Ron Paul on War

Townhall.com ^ | December 19, 2007 | John Stossel

[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.

[traviskicks]

Montana probably could take care of it,

A little canadian dig here by Paul, LOL!

[mnehring]

A better analogy would be letting criminals in our country have the moral authority to say who can or can’t be in our country. In many cases the islamic radicals aren’t even from the countries we are discussing, and thus, it would be akin to an illegal alien in this country saying who can or cannot be here.

[mnehring]

..oh, well it looks like the mods didn’t like your comment while I was replying...

[Rick.Donaldson]

Why is it when a Conspiracy Theorist says something is true over and over, it has to be true....

but when someone points out facts the Conspiracy Theorist calls it “propaganda” and gets away with it EVERY TIME?

Ron Paul isn’t getting my vote IF he gets the nomination for the GOP (I’ll vote for Obama first... he might not put his hand over his heart for the National Anthem, but well... ok, I won’t vote for his ass either. May I’ll write in myself instead)

[traviskicks]

Ron Paul would let North Korea invade South Korea, China invade Taiwan and would have let Saddam have his way after the invasion of Kuwait.

You say that like its a bad thing...? Two of these are false fears. S Korea, as Paul said would destory N Korea in a war without our help (so why are we there?). China won't attack Taiwan because it would wreck its economy, plus Taiwan could defend itself pretty well too. Kuwait is a tyranny, a socialist tyranny, I don't see why we should defend one dictator from another. Paul was right, perhaps if we hadn't interviened we would have seen some bizarre things occuring there, like a necessitated alliance between israel and saudi.

[mnehring]

You don’t feel that any of those countries are in our national security or economic interest? What would happen if Saddam kept Kuwait and then moved into Saudi Arabia, as was one of his plans? Like it or not, oil is a national security and economic interest of this country and we have to excerpt some control over the stability of the region for our own security.

[McCloud-Strife]

I bet that would be Ron Paul’s idea of fighting crime as well, wait until the criminals are in your house to react rather than to patrol the streets.

[darkwing104]

If we ever withdrew the troops from Korea and Japan, North Korea will invade South Korea with the blessing Of China. Once Mainland China sees a week or ineffective President, Taiwan will be be finally reunited with the mainland...If Ron Paul says anything to them about it their response will be the Bird.

Isolationism may sound good to many people but once you have traveled the world you will discover it is impossible. Forget imports and exports, those will disappear completely, as for the economy, think depression. Like it or not, we are a major player when it comes to the world economy.

[Fester Chugabrew]

It doesn’t take a genius to understand that certain people people prefer religious fanacism and slavery to the freedoms we enjoy. Should such people be allowed any moral authority with regard to who does or does not reside in their midst? On what basis should they be denied such authority? Is it a criminal issue to establish lands where sharia law holds sway over pluralism?

[traviskicks]

Like it or not, oil is a national security

I disagree. I think that governments around the world have made it a 'national security issue' has resulted in much ill.

[mnehring]

You’ve made my point and disproved Paul’s without even realizing it. Thanks.

[mnehring]

They have only made it an issue insofar as we’ve allowed over the past century (along with every other first world country) for our entire economic structure, from transportation to energy to be based on it. No matter what we feel now about how we should have structured things then, it is a reality now.

[crz]

They did not declare war per the constitution requirements. They can declare war as they did with the Pirates.
And yes the congress did authorize a use of force. The problem with an illegal authorization is that they do not put a time limit on the use of force. The time limits were put in by the founders so the exec branch could not use force for an unlimited time.
I have no problem with the authorization of the use of force except, it leaves the door open to get bogged down in a open ended conflict like the last conflict in SouthEast Asia.
And I aint a Ron Paul supporter.

[mnehring]

The Constitution doesn’t require a declaration of war for all armed conflicts. It says Congress is authorized to declare it, but it also says Congress is authorized to define and punish offenses against the laws of nations separate from the right of war declaration.

[SJackson]

You say that like its a bad thing...? Two of these are false fears. S Korea, as Paul said would destory N Korea in a war without our help (so why are we there?). China won't attack Taiwan because it would wreck its economy, plus Taiwan could defend itself pretty well too. Kuwait is a tyranny, a socialist tyranny, I don't see why we should defend one dictator from another. Paul was right, perhaps if we hadn't interviened we would have seen some bizarre things occuring there, like a necessitated alliance between israel and saudi.,

Yes things would happen, many of them unexpected. I'd question Paul's certainty that South Korea could hold off an attack from the north. The liklihood, recognizing that America had abandoned the region to tyranny, the North would effect a political reunification, as would China with Taiwan. I doubt Japan could mobilize an effective military, eventually competing in the pacific power vacumn, quick enough to prevent that.

The idea that Israel could conduct an extended operation 800 miles from her border is absurd. They don’t have that type of military capability.

More likely, the repercussions of a Sadaam controlled Kuwait and Saudi Arabia would have been a sea change in the balance of power in the region, to the benefit of Iraq and Russia. And severe economic dislocations for the US. Yes, Sadaam would have sold us oil, at whatever price he determined, controlling 60% or so of the worlds reserves.

I think that’s a bad thing.

[SJackson]

The time limits were put in by the founders so the exec branch could not use force for an unlimited time....The time limits were put in by the founders so the exec branch could not use force for an unlimited time.

I'm aware of the time limits Democrats put it. What time limits did the founders put in? Given the fact that we did not declare war on the Barbary pirates, and depending were you place the start, the war lasted 15 to 30 years those limits must be rather long.

[Gondring]

And what are Paul’s numbers in IA and NH?

Of course, he's not in the Guiliani/Romney/Huckabee front-runner group.

I don't know about Iowa, but in New Hampshire, Fred Thompson might be catching up to him. Last I checked, Sen. Thompson had almost 1/3 as many points as Ron Paul in one poll.

[wideawake]

They did not declare war per the constitution requirements.

There are no "constitutional requirements."

The Constitution authorizes Congress to declare war. It does not say that Congress has to follow some special magical formula - Congress can use any language it wants to declare war.

They can declare war as they did with the Pirates.

The Barbary Pirates were irregulars of a sovereign nation - not private citizens of a US ally.

And yes the congress did authorize a use of force.

Indeed. So there is no reason to play semantic games.

The problem with an illegal authorization is that they do not put a time limit on the use of force.

Why would they need to?

The time limits were put in by the founders so the exec branch could not use force for an unlimited time.

There is no time limit on warfare or military action imposed by the Constitution. The only time limit is on defense appropriations.

I have no problem with the authorization of the use of force except, it leaves the door open to get bogged down in a open ended conflict like the last conflict in SouthEast Asia.

Vietnam was not "open-ended." There was a clear objective in Vietnam: to crush the Communist invasion of South Vietnam.

Just as in our current struggle there is a clear objective: to crush international terrorist networks and governments who harbor them.

Our success in Vietnam was turned into failure by stupid, impatient people back home who did not understand what was going on and what was at stake.

Just as today filth like Ron Paul are attempting to stab our armed forces in the back.

[mnehring]

You are right, Paul is beating Thompson in a very very liberal state. Is anyone surprised?

[wideawake]

SJackson, you say that we did not declare war on the Barbary pirates. crz says that we did declare war.

If you follow the Ron Paul definition of a declared war, we definitely did not declare war on the Barbary pirates in the First Barbary War. The Pasha of Tripoli attacked the US consulate in Tripoli and desecrated the US flag. President Jefferson, as Commander-In-Chief, responded militarily without any formal Congressional declaration of war.

However, by the sane, non-Ron Paul definition, the Congressional approval of the funding of the Naval expedition against Tripoli was a de facto declaration of war.