I know a lot of people on this site don't like Ron Paul; others may, but this is beside the point. An insight he made earlier this month on the Syrian conflict made me realize the Obama administration is seeking to enter a war in Syria for their own hidden purpose.
This is what Paul said in his video, which can be viewed in its entirety HERE:
"Why would President Assad, who's winning the war, use poison gas to kill 100 people knowing full well what would happen if people thought he was using poison gas. There's no way. The man is not an idiot."
Pat Buchanan also mused important questions in his latest article.
Yet Assad’s alleged use of sarin to justify U.S. intervention seems less like our reason for getting into this war than our excuse.
For the White House decided to intervene weeks ago, before the use of sarin was confirmed. And why would Assad have used only tiny traces? Where is the photographic evidence of the disfigured dead?
What proof have we the rebels did not fabricate the use of sarin or use it themselves to get the gullible Americans to fight their war?
Of course, this invites a comparison to the times leading up to the Iraq war. Whether or not Hussein actually had chemical weapons, (I believe he did, but I was against the war and did not see him as a threat), the accusation that he did and would use them was a major justification for the invasion that took place. And the hyping of the war was dishonest even if the actual claim was not.
Now, for some reason, these claims are being rehashed and applied to Syria. Instead this time by Obama.
Presumably, this will be the justification to enter the conflict initially. Later, like Bush, Obama will no doubt modify the mission to that of "spreading democracy".
"Spreading democracy" is code language for destabilization of the Middle East and empowerment of Muslim extremists. We should seek stabilization in the Middle East, whether democratic or dictatorial, but more often than not it comes in the form of dictatorship. There is no virtue in extremist governments because they are elected democratically, which if not sincere will be the product of voter intimidation creating the same result.
Obama has a history of supporting these democracy movements. Morally and financially (weapon sales) in Egypt. Military, and illegally I might add, in Libya. The result? Balkanization, chaos, and increased terrorism.
Syria, like pre-invasion Iraq, is a stronghold for Christians protected by a secular government. The fall of the Iraqi government caused the nearly a half million Christians to flee as refugees, most to Syria due to cultural similarities. There are approximately 2.5 million Christians currently in Syria, but they only make up 10% of the population. Falling under a radically Islamist regime is a recipe for disaster.
Yet Obama is trying to aid the rebels covertly without permission of Congress. And four Senator are seeking to block it.
Today, U.S. Senators Tom Udall (D-N.M.), Mike Lee (R-UT), Chris Murphy (D-CT), and Rand Paul (R-KY) introduced bipartisan legislation to prohibit the President from using any funds on activities that would escalate U.S. involvement in the Syrian civil war.
The bill would ban the Department of Defense, the CIA and all other intelligence agencies from funding any military, paramilitary or covert operations in Syria. The legislation would not affect humanitarian aid.
All four Senators have spoken out strongly in opposition to President Obama's decision to arm rebel groups in Syria. Udall, Murphy and Paul, all members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, cast the lone votes in Committee against authorizing the President to arm and train rebels fighting the forces of President Bashar al-Assad in an ongoing civil war.
We cannot afford to get involved in Syria financially. Our military is worn out from wars. The public is sick of it. It is not in our national interest to go to war, and not remotely qualified as national defense. And the result would only be more instability, terrorism, and persecution in the Middle East.