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.
I find it interesting, when a chance to vote to pull the troops out of Iraq came along, Paul didn’t bother to vote! He could have stood up and been counted! It was voted down 403 to 3.
FINAL VOTE RESULTS FOR ROLL CALL 608
H RES 571 RECORDED VOTE 18-Nov-2005 11:33 PM QUESTION: On Agreeing to the Resolution BILL TITLE: Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that the deployment of United States forces in Iraq be terminated immediately
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2005/roll608.xml
Listen, turkey. You questioned OBL’s “responsibility” for 9/11. If you question that “responsibility” then you must believe he acted on the behalf of others, and must have some opinion who they are. And I’m not referring to his organization. OBL is the head of Al-Qaeda. You claim he “played a part”. Well, who else do you believe “played a part”? And again, we’re not talking about his organization. Who do you believe was in control if not OBL/Al-Qaeda? Explain yourself.
I explained myself thoroughly in the last 20 or so posts.
Try reading each response I posted a little bit slower, ok?
It’s all right there, right in front of you.
Yep! It sure is, Truther.
“Osama and Zawahiri have taken credit for 9/11. It was planned by their number three, Kahilid Mohammad (spelling probably wrong) that we have had in custody for several years now. al Qaeda has put how videos of some of the 9/11 hijackers giving their final statements.”
Thanks for providing that info...Sounds like you re more hip to the particulars than I am.
Of course, If Paul becomes president and Gitmo is closed, what becomes of Sheikh Mohammad?
Just a might gratuitous there, counselor.
What Paul said was: "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."
I said: "Why? Germany didn't attack us."
He didn't say anything about a declaration which is, at worst, a statement of intention, i.e. words.
I say we build an extra room at Paul’s residence in Houston and let him reside with Paul’s wife. See how he likes that monster that close to his loved ones.
I thought he might become Secretary of State, seeing how Paul is so adamant about dialog with Muslim extremists.
Have you forgotten that you are a Ron Paul supporter?
The donation dedicated to you likely pushed him over the $6M mark.
“I would miss those two cents.”
Sorry to hear that. Perhaps if you got to keep a little more of your tax money.....
When are the Paulestinians on FR going to wake up? This guy is a dangerous and naive joke.
Not all agree with his stance on the WOT. To many it’s more his Constitutional stance than anything. That said, the fact he’s doing so well monetarily may be clouding their better judgment. That or they believe all the attention equates to a growing enchantment for libertarianism. Both are very misleading, IMO.
.
“I’m pretty sure that one of the Paulistinians recently informed me that a neo-con was nothing more than a globalist who supports Israel.”
From what I hear, neo-con is just a code word for ‘the jews’.
George Washington didn’t face the same problems we face today.
The time limit comes under the direct income tax to fund wars. Only in times of war may they tax income directly..so they have to limit or re-authorize the direct income tax to fund the war.
All these issues are debated and have been debated throughout our history. Does the government have the authority to tax income directly? Or do they only have the authority to tax during times of war?
Do you know which undeclared war was the longest in the history of this nation? It lasted about 40 years.
I agree that the exec branch must have the power to be minutemen in national defense. We cannot rely on CONgress to make snap judgements in such matters. Yet, when this nation is attacked like in 1941 and 2001, we must nail down those CONgresscritters by making them either vote for war or against war. This way they cant weasel out of it by saying “Yes I authorized the act but didnt authorize such an action.”
Either they are for war after being attacked or are not. That is my point.
Just another way of saying: “Grab ‘em by the b*lls, and their hearts and minds will follow”.
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.