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 ...
Why do you think there may not have been a revolt in Russia if we hadn’t fought in WW1?
Let me so presumptious as to answer your questions. Once the U.S. entered, Wilson high-pressured the Kerensky government to stay in the war. Had Kerensky, on the other hand, pulled out of the war, Lenin would have never come to power via his popular campaign for “Peace, Land, and Bread.”
I understand, that makes sense. It’s just that you hear politicians and preachers going on about how we have to stand for Israel. It seems to be an important point with political campaigning. And sure, we should support them as a democracy in the ME. At the same time, couldn’t the same thing about, “We support Poland” be spoken with as much fervor as well?
I know that some people have said that supporting Israel is our duty because if we bless Israel the US will be blessed. But honestly, I don’t see that really panning out like they claim. The US is in deep #$%$. Heck, look at who’s in the White House. I don’t know.
I think with Israel its a case of them being the most directly threatened. Of course we stand for the freedom of Poland...and Australia, Japan, South Korea etc.
Of those nations only Korea faces a direct threat and its not really the same threat. The North Koreans don’t want to exterminate the south Koreans the way the muslim world seeks to exterminate every last Jew.
In recent years much of the world has bowed to pressure from radical leftists and muslims in their own nations and have boycotted the Israelis as a means of destroying them economically. As much as I dislike it, our economic aid is very much a defensive weapon.
As I stated in my previous post, it's a good example of the unintended consequences of meddling in the affairs of other nations on the part of the US.
Interwar US "isolationism" had nothing to do with the build-up to WWII in Europe. How WWI ended made the European part of WWII inevitable.
England and France took the appeasement approach to Hitler too
Many historians believe, as do I, that the military build-up by Britain in the year of "appeasement" between the Munich Agreement and the invasion of Poland was what allowed Britain to hold on after the fall of France. Britain went a long way towards going into total war mode in that time - Germany didn't really do the same until after Stalingrad.
The difference in military strength between Britain and Germany in September 1939 was much smaller than the difference in September 1938.
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
Japan's only motivation for military action against the US was to weaken US military forces in the pacific long enough for them to seize and secure sources of raw materials denied to them by the US-led trade embargo. Absent that embargo, and (to a much smaller extent) absence of US meddling in the Japanese invasion of China, there would have been no war between the US and Japan.
Read what Paul says in Romans about Ingrafted Branches.
Sometimes he does make a lot of sense ....
The revolt would have taken place regardless of whether the US intervened in that conflict - the US entry had little effect on the war by October 1917.
My thinking is that an undefeated Imperial Germany may have decided to take on the communists after the end of fighting with the Allies, and, had they done so, would probably have defeated the reds before they consolidated their power.
Resistance to communist rule, with little outside help, continued well into the '20s in Russia. Had this resistance recieved meaningful outside help, the bloody scourge of international communism may have ended then (no obama!!!).
Bingo Mr. Libertarian!
Islamic extremism goes back to the 7th Century, way before Bush and the "Jooos" made Ron Paul wet his diapers.
If spending tax money is not really an issue for Ron Paul, then it must be because Israel is inhabited by "the joooos" right?
Libertarians are the kissing cousins of Anarchists. Since the Palestinian terrorists rely on outside support to inihilate an entire race of people, don't count on Ron Paul to have a long term view on a civilized world.
Anarchist only rely on today.
I’m not sure the Germans would have won without our aid, and I’m really not sure they would have invaded Russia had they won. Further, international communism (ie: the soviet revolution) was funded by British “Fabian†socialists both financially and philosophically. Without the fall of Russia there would have been another test bed for their power mad ideology.
Semi-agreement on both counts.
Germany may not have won, but it's very doubtful that the allies would have defeated Germany without US intervention. My guess is there would have been some kind of negotiated settlement in the summer of 1918, after the German spring offensive had failed. Without the hope of fresh US forces, I don't see the French & British as being willing to prolong that bloodbath any further.
Germany was hostile to communism because of the problems it was causing them late in the war, was hostile to Russia because of the war they had just fought, and was very aware of Russia's weakness. Like I said earlier, just powerful support for the resistance to communist rule may have been enough to drive the reds from power in the earlier stages of the communist revolution.
I note that you don’t provide any evidence for your strange theory. Thus is always the way of people who use emotion and hysteria rather than logic.
Please give my regards to your race-baiting friend, Al Sharpton. BTW, once you climb out the gutter with Al, you might want to address the point that Paul's two favorite heroes are two "joos" (your word), Ludwig Von Mises and Murray Rothbard. Then again, you don't want the facts to confuse you too much. It feels so much better to wallow in the gutter with the likes of Al, doesn't it?
I don't mind posting the obvious if this is what you want.
Wanna go thru a list of topics where Libertarians and Anarchist agree on, then compare that with Conservatives? It will be quite brutal.
Ludwig Von Mises and Murray Rothbard are two of Ron Paul's favorite heroes who are also Jewish. Well that should inoculate Ron Paul from all of his Stormfront associations and anti-Israel/Anti-American comments he has been making for the past 10 years right?
Boy, you’re really going off the deep end. You have absolutely no evidence that Ron Paul has stormfront associations and know it. Put up or shut up. Oh...btw, do you also believe that all conservatives who oppose affirmative action are “associated” with vicious Nazis just because Nazis also oppose affirmative action?
Ron Paul and owners of Stormfront - "Put up" time!
Wow, don't you Paulhroids know anything about your own idol?
Question for all you Paulhriods....
Why have we not seen a big "Neocon" movement in America supporting sending troops to all these Arab revolts and "Nation Build"? Ron Paul and his band of Paulhroids claim this about Conservatives 24/7 with absolutely no proof. Put up or shutup!
Also, can the Paulhroids comment on why Wikileaks has yet to reveal the Bush operatives and/or Mossad team who committed 911?
You’re getting even more desperate. It was a typical candidate photo op with the crowd. He didn’ t even know who they were. Thank God, you’re not a judge!
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.