Ron Paul to John McCain: 'Syria is none of our business!' (Video interview)

Im glad Paul is on TV saying all of this, but one day I want someone to come on and say...

" We all know this has nothing to do with humanitarian aid, strategic positioning, or stopping the next Hitler before he gets to powerful. This new war, like most all wars is about the consolidation of natural resources for well connected people in big government and big business. Now if we need to try and justify this fact away as a society that is fine but I will have no part of your 'hear no evil, see no evil' game.''
 
Carehn said:
Im glad Paul is on TV saying all of this, but one day I want someone to come on and say...

" We all know this has nothing to do with humanitarian aid, strategic positioning, or stopping the next Hitler before he gets to powerful. This new war, like most all wars is about the consolidation of natural resources for well connected people in big government and big business. Now if we need to try and justify this fact away as a society that is fine but I will have no part of your 'hear no evil, see no evil' game.''
Click to expand...

I'm not an expert on Syria. Exactly what natural resources do they have that would be worth the trouble?
 
specsaregood said:
I'm not an expert on Syria. Exactly what natural resources do they have that would be worth the trouble?
Click to expand...

Natural resources: petroleum, phosphates, chrome and manganese ores, textiles, cotton, asphalt, iron ore, rock salt, marble, gypsum.
 
Carehn said:
Natural resources: petroleum, phosphates, chrome and manganese ores, textiles, cotton, asphalt, iron ore, rock salt, marble, gypsum.
Click to expand...

And they have that in more abundance than many other places where they could take them without the hassle of a war?
 
Yep, you are all right, it's called build a coallition, and the "lader climbers"/"politicians" do it too. Supprise, it's "get everybody" on board to the next "let's make a deal" for "your favorite gimme" sponsored by the "you know who" taxpayer and "poor loosers" who "pay for less" ("payless").
Yes, "step right up" if you have no conscience and have a "dog in the fight" because have we "got a deal for you". Iran is supported by Syria who is supported by Russia. Now Russia is "down and out" and we planned it "just that way" to prepare these "specials especially for you". Come one and come few.
 
How can we send our young men off to kill in the name of corporate interests? It's all about cornering the market on mid-eastern oil by inserting our influence throughout the region. If we aren't buying them off we are knocking them off. It's a disgrace.
 
umichmed said:
intervention in syria, iraq, and iran is more about the idea behind "greater israel" than natural resouces. look at all the people pushing the agenda. perle, wolfowitz, etc.
Click to expand...
Exactly. It's all part of the neocon agenda, which itself is about using the US military to serve Israel first and foremost.

For all the money the US is spending on these wars, we could probably just buy all the natural resources we could ever need.
 
I actually think the neocons want military power because it is THEIR power center. They don't care much what the excuse for it is, Israel works as well as any other, so they are an ally to those who want military there for that reason, but I think they simply want power for power's sake.
 
sailingaway said:
I actually think the neocons want military power because it is THEIR power center. They don't care much what the excuse for it is, Israel works as well as any other, so they are an ally to those who want military there for that reason, but I think they simply want power for power's sake.
Click to expand...

Ya, they have to serve their masters (defense contractors). They have to diminish their stock pile of weapons on someone so that they can replenish the weapons with our "endless" fiat currency system.
 
specsaregood said:
I'm not an expert on Syria. Exactly what natural resources do they have that would be worth the trouble?
Click to expand...
Carehn said:
Natural resources: petroleum, phosphates, chrome and manganese ores, textiles, cotton, asphalt, iron ore, rock salt, marble, gypsum.
Click to expand...

As I've said before, there is absolutely no way by the amounts we spend, that invading anywhere, ever comes out as a net positive for us collectively, as a nation, or a market.

We'd be better off buying the assorted needed crap the ground under Syria has somewhere else while they have their little war, at a resulting slightly higher price, than spending multiple billions or trillions, bombing and occupying them. They're going to sell that stuff to us and everyone esle when it's over, anyway. We'll just end up bomb out the place worse, they'll have to rebuild that much more, and the only people who're going to get rich are a few contractors that fund the whole ordeal and their political connections, and maybe a couple of their employees at the expense of the people in general.

Quick look at wikipedia has it stating that Syria's total GDP is 64.7 billion. Tell me, that we wouldn't spend if not double or triple or 10 times that much, invading the place. There's no way a tenth of that number there a year is somehow making itself back to the U.S.
How long is that net benefit back to us due to a war suppose to take, 50 years?

Our wars are waged so that a very few can get very rich, because they convince very many that a very few electricity-cleanwater-challenged anger-prone Muslims somewhere we usually kicked dirt on first, are a threat to us comparable to the Soviet Union or a modernized mass industry supported army.

I say that because it needs to be center when discussing natural resources as pertains to justifying war, if even an economic argument. It's not a valid point; we lose in spades.

We will never in our own lifetimes, see a real net benefit of invading Iraq. We instead should of just bought the oil resources from Saddam, and lett Iraqis and their neighbors oust him themselves if they wanted to.
Did some particular handful of oil companies and investors benefit? Yes. They get rich. Us no. We get debt.
We still got to buy the oil from there, too.
 
This is more of our injecting ourselves into the Sunni/Shia conflict. We do this to placate the (Sunni) Saudis, who in turn maintain the USD as OPEC's official trading currency, which is the linchpin for our maintaining world reserve currency status. Most of the oil in the ME is located under Shia populated lands, even in Saudi Arabia. The Shia have been treated as second class people in Sunni controlled countries so there is a great deal of resentment. This is a modern wrinkle added to the older cultural divide.

Ron Paul's position is correct, as is his fiscal policy. If we stopped our spending beyond our means, we would have no need to get embroiled in these conflicts. We are, in effect, allying ourselves with the Sunnis against the Shia, which will only breed more enemies for us in the long run. This is another example of our fiscal policy being directly reflected in our foreign policy. Until we commit to balancing our budget, the status quo of our foreign policy will remain.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Why is everyone picking on Syria?

The question is a semi-serious one. After all, look at the list of the 18 Arab League countries that voted to suspend Damascus’s membership in their club and to impose sanctions on the country unless Syrian President Bashar al-Assad stops the violence against protesters and agrees to admit an Arab League monitoring group.

The list includes such countries as Sudan, Bahrain and Saudi Arabia, not exactly bastions of democracy themselves. Indeed, when pro-democracy protesters took to the streets of Bahrain earlier this year, Saudi Arabia couldn’t wait to send in troops to put down the uprising.

Yet here are these Arab countries ostracizing Syria – one of the “original six” that founded the League in the first place in 1945 – and threatening sanctions unless Mr. al-Assad ceases the violent suppression of his country’s uprising.

What’s the difference?

Well, for one thing, all those who voted against Syria are states with Sunni Muslim leaderships, while Syria is ruled by members of the minority Alawi sect, a spinoff from Shiism. Lest anyone think the League members were concerned about Syria’s “minority” government, it’s worth noting that the rulers of Bahrain are a Sunni minority, lording it over a Shia majority.

It’s also worth noting that one of the two states to support Syria in voting against the Arab League decision to suspend Damascus is Lebanon, whose government is effectively controlled by the Shia Hezbollah movement, and the only country to abstain from voting against Syria was Iraq, another country with a Shia majority and a Shia-dominated government.

Anyway you look at it, the Sunni regimes are clearly lined up against the Shiites.

Another feature that distinguishes Syria and irritates its Arab opponents is that the Alawi regime in Damascus has close links with Shia regime in Tehran. Non-Arab Iran is the state most in competition with Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Turkey for supremacy in the region. Turkey, another Sunni-run state, has sided with the Arab League four-square against the non-Sunni regime in Syria.

http://m.theglobeandmail.com/news/w...tics-any-better/article619362/?service=mobile

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

An estimated 120 million Shiites live in pockets scattered across the globe. But the bulk of them reside in the Middle East. Shiites make up strong majorities in Iran (90 percent), Bahrain (75 percent), and Iraq (close to 60 percent); Lebanon, too, is primarily Shiite. Small but potentially powerful Shiite are found throughout the Gulf States, as well as in Pakistan (17 percent), Saudi Arabia (15 percent), and India (around 2 percent). Many of the Persian-Gulf-based Shiites, particularly those in eastern Saudi Arabia and southern Iraq, inhabit lands rich in oil, which has created tension between the Shiites and their Sunni neighbors. "There's a tremendous amount of resentment," says CFR Douglas Dillon Fellow Steven Cook, who says the Saudis consider their Shiite minorities "at best as heterodox, at worst apostates."

http://www.cfr.org/religion-and-politics/shia-muslims-mideast/p10903
 
jay_dub said:
This is more of our injecting ourselves into the Sunni/Shia conflict. We do this to placate the (Sunni) Saudis, who in turn maintain the USD as OPEC's official trading currency, which is the linchpin for our maintaining world reserve currency status. Most of the oil in the ME is located under Shia populated lands, even in Saudi Arabia. The Shia have been treated as second class people in Sunni controlled countries so there is a great deal of resentment. This is a modern wrinkle added to the older cultural divide.

Ron Paul's position is correct, as is his fiscal policy. If we stopped our spending beyond our means, we would have no need to get embroiled in these conflicts. We are, in effect, allying ourselves with the Sunnis against the Shia, which will only breed more enemies for us in the long run. This is another example of our fiscal policy being directly reflected in our foreign policy. Until we commit to balancing our budget, the status quo of our foreign policy will remain.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Why is everyone picking on Syria?

The question is a semi-serious one. After all, look at the list of the 18 Arab League countries that voted to suspend Damascus’s membership in their club and to impose sanctions on the country unless Syrian President Bashar al-Assad stops the violence against protesters and agrees to admit an Arab League monitoring group.

The list includes such countries as Sudan, Bahrain and Saudi Arabia, not exactly bastions of democracy themselves. Indeed, when pro-democracy protesters took to the streets of Bahrain earlier this year, Saudi Arabia couldn’t wait to send in troops to put down the uprising.

Yet here are these Arab countries ostracizing Syria – one of the “original six” that founded the League in the first place in 1945 – and threatening sanctions unless Mr. al-Assad ceases the violent suppression of his country’s uprising.

What’s the difference?

Well, for one thing, all those who voted against Syria are states with Sunni Muslim leaderships, while Syria is ruled by members of the minority Alawi sect, a spinoff from Shiism. Lest anyone think the League members were concerned about Syria’s “minority” government, it’s worth noting that the rulers of Bahrain are a Sunni minority, lording it over a Shia majority.

It’s also worth noting that one of the two states to support Syria in voting against the Arab League decision to suspend Damascus is Lebanon, whose government is effectively controlled by the Shia Hezbollah movement, and the only country to abstain from voting against Syria was Iraq, another country with a Shia majority and a Shia-dominated government.

Anyway you look at it, the Sunni regimes are clearly lined up against the Shiites.

Another feature that distinguishes Syria and irritates its Arab opponents is that the Alawi regime in Damascus has close links with Shia regime in Tehran. Non-Arab Iran is the state most in competition with Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Turkey for supremacy in the region. Turkey, another Sunni-run state, has sided with the Arab League four-square against the non-Sunni regime in Syria.

http://m.theglobeandmail.com/news/w...tics-any-better/article619362/?service=mobile

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

An estimated 120 million Shiites live in pockets scattered across the globe. But the bulk of them reside in the Middle East. Shiites make up strong majorities in Iran (90 percent), Bahrain (75 percent), and Iraq (close to 60 percent); Lebanon, too, is primarily Shiite. Small but potentially powerful Shiite are found throughout the Gulf States, as well as in Pakistan (17 percent), Saudi Arabia (15 percent), and India (around 2 percent). Many of the Persian-Gulf-based Shiites, particularly those in eastern Saudi Arabia and southern Iraq, inhabit lands rich in oil, which has created tension between the Shiites and their Sunni neighbors. "There's a tremendous amount of resentment," says CFR Douglas Dillon Fellow Steven Cook, who says the Saudis consider their Shiite minorities "at best as heterodox, at worst apostates."

http://www.cfr.org/religion-and-politics/shia-muslims-mideast/p10903
Click to expand...

post of the day!

This is well beyond sticking our noses in the affairs of other nations...this is taking sides in a HOLY WAR.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Brian4Liberty
Sharia Law In Syria?
Replies
1
Views
6K
Voluntarist
Voluntarist
Brian4Liberty
  • Featured
America...First? Flip-Flopping Trump Vows More Weapons To Ukraine
Replies
5
Views
102
Occam's Banana
Occam's Banana
Occam's Banana
Ron Paul made the present moment possible
Replies
0
Views
1K
Occam's Banana
Occam's Banana
Brian4Liberty
He's BAAACK! The Ghost Of John McCain Haunts GOP Debate
Replies
1
Views
1K
Anti Globalist
Anti Globalist
Occam's Banana
The lessons of Ron Paul
Replies
12
Views
444
acptulsa
acptulsa
Back
Top