Ron Paul, le bon sens et la rigueur de pensée    notre traduction rapide

The horrific attacks in Paris on Friday have, predictably, led to much over-reaction and demands that we do more of the exact things that radicalize people and make them want to attack us. The French military wasted no time bombing Syria in retaliation for the attacks, though it is not known where exactly the attackers were from. Thousands of ISIS fighters in Syria are not Syrian, but came to Syria to overthrow the Assad government from a number of foreign countries — including from France and the US.

Les attaques de Paris ont provoqué des sur-réactions et des surenchères qui aboutissent à  que l’on fasse exactement tout ce qui conduit à la radicalisation des gens  et fait qu’ils veulent encore plus nous attaquer. Les militaires français ont bombardé en réponse aux attaques, bien que l’on ignore d’ou venaient les responsables de ces attaques.

Ironically, the overthrow of Assad has also been the goal of both the US and France since at least 2011.Because the US and its allies are essentially on the same side as ISIS and other groups – seeking the overthrow of Assad – many of the weapons they have sent to the more “moderate” factions also seeking Assad’s ouster have ended up in the hands of radicals. Moderate groups have joined more radical factions over and over, taking their US-provided training and weapons with them. Other moderate groups have been captured or killed, their US-provided weapons also going to the radicals. Thus the more radical factions have become better equipped and better trained, while occasionally being attacked by US or allied planes.

La plupart des armes qui ont été livrées aux modérés pour renverser Assad sont dans les mains  des radicaux. Les modérés ont rejoint les groupes radicaux avec leurs armes. Les fractions radicales sont ainsi mieux équipées, mieux entrainées.

Does anyone not believe this is a recipe for the kind of disaster we have now seen in Paris? The French in particular have been very active in arming even the more radical groups in Syria, as they push for more political influence in the region. Why do they still refuse to believe in the concept of blowback? Is it because the explanation that, “they hate us because we are free,” makes it easier to escalate abroad and crack down at home?

Les français ont été très actifs pour armer ces groupes, même les plus radicaux, car ils veulent regagner de l’influence dans la région. Les Français ne comprennent pas le concept de « blowback », de « retour de baton ». Leur explication selon laquelle « ils nous haissent parce que nous sommes libres » est un peu courte.

It may not be popular to say this as emotions run high and calls ring out for more bombing in the Middle East, but there is another way to address the problem. There is an alternative to using more military intervention to address a problem that was caused by military intervention in the first place. 

Au lieu d’utiliser les interventions militaires, lesquelles sont la cause de la situation, il faut essayer une alternative.

That solution is to reject the militarists and isolationists. It is to finally reject the policy of using “regime change” to further perceived US and western foreign policy goals, whether in Iraq, Libya, Syria, or elsewhere. It is to reject the foolish idea that we can ship hundreds of millions of dollars worth of weapons to “moderates” in the Middle East and expect none of them to fall into the hands of radicals.

Cette alternative consiste à rejeter le militarisme, à cesser de vouloir changer les régimes politiques des autres. Il faut abandonner l’idée folle que l’on peut expédier des centaines de millions de dollars d’armes aux modérés et espérer que ces armes ne tomberont pas dans les mains de  radicaux.

More bombs will not solve the problems in the Middle East. But a more promising approach to the Middle East is currently under fire from the isolationists in Washington. The nuclear deal with Iran ends UN sanctions and opens that country to international trade. Just last week the presidents of France and Iran met to discuss a number of trade deals. Other countries have followed. Trade and respect for national sovereignty trumps violence, but Washington still doesn’t seem to get it. Most presidential candidates compete to thump the table loudest against any deal with Iran. They will use this attack to propagandize against approving trade with Iran even though Iran has condemned the attack and is also in the crosshairs of ISIS.

Les bombes ne résoudront pas les conflits et problèmes.  Le commerce et les accords commerciaux sont une voie plus prometteuse, on le voit avec ce qui se passe avec l’Iran.

Here is the alternative: Focus on trade and friendly relations, stop shipping weapons, abandon “regime change” and other manipulations, respect national sovereignty, and maintain a strong defense at home including protecting the borders from those who may seek to do us harm.

Voici l’alternative : il faut se concentrer sur le commerce, et les relations amicales, cesser les expéditions d’armes, abandonner les tentatives d’imposer  des  changements de régime politique, respecter les souverainetés nationales et s’assurer d’une défense solide de son territoire  avec protection des frontières.

We should abandon the failed policies of the past, before it’s too late.