Posted on 08/26/2011 10:10:01 PM PDT by mnehring
Ron Paul, House representative of the 14th district of Texas, believes that US foreign policy must be reformed to avoid conflicts around the world.
The interview was conducted outside the Foreign Relations Committee.
Press TV: What is your opinion on the idea of the US blocking Iran's oil exports and preventing its gasoline imports from reaching the country (based on H. Con. Res. 362 previously sought by US congressmen)?
Paul: I think it is an outrage I think it is a blockade. It is the use of force to stop the inflow of petroleum products and people and goods, banking, trains, cars, trucks, cargos. It's all prohibited. How can we stop that without the use of the navy and without the use of force? This idea is not a blockade it is just pure silliness on their part [US senators and congressmen].
If we bomb them, that's the start of hostilities. They (US policy makers) are never willing to take anything off the table, which includes a nuclear-first strike. So, if they do that do you think the Iranians are going to sit still? They are going to react!
The opposition said that, well, we don't want them to block the Strait of Hormuz [the Persian Gulf waterway which allows the passages of a third of the world's daily oil supply]. They ought to change their policy because they are more likely to get the Strait of Hormuz blocked if we persist on this. If we do any bombing or we put on a blockade, it's going to lead to big trouble.
Press TV: There has been a lot of speculation that Israel may act on its own and conduct an independent air strike on Iran's nuclear facilities. Do you think that's possible?
Paul: I don't think there is such a thing as an independent Israel doing anything, because I think no matter what they do its our money, its our weapons, and their not going to do it without us approving it and if they get into trouble we're going to bail them out, so there is no separation between the two.
Press TV: During your line of questioning at the Foreign Relations Committee you mentioned the Seymour Hersh article, which was among the articles that revealed that the Congress had awarded the Bush administration hundreds of millions of dollars for a covert operation to overthrow the Iranian government. Why did you mention those stories?
Paul: Well it's something that I have known about and heard about and it does go on. It goes on all around the world. To me it was a surprise that it was news, because we have been doing that and people do talk about it. I think it's an outrage. How would we react if somebody did it to us? We would be infuriated, willing to go to war. The fact that somebody came and tried to undermine our government.
MJ/AA
Sounds like you may have misinterpreted what I wrote. To make it clear (just in case). If anyone invaded our country I would be on the front lines with my fellow patriots...defending against the invaders. Of course the USA has a superior form of govt than any other in the world. But we are becoming worse....
I served in peace time, so I can’t hold a candle to the Marines who are in today. Good luck to your son. Semper Fi.
Semper Fi my friend.
Hopefully your vision of the future is as flawed as your interpretation of the past and present.
It all depends on whether entropy or a desire for the inalienable right to liberty within the Iraqis will prevail.
I do hope the best for the Iraqis. But I believe that they have the right to forge their own future with out interference. I am a Catholic and I don’t want anyone to impose another religious based value on me at the barrel of a gun. Is that bad?
Isn’t that true freedom?
Bueller?
For those interested, here is a rebuttal to DiLorenzo:
http://hidhist.wordpress.com/lincoln/thomas-j-dilorenzos-the-real-lincoln-a-rebuttal/
Here's an excerpt concerning one 0f the claims in question:
Page 35: (First edition) “At the same time, it is important to note that Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation did not free a single slave.” (The second edition uses the same language.) This is simply absurd on its face, for the Emancipation Proclamation was the legal authority for the freeing of most of the slaves in the South. For example, all of the slaves in Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, and Florida, were freed under the authority of the Emancipation Proclamation; freedom perhaps did not come until the Union Army arrived, but once this happened the slaves in that area were free. Moreover, any slaves from these areas who had escaped to Union lines — and there were many in this category — would have been freed from bondage the instant the Proclamation went into effect. The fact is, while some Union-occupied parts of the Confederacy were exempted from the Proclamation (notably Tennessee, southeastern Louisiana, the new state of West Virginia, and eastern Virginia) some were not. Northern Virginia was not exempted, nor were northern Mississippi and Alabama, nor coastal North and South Carolina. Any slaves in these regions would have been freed as soon as the Proclamation was issued. A good article (with a nice map) is “After the Emancipation Proclamation,” by William C. Harris, North & South, vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 42-53. The efforts of the anonymous website to defend DiLorenzo’s error seem tortured, to me.
Ron Paul is a NUT!
Precisely WHY (one of many reasons) I could NEVER vote for Ron Paul. Were he President we would all be subject to shariah Law-to avoid any conflict.
Agree and second all your descriptions of this senile crackpot; mine would be a variant on “nucking fatzi” but that would get me banned.
But here’s a description to make one’s hair stand on end:
“Ross Perot, Part II The Beginning”. And I just noticed they both have the same initials. Coincidence?
IOW, if RP runs as a third party spoiler, expect nothing but trouble and hurting the Republican the most.
Recall that in 1988 Michael Dukakis lost the election with 44 percent of the vote. Four years later Bill Clinton WON with 43 percent as Ross Perot achieved his real goal of derailing GHWB whom he hated.
Both RP’s had wildeyed fanatical supporters who went around ripping up opponents’ signs. That’s unnerving, too.
So when Ron Paul doesn’t get the nomination, who you gonna vote for?
Ouch! That had to hurt! :) I admire some of his positions, but this false idea that "no true constitutionalist" can see the constitutional framework for US geopolitical involvement some other way than how RP sees it strikes me as a variant of the No True Scotsman fallacy. The Constitution doesn't constrain foreign policy to any particular theoretical school of thought. It merely provides authority and structure to the decision-making process, always with the ultimate goal of preserving the sovereignty of We the People. As has often been said, the Constitution is not a suicide pact, and no interpretation of it that makes us more vulnerable to our enemies rather than less can survive that test.
Bottom line: Paul will criticize the foreign policy of the U.S. - and it’s allies - for even the slightest intervention into other countries and their affairs. It doesn’t matter how dangerous and threatening they are, we’re supposed to sit back and not intervene.
But never, ever, does he even spout the most basic rhetoric at the Soviet Unions, China, Iran, Pakistan, Venezuela or any other country with hostile intent toward us - he simply goes full circular and blames us for their problems and actions. He REFUSES to admit any nation has hostile intent but us.
RP is intellectually dishonest - period.
>>>It is my understanding that Ron Paul opposes foreign aid on constitutional grounds. In 1791, the President, George Washington; the Vice President, John Adams; and the Secretary of State, Thomas Jefferson, all approved an act of appropriations by Congress to pay tribute to Morocco. From the perspective of the Constitution, there is no substantive difference between tribute and aid since neither is addressed. If Ron Paul is a strict constructionist, then how does he explain Congress’ action here, and his own interpretation of the Constitution regarding foreign aid.<<<
You are comparing tribute to Morocco to foreign aid, and you see no difference? You had some bizarre education!
Tribute is merely protection money. In the case of Morocco, it was paid to ensure sailors captured by the Barbary Pirates were returned safely by the Moroccon government. As an envoy to London during the Washington administration, Jefferson argued against paying tribute, believing it would encourage even more attacks. John Adams, also an envoy, agreed, but argued that we had no choice but to pay tribute until our Navy was established.
By the time Jefferson was inaugurated, the United States had a Navy. Jefferson stopped paying tribute and asked the Congress for permission to stop the piracy using the Navy.
>>>This is simply absurd on its face, for the Emancipation Proclamation was the legal authority for the freeing of most of the slaves in the South. For example, all of the slaves in Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, and Florida, were freed under the authority of the Emancipation Proclamation; freedom perhaps did not come until the Union Army arrived, but once this happened the slaves in that area were free. <<<
How convenient. The unabashed White Supremacist, Abraham Lincoln refused to free the slaves in areas where he had dictatorial control—where it would do the most good at the time. What a big-time hypocrite. The Emancipation Proclamation was a merely a political ploy—an attempt to give moral justification to an immoral war—a war that cost 625,000 American lives.
>>>This is simply absurd on its face, for the Emancipation Proclamation was the legal authority for the freeing of most of the slaves in the South. For example, all of the slaves in Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, and Florida, were freed under the authority of the Emancipation Proclamation; freedom perhaps did not come until the Union Army arrived, but once this happened the slaves in that area were free. <<<
How convenient. The unabashed White Supremacist, Abraham Lincoln refused to free the slaves in areas where he had dictatorial control—where it would do the most good at the time. What a big-time hypocrite. The Emancipation Proclamation was a merely a political ploy—an attempt to give moral justification to an immoral war—a war that cost 625,000 American lives.
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.