35 votes

Non-Interventionism in the Spanish Civil War - And Syria

Pat Buchanan remembers America's non-interventionist stand in the Spanish Civil War, and ties it in to Syria:

In 1936, as the Spanish war erupted, FDR spoke for his country: “We shun commitments which might entangle us in foreign wars; we avoid connections with the political activities of the League of Nations. … We are not isolationists except insofar as we seek to isolate ourselves completely from war.” ...

As America and Britain stayed out of the Spanish Civil War, so today America and Britain have stayed aloof from Syria’s conflict. ...

The Spanish Civil War ended in Franco’s victory in 1939 and ended well for the Western democracies that had not intervened.

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/bashar-al-as...



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

distraction from detractors to divide...

focus on Ron Paul campaign matters; if you feel a need for distraction please do it elsewhere; people should come to Daily Paul for the name sake matters. Put media news elsewhere--

I say: if you can't make it better, don't make it worst!

I'll try to be brief...

Beyond any reason of a doubt, Stalin had the firm purpose of establishing a Soviet regime in Spain, if he failed to do so it wasn't because he didn't try with all his might.

You have to damage some people to get your people in. I really can't tell why this is so hard for you to understand given Stalin's genocidal credentials (Ukraine, 1933) and the bellicose circumstances; with military conflagrations building up all over the Western hemisphere, added to the International vocation of the Communist manifesto and the ruthless seize of actual power by Communists in Spain; to comprehend the last sentence you need to be aware of how a police force operates in a war zone.

Where I'd agree with you, is that P. Buchanan seems to be making a case for yet more U.S. intervention, which is very sad from someone who used to criticize Empire building. Buchanan's deductions are fallacious, but his historical premises are true. You don't attack a true premise, you attack the faulty judgment.

As you correctly point out, the U.K. and the U.S. are already acting on Syrian ground, pretending otherwise is both disingenuous and the custom of the Military Industrial Complex.

Militarily, Joseph Stalin has now more in common with Barack Obama than with Vladimir Putin.

Thus, the moral, fundamental problem with Buchanan's analogy, is that roles have changed; the U.S., not Russia, is now the expansionist Empire sending troops everywhere under the most wacky of pretenses (U.S. Invasion of Grenada, 1983). And even if it doesn't sell anymore east of the Hudson, Imperialists like P. Buchanan understand the military addiction and the need for a narrative. Which they'll be happy to exchange for a lot of inflated paper bills.
-------------------------------------------------
UPDATE:

MY MOST SINCERE APOLOGIES to Buchanan, I'm not going to change what I wrote above (that's against good forum etiquette), but I must correct my mistake: reading the article all over again, I realize that P. Buchanan is not calling for U.S. intervention but exactly the opposite: "Non-intervention in the Spanish Civil War worked out just fine."

WOW, this time I really got carried away!, SORRY PAT, I'll have an Irish -whiskey- as atonement for knee-jerking on your article (I usually prefer Scotch). On the other hand, what D. Robertson indicated is still sound: there might be an innuendo of denying any present U.S. involvement in the conflict, which is untrue, but considering my crassly error I'll give Buchanan a break of sorts.

"OK Shaggy, you and Scoob check out the cave, me and the girls will stay here in the cabin"
~ Fred

The Abraham Lincoln Brigade of the Spanish Civil War

During the Spanish Civil War (1936-39), 2,800 American volunteers took up arms to defend the Spanish Republic against a military rebellion led by General Franco and aided by Hitler and Mussolini. To the Abraham Lincoln Brigade, which fought from 1937 through 1938, the defense of the Republic represented the last hope of stopping the spread of international fascism. (For a general overview of the Spanish revolution, click here.) The Lincolns fought alongside approximately 35,000 anti-fascists from fifty-two countries who, like themselves, were organized under the aegis of the Comintern, and who also sought to "make Madrid the tomb of fascism." In keeping with Popular Front culture, the Americans named their units the Abraham Lincoln Battalion, the George Washington Battalion, and the John Brown Battery. Together with the British, Irish, Canadian, and other nationals they formed the Fifteenth In- ternational Brigade. ("Lincoln Brigade" is a misnomer originating with an American support organization, Friends of the Abraham Lincoln Brigade.) One hundred twenty-five American men and women also served with the American Medical Bureau as nurses, doctors, technicians, and ambulance drivers.

continue: http://www.writing.upenn.edu/~afilreis/88/abe-brigade.html

It's a shame we didn't stay out of WWI and WWII also

It's a shame we didn't stay out of WWI and WWII also.

Our reluctance for involvement in the Spanish Civil War.......

.....and WWII was a direct consequence of WWI.

The Spanish Flu epidemic which killed millions began right at the end of WWI: "The influenza pandemic of 1918-1919 killed more people than the Great War, known today as World War I (WWI), at somewhere between 20 and 40 million people. It has been cited as the most devastating epidemic in recorded world history. More people died of influenza in a single year than in four-years of the Black Death Bubonic Plague from 1347 to 1351. Known as "Spanish Flu" or "La Grippe" the influenza of 1918-1919 was a global disaster.

In the fall of 1918 the Great War in Europe was winding down and peace was on the horizon. The Americans had joined in the fight, bringing the Allies closer to victory against the Germans. Deep within the trenches these men lived through some of the most brutal conditions of life, which it seemed could not be any worse. Then, in pockets across the globe, something erupted that seemed as benign as the common cold. The influenza of that season, however, was far more than a cold. In the two years that this scourge ravaged the earth, a fifth of the world's population was infected. The flu was most deadly for people ages 20 to 40. This pattern of morbidity was unusual for influenza which is usually a killer of the elderly and young children. It infected 28% of all Americans (Tice). An estimated 675,000 Americans died of influenza during the pandemic, ten times as many as in the world war. Of the U.S. soldiers who died in Europe, half of them fell to the influenza virus and not to the enemy (Deseret News). An estimated 43,000 servicemen mobilized for WWI died of influenza (Crosby). 1918 would go down as unforgettable year of suffering and death and yet of peace. As noted in the Journal of the American Medical Association final edition of 1918:

"The 1918 has gone: a year momentous as the termination of the most cruel war in the annals of the human race; a year which marked, the end at least for a time, of man's destruction of man; unfortunately a year in which developed a most fatal infectious disease causing the death of hundreds of thousands of human beings. Medical science for four and one-half years devoted itself to putting men on the firing line and keeping them there. Now it must turn with its whole might to combating the greatest enemy of all--infectious disease," (12/28/1918)."

continue: http://virus.stanford.edu/uda/

Well it didn't work out

so well for the *Spanish* now did it? Or for the
French or Brits who were at war with Germany
within a year of the fascist victory in Spain?

Sorry, but Buchanan is on drugs or something (and none of
the good ones) in his analysis of Spain - even if he is more
or less right about Syria. The supposed parallels that
he draws between the two situations have only a tenuous
relationship to any reality beside the one that exists
in Buchanan's head.

The "non-intervention" that he talks about translated to
an arms embargo - supposedly against both sides in the
conflict, but in reality one-sidedly against the Republican
side - which was the legitimate elected government, after all.
The Republican government couldn't even buy arms while
the most modern armaments and other support poured
into the Nationalist rebels from Nazi Germany and Italy.

Germany and Italy sent arms and combat units to support
the Nationalists (Franco) ignoring the embargo. The USSR
and Mexico were the only countries actively providing aid
to the Republican side. This meant the Republicans had to
take the Soviet assistance and the Soviets used the opportunity
to ruthlessly go after various factions on the Republican
side such as the Anarchists, Trotskyites & etc.(IIRC, they
also stole the Spanish gold reserves)

The International Brigades who volunteered to fight for
the Republic were came from over 50 countries
and the American survivors were, as Buchanan notes
placed on watch lists as "subversives".
Neocon chickenhawk fairweather non-interventionist
Buchanan makes that sound like a good thing, when he
isn't fit to shine the boots of those volunteers...

Ask not for whom the bell tolls, Patrick J...

the Wikipedia entry on the Spanish Civil War is pretty extensive:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Civil_War

also -

nonfiction

The Spanish Civil War by Hugh Thomas

Fiction

For Whom the Bell Tolls (book by Ernest Hemingway, film with Gary Cooper)

Behold a Pale Horse (film with Anthony Quinn and Gregory Peck, book by ?)

Yet we gt involved

In ww2. I suspect that was all semitic. There was no reason for us to get involved in Europes dirty little war except the Zionist have much power in the US. Germany never delcared war on the US till after pearl harbor I believe. Also I doubt Germany would have attacked the US on behalf of Japan. It makes no sense. We were arming most of Europe and feeding them before we got involved officially. Also it is a well known fact that our Government knew the attack on Pearl Harbor was going to happen. The zionist jews have had much power in the US for far too long, dragging us into wars to save them, just like with Israel. Most of the Middle East has Israel in its cross hairs and look who did not invite Ron Paul to a debate? AIPAC. Know Ron Paul is a big supporter of ending foreign aid, even to Israel. I believe we got dragged into WW2 because of the Zionist influence in our country, long standing influence. The often spouted line about no one knowing what Germany and for that matter Europe was doing to the jews again, was all lies. They knew, people higher up knew and the world was not that slow in getting information around. The Zionist knew and got us involved. All we got out of Europe was communism spreading and the western part of Europe fell to communism light, known as socialism. No one won anything in WW2. The world lost. Zionism took more control in our government and it took more control else where with communism.

"But you must remember, my fellow-citizens, that eternal vigilance by the people is the price of liberty, and that you must pay the price if you wish to secure the blessing." - Andrew Jackson

This article is wrong in many respects.

Historically, according to George Orwell, who actually fought in Spain on the side of the anti-fascist forces, Stalin did not go to the aid of the government and Orwell was shocked by his purely pragmatic non-interventionist attitude. He also excoriated the British ruling class for their propaganda support of the Franco nationalist forces.

It is very likely in my view that FDR was also supporting Franco with his non-interventionist rhetoric since he was in fact itching to get involved in a looming European wide conflagration in the very near future. It was he also who advised Chamberlain to sign the Munich Pact since he knew at that time resistance to the Nazis would cause them to back off their demands that in time would lead to the wider war that FDR wanted.

The article also states: "As America and Britain stayed out of the Spanish Civil War, so today America and Britain have stayed aloof from Syria’s conflict."

Nothing could be further from the truth. They have been up to their oxters in subversion using their proxies in the Free Syrian Army along with al Qaeda elements from their war in Libya to undermine the Assad regime. As the saying goes the road to Teheran runs through Damascus.

http://landdestroyer.blogspot.co.uk/2012/06/russia-west-purp...

And let us not forget the revelations from four star general Wesley Clark in 2007 that these invasions of "seven countries in five years" had been planned as long ago as the 1990's. This is a critical video to watch: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=MMAON...

"Jesus answered them: 'Truly, truly, I say to you, everyone who commits sin is a slave to sin. The slave does not remain in the house forever; the son remains forever. So if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed.'" (John 8:34-36)

Actually, you are wrong in various aspects

I was somewhat shocked to read your comment:
"Stalin did not go to the aid of the government and Orwell was shocked by his purely pragmatic non-interventionist attitude."

Stalin did not go the aid of the -Republican- government, Stalin got heavily involved in the Spanish Civil war in the pursuit of establishing a -Soviet-Communist- regime.

I beg you to quote one sentence where Orwell (pen name of Eric Arthur Blair) describes Stalin's attitude as "pragmatic and non-interventionist". Quite the contrary.

George Orwell on the persecution of the POUM (Party of Spanish Trotskyites) and the assassination of Andres Nin (their leader) by Stalinist forces during the Spanish Civil War:

In August an international delegation headed by James Maxton M.P., went to Spain to inquire into the charges against the P.O.U.M. and the disappearance of Andres Nin (...) Those responsible are not the heads of the police, but their entourage, which has been infiltrated by the Communists according to their usual custom.'

He cited other cases of illegal arrests by the police. Irujo likewise declared that the police had become 'quasi-independent' and were in reality under the control of foreign Communist elements. Prieto hinted fairly broadly to the delegation that the Government could not afford to offend the Communist Party while THE RUSSIANS WERE SUPPLYING ARMS.

When another delegation, headed by John McGovern M.P., went to Spain in December, they got much the same answers as before, and Zugazagoitia, the Minister of the Interior, repeated Prieto's hint in even plainer terms. 'We have received aid from Russia and have had to permit certain actions which we did not like.'

(George Orwell, -Homage to Catalonia-)
http://gutenberg.net.au/ebooks02/0201111.txt

Supplying arms, persecuting, torturing and murdering Spanish dissidents of the Soviet regime, is hardly a "purely pragmatic non-interventionist attitude", but rather a bloodily aggressive one.

"OK Shaggy, you and Scoob check out the cave, me and the girls will stay here in the cabin"
~ Fred

Thanks for the information

My recollection was that Orwell was shocked by Stalin's actions (or inactions) given the unequivocal support of the Germans and Italians for the Franco forces. I must maintain that Stalin did not go to the aid of the Spanish government. Orwell's thinking on the matter was that Stalin was being calculating and pragmatic and not supporting the Republican government to the extent he should have, which rings true to me. This is why I used the term non-interventionist. I suspect that American arms also ended up in Spain notwithstanding FDR's proclaimed isolationism. The warmongers never miss an opportunity to make a quick buck.

That Stalin would oppose the Trotskyites is no surprise but I was unaware of the physical involvement you mention. The event you describe sounds more like an opportunistic extension of the ongoing purge that Stalin was pursuing against Trotsky and his followers. At that very time in Moscow there were show trials going on for all the disciples of Trotsky who were being sentenced to death by Stalin. It is most likely that any aid given by the Soviets to the Republican government was in payment for access to the Trotskyites. This was not aid that was calculated to win the war and it is not evidence for Stalin intervening in the war per se. Stalin's mind was occupied most of all by his desire to rid the Soviet Union of any Trotskyite tendencies. There is nothing in my memory box to suggest that Stalin wanted to set up a Communist satellite in Spain and it doesn't ring true to me. Stalin was a Bonapartist not an internationalist. At least that is my take on it.

The Orwell essay I read on the subject was I believe written subsequently to Homage to Catalonia which I have not read. I generally give all my books away after a time so that particular one has gone and I can only speak from memory. I was an Orwell fan for a longish time and the Homage is one of the few of his books I haven't read. Down and Out in Paris is another although I have read excerpts. He was a great writer.

"Jesus answered them: 'Truly, truly, I say to you, everyone who commits sin is a slave to sin. The slave does not remain in the house forever; the son remains forever. So if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed.'" (John 8:34-36)

You're welcome but you are still denying the documented fact

Which is that Stalin (USSR) DID INTERVENE in the Spanish Civil War, intensely and very, very aggressively.

To the extend of taking control over the entire Spanish police in the "Republican" zone, a 'quasi-independent' body directed by Stalinist elements (read NKVD agents) which operated under direct orders from Moscow. In addition to supplying arms, financial support and other forms of aid in warfare. These facts being corroborated, among other authorities, by Manuel de Irujo, Minister of Justice in the Republican government during the Spanish Civil War, and shared at the time with national counterparts such as James Maxton (Labor Party, Member of the British Parliament) and John McGovern (Labor Party, Member of the British Parliament); both, Socialists like Eric Arthur Blair (George Orwell), the author of your devotion.

If you can read any Spanish, "Madrid, de Corte a Checa", by Agustín de Foxá, is a classic on the repressive apparatus under control of NKVD agents during the Spanish Civil War.
http://www.ciudadela.es/cream/?page=1&codigo=105019

In the the thread of comments above us, -Blue Republic- is well aware, apparently not you, of how the Soviets "stole the Spanish gold reserves":

1936
September 13
The government agree to send part of the national gold reserves to the Soviet Union. The gold is sent as security for future buying of war material from the Soviet Union.

October 24
First shipment of the Spanish Gold Reserves to the Soviet Union, which insists on having a security for selling armament and ammunition. Spain will ultimately send more than half its gold reserve to the USSR; at $35 per troy ounce the shipment was worth US$578,000,000.

October 27
The first Russian tanks arrive in Madrid. The heavily armored T-26 tanks, which weigh more than 10 tons apiece, drive from the central train station directly into battle.

November 2
The first Russian aircraft over Madrid surprise the Nationalist bombers. The Republican aviation had till now only a handful of obsolete machines, but today the people of Madrid can see the first Russian "Chatos" defending the city (...) some Russian aircraft are also shot down by Italian Fiats guarding the bombers. One Russian pilot suffers a horrible death: After his machine is destroyed by an Italian Fiat he saves himself with a jump out of his burning plane, his parachute brings him safely to the city, but he is lynched by a mob of furious citizens, who think he is a German Fascist from the Condor Legion.

(Spanish Civil War, Detailed chronology: 1936)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Civil_War,_1936

I could go on forever illustrating your twilight-zone concept of Stalin's "calculating, pragmatic and not supporting the Republican government, way of not intervention".

But I have a wife, a kid and a life, so I'll end up saying that it really baffles the mind that in the midst of this plethora of information, you assertively say that the article is wrong, which you go on to explain addressing "a personal recollection" as "history" that I prove wrong, and then, lacking any documented reference, you insist upon vague, putative notions of "Bonapartism". Are you serious?

"OK Shaggy, you and Scoob check out the cave, me and the girls will stay here in the cabin"
~ Fred

Thanks again for the history lesson.

Obviously I am wrong about the extent to which Stalin was involved in the war. However was his objective to assist the Republican government against the Nationalists or did he have other objectives?

I do appreciate all the facts you have provided, which I accept as proving beyond a shadow of doubt that you are far more informed on the subject than I am. However the same facts support the notion that Stalin's involvement was pragmatic and opportunistic rather than strategic as compared with Hitler's and Mussolini's. Wouldn't you agree?

The generally held opinion is that Stalin HELPED the Republicans and that Hitler and Mussolini HELPED the Nationalists in a kind of strategic equivalence. This is the opinion that is reflected in the article under discussion. Because I knew that George Orwell (I realise his name is Eric Blair but he always used the name George Orwell in public at least) was very disappointed with Stalin's actions and could not understand them I assumed that he did not HELP the Republicans as Hitler and Mussolini HELPED the Nationalists. This is proved by all the facts you have stated here. I called that "non-intervention" because that was my understanding of what Orwell had said. The "pragmatic" I will still believe to be true and the non-intervention I will modify to be "involvement for exploitative purposes". That seems to fit the facts much better. What do you think?

As I said I was not aware of all the "aid" given to the Republican government by the Soviets but it came at a price did it not? The gold was surely not "stolen" but was payment for the arms shipments by the looks of it. From the information you have provided Stalin also apparently took control of the security apparatus of the Spanish government which gave him access to the Trotskyite elements which we have agreed was part of his motivation for getting involved in the first place, in addition to selling arms to the Republicans.

So, it appears from what you have said that Stalin's "intervention" was not to strategically oppose the Nationalists which is the meaning one would normally place upon that word. It was rather an exploitation of the situation for other than strategic objectives which fits well with other material I have read about Stalin's thinking. I mentioned Bonapartist in response to the assertion that Stalin was interested in setting up a Communist satellite.

My understanding of 'Bonapartist" in the context of socialist ideology is that it refers to a national socialist rather than an internationalist like Leon Trotsky. In this respect Stalin as I recall always wanted to surround the Soviet Union with satellites to provide strategic depth for his totalitarian state and the idea of creating a satellite in Spain doesn't fit that picture.

Insofar as Orwell's socialism is concerned he always struck me as more of a romantic or idealistic socialist rather than a rigorous ideologue. I was never "devoted" to him (lol) I simply enjoyed his writing style and his thinking.

I do not pretend to be an expert on the Spanish Civil War but the statement in the article just sounded so wrong given my recollection of what Orwell had written. I still believe that the statement about Stalin's intervention is wrong in terms of equivalency. More especially I disagree with the statements in the article with regard to the "non-involvement" of the US and the UK in Syria. That was my real objection since I have a better understanding of that situation than I do of the Spanish Civil War. I now understand the latter much better thanks to your very interesting contribution for which I thank you.

"Jesus answered them: 'Truly, truly, I say to you, everyone who commits sin is a slave to sin. The slave does not remain in the house forever; the son remains forever. So if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed.'" (John 8:34-36)

You're welcome again although I don't mean to lecture anyone

Just pointing out the well known, simple facts that Buchanan got right and you got wrong, I'm also mistaken on occasion and I appreciate being kindly corrected. Whether policy parallels can be drawn or not to the Syrian situation is opinable.

As to your comments on the Russians not stealing the Spanish gold reserves, let me bring to your attention that historians such as Gerald Howson claim that "Stalin intentionally inflated the price of the supplies sold to the Republic by manipulating the exchange of Russian rubles to U.S. dollars and of U.S. dollars to Spanish pesetas, raising the international exchange rates up to 30% and 40%."

Are you acquainted with usury laws?, if charging up to 40% solely on interest of the currency exchange (plus the "market cost" of supplies) is not stealing, you tell me what is it. Although there's no such thing as a "just" interest rate, there are abusive rates that border confiscation. Furthermore, there were at least "0.4 tons of gold missing from the books"; about ten million of actual dollars simply vanished.

G. Howson is extremely informative on the subject, let me quote him again:

The Russians were not the only suppliers to cheat the Republic. The non-intervention policy, led by Britain, was a charter for gun-runners and conmen.

Even Poland, governed by a right-wing junta which admired Franco, sold the Republicans huge quantities of arms, often overpriced and obsolete. Polish officers afterwards claimed they had made the equivalent of £296m out of these deals. "Why should you worry?" one of them observed. "It's only to the Spanish Republicans!"

But the Soviet scam was special. As Howson writes: "Of all the swindles, cheatings, robberies and betrayals the Republicans had to put up with...this barrow-boy behaviour by Stalin and the high officials of the Soviet nomenklatura is surely the most squalid, the most treacherous and the most indefensible."

(How Moscow robbed Spain of its gold in the Civil War)
http://flag.blackened.net/revolt/spain/review_arms_gold.html

Yes, "involvement for exploitative purposes" seems to me a very apt definition for ABSOLUTE INTERVENTION by the Soviets. I only would object that you are missing the end game.

I reckon you are right on characterizing George Orwell's Socialism as a "romantic or idealistic Socialist rather than a rigorous ideologue." Not claiming to be an expert on Orwell, he never fitted anywhere, 'found himself out of step with his time and country, and in spite of his Socialist activism, he always defied authority (which is pretty weird among Socialists). I also take great pleasure in reading Orwell now and then.

"OK Shaggy, you and Scoob check out the cave, me and the girls will stay here in the cabin"
~ Fred

In return for your information on Spain.

"As America and Britain stayed out of the Spanish Civil War, so today America and Britain have stayed aloof from Syria’s conflict." Patrick Buchanan in the above article.

Here is a series of articles and videos on Syria that proves beyond a doubt that Mr. Buchanan is very wide of the mark with regard to non-intervention in Syria by the US and the UK:

http://landdestroyer.blogspot.co.uk/search/label/Syria

And here is another video of US four star general Wesley Clark speaking in 2007 of the Pentagon plans to invade seven countries in five years including Syria. By invasion it could mean by proxy forces with air support from NATO as in Libya:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=MMAON...

Even with regard to his comment about the Spanish Civil War Buchanan gave the wrong impression of actual events based upon the information you provided. He said "The war would last three years, with Joseph Stalin providing aid to the regime, Benito Mussolini sending troops to fight on the side of Gen. Francisco Franco, and Adolf Hitler sending his Condor Legion." This gives the impression of Stalin acting to support the Republicans against Hitler and Mussolini when in fact he was acting in a way that damaged the Republican cause taking advantage as he did of their weak position.

Stalin as we have seen did far more than "provide aid" he sold arms at inflated prices and in sequestrating the Spanish gold for the arms he gouged the Republicans. He infiltrated the Spanish security apparatus using the NKVD to round up and kill the Trotskyites. This must have been what horrified Orwell and his alluding to it in the way he did gave me the impression that Stalin had stayed aloof from the conflict when in fact his actions likely hastened the defeat of the Republicans. I do appreciate learning more of these incidents and your filling in the many blanks for me.

"Jesus answered them: 'Truly, truly, I say to you, everyone who commits sin is a slave to sin. The slave does not remain in the house forever; the son remains forever. So if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed.'" (John 8:34-36)

On the issue of FDR, that's

On the issue of FDR, that's sort of what I've 'latched onto'. I don't think anything FDR 'said' in this case was legitimate, it was all politics. Unpopularity of such involvements is normally high among the people, and as such, that's probably the case here. Of course, as always, when 'opportunity' arises(or in this case, provocation leading to a predictable retaliation), men like FDR have always seized upon them.

As far as I can tell, this topic is not implying otherwise to FDR, simply a statement from him at the time(at least I would hope most people on the Daily Paul know FDR's terrible foreign interventionism record)

You know, seeing FDR's quote

You know, seeing FDR's quote here reminds me how much him and Bush 'campaigned' alike, at least on 'foreign policy'.

This really strikes me because one of the most peculiar things you'll hear involving foreign policy(from those that are not truly 'non-interventionist', but playing political) is the current wars during their campaign 'must be ended', but once in office, it's open season. Why this is particularly striking is that the PEOPLE seem to follow suit, forgetting 'past sins' only for the sake of justifying new ones. I fear Syria is gonna be the next 'Iraq' if things go down this path.

CIA is planning a propaganda coup d'etat in Syria

I posted this earlier this week of a planned propaganda coup by the CIA in Syria very soon:

http://www.dailypaul.com/240020/bwho-is-the-deceiverb

"Jesus answered them: 'Truly, truly, I say to you, everyone who commits sin is a slave to sin. The slave does not remain in the house forever; the son remains forever. So if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed.'" (John 8:34-36)

Syria

Most of the reports coming out of Syria are complete garbage. They are taking quotes directly from the rebels(which include alqaeda) or so called 'activists' that have been caught lying. Google Danny the activists and Anderson cooper. Its amazing how far our media is going on this one to promote war. Barbara Walters Did a hour long interview with assad that's worth a watch... has not the monster they're describing. The Syrian government is fighting armed militias and terrorists... and we are constantly being told the rebels stories. Rt.com will often have balanced coverage on the issue. Supposedly supporting terrorism is a crime... so what's that make our govt for sending them weapons?

Did you really just cite Russia Today as an unbiased source?

BTW you realize you're criticizing western media for its biased coverage of the issue, and then you go on to quote Russia's establishment media source Russia Today? Iunno if you were aware, but Russia has historically been very supportive of Assad's regime. This is true even now.

Don't get me wrong, RT's a great news source and I really respect how they gave Julian Assange a platform, but RT is not a good source for unbiased information about Russia and its immediate allies.

not quite

Your right, i should have better clarified. RT is not only a Russian source, i believe is a government source as well and should be viewed, like every other source with skepticism. They are very biased when it comes to their own government. But on certain issues they have much better and unbiased coverage then what you see on our tv. On Syria they CITE their sources, have provided evidence for claims and unlike fox or can, have not spewed out straight propaganda. So, no one source is perfect but it worth checking out many and trying to pay attention to the source. For example, fox cited human rights watch for reporting atrocious acts by the Syrian government. They left out the fact the group is almost entirely funded by George Soros, and that the report they were citing, simply stated what each side of conflict was claiming. To the groups credit, they never claimed either side was more valid. But fox stated only the rebels side and made it seem like the report was claiming those things. So by rt being more unbiased, i meant on this specific issue, and although its betrue reporting, always view news with a skeptical eye, Russia does indeed have their own interests their.

i don't doubt some fabrication

Of stories on the part of the rebels, but it is a fact corroborated by multiple sources that the existing regime is torturing people to death, children even, and forcing doctors to treat people for the purpose of enabling them to be tortured again. I'm not saying we should invade, but the regime hires very evil thugs regardless of hyperbole on the rebels' side.

You need to read up on the history of CIA disinformation tactics

Multiple sources are easily fabricated when you have the resources that the CIA does. What you're describing is the precise sort of idiocy the CIA has used for decades as propaganda against whatever leader or regime they're trying to overthrow. It makes little to no sense that Assad would go to those lengths while he's under the scrutiny he's under and when such actions would only turn more people against him. Don't believe everything you read - even from 'multiple sources'.

What are the sources you're referring to btw? I'm curios to see if they're easily debunked.

Spare me the smarm

It makes little to no sense that Assad would go to those lengths while he's under the scrutiny he's under
Newsflash, Assad doesn't give a fuck. It's not a matter of top-down controlled army policy of torture, but rather, gangs and hired thugs being paid to terrorize people. This sort of stuff isn't unprecedented for the Assad regime--there are numerous recorded instances of full-on army crackdowns let alone localized gang terrorism. The city of Hama has been made an example of more than once due to the presence of the Muslim Brotherhood therein.. in 1982, and again in this year, the army performed full-scale massacres.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hama_massacre

He'd have his army perform full-on military invasions on his own citizens.. and you think he's concerned about "turning more people against him"? Please.

And of course, hired thugs torturing people--
http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2012/02/2012223215...
"Khani’s father was one of them. An eye doctor educated in France, he was taken by security forces to a porcelain factory where his eyes were torn out of his face. He was left to die in pain, Khani said. Tens of others in the factory-turned-detention centre were killed in various ways."

Clearly the Basma Atassi who wrote this article and Al Jazeera are both colluding with the CIA to make us all angry about the Assad regime, huh?

A huge example of thug torture that sparked quite a bit of unrest in Syria is that of Hamza al-Khatib, a 13-year old who was kidnapped at a protest. His beaten, castrated body was returned to his family after a month with a warning not to say anything.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/may/31/syria-unrest-tee...

This isn't just something fabricated by the CIA and carried by numerous news sources--Hamza was essentially martyred, putting a face to the resistance.

As for sexual torture, are you going to tell me Human Rights Watch is also one of the CIA's "resources"?
http://www.hrw.org/news/2012/06/15/syria-sexual-assault-dete...
The same HRW that in other cases would accuse the US of war crimes?What kind of CIA accomplice is that?

How about Amnesty International? Total CIA front source, huh?
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd...

I could go on but you get the idea. If these were just stories issued by the AP and then picked up everywhere else, you'd have a case, but all this is very widely documented from multiple angles that would have no interest in playing ball with the CIA.