to be believed, then there is only one candidate who would break the globalists’ stranglehold over our foreign policy, our Treasury, and the lives of our family, friends, and neighbors in the armed forces.

Ron Paul could change history. He could save our great nation from its own devastating policies of the past 10 years.

If his voice could be heard.

The media has once again BLACKED OUT Ron Paul.

Peace was ignored. A sane national defense policy was shut out.

Rational spending and our Constitution were thrown out the window.

The defense of Sirte and Bani Walid cannot be called anything else but heroic. Against relentless NATO bombing and katyusa/grad widespread destruction they continue resist the invaders.

On the other side, NATO wards from Misrata are plundering Sirte, taking full trucks of anything that is not tied to the ground.

In the meantime, the emergency relief fund in Libya will not help refugees from former Gadhafi bastions Sirte and Bani Walid. The head of the fund said let others help them, we have to spend the money to create a civil society in Libya. That civil society in Libya means not helping people who lost everything is obvious.

Is this the way the US wants to create a unified, harmonious, and liberal society in Libya?

http://www.ronpaul2012.com/2011/09/20/national-security-one-third-of-budget/

During the George W. Bush years, when I would ask my fellow conservatives why a Republican president was spending like a Democrat, they would often tell me: “Well, we are fighting two wars.”

Lately, those in both parties who continue to advocate fighting two, three or more wars, have tried to cook-the-books by saying that national security spending doesn’t really cost that much when compared to the gross domestic product. Sure, our government might be broke, but our foreign policy and related policies have nothing to do with it, they tell us.

Admittedly, math has never been my forte, but even I’m not this stupid.

Today at The Daily Caller, constitutional lawyer Bruce Fein sets straight those who make this absurd argument:

With the same confidence President Bush had in Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction, (The Daily Caller Senior Editor)Jamie Weinstein has asserted that the nation’s bloated defense budget is not fueling the deficit crisis. With similar confidence, Weinstein also seems to believe that Ron Paul’s foreign policy arguments are “fallacious.”

Let us examine some of the assertions that Weinstein made in his recent Daily Caller op-ed, “Ron Paul’s foreign policy fallacies.”

On the national security budget, I will trust the judgment of readers. Below are some figures from President Obama’s 2012 official budget request.

The baseline request for the Department of Defense (DOD) is $558 billion. The supplemental request to fight the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq is $118 billion. The request for the Department of Energy’s development and housing of nuclear weapons is $19.3 billion. DOD has $7.8 billion requested for “Miscellaneous.” The State Department requests $8.7 billion for counterterrorism programs. An additional $71.6 billion is requested for homeland security counterterrorism, including $18.1 billion for DOD and $53.5 billion for the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Justice and the Department of Health and Human Services. National Intelligence Programs are budgeted for $53.1 billion. The Department of Veterans Affairs requests $129.3 billion to treat wounded veterans, a figure that is climbing exponentially as soldiers return from Iraq and Afghanistan with mental and emotional traumas.

The foreign affairs budget, including both its military and counterterrorism components, is $18 billion. Payments to military and DOD civilian retirees are budgeted at $68.5 billion. Interest on the national debt attributed to past borrowing to fund the Pentagon is $185 billion.

This brings the national security budget of the United States for FY 2012 to a staggering total exceeding $1.2 trillion, or approximately one-third of the entire budget and almost 100 percent of the projected budget deficit.

If the nation embraced the founding fathers’ creed of “Millions for defense, but not one cent for empire,” the national security budget could be slashed by 75% to $300 billion annually without impairing the safety of the United States from foreign attack. It would still leave America with the largest defense budget in the world…

I wish we had such good, democracy-dedicated leaders as Libya!

Abdel-Hakim Belhaj was named the new military leader of largely secular Tripoli. He fought with Al-Qaida in Afghanistan, then led Libyan Islamic Fighting Group with the goal of fighting “all the deviant groups that call for democracy or fight for the sake of it.” Later he was on his own account tortured by CIA that eventually rendered him to Gadhafi who, after Belhaj denounced violence, let him go. Gadhafi, you were too mellow!
The unholly aliance that US forged with Osama in Afghanistan is back. Except this time it is not to defeat an evil empire (that is now US), but for special interest groups to get rich from Libyan oil and post war repairs. And the old revolutionary Belhaj may well cooperate. After all, who wants to be poor?

No, this war was not about oil

“Diplomatic and oil industry sources denied a French newspaper report saying the NTC had agreed in April to give France priority access to 35 percent of Libyan oil in return for its backing.” What were they supposed to say? That yes, we did it?

You don’t fix what ain’t broken

So you break it first in order to get the contracts for fixing it.

“British Foreign Secretary William Hague said he wanted to see a closer trading and economic relationship between Europe and Libya. He also said British companies would not be “left behind” French and Italian rivals in jockeying for new business.”

And there are money to be paid for fixing

By some estimates, Libya has $110 billion in frozen bank accounts and other assets around the world. Most are expected to go to the new government once the United Nations agrees on how to unwind its freeze.”

Obviously, Gadhafi did not run budget deficit and so the bankers decided he had to go. Will the rebels steal all the money for themselves or to finance jihad against US? The latter would be much welcomed by the homeland security industrial complex.

Mission Accomplished

“Yet, no one is firmly in control of the vast swathe of land stretching between Bani Walid, home to Libya’s biggest and most important tribe, the Warfalla, and Gaddafi’s hometown of Sirte on the Mediterranean coast.”

To attack and masacre population of the town that is a centre of the largest Libyan tribe (1 million people out of 6 milion) is a sure way to built a lasting peace in Libya. Not.