We have been warned. Prepare for a broader war in the Middle East - by Ron Paul

[Guest guest]

S

Sun, 30 Oct 2005 08:10:06 -0800 (PST)

Expansion of the Middle East conquest - article by Ron Paul

 

 

 

 

-----

 

HON. RON PAUL OF TEXAS

BEFORE THE US HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

October 26, 2005

 

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.

 

http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2005/cr102605.htm