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
“BUT, Woods appears to claim Herbert Hoover as a conservative when he was POTUS. That is patently absurd.”
Yes - just as absurd as HH’s ninny granddaughter claiming to be a conservative, then writing a book saying that “modern” conservatives need to rid themselves of the “right-wing” or “extreme” elements.
BTW, your posts are impressive :-)
>>>Bogus comparison - a totally different psyche and mentality of Russians vs. fundamental Islamists. The idea of Mutually Assured Destruction was an effective deterrent with Russia - they didn’t want to die any more than we did.
<<<
Of course. But I don’t think it is a bogus comparison. Negotiation doesn’t mean surrender, and from what I have gathered from Ron Paul, he is no dove. He is on record many times stating [paraphrasing]:
“We don’t need to help Israel. They are a rich nation and they have hundreds of Nukes. They can defend themselves.”
Have you heard any candidate or President since the founding of Israel say that? No. They all want(ed) Israel to negotiate with the terrorists, more or less. Worse, some want(ed) Israel to give up land they need(ed) for self-defense, of even create a Palestine state (e.g., G.W. Bush and others).
Regarding Islam, I have read the Koran several times, and I know the latter (violent) verses supercede the former (peaceful) verses. My bible is the same, except reversed, e.g., the peaceful verses are at the end, rather than the beginning.
However, there is one thing you haven’t considered (I believe). If I consider Ron Paul’s stance on Israel (e.g., They have hundreds of nukes. They can defend themselves.), and his notion that a few Trident subs can defend America, then I have to concluded (althought he will not say it, not just yet) that he is willing to use the nukes to defend us. His own version of M.A.D.. In the case of the Muslims, all he has to say during negotiations is this:
“We are going to send our troops home. But if you mess with us again, we are going to destroy your country, we are going to destroy Mecca and Medina, and we are going to destroy that monstrosity on the Temple Mount. Then we are going to spray the entire area with pigs blood. After that, we will bulldose every mosque in America, and deport every muslim. Then if you mess with us, I will really get mad!
I really do think Ron Paul has it in him. Mostly because of his stance on Israel, but not all.
>>>The truth is never a smear. Bottom line, Ron Paul out earmarked Nancy Pelosi. Not exactly a page out of the Ayn Rand playbook.<<<
I’m beginning to believe you really are ignorant of the budget/earmark process. Otherwise you could not possible be so fixated on that point. Tell us, what is an earmark? You use the word enough. WHAT IS AN EARMARK?
I’m not fixiated on anything but the truth. In 2009, Ron Paul took $95 million and flushed it down the toilet.
You can spin it a 1000 ways, you can try to justify it a 1000 diferent ways, but in the end, that will mean nothing. Ron Paul is another corrupt CONgress Critter.
I lived in Hawaii in the early nineties, mostly in Nanakuli, and I got to know the locals pretty well, which isn't easy. Very nice people but they don't just let you into their community. It takes a while to be accepted.
I knew one of the organizers of the sovereignty movement and my take on it was that it had less to do with American Imperialism than it did with plain old power and control, like any political movement.
I will say this though. The Japanese are hated there much more than the American presence, and if I had to guess, they would much more likely keep things the way it is now, than whatever it would hve been under Japanese rule.
That's just my opinion.
>>>I’m not fixiated on anything but the truth. In 2009, Ron Paul took $95 million and flushed it down the toilet.<<<
I suspected you do not know what an earmark is. Now you have convinced me.
Okay, what happens to that $95 million if Ron Paul does not spend a dime? If he is “pure as snow” in your eyes?
One more time...
WHAT HAPPENS TO THE $95 MILLION IF RON PAUL DOES NOT SEND IT BACK TO HIS CONSTITUENTS?
I’ll bet you don’t know.
>>>I lived in Hawaii in the early nineties, mostly in Nanakuli<<<
I lived in Hawaii in the mid-70’s mostly in a condo in Salt Lake crater. I got to know some of the locals pretty well, also. They were nice to me, but they wanted “their” land back. There was some violence towards tourists and other “haoles” in those days.
It would go the Executive Branch, where Chairman Obama would flush it down the toilet, which is just as bad as Doctor Zero flushing it down the toilet.
Ok, tired. Had enough.
Have a nice night,
Alan
>>>I’m not fixiated on anything but the truth.<<<
Okay, tell us the truth. What is an EARMARK?
>>>It would go the Executive Branch, where Chairman Obama would flush it down the toilet, which is just as bad as Doctor Zero flushing it down the toilet.<<<
So, Ron Paul sending money back to his disctrict to build roads, government buildings, clincs and other facilities and infrastructure is as bad as Obama giving the money to his union thugs, his Czars, or to enforce burdensome regulations?
You are insane.
For the rest of you. Ron Paul does not want to spend that money. But he has to because it budgeted by others, and it will be spent, either by him, or by Obama. If by Obama there is no transparency, whatsoever. Obama can do pretty much as he pleases with the money
Also, Ron Paul has not voted YES on a budget for years, maybe even decades. He thinks appropriations should be form constitutionally authorized expenditures, and nothing else.
But he is just one man. So-called “Absolutely Nobama”, who obviously doesn’t mind Obama having lots of extra walking around money, ignorantly does thinks Ron Paul can stop a budget in the House , or he just doesn’t care—he only wants to smear Ron Paul.
Therefore, “Absolutely Nobama”s” name should be, “Absolutely Nobama Except He Should Get The Money Earmarked To Ron Paul’s Constituents Because I Hate Ron Paul More Than I Love This Country”. I know it is a little long, but it accurately describes this thug.
[Previously I posted]: “Then why does he get more campaign donations from the military than darn near all other candidates combined Maybe they know something you have not considered.”
>>>[You posted]: I disagree. http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2007/10/the_fantasy_of_ron_pauls_milit.asp<<<
Try this one:
http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/310783
“So, Ron Paul sending money back to his disctrict to build roads, government buildings, clincs and other facilities....”
How many more “government buildings” do we need ? How many more half finished roads do we need ? How many more “clinics” do we need ?
I’m sorry, but that sounds pretty Marxist.
I’ll go with the Weekly Standard over a website I’ve never heard of. No, they’re not perfect, but they’re better than most.
“Just as libertarianism unchecked by conservative values devolves into anarchy, conservatism unchecked by libertarian values devolves into Puritanical tyranny.”
I believe the first part, as strict libertarians actually have many things in common with liberals. But about conservatism - I think all true conservatives have a strain of libertarianism running through them. I just don’t see the reverse in pure libertarians having a conservative streak - at least in the case of Ron Paul, it’s a definite liberal streak.
You have it wrong. I love my country, and that’s why I oppose leftists like Barack Obama and Ron Paul.
Another libertarian, Tom woods, Jr. (historian) was interviewed within the last year by some Iranian news outlet. I found the video on the Internet. He didn’t speak about Israel or Middle East issues, but I thought it was odd that he should be there at all.
I don’t think the old-guard libertarians like Mises, Hazlitt, and certainly not Rand, would hold these ideas about Israel or the necessity, at times, of military — even covert — intervention.
Many of Ron Paul’s ideas on politics, however, come not from the old-guard, but specifically from Murray Rothbard, a pretty good economist when explaining straightforward ideas of “Austrian economics” but politically he called himself an “anarcho-capitalist” — meaning, he believed the traditional “night watchman” duties of the minimal state that old-guard libertarians desired should be all privatized: private police force, private courts, private military, etc. I would say that most of the people at the Mises.org site today are admirers of Rothbard and hold to his views. The upshot of this is that “Rothbardians” pretty much despise anything “the state” does as a state, including necessary military action to defend its own existence.
I have also found a great deal of historical revisionism amongst Rothbardians, including those at Mises.org. Many there also admire a historian named Ralph Raico, who is well known as a “Hiroshima Revisionist”. From there, however, it’s a short jump to becoming an admirer of an even worse revisionist historian, David Irving, who is not only a Hiroshima Revisionist but an outright Holocaust Denier. I have to tell you, it’s very creepy finding admirers of Irving’s at the Mises site. I don’t think he’s someone that Mises himself would have had much respect for.
Finally, my own conversations with Rothbardians and sundry other anarcho-capitalists have shown most of them to be utterly ignorant of the actual history of Israel and the middle east in general. Many of them appear to accept the fable of a pre-existing nation calling itself “Palestine”, with a pre-existing population of ethnically Arab citizens calling themselves “Palestinians”, which citizens were supposedly forced out of their homes and off their land when Zionist Jews “occupied” it. That is the fable invented by Arafat for gullible western intellectuals mainly on the political left, but many in modern libertarianism have fallen for it, too.
>>>Herbert Hoover restored about 90% of the WWI rates for personal income tax by the time he left office. Now in my book that qualifies Herbert Hoover as a liberal POTUS. If you don’t agree, then we have a reference point to judge your hallucination that Ron Paul is somehow a conservative.<<<
I don’t disagree with your figures. Hoover was a fiscal conservative. He also was a hawk for a balanced budget. Those are facts. The 1929 tax cut was his idea. Not sure about the 1932 tax increase. Also, I’m not sure what your point is.
>>>Like the paleosurrenderman, David Brooks is no fan of [blah, blah, blah]. . .<<<
After reading that rambling nonsense, I would guess you are either drunk, or are off your meds. Rewrite it and resubmit if you want me to comment on it. Try to be a little less “flowery”, if you don’t mind.
>>>. . . Ron Paul is in the same category as Cynthia McKinney as a political crackpot and, like her, he will be permanently out of office. That is a promise by those of us who are ACTUALLY CONSERVATIVE.<<<
We’ll find out who is really conservative when I get around to asking you a few questions. But, for now, I will wade through the remainder of your almost incomprehensible bull shit.
I haven't heard that term in a long time. It does bring back memories of that Island though. Man, I loved it there, it was so beautiful.
Understand something. I don't want to make you an enemy. I just think you, and many otherwise good people are wrong about this guy, and I think your loyalty is misplaced.
>>>So he was a dictator then? Or was this merely an announced goal that needed to pass Congress? A speech is not a legal authority<<<
You missed my point. He was a dictator in the North where he could have freed the slaves. But not in the South, where he “freed” them. If you don’t believe he was a dictator in the North, do a little research on his actions against the congress, judiciary and the press during the war.
>>>Ron Paul has had to lie about his beliefs in open borders because he wanted to be a Republican and actually win a seat in Congress that wasn’t going to happen as a Liberaltarian.<<<
You did not post a single reference to back up your claim? Surely you will. How about a few.
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.