Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Ron Paul on War
Townhall.com ^ | December 19, 2007 | John Stossel

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.


TOPICS: Editorial; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: allieswhatallies; kookoo; makelovenotwar; marines; morethorazineplease; ostrichbrigade; passthebongmon; ronpaul; whoneedsallies
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 201-216 next last
To: PjhCPA

None, zero, zilch, 0


21 posted on 12/19/2007 5:53:56 AM PST by Kaslin (Peace is the aftermath of victory)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: BGHater
Lol. He’s right, Montana could handle it.

It's probably literally true, but it's got to be the most ridiculous thing ever said by a Presidential candidate.

Now if Canada invaded New England, the liberals there would surrender in the first five minutes.
22 posted on 12/19/2007 5:55:48 AM PST by rightwingintelligentsia (CNN: Full of plants from the DNC Plant-ation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: 50mm

Ron Paul on War: “War is bad, mmm-kay? If you do war, your’re bad. Because war is bad. Mmm-kay?”


23 posted on 12/19/2007 5:59:11 AM PST by flowerplough ("These go to eleven." -- Nigel Tufnel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All

“It is not Muslim fanaticism that is the culprit.”

All I need to know.


24 posted on 12/19/2007 5:59:44 AM PST by CygnusXI (Where's that dang Meteor already?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

Comment #25 Removed by Moderator

To: 50mm
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.

The US presence in Saudi Arabia was at the invitation of the Saudi government to protect the Saudi people from the Baathist invasion that had already claimed the neighboring country of Kuwait.

The only reason why Chinese troops would ever be stationed on US soil would be because China was invading us.

Ron Paul is clinically insane.

26 posted on 12/19/2007 6:00:43 AM PST by wideawake (Why is it that so many self-proclaimed "Constitutionalists" know so little about the Constitution?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: facedown

Ron Paul makes a lot of sense! Sanity in a high office is an asset.


27 posted on 12/19/2007 6:00:55 AM PST by rovenstinez
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: 50mm
"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?"

Talk to them and ask them pretty please not to set it off and kill our innocent civilians? The same guys that behead children and women? The same guys that slaughter anyone for power? Yeah that is going to work Paul. You are a dangerous stupid man and your supporters are no better.
28 posted on 12/19/2007 6:02:36 AM PST by jrooney (Ron Paul makes Jimmy Carter look tough and Dennis Kucinich look sane.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rovenstinez

Wiping tears from eyes. Boy, I needed a good laugh this AM.


29 posted on 12/19/2007 6:03:01 AM PST by svcw (ncmi.net)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: 50mm

This Ass thinks he is a constitutionalist? This creep doesnt know squat about the US Constitution.
This guy’s a loser..and those who support him are losers also.


30 posted on 12/19/2007 6:03:39 AM PST by crz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rovenstinez
Ron Paul makes a lot of sense!

Ron Paul is out of his mind.

He basically said in this interview that the US was an occupying power in Saudi Arabia during the First Gulf War.

That makes about as much sense as saying that US troops in England were an occupying force in the Second World War.

He is clearly delusional.

31 posted on 12/19/2007 6:03:54 AM PST by wideawake (Why is it that so many self-proclaimed "Constitutionalists" know so little about the Constitution?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: BGHater

“Lol. He’s right, Montana could handle it.”

HaHa! Everything he said was stupid but this was very funny.


32 posted on 12/19/2007 6:07:48 AM PST by demshateGod (Duncan Hunter for President)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: 50mm

Ron Paul, the right man for the right time.

If the right time is 1901.


33 posted on 12/19/2007 6:08:44 AM PST by mkjessup (Hunter-Bolton '08 !! Patriots who will settle for nothing less than *Victory* in the War on Terror!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 50mm
Under the Constitution, we don't have the authority to just put troops in foreign countries willy-nilly when we're not at war.

Ron Paul, once again, drives my tagline home.

Under the actual Constitution of the United States, the Commander In Chief is entitled to deploy troops anywhere outside the United States he desires for any reason.

He has complete executive authority over US armed forces in both wartime and peacetime.

34 posted on 12/19/2007 6:08:52 AM PST by wideawake (Why is it that so many self-proclaimed "Constitutionalists" know so little about the Constitution?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: flowerplough
ru paul = ms garrison?
35 posted on 12/19/2007 6:09:18 AM PST by sticker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: 50mm
I don't think that's true. It is not Muslim fanaticism that is the culprit.

Ron, wake up and smell the jihad. You are completely, 100% wrong on this one.

36 posted on 12/19/2007 6:10:39 AM PST by Dead Corpse (What would a free man do?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wideawake

When I get into it with one of these “experts” who say we dont have the right to go to war in another country...all I do is ask them this-”Then we must have screwed up when we went to war with the Barbery (sic) pirates then?”

The only problem I have with this conflict is..It isnt a declared war. If we would have declared war a lot of these issues like the patriot act and the detaining of prisoners at gitmo would not have come up.


37 posted on 12/19/2007 6:15:14 AM PST by crz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: 50mm; aculeus; Billthedrill; Petronski; Allegra; Larry Lucido; lormand; wideawake; ...
Musical Interlude
38 posted on 12/19/2007 6:15:15 AM PST by dighton
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: darkwing104
Very few paulbots will defend him on this issue...

Oh, they have and they will. It may not be as vitriolic, but they'll defend him. It's in their water.

39 posted on 12/19/2007 6:16:06 AM PST by bcsco ("The American Indians found out what happens when you don't control immigration.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: darkwing104
Of course the Paulestinians will defend him on this.

The main reason why they support this treasonous faggot in the first place is because he is a shill for Islamic fascism.

40 posted on 12/19/2007 6:21:58 AM PST by wideawake (Why is it that so many self-proclaimed "Constitutionalists" know so little about the Constitution?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 201-216 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson