United Liberty
Ron Paul’s Poor Choice of Words
Wed, 06/20/2012 - 11:15am | posted by Kevin Boyd
Yesterday, Rep. Ron Paul gave a speech on the House floor in regards to situation in Syria. Syria has descended into bloody civil war with rebel groups trying to oust Syrian dictator Bashir Assad. There have been reports of massacres and atrocities being committed by forces to loyal to the Assad government. In response, there have been increasing calls for intervention by United States and NATO forces, in the mold of the recent Libyan adventure, to remove the Assad government from power.
Rep. Paul spoke out against the proposed intervention and will file legislation to stop President Obama from launching a war against the Assad regime without Congressional authorization. This is legislation I would strongly support because only Congress has the constitutional duty to declare and authorize war. Plus, I believe intervention in Syria would be a huge mistake because it would likely ignite a larger Middle Eastern war involving Israel and Iran. However, the Paul speech unfortunately I believe did harm to supporters of non-interventionism and confirmed many negative stereotypes about them.
The speech included a few troubling passages, such as:
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.
Let’s be blunt about what would happen to those opposition forces if they were just left alone, they would be massacred by Assad’s forces, along with many innocent civilians. Besides, the US aid Ron Paul is complaining about is far from decisive in the war, particularly given in light of the fact that the Syrian government enjoys the active assistance of the Iranian and Russian governments.
Finally, while the choice is for the Syrian people to make alone, sometimes war is necessary to defend and gain freedom. As Thomas Jefferson once said: “The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.” This maybe true in Syria as well.
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.
Is Ron Paul seriously accusing the US government of encouraging the “Arab Spring” type demonstrations and the Assad government’s brutal crackdown which has ignited the civil war?
Falsely charging the Russians with supplying military helicopters to Assad is an unnecessary provocation.
The Russian government was attempting to ship Mi-25 “Hind” attack helicopters to the Assad regime. This is a demonstrable fact. Thankfully, the ship was forced to turn back after the British based insurance carrier canceled its coverage on the ship.
Falsely blaming the Assad government for a so-called massacre perpetrated by a violent warring rebel faction is nothing more than war propaganda.
I hope Ron Paul is only referring to the incidents in Houla reported in the German press, which appear to be have been committed by rebel forces. However, this does not negate the numerous eyewitness reports given by refugees, independent journalists, and others of massacres and other crimes committed by the Assad regime. I’m comfortable in saying, not all of them are lying or are propagandists for the US government. At best, we have a case of two sides using horrendous tactics against each other, which ultimately reinforces the case against intervention. I think this was Paul’s intent, but he said it poorly.
The problem with Paul’s speech was that he relied too much on pro-Assad regime talking points and demonstrable falsehoods. The case against intervention in Syria is easy to make. It likely will result in Hezbollah launching attacks against northern Israel in order to make it a wider war. In addition, it may increase the likelihood the Iranians may try to close the Straits of Hormuz in order to cut Western Europe and the US off from Middle Eastern oil. Not to mention, the large financial cost and the likelihood of the loss of American and European lives would be great. Many of these were mentioned by Paul himself, but unfortunately will be lost in the outrage this speech will cause.
You do not need the talking points of Bashir Assad and his sympathizers to argue against war in Syria, because it only equates opposition to interventionism into support for the Assad dictatorship. Indeed, we should be making the patriotic case against a Syrian war, which in this case is very easy to do.
Ron Paul is right. The Saudi Government is supplying the rebels with weapons and food while we help ship the stuff. There are also US contractor military advisors training these Al-CIAduh wanna be terrorists. I don’t want to see another dime of my tax money or federal reserve debt spent on this crap. Enough already, Uncle Sam is Bankrupt!
“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”
This is a troubling statement? The Syrian rebels you speak of are not from Syria! These rebels are mercenaries paid for by foreign governments, NOT innocent civilians! The massacre’s you mention was perpetrated by the rebels for international attention and support, this has been documented from several different sources, but the media refuses to report the truth! Look at the families who was killed? Would Assad murder members of his own government? People seem to look at the obvious!
People seem not to look at the obvious!
Sorry!
The Houla massacre is not the only one that has occurred over the past 16 months and, as Kevin notes, the involvement of the Syrian Army in other massacres and in the killing of unarmed civilians on numerous occasions has been well documented by numerous independent sources.
I don’t support intervention in Syria either but there is no need to white wash the guilt of a dictator such as Bashar Assad
Actually I was referring to the massacre in Homs, but I am convinced these are rebel attacks! People has to look at the ENTIRE picture! Most people have no clue how Qaddafi was killed, or by whom! That is because the media doesn’t report news, you have to dig a little to find the truth!
Qaddafi got what a dictator who has terrorized his people for 40 years deserves. I didn’t shed a single tear for him
The people didn’t get what they deserved. Qadaffi had the only gold-standard currency in the region, maybe in the world. The first thing NATO did was to raid the central bank of all its gold. And they kept it. The second thing, even before the fighting was over, was to establish a fiat-currency and a new central bank. Then the Al Qaeda “rebels” murdered Qadaffi and we all got to hear how this was another great Obama victory. Shed tears or not, the invasion and overthrow of Libya was a blatant criminal act.
You’re not seriously defending Qaddafi are you? That’s pretty sad.
You think the people of Libya benefited from all that gold he supposedly had? You can bet your life they didn’t. They lived in poverty while he and hi family built mansions on the Medetteranean coast stocked with the most expensive furnishing, not to mention wine cellars and bars stocked to the bring with the most expensive booze.
You answered your own question. Clearly you’ve decided that I am defending Quadaffi. But I do note that you defend blatant theft by NATO and your justification for this is that “Qadaffi is bad”.
Where’s your evidence that Libyans lived in poverty?
Personally I think you are arguing from ignorance.
“The living standards of Libyans have improved significantly since the 1970s, ranking the country among the highest in Africa. Urbanization, developmental projects, and high oil revenues have enabled the Libyan government to elevate its people’s living standards.
Read more: Libya Poverty and wealth, Information about Poverty and wealth in Libya http://www.nationsencyclopedia.com/economies/Africa/Libya-POVERTY-AND-WEALTH.html#ixzz1yMVpKZed”
http://www.nationsencyclopedia.com/economies/Africa/Libya-POVERTY-AND-WE…
Furthermore, the invasion left them worse off.
http://libyaagainstsuperpowermedia.com/2012/04/14/libya-a-year-later-pov…
Compared to the lifestyle enjoyed by Qaddafi, his family, and his cronies, the life of the average Libyan was nasty and brutish.
Is it any better now? I’m not sure. I opposed the intervention. BUT I am not at all displeased to see Qaddafi gone and not at all reluctant to say that, like Nicolae Ceacescu, he got exactly what he deserved.
First they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win. RP speaking the truth, this article, to their own ignorance, uses the premise that our gov. should be involved in world affairs, RP was speaking of the premise that our gov. should not be involved, if you want to accurately argue what RP is saying, great! but really, put yourself into his premise, speaking outside of that is nothing more than red-haring, nice yellow journalism though. Red yellow, lol, it is rainbow journalism!
Kevin said he opposed intervention in Syria, so the premise of your comment is simply false
Actually, Kevin has explicitly condoned US support of the Syrian rebels in this very article.
Seriously Rick? Where does he do that? I see him taking issue with falsehood’s Paul uttered, not defending US involvement anywhere int he middle east.
“Let’s be blunt about what would happen to those opposition forces if they were just left alone, they would be massacred by Assad’s forces, along with many innocent civilians. Besides, the US aid Ron Paul is complaining about is far from decisive in the war, particularly given in light of the fact that the Syrian government enjoys the active assistance of the Iranian and Russian governments.”
He’s defending US support of the rebels here and makes the claim that they’ll all die if we don’t.
And Ron Paul uttered no falsehoods. At least not that have been demonstrated by the author or anyone in the comments.
>”Is Ron Paul seriously accusing the US government of encouraging the “Arab Spring” type demonstrations and the Assad government’s brutal crackdown which has ignited the civil war?”
Yes he is, you moron. Clues are available, but unless you have unlimited time to spend on it, turning off the TV is a good first move. Then drop your preconceived notions of who the “good guys” are in the ME (indeed, in world politics) and look at some facts you may find uncomfortable.
If you get that far you may get a glimpse at just how much you’ll have to unlearn first before you will be able to see events accurately as they unfold. What you know as “history” is written by the victors and comports little with the facts on the ground at the time, and worse, it distorts your views of current events.
Look at who controls major publishing houses, the major media, and world finance and then look at “forbidden” history books and the pieces of the puzzle will begin to fall into place. Christians have been duped into a hyphenated religion that masks the malfeasance Jesus rebelled against. It’s time to rebel again.
“there have been increasing calls for intervention by United States and NATO forces, in the mold of the recent Libyan adventure”
Want the truth?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=THlaMUq6MKU&feature=colike
“Let’s be blunt about what would happen to those opposition forces if they were just left alone, they would be massacred by Assad’s forces, along with many innocent civilians. ”
And how do you know this? Are you the amazing Kreskin or something? How do you know these forces aren’t CIA ops as they were in Libya and Iran back in 1953?
“Finally, while the choice is for the Syrian people to make alone, sometimes war is necessary to defend and gain freedom. ”
Yes, perhaps. But then let them make their own war if they feel it’s necessary. It’s not our business.
I read Kevin’s post and I don’t think he’s saying that it should be our business.
However, intellectual honest on Paul’s part would be appreciated. Instead he appears to find it necessary to excuse the actions of a dictator in order to justify his position. That’s pretty pathetic.
I oppose intervention, but I don’t deny the reality of what Bashar Assad, and his father before him, have done to the people of Syria (and Lebanon for that matter).
Where did Paul excuse the actions of Syria’s dictator? Specifically? And this same sort of argument was used as well to dismiss arguments against an invasion of Iraq and Libya. I don’t find it compelling.
He wrote off the demonstrably true fact that Assad has been murdering his people as propaganda and said that the massacres were really committed by rebels, which isn’t a true statement.
The massacre of which he spoke seems to be one which can be examined. By saying that a dictator’s massacre of his own people is being used as propaganda, one is not excusing such actions, merely noting that the use of such actions as justifications for intervening are indeed mere propaganda.
For instance, this is the same tactic used by some US pundits and officials for invading Iraq. In point of fact, the gassing to which they often referred in the Kurd region was most likely either a flat out fabrication or was in fact committed by Iran rather than Iraq according to Army War College reports. Some claims were never verified at all, just like the Kuwaiti “baby incubator” blood libel used to justify the 1991 invasion.
I’m really surprised actually that you are taking this tack. I had much more respect for your intellectual honesty. Do you view any defense of something Ron Paul says from a Ron Paul supporter as mere cult of personality, unobjective response? Maybe that’s what is going on here. I make no bones about being a Paul supporter but it is not merely because he is Ron Paul but because he is not afraid to call out warmonger propaganda for what it is (among other things).
Judging from some of the responses to reasonable comments that Kevin and others have made here at United Liberty about this speech as well as other statements and actions by his supporters, I would definitely say that there is a cult of personality surrounding Ron Paul. It’s one of the reasons I was pretty much turned off by the movement in 2008, and why I felt that Gary Johnson was a far better representative of libertarian ideas in the 2012 Republican nomination fight than Paul.
Furthermore, acknowledging the documented fact of repeated and violent human rights abuses, and murder, by the Assad regime over the past 14 months does not constitute “war propaganda.” Assad hasn’t just been killing soldiers, he’s been killing women and children.
If one uses those events as justification to invade than they are indeed propaganda.
Kevin actually makes a demonstrably false statement when he claims that Russia was sending helicopters to Syria and on top of that claims that it was a “demonstrable fact”.
It was no such thing. The entire article was intended to discredit Ron Paul by claiming he was sticking up for a dictator. Preposterous.
It’s rather unclear what those helicopters were for, Rick. The Russian base in Syria is relatively small and certainly doesn’t need a boat load of attack helicopters to defend itself.
Besides, the Russians have ADMITTED that they are providing military aid to the Syrians. They are the ones intervening in the conflict right now. Or is that something you’re ignoring?
According to the pentagon, it was not unclear at all. and LOL…A “boat load” of attack helicopters = 3.
Russia’s base is being threatened and according to US officials, they supported the shipment and believed that it was well within reason. Watch the video for yourself.
Given your penchant for mis-stating facts I want to see your source that Russia is providing aid. Not that it is terribly relevant. We provide aid to virtually every dictator in the ME.
Standard Club, a British ship insurer, terminated insurance coverage of the Russian ship purported to be carrying arms after the company heard allegations about the cargo and destination, according to Russian news outlet RIA Novosti. The Russian ship is believed to be carrying refitted combat helicopters and antiship missiles to Tartous, Syria, where Russia has a naval base. Without insurance, however, ships cannot enter port.
The company told RIA Novosti that the British government did not influence its decision, but The Telegraph reports that British security officials told the Standard Club that providing insurance for the ship was likely a breach of European Union sanctions on Syria.
Russia has denied that the equipment could be used against Syrian civilians, insisting the materiel is for defensive purposes only. Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov also said that the helicopters were supplied during the Soviet-era and were merely being returned to Syria under an already existing contract, according to RIA Novosti.
http://www.csmonitor.com/World/terrorism-security/2012/0619/Russian-effo…
Attack helicopters are excellent counter-insurgency weapons. They’re also great against defenseless civilians.
There’s also the Russian foreign minister admitting the helicopters are for the Syrians, not to defend the Russian naval base. The Russians have every right to reinforce their naval base and to have ships ready in order to evacuate Russian nationals, no one is saying otherwise.
“The ship was carrying air defense systems, which can be (used) only for repelling foreign aggression and not against peaceful demonstrators … and it was carrying three repaired helicopters,” Lavrov told Ekho Mosvky radio, Interfax reported.”
So they were returning helicopters that had been repaired. They are still going there actually too. They are merely going to sail under the Russian flag and these will still go to Russia. They already have attack helicopters supplied by Russia. How many have been used against civilians so far?
Ron Paul is right.
I agree with Ron Paul,all wars have to be declared by Congress.But in this special case,and I mean Syria Only ! The U.S. and it’s allies are so far down
the road on this,that an Official Declaration of War is really just a perfunctory formality.That being said,this is exactly why I do support Ron Paul.So this same old: Wealth wasting, Empire projecting,Policing of The World ends.
Syrian assistance, Intervention,whatever it will be called, I support,then we start over with a clean slate,as I hope The General Election will turn out.
Dear Sir, You have effectively cut and pasted Ron Paul’s speech and piece-mealed it to the public. You ommited the historical context in the speech that made those statements relevant.
the massacre in Huma was a hundred civilians mostly women and children right? This massacre was reported by all mainstream media here in the US as being perpetrated by the Assad regime. This massacre is an incident a lot of people cite in justifying why we should go into Syria. I know Assad’s father massacred thousands but so fat I haven’t read that he did any atrocities in the current conflict that compare to the brutality of the Islamist rebels trying to overthrow him.
“The Russian government was attempting to ship Mi-25 “Hind” attack helicopters to the Assad regime. This is a demonstrable fact.”
Actually, this is not a demonstrable fact at all. Some Pentagon officials in fact say that they were being delivered to a Russian base, Not Syria. Just because Obama or Hillary Clinton claims they were being delivered to Syria is not proof in and of itself that this is true.
You should pay attention to your own links. The video on the link you provided which you claim shows that Russia was sending arms to Syria, shows that there was absolutely no belief by Pentagon officials that this was anything other than a re-supply of their own base to defend their own people there.
Jefferson was talking about defending our own liberty - not someone else’s liberty. If you want to volunteer, and go over there and fight, then Dr. Paul would have no problem with that. People who think the Syrian people need our help, should fork over their own cash, or go over there and assist them.
US interventionism over the years has only made matters worse.
The powers of Congress, Article 1, Section 8 includes the following:
“To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water”
This was very poor vetting by you. Watch the video. Russia was resupplying its own base. http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/us-3-russian-ships-to-head-to-syr…
Ron Paul makes perfect sense to me. I have seen enough to know our government is not to be trusted..
He knows they want to keep these wars going. Gotta keep the public brainwashed into one side of the story.
3 sides to the story.His ,Hers and the TRUTH.
Someday you will all say, oh Ron Paul was right. It’s too bad you don’t do your research now and wake up to the truth.
Where is the proof!?!? FOX NEWS, CNN, Hitleray Clinton saying this is what is happening??? Is that what you call proof??
What I don’t understand is how someone can call themselves a libertarian if they are defending dictators like Assad.
Again, I oppose intervention in Syria but it’s an indisputable fact that Bashar Assad is a murdering bastard. Why can’t Paul acknowledge that?
Nobody is defending dictators. Certainly not Ron Paul.
And Just FYI, this is not going to send people flocking to Gary Johnson who would more than likely be happy to send troops to Syria.
Ah yes the next refuse of the PaulBot, smear anyone who dares to try to take the libertarian mantle from the Great Savior
Why do you suggest this is a smear? It is a fact that Johnson has said he would go to war for humanitarian reasons. Not conjecture, not a smear, it’s from his own mouth.
Where is the proof!?!? FOX NEWS, CNN, Hitleray Clinton saying this is what is happening??? Is that what you call proof??
I watched the speech twice. If he was just referring to the Houla massacre then he sure as heck didn’t make himself clear. And his tendancy to wander off into Rockwellian/Alex Jones conspiracy theories just tends to make whatever he does say sound like its coming from whatever planet Dennis Kucinich’s is from.
Maybe you need to inform yourself a little better. Try operation Ajax for starters. It didn’t matter if he was referring to real or fabricated Assad massacres. It is propaganda to claim that this is a reason for invading. The intent of drawing attention to real or false massacres is merely to generate sympathy and justification for another illegal and expensive war.
But you watched the speech…..
” 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.”
If that isn’t crystal clear (that he’s talking about a specific incident that has been falsely blamed on Assad) then maybe you should watch it again.
Also, I have already provided a link in this thread where a US pentagon official unequivocally states that the supply ships sent to Russia were to their own naval base there and that they had NO REASON TO BELIEVE they were being sent to Syria.
You don’t seem to understand that I oppose intervention.
All that matters, it seems, is that I have committed the horrible sin of failing to worship at Ron Paul’s feet.
Whether you do or don’t oppose intervention is irrelevant. You seem to be clearly ignorant of what the US has done to overthrow governments and deride those who notice that it has done so and is likely doing so now.
And then you raise the straw man that I am merely arguing with you because you don’t like Paul. I could care less that you like Paul or worship him. You’re making ignorant and false statements and I’m calling you on them. I would do the same if you were talking about vaccinations or any other subject of which I am interested and was posted here.
Post new comment