MASSIVE MILITARY SPENDING BILL ESCALATES INTERVENTION, EVADES DEBATE
|| By RON PAUL ||On Friday the House passed a massive National Defense Authorization for 2016 that will guarantee US involvement in more wars and overseas interventions for years to come. The Republican majority resorted to trickery to evade the meager spending limitations imposed by the 2011 budget control act – limitations that did not, as often reported, cut military spending but only slowed its growth.
But not even slower growth is enough when you have an empire to maintain worldwide, so the House majority slipped into the military spending bill an extra $89 billion for an emergency war fund. Such “emergency” spending is not addressed in the growth caps placed on the military under the 2011 budget control act. It is a loophole filled by Congress with Fed-printed money.
Ironically, a good deal of this “emergency” money will go to President Barack Obama’s war on ISIS even though neither the House nor the Senate has debated – let alone authorized – that war! Although House leadership allowed 135 amendments to the defense bill – with many on minor issues like regulations on fire hoses – an effort by a small group of Representatives to introduce an amendment to debate the current US war in Iraq and Syria was rejected.
While squashing debate on ongoing but unauthorized wars, the bill also pushed the administration toward new conflicts. Despite the president’s unwise decision to send hundreds of US military trainers to Ukraine, a move that threatens the current shaky ceasefire, Congress wants even more US involvement in Ukraine’s internal affairs. The military spending bill included $300 million to directly arm the Ukrainian government even as Ukrainian leaders threaten to again attack the breakaway regions in the east. Does Congress really think US-supplied weapons killing ethnic Russians in eastern Ukraine is a good idea?
The defense authorization bill also seeks to send yet more weapons into Iraq. This time the House wants to send weapons directly to the Kurds in northern Iraq without the approval of the Iraqi government. Although these weapons are supposed to be used to fight ISIS, we know from too many prior examples that they often find their way into the hands of the very people we are fighting. Also, arming an ethnic group seeking to break away from Baghdad and form a new state is an unwise infringement of the sovereignty of Iraq. It is one thing to endorse the idea of secession as a way to reduce the possibility of violence, but it is quite something else to arm one side and implicitly back its demands.
While the neocons keep pushing the lie that the military budget is shrinking under the Obama Administration, the opposite is true. As the CATO Institute pointed out recently, President George W. Bush’s average defense budget was $601 billion, while during the Obama administration the average has been $687 billion. This bill is just another example of this unhealthy trend.
Next year’s military spending plan keeps the US on track toward destruction of its economy at home while provoking new resentment over US interventionism overseas. It is a recipe for disaster. Let’s hope for either a presidential veto, or that on final passage Congress rejects this bad bill.
Ron Paul is a former U.S. Congressman from Texas and the leader of the pro-liberty, pro-free market movement in the United States. His weekly column – reprinted with permission – can be found here.
Hey Ron…you and Muslim Obama can celebrate…Ramadi just fell. Baghdad is next.
Hey Ron…you and Muslim Obama can celebrate…Ramadi just fell. Baghdad is next.
Ron Paul and Obama overthrew Saddam?
And Iraq was like Switzerland in 2008.
God overthrew Saddam for gassing the Kurd children with the WMD’s he didn’t have.
“the main reason we went into Iraq at the time was we thought he had weapons of mass destruction. It turns out he didn’t,”- GW Bush
Apparently a pressure cooker bomb is a WMD, so I guess Bush was right.
lol…well, some, like fc, try to argue the old chemical weapons stockpiles were “WMD”- which is completely laughable because:
#1 Bush & the CIA already knew about them.
#2 That wasn’t the actual argument at the time
“If the post-2003 discovery of a decaying chemical weapons program could serve as proof that the invasion was justified, the Bush White House would have seized the opportunity to proclaim so. By 2005, CIA weapons inspectors concluded in a 92-page report that the WMD investigation had “gone as far as feasible” and found no evidence of an active weapons program. The CIA report included an addendum: “military forces in Iraq may continue to find small numbers of degraded chemical weapons — most likely misplaced or improperly destroyed before the 1991 Gulf War.”
“W” = God?
Yawn. Iraqis killing Iraqis. Oh my. They’ve only been killing thousands of each other every month since 2004. Maybe what we could do is sell both ISIS and the Iraqi government more stuff, and let them have at it. Oh that’s right Flip, in your view Iraq was Switzerland of the Middle East in 2008 – a tranquil, happy democracy where everyone lived a high lifestyle, there was never any violence, farmers tended sheep with smiles on their face, everyone had unlimited electricity and water and 129 cable channels 24/7. If the Shi’iates in Iraq don’t have the balls for the fight, I suspect even Iran is sick of them. Anyone living in the dream world that the US people are willing to sacrifice one single US kid for those people, are kidding themselves.
Praise Allah and the prophet Muhammad! LMAO!!!
Ole stick your head in the sand Ron is still trying to be relevant, what a sad case of delusion.
One thing He always gets right: “Government is not the solution, government is the problem!” – president Ronald Reagan’s first inaugural address.
And in 1983 that old fool got around 300 marines and other military personel killed in Beruit
Shortly afterwards that old fool swore vengence, promptly sailed away never to return and the place is still a fucked up mess.
Reagan knew where to pick his fights I’ll give him that (Grenada and the inevitable fall of the Soviet Union – no matter who was prez)………………
In a perfect world, Ron’s total non-intervention policies make a lot of sense. Unfortunately our world is far from perfect. I question the continued intervention in the Middle East sand box, as we’ve been fighting over the same sand for the past 20 years on and off and have accomplished very little.
Maybe a compromise is order. Pull back and protect our Allies in the region (Israel, Turkey, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, etc) and let the rest of the savages take care of killing each other. Apparently all they understand are brutal dictators. As soon as they are given an opportunity to self govern they turn on each other like rival hornet colonies, until a new dictator takes over and starts wholesale killing to keep them in check.
Communist/Fascist Dictatorial Cambodia all over again. … Half the population killed and it ain’t over yet.
Let’s see… Iran was doing pretty well until that coup we helped pull off in 1953 to boost BP’s profits. We supported Tunisia’s dictator in the “war on terror”; we gave all kinds of awful weapons to Saddam Hussein. So, they only become savages when they upset neocons, or affect the bottom line of defense contractors and big oil?
???97$ hourly Make Online@mg14//
Actually, better stated, in a less-than-perfect world, Ron Paul’s non-interventionist foreign policy makes TOTAL sense. Imperialism is not the only legitimate response to a less-than-perfect world, and is, in fact, the worst response imaginable if peace and stability is the goal.
Thru the travail of ages……the same ol’ strife I see…..for I have fought under many names and many guises ……but its always been me..! No man has ever won a WAR getting killed, he won the war by getting troops on both sides to realize that BIG OIL is the only one that is the real winner. So……how does Wil Folks defeat “J.R. Ewing” and let his readers cheers for something in Mosul or Darfur or Mogadishu….?