Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Ron Paul on War
Townhall.com ^ | December 19, 2007 | John Stossel

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.


TOPICS: Editorial; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: allieswhatallies; kookoo; makelovenotwar; marines; morethorazineplease; ostrichbrigade; passthebongmon; ronpaul; whoneedsallies
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-216 next last
Ron Paul would let North Korea invade South Korea, China invade Taiwan and would have let Saddam have his way after the invasion of Kuwait.
1 posted on 12/19/2007 5:34:27 AM PST by 50mm
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: lormand; 50mm

ping


2 posted on 12/19/2007 5:35:40 AM PST by 50mm (Where's CableNewsJunkie3?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 50mm
Very few paulbots will defend him on this issue...


3 posted on 12/19/2007 5:36:37 AM PST by darkwing104 (Lets get dangerous)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: darkwing104

wow...what a tool.


4 posted on 12/19/2007 5:38:39 AM PST by abstracTT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: 50mm
Ron Paul on War

Ron Paul, What War?
5 posted on 12/19/2007 5:38:39 AM PST by Man50D (Fair Tax, you earn it, you keep it! Duncan Hunter is a Cosponsor.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: darkwing104

I posted to see how the paulists will defend this idiot’s idea of abandoning all our allies.


6 posted on 12/19/2007 5:39:15 AM PST by 50mm (Where's CableNewsJunkie3?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: 50mm

This life long Republican would cross over and vote for another candidate if Ron Paul ever got the nomination. But he wont. He is as nutty as a Christmas fruit cake. And extremely dangerous if he ever got in office.


7 posted on 12/19/2007 5:39:44 AM PST by Bulldawg Fan (Victory is the last thing Murtha and his fellow Defeatists want.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 50mm

Ron Paul say: “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.”

I think Ron Paul drafted Bin Laden’s 11/2001 letter to America because that is precisely the excuse Bin Laden used for his attacks on us; our troops were in the Arabian Peninsula, forget the fact we were INVITED there.


8 posted on 12/19/2007 5:40:28 AM PST by HD1200
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 50mm

And what are Paul’s numbers in IA and NH? There’s no way he can win the Republican nomination. The only way he could get on the ballot in November would be as Losertarian, but he’d still mostly draw votes away from the DemocRAT nominee the way Anderson did in 1980.


9 posted on 12/19/2007 5:42:38 AM PST by Paleo Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 50mm

“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.”

If left to the region, Saddam might’ve also controlled the entire Middle East oil supply, Ron. What a dork.


10 posted on 12/19/2007 5:42:48 AM PST by Slapshot68
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 50mm
So in World War II, we were justified?

Sure.

Why? Germany didn't attack us.

Well, they sank some of our freighters but we could have just talked to them about that, I suppose.

11 posted on 12/19/2007 5:45:07 AM PST by facedown (Armed in the Heartland)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 50mm

How many of the founding fathers would agree with Ron Paul?


12 posted on 12/19/2007 5:46:59 AM PST by PjhCPA (catchy tag lines are boring)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: facedown
Why? Germany didn't attack us.

Maybe he's an "Animal House" fan. "Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?"

13 posted on 12/19/2007 5:47:27 AM PST by 50mm (Where's CableNewsJunkie3?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: 50mm
Lol. He’s right, Montana could handle 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.

14 posted on 12/19/2007 5:48:25 AM PST by BGHater (If Guns Cause Crime Then Matches Cause Arson?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PjhCPA
How many of the founding fathers would agree with Ron Paul?

Only the ones with their heads up their waste shoots.

15 posted on 12/19/2007 5:49:01 AM PST by 50mm (Where's CableNewsJunkie3?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Man50D

Shouldn’t that be MoRon Paul? :-)


16 posted on 12/19/2007 5:51:24 AM PST by verity ("Lord, what fools these mortals be!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: 50mm
"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."

Heh Ron Paul, screw you you little pathetic man. You have to be a liar and a fool to deny we are winning in Iraq. It is obvious you are!
17 posted on 12/19/2007 5:51:41 AM PST by jrooney (Ron Paul makes Jimmy Carter look tough and Dennis Kucinich look sane.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 50mm

This conservative will not vote or will consider a Democrat candidate in the Presidential if that kook gets the GOP nod. He is a dream come true for the Democrats.


18 posted on 12/19/2007 5:52:40 AM PST by Proud2BeRight
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BGHater
Montana probably could take care of it ...

I hope that's his idea of a joke.

Meanwhile, Mexico is invading California, Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas. (and, for that matter, Virginia, Maryland, and Washington DC)

19 posted on 12/19/2007 5:53:25 AM PST by ArrogantBustard (Western Civilisation is aborting, buggering, and contracepting itself out of existence.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: 50mm

I don’t see any real difference betwen Ron Paul’s view on the war, and the Democrats.


20 posted on 12/19/2007 5:53:36 AM PST by Badeye (No thanks, Huck, I'm not whitewashing the fence for you this election cycle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PjhCPA

None, zero, zilch, 0


21 posted on 12/19/2007 5:53:56 AM PST by Kaslin (Peace is the aftermath of victory)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: BGHater
Lol. He’s right, Montana could handle it.

It's probably literally true, but it's got to be the most ridiculous thing ever said by a Presidential candidate.

Now if Canada invaded New England, the liberals there would surrender in the first five minutes.
22 posted on 12/19/2007 5:55:48 AM PST by rightwingintelligentsia (CNN: Full of plants from the DNC Plant-ation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: 50mm

Ron Paul on War: “War is bad, mmm-kay? If you do war, your’re bad. Because war is bad. Mmm-kay?”


23 posted on 12/19/2007 5:59:11 AM PST by flowerplough ("These go to eleven." -- Nigel Tufnel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All

“It is not Muslim fanaticism that is the culprit.”

All I need to know.


24 posted on 12/19/2007 5:59:44 AM PST by CygnusXI (Where's that dang Meteor already?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

Comment #25 Removed by Moderator

To: 50mm
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.

The US presence in Saudi Arabia was at the invitation of the Saudi government to protect the Saudi people from the Baathist invasion that had already claimed the neighboring country of Kuwait.

The only reason why Chinese troops would ever be stationed on US soil would be because China was invading us.

Ron Paul is clinically insane.

26 posted on 12/19/2007 6:00:43 AM PST by wideawake (Why is it that so many self-proclaimed "Constitutionalists" know so little about the Constitution?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: facedown

Ron Paul makes a lot of sense! Sanity in a high office is an asset.


27 posted on 12/19/2007 6:00:55 AM PST by rovenstinez
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: 50mm
"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?"

Talk to them and ask them pretty please not to set it off and kill our innocent civilians? The same guys that behead children and women? The same guys that slaughter anyone for power? Yeah that is going to work Paul. You are a dangerous stupid man and your supporters are no better.
28 posted on 12/19/2007 6:02:36 AM PST by jrooney (Ron Paul makes Jimmy Carter look tough and Dennis Kucinich look sane.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rovenstinez

Wiping tears from eyes. Boy, I needed a good laugh this AM.


29 posted on 12/19/2007 6:03:01 AM PST by svcw (ncmi.net)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: 50mm

This Ass thinks he is a constitutionalist? This creep doesnt know squat about the US Constitution.
This guy’s a loser..and those who support him are losers also.


30 posted on 12/19/2007 6:03:39 AM PST by crz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rovenstinez
Ron Paul makes a lot of sense!

Ron Paul is out of his mind.

He basically said in this interview that the US was an occupying power in Saudi Arabia during the First Gulf War.

That makes about as much sense as saying that US troops in England were an occupying force in the Second World War.

He is clearly delusional.

31 posted on 12/19/2007 6:03:54 AM PST by wideawake (Why is it that so many self-proclaimed "Constitutionalists" know so little about the Constitution?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: BGHater

“Lol. He’s right, Montana could handle it.”

HaHa! Everything he said was stupid but this was very funny.


32 posted on 12/19/2007 6:07:48 AM PST by demshateGod (Duncan Hunter for President)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: 50mm

Ron Paul, the right man for the right time.

If the right time is 1901.


33 posted on 12/19/2007 6:08:44 AM PST by mkjessup (Hunter-Bolton '08 !! Patriots who will settle for nothing less than *Victory* in the War on Terror!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 50mm
Under the Constitution, we don't have the authority to just put troops in foreign countries willy-nilly when we're not at war.

Ron Paul, once again, drives my tagline home.

Under the actual Constitution of the United States, the Commander In Chief is entitled to deploy troops anywhere outside the United States he desires for any reason.

He has complete executive authority over US armed forces in both wartime and peacetime.

34 posted on 12/19/2007 6:08:52 AM PST by wideawake (Why is it that so many self-proclaimed "Constitutionalists" know so little about the Constitution?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: flowerplough
ru paul = ms garrison?
35 posted on 12/19/2007 6:09:18 AM PST by sticker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: 50mm
I don't think that's true. It is not Muslim fanaticism that is the culprit.

Ron, wake up and smell the jihad. You are completely, 100% wrong on this one.

36 posted on 12/19/2007 6:10:39 AM PST by Dead Corpse (What would a free man do?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wideawake

When I get into it with one of these “experts” who say we dont have the right to go to war in another country...all I do is ask them this-”Then we must have screwed up when we went to war with the Barbery (sic) pirates then?”

The only problem I have with this conflict is..It isnt a declared war. If we would have declared war a lot of these issues like the patriot act and the detaining of prisoners at gitmo would not have come up.


37 posted on 12/19/2007 6:15:14 AM PST by crz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: 50mm; aculeus; Billthedrill; Petronski; Allegra; Larry Lucido; lormand; wideawake; ...
Musical Interlude
38 posted on 12/19/2007 6:15:15 AM PST by dighton
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: darkwing104
Very few paulbots will defend him on this issue...

Oh, they have and they will. It may not be as vitriolic, but they'll defend him. It's in their water.

39 posted on 12/19/2007 6:16:06 AM PST by bcsco ("The American Indians found out what happens when you don't control immigration.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: darkwing104
Of course the Paulestinians will defend him on this.

The main reason why they support this treasonous faggot in the first place is because he is a shill for Islamic fascism.

40 posted on 12/19/2007 6:21:58 AM PST by wideawake (Why is it that so many self-proclaimed "Constitutionalists" know so little about the Constitution?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: dighton

Who knew? Dick Shawn was Ron Paul before running for Congress.


41 posted on 12/19/2007 6:23:01 AM PST by bcsco ("The American Indians found out what happens when you don't control immigration.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: 50mm
"It is not Muslim fanaticism that is the culprit."

Paul is delusional if he really believes that.
42 posted on 12/19/2007 6:23:37 AM PST by LIConFem (Thompson. Lifetime ACU Rating: 86 -- Hunter Lifetime ACU Rating: 92 (any combo will do, fellas))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 50mm
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.

Here is the crux of where Paul misses it (OK, one of the ways he misses it...) He gives the islamic radicals the moral authority to say who can or cannot be on their 'holy land'. Why should they be the ones with that authority? The last time I checked, were were guests of Saudi Arabia, Qatar, the UAE, and pretty much every country there we are in with the exception of Iraq (without going into that argument again.)

So, why do the islamic extremists have the moral authority in his mind over those who welcome us to help with security (and in turn, securing a vital defense and economic resource for our country- oil.)

43 posted on 12/19/2007 6:26:02 AM PST by mnehring (Ron Paul: 'When fascism comes it will be wrapped in a flag and carrying a cross'..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 50mm
Where to begin?

I'll just keep things simple.

If Canada invades Montana?

Well, from what I have seen in other statements by Paul, we would be stuck with nuking them...

44 posted on 12/19/2007 6:26:27 AM PST by LRS (It's time to put Hillary on the 3:10 to Yuma...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: crz
They would claim that Jefferson did not really understand the Constitution
45 posted on 12/19/2007 6:27:51 AM PST by sticker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: mnehrling
The most ridiculous part is that Paul says we were "occupying" Saudi Arabia.

We weren't.

He is either deliberately lying or he is insane.

There is no third option.

46 posted on 12/19/2007 6:28:41 AM PST by wideawake (Why is it that so many self-proclaimed "Constitutionalists" know so little about the Constitution?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: wideawake
I decided to do a little checking to see where there are Islamic holy sites, the list is as follows:
Mecca- Saudi Arabia
Medina- Saudi Arabia
Dome of the Rock- Israel
Hebron- Israel (West Bank)
Mashhad- Iran
Qom- Iran

Now, which one of these are we ‘occupying’?

47 posted on 12/19/2007 6:32:07 AM PST by mnehring (Ron Paul: 'When fascism comes it will be wrapped in a flag and carrying a cross'..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: 50mm

Germany declared war on the US right after Pearl harbor


48 posted on 12/19/2007 6:33:02 AM PST by ChurtleDawg (kill em all)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: wideawake; mnehrling
He is either deliberately lying or he is insane.
There is no third option.

Yes there is, he's BOTH!

49 posted on 12/19/2007 6:33:20 AM PST by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: crz
It isnt a declared war.

Yes, it was. This is a common piece of Ron Paul propaganda: however, Congress indeed authorized the use of force to remove the Hussein regime.

The issue is that we are no longer at war with a sovereign entity, because we are now allies with the governments of Iraq and Afghanistan - we are currently fighting a number of private organizations.

You cannot declare war on Al-Qaeda the way you could declare war on Iraq - Al-Qaeda is not a sovereign entity, but a bunch of dirtbags with ordinance.

So the question is: how do you conduct war against private citizens of states (i.e. Pakistanis, Saudis, Iraqis, Jordanians, Egyptians) when the states of which they are citizens are allies?

You do that with the PATRIOT Act and detention at Guantanamo along with other measures.

50 posted on 12/19/2007 6:36:04 AM PST by wideawake (Why is it that so many self-proclaimed "Constitutionalists" know so little about the Constitution?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-216 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

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