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:

Intel Veterans Urge Trump to Seek Evidence Before Attacking Syria

undefined

In this memo to the White House, the Veteran Intelligence Professions for Sanity urge President Trump to get the evidence first before deciding to strike Syria.

MEMORANDUM FOR: The President

FROM: Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity

SUBJECT:  Evidence Required for Military Decision on Syria

Mr. President,

We the undersigned Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity join a number of other credible experts including former UK Ambassador to Syria, Peter Ford (this recent interview on BBC Radio Scotland), former UN weapons inspectors and former military officers who are strongly recommending that you obtain and review actual evidence from the site of the alleged chemical attack in Douma, Syria, before ordering any military action. VIPS has previously reported credible evidence indicating that anti-government forces in Syria have themselves produced and used toxic chemical agents.

Contradictory indications exist given that the video and images of victims in the locations purportedly affected by chemical weapons  came from rebel-affiliated entities known as the “Douma Revolution” and the “White Helmets” while Russian military units which later got physical access to the supposed sites and Syrian Red Crescent personnel working in the area reportedly found no indication of a chemical weapon attack.
read on...

Daniel McAdams on What You Need to Know About Syria

Ron Paul Institute Executive Director Daniel McAdams appeared on Mises Weekends with Mises Institute President Jeff Deist earlier today to try and make sense of what's going on in Syria, what the policymaking might be in Washington on the topic, and whether President Trump will really risk starting a nuclear war to avenge the alleged civilian deaths in a Syria chemical attack
read on...

From Skripal to Syria – The Empire’s 'New Realities' Are Reaching The End of the Road

undefined

“That’s not the way the world really works anymore. We’re an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you’re studying that reality—judiciously, as you will—we’ll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that’s how things will sort out. We’re history’s actors … and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.”

Thus spake Karl Rove, Deputy Chief of Staff in the Government of George W. Bush.
I do wish people would study Rove’s words more carefully. Judiciously study them. If they did, then whenever the next alleged atrocity occurs and the United States, together with its coalition of supine vassals, starts yelling and hollering 10 minutes later for action to be taken, on the basis of a test-tube full of washing powder, or pictures of injured women and children in a war zone, and the entire media of dutiful stenographers shrieks that “something must be done”, then perhaps we might pause and wonder if we are being played. Instead of falling into an emotional spasm, maybe we would instead reject the deafening drumbeats of war – wars that have a habit of killing immeasurably more women and children than the alleged incidents on which they are based, by the way — and ask ourselves whether “Rove’s Law” has come into play.

As an aside, the West’s interventionist wars remind me of that wonderfully cynical exchange in the film, The Man With Two Brains:
Dr. Hfuhruhurr: “The only time we doctors should accept death is when it’s caused by our own incompetence!”

Dr. Necessiter: “Nonsense! If the murder of twelve innocent people can help save one human life, it will have been worth it!”
Here’s Dr. Necessiter selling us into war in Iraq: “Nonsense! If it costs us the deaths of 500,000 people to topple the evil dictator Saddam Hussein, it will have been worth it!”
read on...

So We 'Win' Syria – What Then?

undefined

In the days leading up to the Congressional vote on whether to go to war in Iraq years ago, Fortune Magazine had an article headlined “We Win – What Then?” 

The article said a prolonged war in Iraq would make American soldiers “sitting ducks for Islamic terrorists.” 

Another national magazine at that time, U.S. News and World Report, had an article headlined, “Why the Rush to War?” 

Now that war has been frequently referred to as possibly the greatest foreign policy mistake in U.S. History.

The night before the Iraq war vote, a television station in Knoxville had a poll showing 74% in favor of the war, 9% against, and 17% undecided. I was one of six Republicans who voted against going to war, and for three or four years, that certainly was the most unpopular vote I ever cast. But slowly, slowly, slowly, it became my most popular vote. 

We were basically conned into that war by a group called Neo-Cons, so called neoconservatives, who George Will once described as being “magnificently misnamed” because they were really the “most radical people in this City,” meaning Washington.
read on...

Cooler Heads Prevailing On Syria? Let's Hope!

While Defense Secretary Mattis says the Pentagon is "still looking" for evidence a chemical attack even took place in Syria last weekend, President Trump has seemingly backed off his Tweet yesterday threatening Russia with missiles. Meanwhile, despite a mainstream media attempted blackout of alternative voices a few are getting through and being heard. Former UK Ambassador to Syria was unequivocal in a recent BBC interview: the recent "chlorine attack" in Syria was staged. Do we have a glimmer of hope? Tune in to today's Liberty Report...
read on...

False Flag in Syria Sets Stage for Wider War

undefined

The US threatened war within hours of an alleged chemical weapons attack taking place in Douma, northeast of Damascus. The US rush to conflict attempts to sidestep any meaningful investigation into the attack, fitting a larger pattern of Washington and its allies using baseless chemical weapon allegations for wars of aggression stretching back to the invasion of Iraq in 2003.
read on...

Who Wants a Hot War with Syria and Iran?

undefined

There is a vast industry in the United States that wants a hot war with Syria and Iran as well as increased confrontation with Russia and China. It is appropriate to refer to it as an industry because it has many components and is largely driven by money, much of which itself comes from Wall Street and major corporations that profit from war related business. Some prefer to refer to this monster as the Military Industrial Complex, but since that phrase was coined by President Dwight D. Eisenhower in 1961, it has grown enormously, developing a political dimension that includes a majority of congressmen who are addicted to receiving a tithe from the profits from the war economy to finance their own campaigns, permitting them to stay in office indefinitely and retire comfortably to a lobbying position or corporate directorship.

The defense industry also has spawned hundreds of so-called think-tanks whose sole business is promoting war. Some, like the neoconservative Institute for the Study of War, have a clear agenda, but the most powerful rely on euphemisms to conceal what they are doing. They include the American Enterprise Institute and the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, both of which promote a hard-line foreign policy directed against Iran and Russia, to include intensified confrontation with both in Syria.

The national media, which also benefits from the same food chain, is also complicit in the process, knowing that the public can easily be deceived by pronouncements coming from alleged experts in Washington. Leading politicians like Senators Lindsay Graham and John McCain lead the pack but there is no shortage of lesser known congressmen to also raise the cry about foreign threats to national security. Regarding developments in Syria, Graham advised last weekend that Trump must attack and destroy the Syrian Air Force or “look weak” while McCain said White House talk of pulling troops out of the country had “emboldened” al-Assad.
read on...

Trump's Madness In His March To War

President Trump this morning Tweeted a warning to Russia that US missiles were heading toward Syria (and Russians in Syria). The Russian ambassador to Lebanon reconfirmed in an interview that Russia would target not only incoming missiles but the sources of those incoming missiles. Today Syrian aircraft relocated to Russian bases in Syria and Russian military officers deployed to the Syrian parliament. If Trump goes ahead with a large-scale attack on Syria over an alleged chlorine attack on Syrian civilians the escalation may continue to the unimaginable. Will the US president at least wait until an investigation determines whether there even was an attack? And why are the Brits so eager to join in the attack? Something to do with the Skripal fiasco? A special edition of the Ron Paul Liberty Report...
read on...

US Attack on Syria is Futile but Serves a Purpose

undefined

The United Nations Security Council turned down a compromise resolution on Syria, proposed by Sweden and seconded by Russia seeking investigation on the alleged chemical attack in Douma. Five countries supported the resolution with two permanent members – United States and Britain – opposing it. Earlier, a resolution on the same lines which was supported by Russia and China was also opposed by the US and Britain.

This is a significant political and diplomatic victory for Russia insofar as only two other countries joined the US and Britain to oppose the Swedish resolution. Six countries abstained.

The big question is whether this development portends an impending US attack on Syria, bypassing the UN. The UN has refused to confirm there has been any attack at all. Russia and Syrian government insist there has been no attack and have approached the Organization for the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons for an international investigation. The good thing is that the OPCW is deputing two teams of experts to go to Douma later this week. Russia has offered to give them full security protection.

So Trump has a major decision to make. Logically, punishment follows a crime that has been committed and it seems no crime has been committed. This appears to be a false flag operation – that is, a fabrication with a view to trigger a sequence of events. That was how the US invaded Iraq in 2003 and it is an established fact today that Saddam Hussein did not have any program to develop weapons of mass destruction, as then US Secretary of State Colin Powell had misled the UN Security Council. (Powell later admitted that he was misled by his own administration.)
read on...


Authors

Tags