Ron Paul on attacking Syria: "'they' were afraid that peace was going to break out".

‘They’re terrified that peace was going to break out’ – Ron Paul on US Syria strike.

“A victory of neo-conservatives” – that’s how Ron Paul, a former member of the US House of Representatives and three-time presidential candidate, described the US strike on Syria, adding that he does not expect peace talks to resume any time soon.

Dr. Paul goes on to say that there was no evidence and if there was, that it wasnt presented.

He also reminds the readers that in 2013 there was another attack blamed on Assad which in actuality was carried out by the US backed rebels/ISUS.

“From my point of view, there was no need to rush. There was no threat to national security. They have to give a reason to do these things,” Paul added.

Dr. Paul calls this a win for the neo-cons.

“The peace talks have ended now. They’re terrified that peace was going to break out!

Dr. Paul speculates that Trump was also in talks with China and that the strike on Syria may have been a show of force towards both China and Korea...

Well.....

If this is true, then the USA is and had been all along the bad guy in Syria.

A prospect not that far from reality actually. It was through either blatantly irresponsible misjudgement or nefarious and deliberate intent that the USA armed groups that went on to form ISIS.

a reply to: gladtobehere

My dad is just elated that we struck Syria. He just doesn't get it when I tell him that it wasn't Assad that carried out the attack and that Trump strategically struck an airbase that was insignificant and there were no casualties.

Yea, Ron Paul is usually on point. He didn't fail to deliver this time, either.

Ron Paul was probably the last (long shot) hope for the future of America. Alas, we are in the decline, likely past the point of no return.

a reply to: gladtobehere

I don't always agree with Dr. Paul but I certainly find more agreement with him than with most politicians. He expressed my feelings better than I could have:

“I don’t believe that our people or the American government should be the policemen of the world, it makes no sense, it causes us more trouble and more grief, it causes us more financial problems, and it’s hardly a way that we could defend our constitutional liberty.”

I could have sworn I heard Trump on the campaign trail saying that we shouldn't be meddling in middle eastern affairs. Why oh why did he suddenly begin listening to the neocons? This is just so wrong!

As for "looking tough" to the Chinese---LOL---who holds our debt again?

I'm not entirely sure I even buy the gas attack story....much less that they have already determined the source of the gas....that sort of thing they can investigate for a few hours and come up with conclusions but investigating illegal surveillance takes months and years?

a reply to: diggindirt

I could have sworn I heard Trump on the campaign trail saying that we shouldn't be meddling in middle eastern affairs. Why oh why did he suddenly begin listening to the neocons? This is just so wrong!

Trump is just playing politics. I don't like it either, but, he didn't write the rules, he's just playing the game.

Remember, he struck an airbase that was insignificant and there were no casualties. This was one big PR stunt.

I don't support it but, I understand why he chose to handle it the way he has, or so I think.

originally posted by: ColdWisdom
a reply to: diggindirt
This was one big PR stunt.

I don't support it but, I understand why he chose to handle it the way he has, or so I think.

This is where we find out where Trump really stands. If it was a PR stunt, and a show of force to our adversaries, then it was a good move. If it leads to an invasion of Syria, we will know that Trump has been co-opted by the globalists, and he is not to be trusted. Everyone has had a wait-and-see attitude towards Trump, this will be the turning point, good or bad.

a reply to: TruMcCarthy

This is where we find out where Trump really stands. If it was a PR stunt, and a show of force to our adversaries, then it was a good move.

Trump is owned by the neo-cons now .If they want to impeach him they can easily make him out to be a war criminal . In other words ,to throw him under the bus if they decide to because he ordered the attack based on false information . he is toast any way you look at it ... he will keep filling the swamp and be a good little POTUS

originally posted by: pirhanna
Ron Paul was probably the last (long shot) hope for the future of America. Alas, we are in the decline, likely past the point of no return.

You're probably right.

a reply to: ColdWisdom

I think I figured out exactly what is about to happen over the course leading into summer. We both know pretty much this was purely a political move that tied up some loose ends. Im dealing with it, I did no like it, but in hindsight after putting the rest of the pieces in front of me, I see how it fits.
The warnings to our rivals, appeasing the hawks, and changing the narrative away from tabloid pieces about Russia.

We know based on the assessment it was more of a symbolic move than anything else, but I can see whats coming. The moves from Jordan into Syria, the increasing cross border strikes out of Iraq.

Raqqa is already part of Rojava, they just need time to route out Daesh. Daesh has been evacuating from Raqqa to outside Der Ez zoir where the Syrian Army has an airbase. Raqqa belongs to Rojava now. These forces which will begin to pour in from Jordan are there to wrap up and finish up ISIS in Syria.

Trump and his generals are looking for a 2017 timeline for declaring a mission accomplished in Syria as far as ISIS goes.

Hear this, Shadow Brokers gave the world access to some NSA tools yesterday, and you better believe we are going to be seeing and hearing about the consequences of that throughout the year, if one is astute enough to read between the headlines. Funny thing is, Tillerson did another flip-flop, completing a 360 degree flip back to his original position of "Syrians will decide on Assads future".

I firmly believe the NSA leak is what caused Tillerson's official clarification that the focus is ISIS, and that the future of Syria belongs to Syrians.

a reply to: gladtobehere

While I disagree with Ron Paul on some things, I think he's the only few decent politicians we have left.

Dr. Paul is so full of common sense that most people in today's society either have no idea how to react to it, or they play the confused stupid card because he just makes TOO much damn sense.

We could have had a real revolution in 2012, but noooooo people were too dumb and brainwashed to let it really happen. The right and the MSM were busy pretending like he didn't exist, and the left went full retard on the SJW front all because of OWS. (Most lefty millennial OWS people became full blown socialists at that point)

Ron would have drained the entire swamp. In fact Ron would have allowed for a FULL collapse of the system so that the rebuilding would have been able to finally begin.

Trump better back off the Syria thing or he's going to lose a LOT of his backing, and it doesn't matter what the neocons say. I had a bit of hope that certain corruption would be dealt with under Trump. It's still not totally lost, it depends on how far he will go to appease the establishment neocons from BOTH sides.

I do have to believe Trump is smarter than to continue buying the establishment narrative. We ARE only 80 days in to this....It's not too late yet, but it wont be many more instances like Syria left till all hope is completely lost.

a reply to: Wookiep
Tillerson already went back to his previous position of Syrians will decide on Assad, he also said some other interesting stuff, that with Nancy Pelosi's moves to have a discussion on he AUMF lead me to believe they are either going to rescind the AUMF thats been the driving force for the unilateral strikes anywhere on Earth, or clarify and expand it even further. But I think its going to be rescinded based on he way he was talking.

Sec. of State Tillerson Says 'no change' in Syri policy
The secretary of state said the U.S. priority remains to defeat ISIS. As to the Syrian president... Tillerson told Stephanopoulos that the Trump administration hopes for a political process that will restore stability to Syria and allow its people “to decide the fate of Bashar al-Assad.”
Saying that once the battle with the terrorist group is concluded, which according to the US official is "going quite well," Washington plans to turn its attention "to achieving ceasefire agreements between the regime and opposition forces."

and

CBS Face the Nation
Secretary of State Rex Tillerson told “Face the Nation” moderator John Dickerson that, “we believe that the first priority is the defeat of ISIS.” During the interview for Sunday’s broadcast Tillerson emphasized the importance of eliminating the terrorist organization before dealing with the Assad regime. “Once the ISIS threat has been reduced or eliminated, I think we can turn our attention directly to stabilizing the situation in Syria.”

Tillerson went on to say that the administration remains hopeful of a solution to ending the civil war within Syria. Part of that solution, he said, includes bringing all the parties to the table to begin the process of political discussions.

“Clearly, that requires the participation of the regime with the support of their allies,” Tillerson said and added, “and we’re hopeful that Russia will choose to play a constructive role in supporting ceasefires through their own Astana talks, but also, ultimately, through Geneva.”

Its already done guys, this strike was just the theatrics to force the American people to get involved and harass their reps, and boy if you know anybody connected in an elected position, you better believe their offices have been bombarded with concerns and complaints all weekend.

I hate to crap on Ron Paul, but peace is never going to break out in Syria, or anywhere else that 6th century ideology reigns supreme.

I fully understand wanting to mind our own business. We should be.

But lets not delude ourselves into thinking that as long as we don't fire our guns no one will fire at us.

a reply to: projectvxn
It was fairly peaceful in Syria until 2011, right around the time of that pesky Arab Spring. Come to think of it, it ws technically peaceful between 1992 and 2002 as well, so was Iraq.

I personally think the pre-meme meme of "the middle east has always been #" has just been the excuse to rationalize unilateral action in sovereign lands.

There are specific periods of war between specific parties through the decades. It is no different than Central and South Asia, Eastern/Central Europe, Central America or Africa. It seems really that the North American continent, Australia, and Western Europe are the only places over the last fifty years to avoid being in some kind of #. And even the UK ha to deal with North Ireland for while, and had skirmishes with Argentina.

I men historically, yea sure the Middle East could probably be said to be in conflict more often than not. But is that really different anywhere else in the world, or does it become exclusive only upon deployment there to help calm the nerves??

I dunno, what do you think??

a reply to: projectvxn

That makes sense, but there are some things that need to be considered. The first one being "blowback" which Ron Paul has repeatedly spoken about. One way to avoid getting shot at, it to stop meddling in other countries, especially when we can no longer afford it. We all know the U.S. isn't "meddling" due to humanitarian reasons. The reasons are entirely drummed up by establishment politicians with special interests brought on by lobbyists and the military industrial complex.

No Libertarian I have EVER met, has supported isolationism to the point where we have no military, don't defend ourselves when needed, or even help our allies when necessary. That stance gets blurred into being isolationist, screw the world, screw evil etc, but that has no bearing whatsoever on the libertarian ideology.

All most realistic and sane minded people are saying is get rid of most the bases around the world, the world doesn't want them, and it only leads to more extremism being birthed everywhere we stick our noses in. If someone attacks US, then ELIMINATE the threat, overwhelming public support will be given, but the U.S. hasn't been directly threatened since 9-11 and even that is questionable because we all know how shady that was. It lead to a war in Afghanistan and Iraq, even tho the supposed ones who carried out the attack were from SAUDI ARABIA!!

Edit: And it's important to note that ISIS was a result of the blowback from those wars. Some even go so far as to say it's a CIA created front to create a proxy war with Russia/Iran etc in the middle east due to oil pipelines, regional control and other neocon establishment driven reasons.

The U.S. government still loves Saudi Arabia though, how weird! It's not hard to see who's in control here, and it's not people who care about the well-being of other people, including fellow Americans.

a reply to: worldstarcountry

Sorry, I didn't skip past your post. Yes, I read what you posted and saw an article about it earlier. It gives me hope. If this Syria thing was just a show of strength, a one time deal, more specifically a strategy regarding the NK situation, then ok. If it leads us into a war with Syria and Russia then that is a whole other ball game.

NK is about the only place on Earth where I personally feel like the U.S. is actually justified to be directly involved with. We're technically still at war with them after all. We have allies that are threatened. However, it needs to be approached in a way where China is at least somewhat on board. If there is even the slightest hint that Kimmy is going to attempt to level Seoul or lob nukes/emps toward Japan or the U.S. then I'm ALL for immediate action, even without China's support. THAT is a real threat.

After watching the show, a lingering question remains.

Who is "they"?

I do not think Ron is referring to Trump, but rather
the known agencies involved with the Rebels,
in which case "coincidentally" CIA funding ended
for them about the time Trump took office.

In any case, I'd disagree with Ron on the
concept of "peace breaking out" over there,
was not happening, and not going to happen in
this current set of players in Syria.

a reply to: projectvxn

Their leaders may not have been angels but Syria, Iraq and Libya were all relatively peaceful, stable nations prior to our attacks.

Now theyre cesspools of radicalism, suffering and refugees.

With the exception of individual acts of terrorism, which nation, country or government is firing at us?

To be honest, theres only one country which is circling the globe, attacking one nation after another...

a reply to: burntheships

In any case, I'd disagree with Ron on the concept of "peace breaking out" over there, was not happening, and not going to happen in this current set of players in Syria.

You could be right, although I still don't see how it makes the U.S. responsible to figure it out and play world police. There are so many players involved in Syria right now, it's like a mini proxy WWIII already there. Why not allow Russia to figure it out? They're clearly willing and have been openly opposed to radical Muslim terrorism from the start.

I'll tell you why. Establishment special interests involving certain political lobbyists, and defense contractors driving the engine of the military industrial complex, that's why.