Chuck Baldwin
When it comes to war, elephants and donkeys think alike
By Chuck Baldwin
Well, here we go again: the warmongers in Washington, D.C., are about to attack another Middle Eastern country.
Ben Shapiro summarized the lunacy of Obama's war with Syria pretty well in a recent Breitbart.com report. The title of the report is: RUSH TO WAR; BOEHNER, PELOSI, CANTOR, BACK OBAMA ON SYRIA. The report begins saying, "In an incredible display of bipartisan blindness, leaders of the Democratic and Republican parties have now declared their support for President Obama's proposal for action against Syria. House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) stated on Tuesday, 'I'm going to support the president's call for action. I believe my colleagues should support this call for action.'
"House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) said that Syrian President Bashar al-Assad's alleged use of chemical weapons 'cannot be ignored.' She added, 'Humanity drew the red line, not President Obama.' She stated, in a moment of almost unbearable irony, that the UN was acting far too slowly, and should not hold up action. She then invoked the foreign policy wisdom of her 5-year-old grandson to support the potential strike: 'My five-year-old grandson, as I was leaving San Francisco yesterday, he said to me, Mimi, my name, Mimi, war with Syria, are you yes war with Syria, no, war with Syria. And he's five years old. We're not talking about war; we're talking about action. Yes war with Syria, no with war in Syria. I said, "Well, what do you think?" He said, "I think no war." I said, "Well, I generally agree with that but you know, they have killed hundreds of children, they've killed hundreds of children there." And he said, five years old, "Were these children in the United States?" And I said, "No, but they're children wherever they are."
"House Majority Whip Eric Cantor (R-VA) also came out in support of Congressional authorization to use force in Syria: 'I intend to vote to provide the President of the United States the option to use military force in Syria. While the authorizing language will likely change, the underlying reality will not. America has a compelling national security interest to prevent and respond to the use of weapons of mass destruction, especially by a terrorist state such as Syria, and to prevent further instability in a region of vital interest to the United States.'"
See Shapiro's report at:
Rush to War: Boehner, Pelosi, Cantor Back Obama on Syria
All the talk of party partisanship notwithstanding, there are two issues that Democrats and Republicans in Washington, D.C., will ALWAYS come together on: going to war on foreign soil and building a police state on the American homeland. Why? Because both of these actions dramatically increase the power and riches of the Washington establishment. Nothing turns a profit like war; and nothing gives more power to Washington, D.C., like a police state. And whatever their differences might be, most everyone in DC wants increased money and power.
So, now we are going to go to war with Syria. Egad! Tell me again what the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the drone attacks in Pakistan, the covert military actions in Yemen, Libya, etc., have gotten us? Besides hundreds and thousands of dead and wounded young men and women in uniform, I mean. Is America safer? If so, what is the need for this burgeoning surveillance society and police state apparatus in the US heartland?
Remember, destroying Al Qaeda was the reason given for why we had to invade Iraq and Afghanistan. But now, our military attacks in Syria are going to be done in order to ASSIST Al Qaeda. Does anyone not see a bit of inconsistency here? How can Al Qaeda be our enemies in one country and our allies in another country?
And don't you just love Ms. Pelosi's brilliant justification for war with Syria as given to her grandson? "They have killed hundreds of children." The absolute hypocrisy of this statement is so astounding anyone hearing it should laugh out loud.
In the first place, this is the same Nancy Pelosi who has used every bit of the power and influence she has to facilitate the killing of – not hundreds – but hundreds of thousands of unborn children via abortion-on-demand. And these are AMERICAN children.
Secondly, why hasn't Pelosi said a word of protest about the more than TWO MILLION innocent men, women, and children that have been slaughtered by the Khartoum government in Sudan over the last 20 years? Why don't the decapitated, scalded, burned, dismembered, disemboweled, and beaten bodies of the children of Sudan bother Nancy Pelosi? Why does she not call for US military action in Sudan? If it's all about the children, Ms. Pelosi, how do you sit mute and apathetic about the hundreds of thousands of murdered children in Sudan?
And Cantor's remarks about Syria being a "terrorist state" is equally hypocritical. If one is looking for the Middle Eastern state that has sponsored more acts of terrorism, trained more terrorists, fomented more terrorism, and financially supported more acts of terrorism than any other state BY FAR, look no further than Saudi Arabia. Osama bin Laden was a Saudi; the men who were purported to be the terrorists on 9/11 were Saudis. Saudi Arabia has been the chief sponsor of Middle Eastern terrorism for many decades. Why is Mr. Cantor not calling for US military strikes against Saudi Arabia?
And, call me Mr. Cynical if you want to. Do I believe for one minute that the Assad government used chemical weapons knowing that the United States was looking for just such an excuse to launch a military attack against them in order to kill them and remove them from power? Do I believe the Assad government is that stupid? No, I do not. Oh, yeah, we invaded Iraq because of all of those weapons of mass destruction, too, right? Have the American people learned nothing from all of these senseless wars of aggression? Here we go again! I will let readers decide for themselves who used the gas, but to believe that the Syrian government did is the height of naiveté.
Every time the United States launches one of these unjustified attacks against a foreign country, it serves to further alienate America from the rest of the world and drive nations into the Sino-Russia axis. Some are suggesting that an attack against Syria will provoke Russia or China into a major war with us. It could, but I don't think it will – not yet.
But what I do believe is that Russia and China are actively seeking to ingratiate themselves into the plus side of world opinion, are building political and economic alliances, and are, at the same time, building their military capabilities until the moment is right to launch a major war – a nuclear war – against the United States. And every time we launch one of these unprovoked military attacks against a foreign country, it further augments the Sino-Russia reputation in the world. What is it going to take? Will it take a nuclear war before the people of the United States wake up and realize that we cannot act like we are a modern-day Roman Empire and expect to survive for long?
The kingmakers who desire to destroy a sovereign and independent United States use these Arab states (and other foreign countries) like a chess master uses pawns on a chessboard. And, yes, these same kingmakers are the loudest cheerleaders for America's increased involvement in foreign entanglements – especially military ones – within the United States. They don't hate Syria, or Iraq, or Afghanistan. They hate America. These little Middle Eastern states are only the tools being used to foment hatred – and eventually war – against America. And both the GOP and Democrat leadership in Washington, D.C., fall for it every time. EVERY SINGLE TIME!
When it comes to war, elephants and donkeys think just alike.
© Chuck Baldwin
September 7, 2013
Well, here we go again: the warmongers in Washington, D.C., are about to attack another Middle Eastern country.
Ben Shapiro summarized the lunacy of Obama's war with Syria pretty well in a recent Breitbart.com report. The title of the report is: RUSH TO WAR; BOEHNER, PELOSI, CANTOR, BACK OBAMA ON SYRIA. The report begins saying, "In an incredible display of bipartisan blindness, leaders of the Democratic and Republican parties have now declared their support for President Obama's proposal for action against Syria. House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) stated on Tuesday, 'I'm going to support the president's call for action. I believe my colleagues should support this call for action.'
"House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) said that Syrian President Bashar al-Assad's alleged use of chemical weapons 'cannot be ignored.' She added, 'Humanity drew the red line, not President Obama.' She stated, in a moment of almost unbearable irony, that the UN was acting far too slowly, and should not hold up action. She then invoked the foreign policy wisdom of her 5-year-old grandson to support the potential strike: 'My five-year-old grandson, as I was leaving San Francisco yesterday, he said to me, Mimi, my name, Mimi, war with Syria, are you yes war with Syria, no, war with Syria. And he's five years old. We're not talking about war; we're talking about action. Yes war with Syria, no with war in Syria. I said, "Well, what do you think?" He said, "I think no war." I said, "Well, I generally agree with that but you know, they have killed hundreds of children, they've killed hundreds of children there." And he said, five years old, "Were these children in the United States?" And I said, "No, but they're children wherever they are."
"House Majority Whip Eric Cantor (R-VA) also came out in support of Congressional authorization to use force in Syria: 'I intend to vote to provide the President of the United States the option to use military force in Syria. While the authorizing language will likely change, the underlying reality will not. America has a compelling national security interest to prevent and respond to the use of weapons of mass destruction, especially by a terrorist state such as Syria, and to prevent further instability in a region of vital interest to the United States.'"
See Shapiro's report at:
Rush to War: Boehner, Pelosi, Cantor Back Obama on Syria
All the talk of party partisanship notwithstanding, there are two issues that Democrats and Republicans in Washington, D.C., will ALWAYS come together on: going to war on foreign soil and building a police state on the American homeland. Why? Because both of these actions dramatically increase the power and riches of the Washington establishment. Nothing turns a profit like war; and nothing gives more power to Washington, D.C., like a police state. And whatever their differences might be, most everyone in DC wants increased money and power.
So, now we are going to go to war with Syria. Egad! Tell me again what the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the drone attacks in Pakistan, the covert military actions in Yemen, Libya, etc., have gotten us? Besides hundreds and thousands of dead and wounded young men and women in uniform, I mean. Is America safer? If so, what is the need for this burgeoning surveillance society and police state apparatus in the US heartland?
Remember, destroying Al Qaeda was the reason given for why we had to invade Iraq and Afghanistan. But now, our military attacks in Syria are going to be done in order to ASSIST Al Qaeda. Does anyone not see a bit of inconsistency here? How can Al Qaeda be our enemies in one country and our allies in another country?
And don't you just love Ms. Pelosi's brilliant justification for war with Syria as given to her grandson? "They have killed hundreds of children." The absolute hypocrisy of this statement is so astounding anyone hearing it should laugh out loud.
In the first place, this is the same Nancy Pelosi who has used every bit of the power and influence she has to facilitate the killing of – not hundreds – but hundreds of thousands of unborn children via abortion-on-demand. And these are AMERICAN children.
Secondly, why hasn't Pelosi said a word of protest about the more than TWO MILLION innocent men, women, and children that have been slaughtered by the Khartoum government in Sudan over the last 20 years? Why don't the decapitated, scalded, burned, dismembered, disemboweled, and beaten bodies of the children of Sudan bother Nancy Pelosi? Why does she not call for US military action in Sudan? If it's all about the children, Ms. Pelosi, how do you sit mute and apathetic about the hundreds of thousands of murdered children in Sudan?
And Cantor's remarks about Syria being a "terrorist state" is equally hypocritical. If one is looking for the Middle Eastern state that has sponsored more acts of terrorism, trained more terrorists, fomented more terrorism, and financially supported more acts of terrorism than any other state BY FAR, look no further than Saudi Arabia. Osama bin Laden was a Saudi; the men who were purported to be the terrorists on 9/11 were Saudis. Saudi Arabia has been the chief sponsor of Middle Eastern terrorism for many decades. Why is Mr. Cantor not calling for US military strikes against Saudi Arabia?
And, call me Mr. Cynical if you want to. Do I believe for one minute that the Assad government used chemical weapons knowing that the United States was looking for just such an excuse to launch a military attack against them in order to kill them and remove them from power? Do I believe the Assad government is that stupid? No, I do not. Oh, yeah, we invaded Iraq because of all of those weapons of mass destruction, too, right? Have the American people learned nothing from all of these senseless wars of aggression? Here we go again! I will let readers decide for themselves who used the gas, but to believe that the Syrian government did is the height of naiveté.
Every time the United States launches one of these unjustified attacks against a foreign country, it serves to further alienate America from the rest of the world and drive nations into the Sino-Russia axis. Some are suggesting that an attack against Syria will provoke Russia or China into a major war with us. It could, but I don't think it will – not yet.
But what I do believe is that Russia and China are actively seeking to ingratiate themselves into the plus side of world opinion, are building political and economic alliances, and are, at the same time, building their military capabilities until the moment is right to launch a major war – a nuclear war – against the United States. And every time we launch one of these unprovoked military attacks against a foreign country, it further augments the Sino-Russia reputation in the world. What is it going to take? Will it take a nuclear war before the people of the United States wake up and realize that we cannot act like we are a modern-day Roman Empire and expect to survive for long?
The kingmakers who desire to destroy a sovereign and independent United States use these Arab states (and other foreign countries) like a chess master uses pawns on a chessboard. And, yes, these same kingmakers are the loudest cheerleaders for America's increased involvement in foreign entanglements – especially military ones – within the United States. They don't hate Syria, or Iraq, or Afghanistan. They hate America. These little Middle Eastern states are only the tools being used to foment hatred – and eventually war – against America. And both the GOP and Democrat leadership in Washington, D.C., fall for it every time. EVERY SINGLE TIME!
When it comes to war, elephants and donkeys think just alike.
© Chuck Baldwin
The views expressed by RenewAmerica columnists are their own and do not necessarily reflect the position of RenewAmerica or its affiliates.
(See RenewAmerica's publishing standards.)
