Ron Paul: Syria Intervention Would be “Reckless and Immoral”

It’s striking how much the media control people’s political opinions without people realizing it. Just a few years ago, only an “isolationist” would be opposed to U.S. military intervention in a foreign country for the sole purpose of “humanitarianism.”

Way back in 2007, this is one of the very few interviews Sean Hannity did with Ron Paul. This particular exchange took place after one of the presidential debates:

Hannity: Are you saying then that the world has no moral obligation, like in the first Gulf War, when an innocent country’s being pillaged, and people are being raped and murdered and slaughtered, or in the case of Saddam, he’s gassing his own people, are you suggesting we have no moral obligation there? Do you stand by and let that immorality happen?

Paul: We have, on numerous occasions.

Hannity: You support that?

Paul: We have, on numerous occasions. If we feel strongly about it, why don’t we declare war —

Hannity: If a woman’s being raped do you stand by and do nothing there either?

Alan Colmes: We’re almost out of time, but the fact is the Reagan administration stood by while the Kurds were being gassed, it happened in 1988, we didn’t do anything —

Hannity: We didn’t do anything about it, for how many years?

Paul: And what did we do with Pol Pot, what did we do with Moscow, what did we do at the time? We stood by while they did it to their people.

Hannity: We got it, Ron, you would stand by and do that, I would not.

Paul: No, you —

Hannity: I think that’s immoral.

Hannity’s of course singing a much different tune nowadays, since being opposed to unconstitutional military interventions is kind of “cool” now. But Ron Paul was opposed to such interventions long before it was cool, and he’s remained steadfast for decades in his opposition.

A couple days ago, on his Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity website, he wrote that intervening in Syria would be a reckless and immoral use of the military:

“President Obama announced this weekend that he has decided to use military force against Syria and would seek authorization from Congress when it returned from its August break. Every Member ought to vote against this reckless and immoral use of the US military. But even if every single Member and Senator votes for another war, it will not make this terrible idea any better because some sort of nod is given to the Constitution along the way. Besides, the president made it clear that Congressional authorization is superfluous, asserting falsely that he has the authority to act on his own with or without Congress. That Congress allows itself to be treated as window dressing by the imperial president is just astonishing. The President on Saturday claimed that the alleged chemical attack in Syria on August 21 presented ‘a serious danger to our national security.’ I disagree with the idea that every conflict, every dictator, and every insurgency everywhere in the world is somehow critical to our national security. That is the thinking of an empire, not a republic. It is the kind of thinking that this president shares with his predecessor, and it is bankrupting us and destroying our liberties here at home.”

He hasn’t changed one bit. But people’s foreign policy views change depending on what their media channel of choice is feeding them. And the media narratives are written depending on which party holds the White House.

If Bush had decided to attack Syria because the leader was gassing his own people, then conservatives, fed by Fox News, would be all for it; and the liberals, fed by all the other networks, would be denouncing it.

I’m glad that conservatives are coming out in opposition to a war with Syria. What concerns me is that people don’t have any discernment, and that they’ll believe whatever their favorite media network tells them.

What if a Republican becomes president next, and he’s no better than Obama when it comes to foreign policy or the preservation of the 2nd and 4th Amendments (and all the rest) here at home? Will conservatives see through the propaganda that will most certainly be used by the media to sell tyranny to us? They’ll use the same excuses of “security and safety.” And I fear that most people who identify themselves as conservatives will swallow it, hook, line and sinker.

The sooner people get away from this phony “republican vs. democrat” dichotomy, the better off we’ll all be. We should be electing people who want to do the right thing, not the “Republican” thing. Think Rand Paul, Ted Cruz or Justin Amash. Sure, they’re Republicans. But to them, party affiliation is secondary to the Constitution.