Ron Paul on Libya War Escalation – Congress AWOL

The Obama Administration announced yesterday that it would begin a sustained bombing campaign against ISIS in Libya. The Administration said it was acting in response to a request by the Libyan “Government of National Accord,” which was created by the UN rather than voted in by the Libyan people. Asked about the scope of this new US war on Libya, Pentagon Spokesman Peter Cook said, “We don’t have an end point.” Thus far Congress has been silent on this new war. We are not silent, however. Tune in to today’s Ron Paul Liberty Report:

Reprinted from The Ron Paul Institute for Peace & Prosperity.

3 thoughts on “Ron Paul on Libya War Escalation – Congress AWOL”

  1. Liberals ,conservatives and progressives need to put ideologies behind and form a coalition to demand change. Just exercising our right to vote will change nothing.We will continue to get blow back in the form of terrorism as long as we do not change the foreign policy in the Middle East which goes back to Sykes -Picot and the aftermath of World War One.The Neoconservatives and the Neoliberals have created madness and mayhem in the world today.Real change will happen only if resources are available for all in a co-operative capitalistic way that raises the standard of living for all rather than the few.We now have socialism of the rich and low productivity with the standard of living becoming more about quantity rather than quality.

  2. My view of “civilization” as a label, is that anthropologists and historians mark the turn from a tribal group who can kill members of another tribe in war, they become a culture. When the leaders of the culture can kill members of their culture without fear of punishment they have become ‘civilized’.

    The use of puppet governments is long established. The term ‘satrapy’ is ancient. Herod the Great became king and ruled FOR Rome with the backing of Rome, with the only qualification that he not interfere with the goals of the Empire.

    The modern Israel is such a satrapy, the difference being the name of the Empire. And Libya the same way. A refinement of the French and British formula to rule in North America. The English were more aggressive with the colonization. But the War Churchill called the real first world war, the Seven Years War, which was also fought in America as the French and Indian wars with lots of publicity to the White armies… but it was mostliy fought among Indians, on behalf of the European emergent dictatorships errrr ummm.. “Empires”.

    So now, it’s illegal under the Constitution and international law, which is a set of Treaties ratified by Congress, thus having the full weight of Law as the Constitution itself under Articles 4 and 6. … to simply unilaterally start a war. Libya as a nation hasn’t attacked the United States as a nation, although they have plenty of reasons such as the United States taking hostile actions against them.

    How to reconcile that with the restrictions on unilateral war?
    Back a “revolution” in the target state, back a “provisional government” like the current coalition and the “governing body” then “asks on behalf of the people” to intervene.

    Josephus wrote that Herod had done the exact same thing. Also Herod II who took up the challenge to “out-Herod Herod”.
    Revolt against the Herods was revolt against Rome and vice versa.

    All that has changed is the name of the empire. And the new Empire has the physical ability to destroy life on earth.

    The essence of Liberalism is supposedly inclusivity , what the Republicans call the Big Tent. (yes, people of color are welcome, the Big Tent has an entrance at the back with a sign saying “servants”) But like all doctrines, Liberalism falls short.

    The Empire has flaws, fatal ones, that will cause it to implode. Like Rome. Like hundreds of archaeological tourist nations. Behold the Wonder and Power of our former Empire! Ozymandius am I, King of Kings,
    Gaze upon my works, ye mighty
    and tremble.

    My fervent hope is the Empire falls before actually destroying the world.

    1. Civilisation has also been described as two warring states declining to use total war against one another.

      And I think the belief that man has a soul, rather than merely being a “human resource” is also significant for civilisation.

      And we’ve retained our honouring of private property and certain rights as part of our civilisation, though our government only selectively enforces the law. So, I believe we’re becoming a society ruled by men rather than by laws.

      Your example of the US ignoring the Constitution when declaring war is very good.

      I’ve read books on this topic, but sadly there’s no wikipedia for me to cite with a better reply. I do believe we are in trouble, and I do fear the destruction of the world. America has become Atlantis.

Comments are closed.