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.
“”Don’t try too hard to get the nutjob banned yet,...”
LOL
I’ve been here a few years... you can not find one single post I’ve ever made suggesting any “conspiricy” re: 911.
Nice try though
It might be better if you studied a bit of history, before you take swipes at those who do. Japan attacked us at Pearl Harbor. We immediately (next day) declared War on Japan, and the next day, Hitler declared war on us, because of his alliance with Japan. We then declared war on Germany.
While I do not agree with Ron Paul on Korea, Viet Nam or even the first Gulf War, those are questions over which honorable men may differ. He is "spot on," in saying that we have no business waging war to change other people's cultures. See what George Washington "had to say" about the current U.S. foreign policy:
1) Then, who else?
2) Just what part do you believe OBL played?
3) Just what part do you believe the "others" played?
4) Who ran the show?
5) Who IS running the show?
Inquiring minds want to know...
“But in a recent post you bring into question whether OBL was actually responsible for 9/11.”
read post 117
I'd say this is as close as anything I've seen on this forum: Your post #101.
Further explanations are in order I believe...
Uh, . . . "if one is to believe he is responsible for the 911 attacks and if one is to believe what he wrote," sounds pretty conspiratorial to me. You then followed it up with, "I believe OBL was in large part responsible," which clearly suggests that you believe that there are others who have some responsibility.
Already did and responded. Not good enough, I'm afraid.
1) Then, who else?
2) Just what part do you believe OBL played?
3) Just what part do you believe the “others” played?
4) Who ran the show?
5) Who IS running the show?
Inquiring minds want to know...
_________________________________________________________
I have not a clue. To think that OBL thought up of the idea, recruited 100% of the nutters needed to figure out the logistics, as well as the execution of the attack is simply ridiculous.
That’s like saying Rummy planned every step of Gulf War 2. It’s probably an impossible task for one human being to do so.
read post 117
If anything, post 117 furthers my belief that you think there was a conspiracy.
“Nevertheless, can you provide a source for any statement prior to the fall of 1990 where OBL made any mention of this?”
I will do my best to hunt a statement down.
Oops! I guess you just did (see below)...
To think that OBL thought up of the idea, recruited 100% of the nutters needed to figure out the logistics, as well as the execution of the attack is simply ridiculous.
If this were true, then there was a conspiracy. And you just admitted you believe it.
“If anything, post 117 furthers my belief that you think there was a conspiracy.”
You can believe what ever you want too...again...please find one single post I’ve ever made in the years I’ve been on FR that alludes to any “conspiracy” re: 911
Unfortunately, we're discussing on solving the problem on both extremes of the issue. Paul wants to withdraw from the ME immediately and hope that they don't come over here. That's unacceptable to me. What's also unacceptable to me is building permanent bases there, continuously staying in the Middle East for years, possibly decades, and basically continuing fighting ...and fighting...and fighting...all the while our military becomes depleted to the point of a draft.
Whether or not Paul is wrong or right isn't the issue. The fact of the matter is that there's going to have to be some type of compromise brokered here on the war, or say hello to the Rats holding the WH and Congress. The vast majority American people don't want to continue the war, but the base of the GOP wants to keep fighting the war. I don't know about you, but the smart money's on the American people.
I am confident that if Paul is President and if we were attacked, there's no doubt in my mind that he'd take out the trash immediately and retaliate rather than screwing around with the UN. His comments here are discouraging, but I'm not going to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Because for me, when it all boils down, Paul would do a much better job at protecting America than the Democrats, and I'd get the possibility of Constitutional, limited government as a bonus.
See post #131. Gotcha!
101 and 117 on THIS thread.
So you believe that Al-Qaeda cells were not conspirators and just operated independently?
I think that's highly unrealistic.
Dr. Paul denounced the Truthers and conspiracy nuts in his Glenn Beck interview last night.
If Ron Paul's dog got rabies, I wonder if he'd try to negotiate with it.
The emperor has no clothes.
I think that's highly unrealistic.
Ooh, another Truther emerges. Wonderful!
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.