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
BTTT!
Down with RuPaul!
Down with Rupaul!
Down with Rupaul!
Down with RuPaul!
Down with....well, you get the idea.
Many Libertarians, like myself, can’t stand RuPaul or his nonsensical foreign policy.
My vote goes for dementia patient.
“Paleoconservatism” (AKA the “Old Right”) never existed as a viable political theory, like Conservatism. It’s basically neo-confederatism-— the belief that the states can secede and that the Articles of Confederation are superior to the Constitution.
To be fair to RuPaul, he’s not a neo-confederate (or at very least open about it) but many of his stormtroopers are.
Rand Paul’s platform is very different from Ru’s. Rand is a Republican with a libertarian streak, Rupaul....well, is a whack job.
I disagree.
A Conservative would never call his country “imperialist”. William F. Buckley didn’t. Barry Goldwater would have committed hara-kiri before doing it, as would Ronald Reagan.
“The man is to the Constitution what Fred Phelps is to the Bible.”
Consider that stolen, FRiend!
:)
“Ron Paul is a strict constructionist”
For which country ?
Attaway!
Bingo!
To discuss global strategic defenses with Ron Paul is to offer a lighter to the shoe bomber when he sees the matches he hid in his crotch got too moist to light.
“The last paragraph is very interesting and borders on treason. Basically, Ron Paul confirms secret clandestine operations to an agency of the Iranian government. He is a government official confirming knowledge of clandestine activities accused of by the press.”
He hates Bush, he hates Israel (favoring their worst enemies) and divulged this supposed information for his own self-aggrandizement. Shameful, because he knew better than to do something like that.
Can’t he at least be called out on this by Boehner, censured or something? Republicans would have to call for it, because the Dems/Progressives love him. So does the leftist media, which is why he gets so MUCH damned air time (despite his whining to the contrary).
“There’s a lot that I really, really like about libertarianism. Smaller government. Hands off economics. Live and let live. I love it. Big fan. What I don’t understand is why capital (L) libertarians seem to go insane once foreign policy is involved.”
Good conservatives want smaller government and hands-off economics. So does the Tea Party. There are a couple of candidates (and some new Congressmen) who share that as well, all without the BAGGAGE.
To your question about foreign policy issues - here, my FRiend, is probably the best summation I’ve seen of the important differences between Conservatives and Libertarians:
“US aid to Israel over the years and military support have kept Israel from the necessity of utterly destroying their enemies with overwhelming force.”
I worry about this thing with Iran, though, because Israel will have only one chance to get it right if they’re forced into trying to remove this threat by themselves. Plus, thanks to BHO, there’s now a growing number of other ME states who seek her obliteration. Every leader over there who’s left Israel alone is on BHO’s hit list, to be replaced with Muslim Brotherhood types.
To your comment about Ron Paul being a total ass - you may enjoy this well-written piece:
“Let’s not attack the only true conservative in the race over petty foreign based politics.”
“Petty foreign based politics” - is that all you think of the planetary threat of a nuclear Iran and the existential danger facing our only true, democratic ally in the Middle East???
And RP is not a true conservative - he’s a pure libertarian, which is quite different.
Thanks for the pings, and thanks for the kind words.
“he is a whack job..and his hatred for Israel oozes out, he gives me the creeps”
Carter was personal friends with the terrorist Yasser Arafat and has become more open, and more vocal, about his dislike of Israel. Now, RP has a man-crush on Mahmoud Ahmedinejad.
He and Jimmah are “brothers from another mother”.
This article is similar, but a little more comprehensive, if you haven’t already checked it out:
That was actually going to be my next area of inquiry regarding Ron Paul and his understanding of isolationism and "foreign entanglements."
Personally, I think all this talk of Ron Paul being a strict constructionist in the mold of the founding fathers is nothing but BS.
Well, this just looks like a hit list on Ron Paul. Not undeservedly, as I think Ron Paul is largely a kook.
Conservatism has different branches. The principles of conservatism are fundamentally libertarian, in that well cultivated individuals working together in common, voluntary cause are the ideal of civilization.
There are statist versions of conservatism that are more family, socially or religiously oriented. Just as libertarianism unchecked by conservative values devolves into anarchy, conservatism unchecked by libertarian values devolves into Puritanical tyranny.
I have no use for either anarchy nor Puritanism, except in the real estate between them where responsibility meets individuality.
As Ron Paul is an irresponsible crank, I'm happy to let him run wild, but he's no more an ideal libertarian than David Duke is an idea conservative.
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.