Posted on 03/01/2011 7:16:55 AM PST by Walter Scott Hudson
We caught up with Congressman Ron Paul after his speech at the Tea Party Patriots American Policy Summit in Phoenix over the weekend. One of the themes of that speech was that America cannot impose democracy upon the rest of the world. However, unaddressed was whether America ought to protect allies who are free and wish to remain so. Here was our follow-up with the congressman.
NRB: David Horowitz and others have been critical of the effect that your foreign policy would have upon Israel... How would you describe a libertarian vision for alliance that could support democracies where people want to determine their own course while under threat by external forces?Ron Paul: We've been involved a long time, since World War II, especially since we've inherited or developed our empire. We strongly supported all the dictators that surround Israel, and sometimes we buy peace and pay for it. But it's unstable. And that instability has always been a threat to Israel. Now, when it's coming apart, and our financial system's coming apart, Israel is in worse shape than ever because of our so-called protection.
I believe in non-intervention. I believe we should treat all other countries alike, and that we should be friends. Israel is very, very powerful. If we weren't in there, they could do what they want to protect themselves, and they wouldn't have to ask us permission, and we would never have to be dragged in if something happens over there. I think they'd be much better off, and that would be a constitutional position...
(Excerpt) Read more at newsrealblog.com ...
I believe in non-intervention. I believe we should treat all other countries alike, and that we should be friends. Israel is very, very powerful. If we weren’t in there, they could do what they want to protect themselves, and they wouldn’t have to ask us permission, and we would never have to be dragged in if something happens over there. I think they’d be much better off, and that would be a constitutional position...
............................................................
More often than not the U.S. in in the position of restraining the Israelis. I for one am sick of that. This quote by Paul would sound so much better on the ears of this voter if many of his followers weren’t raving, anti-semitic, 9/11 loonies.
The man is truly delusional.
If we weren’t in there, they could do what they want to protect themselves,
Our money funds their existence. Without that they would all be dead or living in the US.
It would be a lot wiser to simply state that we need to stop restraining the only truly free friend we have in the mideast and stop paying protection to Israel’s enemies.
Saying that they’ll be untouched was just plain dumb.
Yep, isolationism is the way to go.
Just think how peaceful the world would be if we did not try to stop Germany, Japan, and Italy in the 40’s.
(massive sarc).
Can someone help me understand? I’m a fundamentalist Christian but I can’t understand why there’s so much focus on “what’s best for Israel”. That seems to be some kind of litmus test candidates have to air their stances on. And I know that preachers seem to talk about this a lot too.
MARK
History didn't begin with WWII.
If the US hadn't entered WWI, there wouldn't have been a WWII, at least not in the form we know.
No Hitler, maybe no communist Russia - how much less blood-soaked the 20th century would have been without the unconstitutional, immoral meddling in foreign affairs on the part of the US?
Standing up for the only truly free nation in that region isn’t all that hard to understand.
Its no different than standing for freedom of Europe in WWII. Unfortunately we didn’t stand for that freedom till Europe was firmly in the grip of the nazis.
Freakin idiot.
“History didn’t begin with WWII.”
But it’s a good example of what happens when you take an isolationist approach to world affairs.
And, not just on the part of the U.S..
England and France took the appeasement approach to Hitler too. Their inactivity upon Hitler’s move on Belgium, Austria, and Poland did not keep war away from their territory.
And U.S. inactivity would not have kept it away from here either. I’d argue Japan was partly encouraged by the initial lack of U.S. involvement in Europe.
If Israel is massively dependent on U.S. welfare (which it is), it should be surprised that U.S. might “restrain” it from to time.
Hey, if you want to give your OWN money to support Israel, fine and dandy. Knock yourself out. All I ask is that you keep your hands out of my wallet. Deal?
You can’t spenn Moron without Ron.
I can provide a couple of very basic answers:
- The Bible says “Pray for the peace of Jerusalem!” - Psalms 122:6
- The Bible says “I will bless those who bless you, and I will curse him who curses you; . . .” - Genesis 12:3 (this is an unqualified promise that God gave to Abraham, the Father of the Israelite nation)
I agree 100%.
And WWI from what I’ve seen and read was absolutely ridiculous.
Because of WWI & WWII Western Man and his nations are literally going extinct.
;-)
Inactivity on Poland? Chamberlain made a guarantee to Poland in 1938 and went to war once Germany attacked Poland in 1939. So did France. How did the Poles make out at the end of the war, btw?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.