The Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity
Subscribe to the Institute View Us on YouTube Follow Us On Twitter Join Us on Facebook Join Us at Google Plus

Search Results

for:

Hiroshima: the Crime That Keeps on Paying, But Beware the Reckoning

undefined

On his visit to Hiroshima last May, Obama did not, as some had vainly hoped he might, apologize for the August 6, 1945 atomic bombing of the city. Instead he gave a high-sounding speech against war. He did this as he was waging ongoing drone war against defenseless enemies in faraway countries and approving plans to spend a trillion dollars upgrading the US nuclear arsenal.

An apology would have been as useless as his speech. Empty words don’t change anything. But here was one thing that Obama could have said that would have had a real impact: he could have told the truth.

He could have said:
“The atom bombs were not dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki ‘to save lives by ending the war’. That was an official lie. The bombs were dropped to see how they worked and to show the world that the United States possessed unlimited destructive power.”
There was no chance that Obama would say that. Officially, the bombing “saved lives” and therefore, it was worth it. Like the Vietnamese villages we destroyed in order to save them, like the countless Iraqi children who died as a result of US sanctions, the hundreds of thousands of agonizing women and children in two Japanese cities remain on the debit side of the United States accounts with humanity, unpaid and unpunished.
read on...

Trump's Mouth is His Worst Enemy

undefined

It’s been the week from hell for Donald Trump. Everything seems to be going wrong for him. The worst was the foolish and painful fight he picked with the grieving Khan family.

What happened was clearly a very clever ambush devised by the Clinton camp. A Muslim-American attorney, Khizr Khan, whose army officer son had been blown up in Iraq, was put on show at the Democratic Convention to attack Donald Trump’s ignorant and stupid anti-Muslim policies – and to embarrass him.

It worked brilliantly. Trump, like an enraged mastodon, fell right into the trap. After being sternly rebuked by Mr. Khan, Trump foolishly attacked Mrs. Khan, inferring that she was an oppressed Muslim woman and thus unworthy of our attention. The Khan’s dignified response to Trump’s boorish behavior shamed him and upset many voters.

Instead of attacking Mrs. Khan, Trump should have reminded them that Senator Hillary Clinton voted for the Iraq invasion, now seen by many as a major crime. The Khan’s son would likely be alive today – along with 4,491 US soldiers and a million or so Iraqis – if the Bush administration, with almost total Democratic support, had not fabricated and waged this ugly war.
read on...

The Sham Rebrand of al-Qaeda's Nusra Front

undefined

The Nusra Front’s adoption of the new name Jabhat Fateh al-Sham and claim that it has separated itself from al-Qaeda was designed to influence US policy, not to make the group any more independent of al-Qaeda. 

The objective of the manoeuvre was to head off US-Russian military cooperation against the jihadist group, renamed last week, based at least in part on the hope that the US bureaucratic and political elite, who are lining up against a new US-Russian agreement, may block or reverse the Obama administration’s intention to target the al-Qaeda franchise in Syria. 

The leader of the Syrian jihadist organisation Mohammad al-Golani and al-Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahiri both made a great deal of the public encouragement that Zawahiri gave to separation from the parent organisation. The idea was that the newly rebranded and supposedly independent jihadist organisation in Syria would be better able to fulfill its role in the Syrian revolution.

But to anyone who has followed the politics of Nusra Front’s role in the Syrian war, the idea that Zawahiri would actually allow its Syrian franchise to cut loose from the central leadership and function with full independence is obviously part of a political sham.
read on...

Kerry's And Al-Qaeda's 'Very Different Track' Attack On Aleppo Fails

undefined

Early May US Secretary of State Kerry set a deadline for "voluntary" regime change in Syria:

[He] said “the target date for the transition is 1st of August” in Syria or else the Assad government and its allies “are asking for a very different track.” Hoping that “something happens in these next few months,” he said the political transition would not include President Assad because “as long as Assad is there, the opposition is not going to stop fighting.”

Kerry made those remarks after meeting with the UN special envoy for Syria Staffan de Mistura and Russia’s foreign minister Sergei Lavrov. They agreed to establish a monitoring ceasefire center in Geneva, Switzerland, ...

By the time of that statement al-Qaeda in Syria and US supported insurgents had already broken the February ceasefire announced by Russia and attacked Syrian government positions in the rural area south of Aleppo city.

Negotiations since May between Russia and the US over Syria have not led to any tangible results. In retrospect the US tactic seems to have been willful delay. The US made some laughable offer to Russia and Syria to effectively accept defeat in exchange for common attacks on al-Qaeda. This was rejected without much comments.


read on...

McCain's Nightmare - Dr. Kelli Ward For US Senate

When she fired back at Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) that the policies he has supported directly led to the rise of ISIS, Senate hopeful Dr. Kelli Ward set off alarm bells in interventionist circles. Sen. McCain's policy of backing every US war and incursion into the Middle East has helped spur the rise of ISIS and thereby made us all less safe, she explained. The interventionists want us to believe that they only support these foreign wars to keep us safe, but more and more Americans are coming to believe that they only make us weaker and more vulnerable. Dr. Ward joins us to talk foreign policy and civil liberties in today's Liberty Report...
read on...

Milosevic Exonerated, as the NATO War Machine Moves On

undefined

The ICTY’s exoneration of the late Slobodan Milosevic, the former President of Yugoslavia, for war crimes committed in the Bosnia war, proves again we should take NATO claims regarding its “official enemies” not with a pinch of salt, but a huge lorry load.

For the past twenty odd years, neocon commentators and “liberal interventionist” pundits have been telling us at every possible opportunity, that Milosevic (a democratically elected leader in a country where over 20 political parties freely operated) was an evil genocidal dictator who was to blame for ALL the deaths in the Balkans in the 1990s. Repeat after me in a robotic voice (while making robotic arm movements): “Milosevic's genocidal aggression” “Milosevic's genocidal aggression”.

But the official narrative, just like the one that told us that in 2003, Iraq had WMDs which could be launched within 45 minutes, was a deceitful one, designed to justify a regime change-op which the Western elites had long desired.

The ICTY’s conclusion, that one of the most demonized figures of the modern era was innocent of the most heinous crimes he was accused of, really should have made headlines across the world. But it hasn‘t. Even the ICTY buried it, deep in its 2,590 page verdict in the trial of Bosnian Serb leader Radovan Karadzic who was convicted in March of genocide (at Srebrenica), war crimes and crimes against humanity.
read on...

Should The IMF Director Be Fired...And Does It Matter?

A recent report by the IMF's internal Independent Evaluation Office concluded that the organization had disregarded its own rules and regulation to support the European elites and the political aims of the European project. The Greeks were waterboarded with austerity measures while the German and French banks were bailed out. The IMF Managing Director faces trial in France for mismanagement when she was finance minister there. Why should we tolerate such a corrupt body making foreign policy and economic policy with no oversight? More in today's Liberty Report...
read on...

Captain Khan Was Waging an Unconstitutional War

undefined

Amidst the fury over the exchanges between Donald Trump and Khizr and Ghazala Khan, the couple who lost their son in Iraq, the mainstream media and mainstream political commentators are missing some important elements in the controversy.

In his speech at the Democratic national convention, Khizr Khan asked if Donald Trump had read the Constitution. That question raises a related question, one that arises within the context of the US government’s war on Iraq: What difference does it make whether Trump or anyone else has read the Constitution when the president and the national-security state branch of the federal government don’t comply with it anyway and the federal judiciary doesn’t enforce it against them?

The Constitution is the higher law that the American people have enacted that controls the actions of federal officials, including those in the Pentagon, the CIA, the NSA, and other parts of the national-security state branch of the federal government. When it called the federal government into existence, it set forth the powers it would be permitted to exercise. The Constitution tells the federal government what it can and cannot do.

The Constitution is clear on the matter of war: The president, the Pentagon, and the CIA are prohibited from waging war without a declaration of war from Congress.
read on...

Libya War Escalates - Congress AWOL

The Obama Administration announced yesterday that it would begin a sustained bombing campaign against ISIS in Libya. The Administration said it was acting in response to a request by the Libyan "Government of National Accord," which was created by the UN rather than voted in by the Libyan people. Asked about the scope of this new US war on Libya, Pentagon Spokesman Peter Cook said, "We don't have an end point." Thus far Congress has been silent on this new war. We are not silent, however. Tune in to today's Liberty Report...
read on...

As Israel Prospers, Obama Set to Give Billions More in Aid While Netanyahu Demands Even More

undefined

For all the chatter about animosity between US President Barack Obama and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, the Washington Post reports that “a senior Israeli official will arrive in Washington next week for a final round of negotiations involving the largest military aid package the United States has ever given any country and that will last more than a decade after President Obama leaves office.” The US already transfers $3.1 billion in taxpayer money every year to Israel — more than any other country by far — but the new agreement Obama is set to sign “significantly raises” that amount, and guarantees it for 10 years.

In response to this massive windfall, Netanyahu is angry that he is not getting even more. For some time, “Netanyahu was holding out for as much as $5 billion a year.” Also, Israel has been opposed to efforts to direct more of that aid to US military contractors rather than Israeli ones (so this “aid” package is as much a transfer of US taxpayer money to weapons manufacturers in both countries as it is to Israel itself). Moreover, “Israelis are also said to be displeased with a US position that whatever amount of money they agree on will be final and that Israel will not go to Congress requesting more money.”
read on...


Authors

Tags