Posted on 12/19/2007 5:34:25 AM PST by 50mm
Ron Paul is the only Republican presidential candidate saying we should get our troops out of Iraq now. Here's more of my edited interview with the congressman.
Some people say that if we don't attack the enemy there, they'll attack us here.
Ron Paul: I think the opposite is true. The radicals were able to use our bases in Saudi Arabia and the bombing of Iraq (from 1991 to 2001) as a reason to come over here. If China were to do the same thing to us, and they had troops in our land, We would resent it. We'd probably do some shooting.
Is this case not different? Religious fanatics hate us and want to kill us because of our culture.
I don't think that's true. It is not Muslim fanaticism that is the culprit. The litmus test is whether we are actually occupying a territory. In the case of Saudi Arabia, that was holy land.
Many say the surge in Iraq is succeeding, that we're at a turning point now, and we are creating a model of democracy in a part of the world that hasn't seen that.
That's the propaganda. I don't happen to believe that.
And if in most of Iraq, some religious fanatic comes to power and has money to buy nuclear weapons, we should just leave him alone?
The Soviets had the technology. They were 90 miles off our shore, and they had nuclear weapons there. But we were able to talk to them. We took our missiles out of Turkey. They took the missiles out of Cuba. We should be talking to people like this. It's the lack of diplomacy that is the greatest threat, not the weapons themselves.
You say we shouldn't be the world's policemen. Isn't it our responsibility to help others?
It's OK for us to personally help other people. But to go around the world and spread democracy -- goodness, no -- too many unintended consequences. It usually requires force. I think we should only do those things under the prescribed conditions of the Constitution.
Is war ever justifiable?
Sure. If you're attacked, you have a right and an obligation to defend (your) country. I do not believe there is ever a moral justification to start the war.
So in World War II, we were justified?
Sure.
How about going into Afghanistan after Sept. 11?
I voted for that authority to go after those responsible for 9/11.
The Korean War?
Totally unjustified.
Kosovo?
Absolutely unjustified.
Vietnam?
A horror.
The first Iraq war? Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait. He might have invaded the next country, and the next.
I bet Israel would have done something about it, and I bet Saudi Arabia maybe would have talked to Israel. I think if it would have been left to the region, they might have taken care of Saddam Hussein in 1990 and we wouldn't have the problems we have today.
What if there's genocide and terrible suffering in a country?
It's a tragedy, and we can have a moral statement, but you can't use force of arms to invade other countries to make them better people. Our job is to make us a better people.
You'd pull American troops out of Korea, Germany, the Middle East, everywhere?
I would. Under the Constitution, we don't have the authority to just put troops in foreign countries willy-nilly when we're not at war.
If North Korea invades South Korea, we should just leave it alone?
Sure, but it's not going to happen. South Korea's about 10 times more powerful than North Korea.
If China invaded Taiwan?
That's a border war, and they should deal with it.
If Canada invades Montana?
I think that might be a little bit different. Montana probably could take care of it, but we'd probably help them out from Washington if that happened.
That's a role for the federal government?
Oh, sure.
Next week: Ron Paul on subsidies to special interests.
“Maybe OBL should go back to Saudi Arabia and tell the government why he is opposed to the United States being there.”
Maybe he should have...but the fact remains (if one is to believe he is responsible for the 911 attacks and if one is to believe what he wrote) he took other actions.
I guess you missed the irony. The United States is an INVITED GUEST of the government of Saudi Arabia, in contrast the only reason the Saudi government would ever want to see OBL again is to kill him.
I believe you are correct in your judgment. Mecca is in Saudi Arabia, but Saudi Arabia as a whole is not “holy land” per se. If it were, the Saudi government would have violated their own religion by inviting us there.
This entire issue underscores Paul’s naive and misguided understanding of world affairs and international law. And yet we’re called stupid and ignorant for not bowing to his brilliance.
Osama, living in Afghanistan to avoid arrest in his former home country (SA revoked his citizenship), didn't like it.
Bush I recognized the authority of the then current goverment of Saudi Arabia, clearly Paul gives Osama a role.
Should a popular spokesman of the Aztlan movement make a similar statement, I presume Paul will give him quasi official status as well. And if they're incensed over our occupation of California, heck, let them have it.
===============
Huckabee’s response to Ron Paul’s fascism comes to this country, it will be wrapped in the flag, carrying a cross comment regarding his Christmas greeting ad.
"I will confess this: If you play the spot backwards it says, 'Paul is dead. Paul is dead. "
As I explained earlier, there are no American forces in any of the holy sites in Saudi Arabia and there never have been. Nevertheless, can you provide a source for any statement prior to the fall of 1990 where OBL made any mention of this?
If the Arabs can’t get their shit together and protect themselves.... well...they get what they deserve.
Right, then MoRon Paul can be president of a country that is living in the dark ages under a cloud of nuclear fallout.
Of course, we could take the lefty approach (being adopted by the Free Republic Ostrich Brigade) and ignore reality...perhaps saying, "well, their reason is stupid and based on wrong information, so we'll pretend it's not real"--OR, you can face the fact that their reason is there, whether it's valid or not.
John Hinckley thought that shooting Ronald Reagan would endear him to Jodie Foster. You might give all the reasons in the world why that was a stupid and wrong belief, just like you can explain we were invited by the monarchy of SA, but that wouldn't have made President Reagan bulletproof.
And, I might add...just because you know the reason for Hinckley's actions, doesn't mean you have to give in to him and take the bullet. Understanding irrational opponents is in our best interests, not something that controls us.
Wow! I can't believe I missed this little gem in my earlier response to you.
You obviously have at least reservations as to who was behind 9/11. Maybe you can enlighten us as to who you think is responsible.
So just because this nutcase with no moral authority says so, the World should listen? I guess if you're another nutcase like Ron Paul, that makes sense.
RP merely believes that there were enough military powers in the area, between the Arab States to nullify Saddams efforts to occupy Kuwait. let the friggin Arabs deal with that jerk. What was he gonna do? Blow the oil wells?
That's just Paul's opinion and one not shared by most of the World leaders (including those of Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and other gulf states). And, yes, Hussein DID sabotage the oil wells after the first gulf war.
Oh, now it's obvious. We have a Truther in our midst. Well. That puts a whole new slant on where you're coming from.
You are a lunatic.
Are we welcoming Truthers here now, Admin Moderator?
There is none.
The Aztlan movement has stated on numerous occasions that we (gringos) are occupying Aztlan land.
Every bit as legitimate of a stateless former Saudi terrorist.
As to the confusion who represents Saudi Arabia, that can be found between Ron Paul's ears.
Aw, you got there first by a few seconds I’d imagine. Yes, we apparently have a Truther among us. Who’d have thought it since these people have nothing to do with the Ron Paul campaign beyond monetary support, and Ron Paul in no way espouses their beliefs.
“Again, it doesn’t matter whether the reason has legitimacy or justification, it’s the reasoning of what so many FReepers call an irrational group. So you’d think that these same FReepers would be able to connect the dots and realize that “reasons” of “irrationals” probably won’t always coincide with American conclusions.”
“Understanding irrational opponents is in our best interests, not something that controls us.”
___________________________________________________________
Thank you.
My approach certainly would not have been “moral” by the standards of many freepers. I would have just liquidated the bunch of them with neutron bombs. I would have had no second thoughts or qualms about it.
The only “standard” that would have had to have been met would be “What method would cost the fewest losses of American lives”. Every option would have been on the table.
If we can’t count on our so called “friends” the Saudis to cover their own collective asses....well then I suppose they can be counted as collateral damage. Now we have this latest “mess” in Iraq that has been going on for 17 years and has cost tens of thousands of American lives as well as a bazillion taxpayer dollars. Had we nuked them 17 years ago....any petty whining from the UN and others would have been long since smothered.
We need oil. Let the Saudis and neighboring Arab states know that if they can’t protect their own ASS(ets) then they can count themselves among the crispy. Oil is sold on the world market. they can’t cut the spigot off because we’ll go in and smoke them anyway...
Don’t try too hard to get the nutjob banned yet, I need a little comedy and I’d love to hear who he thinks is responsible for 9/11. I mean it couldn’t possibly be that Islamofascists who trained in OBL’s terrorist training camps and were seen getting on the four planes were behind all this . . . there has to be some big “conspiracy” which was probably cooked up by “globalists” who were no doubt doing the bidding of the “Zionists.” Then again it could have all be Halliburton’s doing.
” Wow! I can’t believe I missed this little gem in my earlier response to you.
You obviously have at least reservations as to who was behind 9/11. Maybe you can enlighten us as to who you think is responsible.”
____________________________________________________________
I believe OBL was in large part responsible...there are some on this site who think otherwise. I have no idea who’s reading this.
Okay then, who else do you think is responsible?
But in a recent post you bring into question whether OBL was actually responsible for 9/11. Are you now stating you'd have "liquidated the bunch of them with neutron bombs" not knowing who was responsible?
Not trying to get him banned. Just trying to get a straight answer.
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.