It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

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

page: 2
65
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 10 2017 @ 01:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: Wookiep
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.


Agreed, the list of countries there is long,
representative of perhaps a prize to be won?
Oil perhaps?

Sadly, whether our new POTUS wanted it, U.S. is in the
middle of Syria. CIA was funding the rebels, and according
to news reports we had Pentagon folks in there fighting too.

So U.S. had Pentagon forces fighting The CIA. This is where I agree with
Ron, we need to get this sorted out at home or we are not effective
in a peace process, end up being used for the CFR/Globalist
endeavor.



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.


I'll agree here, with the exception that not all of U.S is in on this,
but a faction that is working to destabilize the ME in the shadows,
"deep state" or call it what we will.

As we well know, they are a powerful, unseen force
not always working for good.



edit on 10-4-2017 by burntheships because: (no reason given)




posted on Apr, 10 2017 @ 01:24 AM
link   
a reply to: ColdWisdom

Did he really have to spend all those millions of dollars and do all that damage just for a PR stunt? And you support that?

I don't. I can't. Killing people for a PR stunt?

Even as a PR stunt it is a major fail. Did you see the planes flying normally the next day? They didn't even destroy the runways. It was a double fail for appearing to dance to Hillary's tune.

This is the work of the military-industrial-petrochemical-pharmacuetical transnationalist sons of bitches. They hear "ca-ching" every time missiles fly.



posted on Apr, 10 2017 @ 04:25 AM
link   
a reply to: gladtobehere

Please forgive my sock and surprise.



Let us ignore the label of neo-conservative for a moment, and deal with this honestly. Corporatism is a disease, and it is one with which the United States is now more afflicted than ever. This will only worsen, as the charismatic sociopath running the place gets better at media management, the more effective his propaganda becomes. No one appears to mind this state of affairs enough to alter it, but in the meantime, people will be murdered by the United States of America for no reason what so ever, in their thousands, tens of thousands, even hundreds of thousands, as they have been before.

This was always the result of permitting corporate interests a say in matters of policy. In short, any system which permits a few companies, businesses and industries to have influence of any kind, is bound to fail. But permitting these special interests to have MORE say than the man in the street? This is not just failure, but suicide, a hand extended in welcome, beckoning fascism forth to grasp it.



posted on Apr, 10 2017 @ 05:31 AM
link   

originally posted by: gladtobehere
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...


Relatively peaceful, well other than the iran/Iraq war that lasted most of the '80's and left a million dead. Oh and the Iraqi–Kurdish conflict which has been running since the early 1900's and left a quarter million dead.

And there are many more, hmmm not so peaceful I think.

edit on 10-4-2017 by whywhynot because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 10 2017 @ 05:45 AM
link   
a reply to: whywhynot

ok so grab that list there buddy, and now compare it to the rest of the world in each given timeline.

In the 80's, half the world was running firesales on mass executions by internationally installed dictators in South America, Africa, and SouthEast Asia. Knowing that, and the fact that the Iran-Iraq war was spearheaded and covertly supported by the US and UK, you really going to cite that one example??

If were going to span half a century too with the ethnic rivalries, don't forget in that same timeline the USA was guilty of similar behavior against black people which likely took an equal number of lives from lynchings, fire bombings, hangings, and outright executions. Not only by very hateful civilians, but law enforcement and government employees as well.

The Middle East is no more or less violent in relation to history than any other region. Try again.



posted on Apr, 10 2017 @ 06:26 AM
link   
a reply to: projectvxn

Whilst you're harping on about religion you might want to look at other factors in the ME that are a little bit more obvious like resources pipelines drugs



posted on Apr, 10 2017 @ 06:33 AM
link   
I wasn't offering a comparison so don't spin it. I was taking exception to the statement "Syria, Iraq and Libya were all relatively peaceful, stable nations prior to our attacks. "

The loss of millions in war, imho, is not peaceful nor stable. Just saying.


a reply to: worldstarcountry



posted on Apr, 10 2017 @ 06:57 AM
link   
a reply to: whywhynot
Spin what?? Were Syria and Libya at war or in a state of Anarchy before NATO destroyed them??
Iraq was stable and peaceful from 1992 until 2003. But considering how many people died and went hungry (allegedly) due to international sanctions, I guess that is debatable.

My original comment was to eliminate the typical ignorant sound byte that the Middle East as a region always has been and will be a #hole of war. It is no better or worse than pretty much any other region on Earth. But repeating that sound byte burns into the subconscious mind a sort of exclusivity and bias towards the one specific region, typically as a coping mechanism to excuse or downplay the meddling influence imposed by foreign powers.



posted on Apr, 10 2017 @ 07:18 AM
link   
The spin is so obvious that you are embarrassing yourself. BTW, Iraq was stable and peaceful for 11 entire years? Well I guess if you think living under a brutal dictator who kills his own citizens to maintain that peace and stability.



a reply to: worldstarcountry



posted on Apr, 10 2017 @ 11:38 AM
link   
a reply to: gladtobehere

Ron Paul was the last of the pure Constitutional politicians. Rand gets it to an extent, but isn't as straightforward as his father.

I can't help but imagine if Ron was born just a little bit later in time. Would he have been a strong contender in 2020? I think so. Bit we'll never know.



posted on Apr, 10 2017 @ 11:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: TheConstruKctionofLight
a reply to: projectvxn

Whilst you're harping on about religion you might want to look at other factors in the ME that are a little bit more obvious like resources pipelines drugs


What are you talking about religion? Ideology is not religion



i·de·ol·o·gy
ˌīdēˈäləjē,ˌidēˈäləjē/
noun
noun: ideology; plural noun: ideologies
1.
a system of ideas and ideals, especially one that forms the basis of economic or political theory and policy.


Perhaps your light needs to be a little less construKted.

Draconian regimes, like Assads, have been warring internally and externally for millennia...I agree with Ron Paul in a lot of ways, he tends to always make sense. The problem is, making sense is often counter-intuitive to political repertoire and has little place there.



posted on Apr, 10 2017 @ 12:39 PM
link   
I agree with Ron Paul on most things and this is no exception.
However he is not the last statesman left...
We have our Nigel Farage over here who is also saying similar things to Rob Paul, and Farage is a massive Trump fan!

Basically, if Trump was given actual evidence to prove it was Assad who used the chemical weapons then I think that the bombing of the airfield was very appropriate. However if he wasn't given evidence and is going of what most of us on here are reading, then I think many of his supporters will be worried where this is going.

We need to look at the bigger picture. ISIS are the biggest threat to humanity. Assad is attacking ISIS on a daily basis, we should be working with him to defeat ISIS in Syria, then we can sort out Assad afterwards if needed.



posted on Apr, 10 2017 @ 12:45 PM
link   
a reply to: gladtobehere

Ron Paul is a good man indeed. But it would seem a strategist he is not.



posted on Apr, 10 2017 @ 12:55 PM
link   
I've always loved Dr. Paul. He's a man of good standing and moral courage. He's a G. Washington without the same respect. If he was drafting an Army, I'd be the first to join. He's a good man. I voted for him, ounce. But he has to much trust/faith in humanity. I'd ride the river with him any day, only out of pity.... Only because a good man shouldn't die alone. Kinda of like a New York City politician thinks a knife is made to only stab people. High cap magazines are "only made for killing". .. To me, he's like a reverse ignorance. Only in a sad, good way. To much faith in humanity.



posted on Apr, 10 2017 @ 01:10 PM
link   
Rand is a purist. Kinda like his father. ..Both good men! I personally respect them both. Only problem is, is his believing in the good nature of humanity and "democracy" or the "Republic's COTUS". Then, their not realizing that others are not as honorable as them... Or not/and understanding that teeth are made for more than chewing food. Both good men. Just naive men.



posted on Apr, 10 2017 @ 02:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: CriticalStinker

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.
I think Bernie was/is real.



posted on Apr, 10 2017 @ 02:50 PM
link   
59 cruise missiles @ $1,000,000 each
Aimed at airstrip to stop planes flying
Planes flying next day
#Bizarre



posted on Apr, 10 2017 @ 03:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: bigyin
59 cruise missiles @ $1,000,000 each
Aimed at airstrip to stop planes flying
Planes flying next day
#Bizarre

I guess you swallowed the Syrian propaganda hook, line and sinker.



posted on Apr, 10 2017 @ 03:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: projectvxn
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.


Why would anyone fire on US otherwise?

What reason besides US meddling in their BS would prompt the hate, the action?

US started Syria. US started Iraq. US started Al Qaeda (and therefore ISIS). US overthrew Iran in 1953. US supports Saudi Arabia. On and on it goes.



posted on Apr, 10 2017 @ 03:09 PM
link   
a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

Bernie was in the top 10 funded by the Military Industrial Complex list.

He was just there to whip the Socialist Justice Warriors into a buzz.




top topics



 
65
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join