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.
WTF are you talking about? There was an income tax imposed during the Civil War, but there was certainly no declaration of war then.
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?
I'm not saying I like it, but Amendment XVI is pretty clear:
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.
This was passed by Congress in 1909 and ratified in 1913, at no point during that time period was the United States at war. There is NOTHING in this amemdment that in any way suggests that it is for funding during time of war.
Can't do that. Weak stomach.
Don’t blame ya.
I think...Montana probably could take care of it
Lol, Take that, you canucks!
Muslim fanatics themselves publicly SAY they hate us, but I guess “Doctor Paul” knows they’re just joshing.
Listen, I play golf twice a week with guys just like Ron Paul. After the round, we sit around drinking beer and these old coots tell us how they would fix absolutely everything. It usually starts out with something like, “All you gotta do is .....”
They were turkeys when they were 30, and they’re still turkeys at 70.
Uh, check: Paul keeps donation from white supremacist: Aide: to take money and 'try to spread the message'.
Apparently a real stand-up kind of guy. I'll take your money but won't even consider representing your interests.
Or...
Which is it EEE? It this the kind of integrity you support in a President of the United States? Oh, I know. He takes the money to do good. That's really getting to be an old excuse. I hope it continues to comfort you. It doesn't comfort very many others of us here at FR.
Maybe somebody can explain why we ARE in Germany. Germany has the third largest economy (GDP) in the world, you know. The European Union together has the largest!
Why don’t they grow up and start spending a little more of their GDP on their own defense. Same for a lot of European countries.
Our country is getting ripped off.
I've pointed out to you that Alex Jones is just a radio show host, and his audience is more diverse than the conspiracy kooks.
Duncan Hunter was the first candidate to officially declare his presidential run.
Where was the support from grassroots conservatives then? Why did conservatives fall for the self-fulfilling prophecy that he "couldn't win" and waited around for Fred Thompson? Paul was also a Congresscritter with no name recognition. Could it be he got more support because more Americans are opposed to the war than what FR wants to believe?
I see our war in the ME against Islamic fascism as a retaliatory war. We didn't start this. They did. None of the evidence I've seen to date, and I've seen a lot, leads me to any other conclusion. We either go there and destroy them, or we WILL get hit again here.
DC, we retaliated. We all stood together after 9/11 and wanted heads on pikes. Our troops killed thousands of terrorists, collapsed AQ & the Taliban, and restored hope to Iraq and Afghanistan. How does remaining there help us here at home? We've been in the Middle East for six years now. If the "course" couldn't be completed within that time frame, what makes you think it'll be complete if we keep staying on it?
I don't like the way the war is being fought, but it still needs to be fought. Duncan, IMO, is the best man for the job.
I agree with you on Duncan Hunter. But you got regular joes starting to oppose the war now. My ultimate goal is to see Hillary defeated, and running on the war just isn't going to work.
What I'm trying to say is that the GOP is in some serious horse dookie right now. GOP primary voters may not vote for Paul, but his supporters won't vote for the GOP nominee in the general election. Paul won't run 3rd party but his supporters are going to fricking write his name in and swing the election over to Hillary. If the GOP wants to retain the WH, they better snap out of it and start reaching out to Paul.
Your comment is like saying Osama really isn’t a terrorist, he just appears on terrorist videos.
Read the rest of Benton's statement. He said that the donor has no chance of influencing Paul and is wasting his money. Here's Paul denouncing the white supremacists on PBS, so right back at ya - http://youtube.com/watch?v=Z_UBMO9XPec
Apparently a real stand-up kind of guy. I'll take your money but won't even consider representing your interests.
If some knuckle-dragger is dumb enough to donate money to me, well here's my checking account number, routing number...that doesn't make mean I'm in bed with white supremacists. It just means that I can finally afford to buy some Packer playoff tickets.
Another Convert On Iraq (Harry Reids loss)
captains quarters ^
Posted on 12/19/2007 2:59:17 PM EST by HD1200
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1941871/posts
When I see these posts I keep hoping it will be Ron Paul but no such luck.
Rush Limbaugh is the father of the modern conservative movement. He has also written several books. Hillary Clinton appears on his show. That makes her a conservative?
From a media standpoint, Alex Jones is no different than Rush or Mike Savage. He has his own radio show, which apparently means he has a job backed by corporate sponsors and he's not some bug-eyed guy in his basement transmitting over a ham radio. He has his audience of the populist left, independents, anarchist libertarians, and yes the conspiracy nuts. Yes, these groups make up a component of Paul's voting base, but for the most part Paul doesn't share their views.
Pat Buchanan and Judge Napolitano, among dozens of other celebrities and athletes, have also appeared on the Jones' show.
If Ron Paul isn't in it for the money as you posted here: How can Paul be in it for the money? He refused his Congressional pension, for crying out loud. Dude c'mon now! then how is it you can defend him taking donations from some 'knuckle-dragger' as you define it?
Either he's in bed with them or this is a class of citizen it's alright to take advantage of...? Defraud?
But I am with you on the Packers.
It’s not the same, sorry.
Keep telling yourself that. I'm sure you approve.
Every single time I see a thread about Paul, I have but one thought.
Every single time I hear what Paul has to say, I have but one thought.
Every single time I even think about Paul..... I have... but one thought.
That thought is....”Who in the hell left the lid off of the nut jar, again”. ;>)
I mean, the guy is kinda fun to watch and he does make me laugh. But my word, if he were to ever become the president, I would NEVER get any sleep and I would have to feed my watch dogs, a Doberman and a Chesapeake, raw meat....every single day!! That would cost a fortune! ;>)
I do hope he stays in the campaign though. as he makes me feel young again. I mean, he reminds my of when I was 10 years old, when I would laugh myself silly at the hilarious cartoons they used to show in the theaters, right before the real movie came on. Thank you Paul, thank you for the memories.
I can’t help but wonder if we should just hire this guy outright. He could be part of our new presidents’ cabinet. Yes, that’s what our country needs, a “Jester in Chief”. Or maybe he could be appointed as the “Humor Zar”...we all need to laugh more anyway, and this “crazy as a bedbug nut case”, could sure take the stress out of many of our lives.
So, I guess in a way, one could say that I support Paul, just not for President of the USA.
Please scroll back upthread and see where this all started... it was where wagglebee questioned this phrase: "if one is to believe he is responsible for the 911 attacks"
I used to think that anti-Paul kooks were purely bitter leftists, but now I realize that many are simply in some part ignorant.
If anyone reading is in the latter category and unable to handle hypotheticals, Socratic examination, and elenchai/aporia, then I'm sure taxed2death can explain the original point in simpler terms or more explicitly.
But don't forget that most third-party readers of the thread are bright enough to understand the word "if" in rhetoric and they don't just gloss over it as if it weren't there.
I'm hoping that wagglebee, et al., just missed the word "if" and are not really the ignorant-kook type.
And before anyone thinks that I just called y'all kooks, he should re-read the words I used and refer to a good English textbook.
Nope. I haven’t missed anything; even your arrogant and patronizing contempt.
To bad you have nothing worthwhile with which to back it up except a blind belief in RuPaul. But that’s typical.
Well, since taxed2death has been banned, we don’t really know what he meant. He said he believes that OBL was “largely” responsible for 9/11 and seemed to follow it up by saying that the other responsible parties were other Islamofascists, and I’m okay with that explanation.
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.