Ron Paul: All the evidence that justifies an attack on Syria are false

Statement by the Congress of the United States member of the American Parliament, U.S. presidential candidate Ron Paul 2012 (Ron Paul) on the topic — Syria.

First — the video in the original language, then — full translation.

Ron Paul's speech in the U.S. Congress June 19, 2012:

"For months, the international community is discussing plans, rumors and propaganda for war with Syria, as well as the overthrow of Assad.

But last week it was reported that the Pentagon has already reviewed the plans for the attack on Syria. In my view, all of the evidence that justifies an attack on Syria — are false.

The evidence is the same excuse as it was during the invasion of Iraq in 2003, or during the attack on Libya in 2011.

Spent in those wars funds should make us stop until again all efforts will be aimed at the occupation and regime change in Syria.

Start a silly escalation of violence in the Middle East is not in the interests of U.S. national security. There should be no doubt that, in the interests of national security of the United States — it is best not to take part in the internal struggle that is raging now in Syria.

We are already taking too involved in supporting the Syrian forces that seek to overthrow the current government. Without outside interference struggle, which has now been named by many international observers civil war is likely to stop.

Are we going to attack or not to Syria, occupying it and create a new regime that we can control — is a serious constitutional issue. And the most important question would be — who would give the president this authority?

After the Second World War, no one would pay attention to the relevant authorities, which gave permission for the war. This right was transferred to the jurisdiction of such international organizations as the UN and NATO, and in the hands of the president, at the time, as the opinion of the U.S. Congress are not taken into account. And, unfortunately, people do not mind it.

Our recent presidents have argued that the resolution to go to war is not in the jurisdiction of Congress. The most striking example of this was the Korean War, which began in 1950. United States fought on the side of South Korea with UN approval, but without the approval of Congress.

And again, we are going to participate in military action against Syria, and can again begin irresponsible "cold war" with Russia.

Currently, we are playing with Russia in the children's game "knives", which is a much greater threat to our security than Syria.

What would have been our actions against Russia in Mexico, if she demanded humanitarian intervention to stop the violence along the US-Mexican border?

We would consider it a legitimate interest for us. But America's involvement in the armed conflict in Syria, where the Russians have a legitimate naval base, is the equivalent of the deployment of Russian forces in our own backyard in Mexico.

We are hypocritical when we condemn Russia for the protection of its interests in neighboring countries — is that we did ourselves, thousands of miles from our shores.

For us, there is no benefit from the choice of the parties providing the secret assistance and promotion of the civil war in order to change the regime in Syria.

False accusations in the delivery of Russian military helicopters to the Assad regime are unnecessary provocation.

False accusations Assad government in the so-called massacre of warring rebel factions — no more than a propaganda war.

Currently, most people in the know recognize that the planned war against Syria will be the next step to war with Iran.

The neoconservatives openly acknowledge this fact.

The neocons had governed U.S. foreign policy in the last few decades, want to establish control over Iranian oil. They were able to gain control over the oil of Saudi Arabia, and tried to gain control of Iraqi oil.

Without significant changes in our foreign policy, war is inevitable, and it will begin soon.

The differences between the two political parties are insignificant. Both parties agree with the idea of allocating funds to the termination of the war. But none of the parties does not want to give up our aggressive and growing presence in the Middle East and South Asia. This escalating moment can easily get out of control and turn into a more serious war than a simple routine occupation and regime change in another country.

It is time for the United States tried to use a policy of diplomacy, sought peace and established trade and friendly relations. We must abandon our military efforts, which aim to protect the American empire and bring it to the top in the world.

We can not afford to let our country has fallen into decay. And worst of all, we follow the strategy of Osama bin Laden, who wanted us to be stuck for a long time in the Middle East, and that America has become bankrupt.

It is time to bring our troops home and follow the foreign policy of non-interference of the total, which is the only road to peace and prosperity.

This week I present a law that prohibits the government without a declaration of war by the U.S. Congress to support — directly or indirectly — any military or paramilitary operations in Syria. I hope that my colleagues will join me in my efforts. "

See also: United States turned into a fascist country

Like this post? Please share to your friends: