Tag Archives: Military Force

Ron Paul: Europeans Oppose NATO War With Russia

While the North Atlantic Treaty Organization beats war drums and the media propagates opposition to Russia, a new survey shows that the majority of the European people oppose NATO war with Russia.

The poll, conducted by PEW Research shows that populations in these countries are firmly against war with Russia even if Russian forces attack a NATO member country.

In his latest Liberty Report, three-time presidential candidate and former Texas Rep. Ron Paul discussed the poll findings, his thoughts on NATO and war with Russia. “One disappointing thing was that more than the majority of the American people and the Canadian people were for getting engaged and sending troops,” Paul said. “That’s not the case in Europe.” Paul also noted that the poll shows older people skewing in favor of intervention while younger people are more pro-peace.

I think one of our problems is that we creep into war, and it’s not done by accident,” Paul explained. An example of this creeping is yesterday’s vote in Congress to raise the discussion on whether or not we should allow President Barack Obama the authority to use military force in the war on the Islamic State. Moreover, the sanctions imposed on other countries by the U.S. government is essentially an act of war, he said.

Though there may have been some questions on the economic impact of taking on Russia over Ukraine, sanctions don’t seem to be opposed. The U.S. pushed for broad new sanctions against Russia at G-7 in April of last year, and Truth In Media reported on a new series of sanctions against Russia by the U.S. and European Union last July.

I think the people, maybe too often, maybe in Canada and in the United States, they get their opinions from FOX and MSNBC,” Paul said. “And they sort-of preach this doctrine that we have these obligations to go and fight these wars. But it really doesn’t solve what our country ought to do with NATO. I’m afraid NATO is going to be with us for a very long time. I see it as only a tool for our propaganda.

Paul has been vocal in his position against NATO for years and has cited former Sen. Robert A. Taft’s reasoning for opposing the creation of the NATO alliance from the start.

And NATO is only expanding. Liberty Report co-host Daniel McAdams pointed out that the alliance is building a new headquarters with a hefty price tag. In spite of this, McAdams cited statistics showing U.S. opinion of NATO is shifting toward disapproval.

Paul again reinforced the idea that putting tough sanctions on a country is an act of war. “There was another figure I thought was interesting about how militant the Russians are now, how they’re ready to come, ‘the Russians are coming’,” he explained. “. . . and here, the people closest to them aren’t too worried about it.” If you examine military expenditures and consider who is spending the most, the U.S. reigns supreme. Second is China, followed by Saudi Arabia and then Russia.

It’s perpetual war for perpetual peace because we are the good guys and we’re after the evil doers and we’re an exceptional nation,” Paul said. “It puts us in a tough spot because there is so much greatness that has been associated with America and the advancement for the cause of Liberty. But I can’t argue that the advancement for the cause of liberty has been very good for the past 100 years. But these people that argue the case that because of our greatness and we protect liberty—and you can make a case for the evil doers ISIS—but think of who does more beheadings than ISIS. It happens to be Saudi Arabia. So this is the problem, and this also opens up the door for advancing our cause and our foreign policy, which is the traditional American foreign policy. It is one that the founders advised.

Watch the full episode above and check out more episodes of the Ron Paul Liberty Report here at Truth In Media.

In case you missed Ben Swann’s Truth In Media episode on ISIS watch it below:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o6kdi1UXxhY

Obama Preparing to Send Congress Request for Official Military Force Against ISIS

The White House is expected to send a resolution to Congress on Tuesday, requesting the clearance to use military force against Islamic State militants in Iraq and Syria.

According to Reuters, the Obama administration’s “failure so far to seek a formal Authorization to Use Military Force for the campaign” has left some members of Congress concerned that it “overstepped the president’s constitutional authority.

The Associated Press noted that so far Obama has relied on the resolution Congress passed in 2002, authorizing President George W. Bush to use force against Iraq, which is something “scores of Democrats have regretted” and something Obama “used as a cudgel against his rivals to win the Democratic presidential nomination.”

Representative Chris Van Hollen, a Democrat from Maryland, said that he and his fellow Democrats were not going to just write Obama a “blank-check.”

Some want to give the executive a blank-check, and there are others, including me, who want to limit the war-making authority, especially with U.S. ground combat forces,” said Van Hollen. “Will it narrow it to Iraq and Syria, or allow operations in other countries?

Senator Orrin Hatch, a Republican from Utah, said he disagreed with anyone who wanted to limit the use of ground troops or to put an expiration date on authorization.

Most importantly, the authorization should not impose any artificial and unnecessary limitations such as those based on time, geography and type of force that could interfere with our strategic objective of defeating Islamic State,” Hatch said.

Senator Brian Schatz, a Democrat from Hawaii, said that although he has been “clear in opposition to boot on the ground,” he does want to see what the White House has proposed.

It’s traditional and expected for an administration to articulate their strategy to the Congress, so we want to give them a chance to do so,” Schatz said.

According to Reuters, the leader of the House of Representatives’ Democrats, Nancy Pelosi, released a statement last week saying the White House “would seek an authorization that would last three years,” but has not decided on “the geographic scope of an authorization or what limits would be placed on combat troops.”

Although the United States began carrying out airstrikes against ISIS in August, Obama has said that he will not authorize the use of ground troops to fight ISIS, and he will instead rely on a coalition that includes Iraqi forces and Syrian rebels on the ground.

Obama’s strategy regarding ISIS has been criticized by U.S. officials, such as former U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates, who said he finds Obama’s resolve to completely destroy ISIS, both “unrealistic” and “unattainable,” and that instead of being pre-occupied with “today’s crisis,” the United States should be looking at its long-term strategy in the Middle East.