Free Republic
Browse · Search
RLC Liberty Caucus
Topics · Post Article

To: SJackson
The only thing Ron Paul said about Afghanistan in his 1988 book was the following:
"With a noninterventionist foreign policy, citizens would never be forced to subsidize or die for any special interest. Taxes could be used only to secure peace and freedom for America."

"Under these conditions of nonintervention, of course, individuals would never be prohibited from volunteering and contributing their own monies to any foreign cause. Our government is the only legal dealer in weapons of war, usually at a high cost to American taxpayers, as well as danger to our security. Thus the wishes of citizens are violated with every transaction. Americans who want to privately help anti-communists in Cuba, Afghanistan, El Salvador, or Nicaragua should be free to do so, and yet they are not."

RP is less clear on this, but it looks like he is saying that the U.S. government should not be allowed to militarily aid allies in any circumstances, but private citizen should be allowed to militarily aid even our worst enemies.
227 posted on 10/30/2007 8:57:28 AM PDT by drpix
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 221 | View Replies ]


To: drpix
If I see anything contemporaneous I'll let you know. Obviously he's have been strenuously opposed. If I’m not mistaken his call to dismantle the CIA began in the Iran Contra era, and clearly he’s highlighted Reagan’s policy as the source of the 9/11 “blowback”. Recent commentary has been critical of RR foreign policy.

HE: And under President Reagan we built up our defenses., we built up all these anti-communist insurgencies in Afghanistan, in Nicaragua, we putting the Pershings into Western Europe, etc., etc. The point is: Would you have supported any of those of measures, on the grounds that you are… we shouldn’t have done any of this because it would be provoking, somehow, that which would come back and haunt us?

RP: I don’t think that policy has served us well. I think that…

HE: The Reagan Doctrine hasn’t served us well?

RP: Well, I would go back to the Wilson Doctrine. [Indiscernible talking in background]You can’t isolate WWII and post-WWII without looking at the overall change of policy after WWI.

HE: I just want to make sure he is answering the specific question, which is things that we were talking about: NATO, 80-Degrees, You think that did not serve us well?

RP: I would say it has not served us well. I believe in the Constitution, we don’t have that authority. I believe the Founders were right, and I believe that Jefferson was absolutely right that by staying out of entangling alliances – which… no UN, no NATO -- which serve the interests of this country right now. We have no respect for our national sovereignty. This is why we don’t even defend our borders, because we’re moving onto a North American union. So I would say you have to have concern about our national sovereignty and not meld us into these NATO alliances and agreements, that…

.
228 posted on 10/30/2007 9:08:14 AM PDT by SJackson (every one shall sit in safety under his own vine and figtree, none to make him afraid,)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 227 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
RLC Liberty Caucus
Topics · Post Article


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