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.
Who knew? Dick Shawn was Ron Paul before running for Congress.
Here is the crux of where Paul misses it (OK, one of the ways he misses it...) He gives the islamic radicals the moral authority to say who can or cannot be on their 'holy land'. Why should they be the ones with that authority? The last time I checked, were were guests of Saudi Arabia, Qatar, the UAE, and pretty much every country there we are in with the exception of Iraq (without going into that argument again.)
So, why do the islamic extremists have the moral authority in his mind over those who welcome us to help with security (and in turn, securing a vital defense and economic resource for our country- oil.)
I'll just keep things simple.
If Canada invades Montana?
Well, from what I have seen in other statements by Paul, we would be stuck with nuking them...
We weren't.
He is either deliberately lying or he is insane.
There is no third option.
Now, which one of these are we ‘occupying’?
Germany declared war on the US right after Pearl harbor
Yes there is, he's BOTH!
Yes, it was. This is a common piece of Ron Paul propaganda: however, Congress indeed authorized the use of force to remove the Hussein regime.
The issue is that we are no longer at war with a sovereign entity, because we are now allies with the governments of Iraq and Afghanistan - we are currently fighting a number of private organizations.
You cannot declare war on Al-Qaeda the way you could declare war on Iraq - Al-Qaeda is not a sovereign entity, but a bunch of dirtbags with ordinance.
So the question is: how do you conduct war against private citizens of states (i.e. Pakistanis, Saudis, Iraqis, Jordanians, Egyptians) when the states of which they are citizens are allies?
You do that with the PATRIOT Act and detention at Guantanamo along with other measures.
Lew Rockwell? Cindy Sheehan’s erstwhile boyfriend?
Bump, well said.
And remember that Ron Paul's Al-Qaeda buddies were angry that Shi'ite citizens of Saudi Arabia as well as Shi'ites from around the world were allowed into Mecca and Medina by the Saudi government - because Paul's friends believe that Sunnis only should have access.
He seems to miss somewhat more than Muslim fanaticism's lack of authority. What of our own lack of authority (by his standards...
How about going into Afghanistan after Sept. 11?
I voted for that authority to go after those responsible for 9/11.
He voted for the authority but there was no declaration of war. Of course he differentiates between Afghanistan and Iraq by saying we were going after Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan, but again, Al-Qaeda is not a sovereign state, so he voted to invade a sovereign state without a declaration of war. So much for following the letter of the Constitution.
Let's see:
George Washington (a signer of the Constitution and President of the Constitutional Convention), without any Congressional approval, commanded armed American troops to put down the Whiskey Rebellion against American citizens on American soil. It should come as no surprise that the leaders of Whiskey Rebellion didn't seem to think that Congress had the authority to levy taxes.
Thomas Jefferson (principle author of the Declaration of Independence), with the full support of his political allies and enemies and without any Congressional declaration of war, sent troops to Northern Africa for the First Barbary War.
James Madison (principle author of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights), again without any Congressional declaration of war, again sent troops to Northern Africa for the Second Barbary War.
Somehow I fail to see where any of the Founding Fathers seemed to agree with RINO PaulPot and his pathetic mob of followers.
I won't be surprised when some enterprising mohammedan starts claiming that Vatican Hill, or Capitol Hill, or Mount Fuji are "islamic holy sites". The definition of "islamic holy site" seems to me to be very plastic.
On the one hand "we" might very well be occupying some "holy site" where Mad Mo took a dump. On the other, I don't much care. Mohammedanism is aggressively expansionist. "You're occupying a holy site" is just an excuse.
All of his principles of Constitutional interpretation are cribbed from the ideology of the Anti-Federalists, the Nullificationists, the Spoonerites and the Secessionists - all historically enemies of the US Constitution - as opposed to the Federalists and the Republicans, who have historically been the champions of the Constitution.
Ron Paul uses the rhetoric of these anti-Constitution groups while simultaneously claiming to be a defender of the Constitution.
For example - the bizarre, muddled notion of "states' rights" - states have no rights under the Constitution. Governments don't have rights. They have powers.
Whenever the Paulistinians start talking about the states having certain powers (my favorite is that the Bill of Rights isn’t binding at the state level), bring up gun laws and see how far they respond to that.
Another one they are unable to explain is why an anti-federalist, states rights president like Jefferson seemed to have no problem spending money for the Louisiana Purchase.
Therefore, most of the cuts in Government will be against our fighting forces. Ron Paul is an insane version of Jimmy Carter.
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.