Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: Kucinich Questions U.S. Involvement in Expanding Conflict in Syria: “Is This Why We Need A Tax Increase?”

Posted 1 year ago on Dec. 3, 2012, 12:33 p.m. EST by TrevorMnemonic (5827)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

November 28, 2012 - Congressman Dennis Kucinich (D-OH), who led Congress to limit our intervention in Libya, today warned that following the same Libya playbook in Syria would lead to similar chaos, wider conflict and increased instability in a volatile region of the world. He questioned, “Is this why we need a tax increase? More money for more war?”

The full text of his remarks follows.

“The same geniuses who involved the U.S. in a war against Libya, who knocked off the pro-U.S. Libyan government, who created in Benghazi an extremist shooting gallery which has claimed four American lives including our ambassador, who have not been held accountable or responsible for those events, who have opened the door for radical fundamentalists to run roughshod over Libya -- these same ‘experts’ are working out of the same playbook for Syria.

“Assad was no angel, but he was not a significant threat to the U.S. Apparently, flush from the ‘success’ in Libya, the Administration is preparing to ratchet up the war in Syria. Why?

“Would Qatar, our partner in Libya, be supplying surface-to-air missiles to rebels in Syria without the support of this Administration?

“NATO, meaning the U.S., discusses putting missiles in Turkey which could create a de facto no-fly zone over northwestern Syria, expanding the war.

“Is this why we need a tax increase? More money for more war? Really?”

31 Comments

31 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 3 points by Ache4Change (3158) 1 year ago

What is going on in Syria is all about what they are planning for Iran! Also please see William Blum - http://www.nationofchange.org/blogs/william-blum/anti-empire-report-1344786444 . Occupy Peace!

[-] 2 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 1 year ago

Iran is their prize in the center.

Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, Lebanon, Somalia, Iran.

Whether it's destabilization through covert ops and sanctions or full out war, which ever gets them their results.

Oliver Stone nailed it in the movie W - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UnFlsjhpGfw

And big oil definitely stayed in Iraq. Along with the thousands of hired mercs protecting "US interests"

People in the US are still falling for the WMD lies.

[-] 2 points by Ache4Change (3158) 1 year ago

Wow! What a video clip! Everyone should watch this. Occupy Cold, Hard Truths! Never Give Up Striving For Peace! Thanks for posting. Solidarity & - http://www.nationofchange.org/us-escalation-against-iran-would-carry-high-cost-global-economy-1353161949 .

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by Shule (1976) 1 year ago

May we note it was the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq which "broke the camel's back" and got us into this economic situation we are in in the first place.

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 1 year ago

The war in Afghanistan is still happening. They finally just pulled out the surge troops a short while ago. Roughly 68,000 troops still there.

Big oil stayed in Iraq.

Wall Street was a huge contributor to the economic situation as well.

[-] 2 points by Shule (1976) 1 year ago

Yes, most true, the wars in the Middle-East have not abated, and it looks like they're not going to stop any time soon. And meanwhile, here in the U.S. while our government stokes those fires of war, we are wondering where all our money is going. A lot of air play is given to those Wall Street machinations making for our economic situation, but when it comes to the Middle-East with its wars being key drivers in our economic demise, I find the press stunningly silent, OWS quiet, and much of the public out there failing to make the link.

[-] 3 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 1 year ago

I've been talking about the wars on this forum for a long time. I often get attacked and downvoted for it.

Look at all my comments on here for example.

One of the purposes of the wars is to drain the government of tax revenue to further crush the people. Along with war profiteering and control of resources for profit. War is the ultimate tool of the 1%

War is not a humanitarian effort and the corrupt are trying to tell us it is.

[-] 3 points by Shule (1976) 1 year ago

Same here. Keep posting. So will I. Hopefully somebody out there may be listening.

[-] 0 points by freakyfriday (179) 1 year ago

Not nearly as costly as the derivatives driven market meltdown with subprime mortgages thrown in. Google national debt and see how it has grown. Most of the 8 yrs of bush were bad, but it skyrocketed after the crash and hasn't stopped that pace in O's 4 years. O has racked up more debt in less than 4 yrs than W did in 8 yrs of a 2 country war.

[-] 1 points by Shule (1976) 1 year ago

O also attacked more countries and fostered more wars than W. O's war spending is higher than W's.The financial drain from war has not abated under O. It is just not in the news 'cause O is better at PR.

but do the research. I believe you will find that the derivatives meltdown and the subprime mortgages were helped on by an already fickle economic environment brought on by trying to finance debt created largely by overseas wars.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (28150) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Let us instead - Beat our Drones into plows - and tractors - and water treatment/purification centers - Solar collectors - and wind farms - and deep well water pumps - and clean non-fossil fuel and power industries - and...........................................

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 1 year ago

Makes sense to me. I'd like to see more money spent on building our cities instead of blowing up others.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (28150) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Exporting health and prosperity in aid rather then death and destruction - send out aid that actually removes the cause of most strife - lack of ability - lack of resources to support communities in all of their varied forms - a high-tech community is not needed to support healthy living - not world wide anyhow - modern working technology can be clean and basic in nature to successfully support and build society ( living centers ). There is need for high-tech production facilities and such - but they do not have to be located in any one spot or run in a dirty irresponsible manner. What needs to happen is the clean operation of business/industry and the proliferation of clean green simple infrastructure.

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 1 year ago

Great. Now package it into trade reform and include that all trade policies must abide by American labor standards. Brings jobs back to America and raises poor standard working conditions with outsourced labor.

We could also in a sense back currency on new infrastructure, which is real wealth. "One of the ways inflation is caused is when new money is created without the creation of new wealth." - Dennis Kucinich. One of the main reasons we need the NEED ACT. The proposal would also establish fiscal integrity, reassert Congressional sovereignty and regain control of monetary policy from private banks.

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (28150) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

A trade agreement should begin with requirements - environmentally responsible - living wage for all workers - safe working conditions - no more then 40 hours per week worked. But it should continue on - in the trade can not undercut domestic business.

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 1 year ago

Yah definitely with you 100% on that! I should have included that American labor standards need to improve, as you mentioned, as well as be applied to trade agreements.

what are your thoughts on backing currency on infrastructure? In a way it makes infrastructure repair and creation a top priority as the more we have the more wealth there is. It's like being able to create gold. Think about it. I really can't stress enough how awesome HR 2990 is.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (28150) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

I don't know how that would work = currency/infrastructure. I think a profits cap would be useful - at a certain point money/profit is taxed - unless reinvested in expansion upgrades more personnel etc.

???

One thing I also know about our international relations - is - we have got to stop sending billions of dollars in aid - and instead buy products and equipment from USA business to send instead. Products to meet the need and equipment that they can set-up and use going forward.

[-] 1 points by rayolite (461) 1 year ago

GATT & NAFTA need rescinding.

TrevorMnemonic wrote: "Great. Now package it into trade reform and include that all trade policies must abide by American labor standards. Brings jobs back to America and raises poor standard working conditions with outsourced labor."

Both are treasonous because they remove US law from US territory.

Americans don't even realize that the gulf oil leak occurred under international law created by the wto

That is why the EPA "told" BP to not spray corexit when it normally "orders" corporations to cease environmentally destructive activity.

All this is why I work for an Article V convention. So that adequate authority IS invoked to get things done.

[-] 1 points by nomdeguerre (1775) from Brooklyn, NY 1 year ago

NAFTA is null and void. It was never passed with the constitutional supermajority.

I always wondered how BP got away with ignoring the EPA (as well as taking over the beaches, etc.).

[-] 1 points by rayolite (461) 1 year ago

If that is the case, why did a NAFTA tribunal hear the methanex v the united states case relating to the California ban on MTBE?

http://www.iisd.org/pdf/2005/commentary_methanex.pdf

It seems that the tribunal, surprisingly, in the end did make a decent decision. However in the beginning, defenses citing US and California law were outright rejected.


OTTAWA, ONTARIO - Chapter 11 of NAFTA has once again shown itself to be a threat to the capacity of governments to regulate chemical hazards and protect the environment.

Earlier this week, a NAFTA tribunal ruled that Methanex, a Canadian firm seeking $1 billion in damages over California's decision to phase out a gasoline additive it produces, must present more evidence to substantiate its claim that the state's measure was politically, not environmentally, motivated. The Tribunal has given Methanex 90 days to submit further evidence.

"The tribunal should have slammed the door on Methanex," said David Robbins, Trade Campaigner of the Council of Canadians. " There is still the chance that Methanex could win its case, and this would be a major blow on the ability of any government to legislate to protect the environment and the health of its citizens."

After studies showed that the MTBE gasoline additive in question was contaminating ground and surface water, Governor Gray Davis ordered a phase-out of the additive by the end of 2002. Methanex, who produces the methanol needed to manufacture MTBE, argued that the state didn't make that decision on environmental grounds, but to favour Illinois-based Archer Daniels Midland Co. (ADM), who produces ethanol, a competing product.

Methanex amended its original claim by stating that Governor Davis's decision was motivated by political contributions received from ADM. The tribunal's decision stated that Methanex might have a point, but simply didn't have enough evidence to prove it at this time. Incredibly, it granted Methanex more time to make its case.

"These shenanigans only go to support our claim that NAFTA's investor-state provisions open the door for all sorts of abuse and should simply be scrapped," said Robbins.

The Council of Canadians and the Canadian Union of Postal workers launched a lawsuit last year challenging the validity of NAFTA's private enforcement regime as unconstitutional. The groups expect to file evidence in support of their application this fall.________

That the tribunal was allowed to render judgement, is in itself, a usurpation of US law in US territory.

[-] 2 points by nomdeguerre (1775) from Brooklyn, NY 1 year ago

There's no question that NAFTA is an attack on our national sovereignty. The fact that it was never passed constitutionally simply means that when the will is there is can be easily scrapped.

[-] 2 points by rayolite (461) 1 year ago

I agree. Exactly where was the effort to have it pass tests of it's constitutionality. And yes, Article V would have the authority to legally manifest the will to rescind.

[-] 0 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 1 year ago

Treasonous? What are you even talking about?

It's illegal for companies to just bring guns, drugs, and other shit in. They have to abide by rules. Applying labor standards on imports is not treason. It's like applying for a permit to sell goods.

Care to back up your wild claim with a response?

[-] 1 points by rayolite (461) 1 year ago

Yes, treason. Why? NAFTA usurps US law in US territory. It's all substantiated with facts above.

[-] 0 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 1 year ago

What I'm talking about is not NAFTA.

You know about the history of diamonds? We banned that horrid abuse, mostly. The USA can apply standards to goods imported to this country. What it would essentially do is make the point behind outsourcing pointless. It would make keeping the jobs in the USA more cost effective once you factor in shipping costs.

If you want to sell goods in this country, employees cannot be exploited. Goods should not be accepted from places that exploit people and have poor labor conditions. That's all I really have to say about that.

[-] 0 points by rayolite (461) 1 year ago

NAFTA & GATT have a lot of indirect influence on what you discuss when allowed to usurp the constitution. Civil and human rights are one step closer to annihilation when the wto is allowed to exist with authority serving corporate goals.

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 1 year ago

Dennis has been right on these wars year after year.

People need to start listening to this man's wisdom and peace will follow!

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Kucinich supports this sidelining of Al Qaeda elements in the Syrian rebels.

http://news.yahoo.com/syrian-rebels-create-unified-military-command-112904331.html

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Too bad the republicans silenced his congressional voice by redistricting his sorry ass right out of congress.

Bernie is still there. Look to him for some influence on our corrupt representatives.

[-] 3 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 1 year ago

Too bad the majority of Democrats never sided with Dennis's "sorry ass" when he tried to impeach Bush. And yes I know republicans wouldn't do that either.

While republicans were leading the bogus redistricting to get him out, the majority of democrats left him hanging out to dry year after year as he proposed amazing and groundbreaking legislation, just like republicans did on those policies.

And in regards to people to look up to, don't forget Alan Grayson. He's one of the few bold enough to not give a fuck about politics and say what needs to be said. "What happened to all the money?" he asked the Bush and Obama appointed Ben Bernanke.

Just look at Ben Bernanke and watch the majority talk about monetary policy. We have a Wall Street majority government.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

I love Kucinich. I trust his judgement. I will point out to you he was on the progressive caucus with only Dems and independents (No republicans) And Dennis voted with the Dems 90% of the time.

He knew what was right and wrong. He knew that the parties were vastly different.

And he never compared Pres Obama to nazis, so he does have some intelligence AND class.

[Removed]