Gayblack Canadian Man

Foreign Policy Analysis
Dr. Consistency: Ron Paul’s Foreign Policy Views

Dr. Consistency: Ron Paul’s Foreign Policy Views

REPORTER: You say we shouldn’t be nearly as
involved as we are in foreign affairs, and support, military support, for our allies. What if the Soviets started sending them (Mexico)
money if we didn’t send the money? RON PAUL: The Soviet system would fall even
more rapidly. They can’t even feed themselves. We’re financing the Soviet system too! REPORTER: So you wouldn’t worry about that
as President of the United States? RON PAUL: Well, I’d worry if they threatened
my security and the security of the country. But I think it would be helpful to bankrupt
the Soviet Union if they want to spend all their money. Because they couldn’t win in Afghanistan and
they’re broke and now they’re getting more loans from the United States. HOST: Ron, why do we keep getting into these
foreign predicaments? RON PAUL: The Left and the Right so often
argue about “Well we should go in, he’s the enemy, we’ll attack him, but we’ll let this
person alone”. And then they switch and they flip-flop. And
we lead to a disaster, we don’t know why we should go into these areas and it leads to
disasters like Korea and Vietnam. MOYER: Have you seen or heard anything from
the CIA, the Pentagon, the State Department, the White House to suggest that Saddam Hussein
is planning an attack on the United States? RON PAUL: No, I see nothing imminent. He doesn’t have an air force, he doesn’t have
a navy. He can’t even shoot down, he didn’t even shoot
down one of our airplanes in twelve years. And his army is one-third of what it was twelve
years ago. So it’s pretty vague accusations. So, you know, this fiction that he’s Hitler
and he’s about to take over the Middle East is… I think it’s a stretch. RON PAUL: We allied ourselves in the 1980s
with Iraq in its war with Iran and assisted Saddam Hussein in his rise to
power. As recent reports reconfirm, we did nothing
to stop Hussein’s development of chemical and biological weapons and at least indirectly assisted in their
development. Now, as a consequence of that needless intervention,
we are planning a risky war to remove him from power; and as usual, the probable result of such
an effort would be something that our government does not anticipate like a takeover by someone much worse. As
bad as Hussein is, he is an enemy of the al-Qaeda and someone new well may be a close ally of
the Islamic radicals. Although our puppet dictatorship in Saudi
Arabia has lasted for many decades, it is becoming shakier every day. The Saudi people are not exactly friendly
towards us, and our military presence on their holy soil is greatly resented. This contributes to the radical fundamentalist
hatred directed toward us. Another unfavorable consequence to America,
such as a regime change not to our liking, could soon occur in Saudi Arabia. It is not merely a coincidence that 15 of
the 9-11 terrorists are Saudis. The Persian Gulf War fought, without a declaration
of war, is in reality still going on. It looks like that 9-11 may well have been
a battle in that war perpetrated by fanatical guerrillas. It indicates how seriously flawed our foreign
policy is. In the 1980s, we got involved in the Soviet-Afghanistan
war and actually sided with the forces of Osama bin Laden, helping him gain power. This obviously was
an alliance of no benefit to the United States, and it has come back to haunt us. HOST: Congressman Paul, this comes from Jay
Majumdar from Roswell, Georgia. And he wants to know if you agree with Senator
McCain’s statement that the United States might need to have U.S. troops in Iraq for
as long as even 100 years? I don’t even think they should have gone, so keeping them for 100 years, where’s the
money going to come from? (APPLAUSE) You know, the country is in bankruptcy. And
when I listen to this argument, I mean, I find it rather silly, because they’re
arguing technicalities of a policy they both agree with. They agreed with going in; they agreed for
staying, agreed for staying how many years? And these are technicalities. We should be debating foreign policy, whether
we should have interventionism or non-interventionism, whether we should be defending this country or whether we should be the policemen of the
world, whether we should be running our empire or
not, and how are we going to have guns and butter? You know, the ’70s were horrible because we
paid for the guns and butters of the ’60s. Now we’re doing the same thing. And nobody even seems to care. The dollar
is crashing, and you’re talking about these technicalities about who said what when? I mean, in 1952, we Republicans were elected
to stop the war in Korea. In 1968, we were elected to stop the war in
Vietnam. And, tragically, we didn’t stop it very fast: 30,000 more men died. So when I talk about these long-term stays,
I think, “How many men are you willing to let die for this, for something that has nothing to do with
our national security?” There were no al Qaeda there. It had nothing
do with 9/11. And there was no threat to our national security. They never committed aggression. It’s unconstitutional.
It’s an undeclared war. And we have these silly arguments going on
about who said what when. I think it’s time to debate foreign policy and why we don’t follow the Constitution and only go to war with a declaration of war. (APPLAUSE) REPORTER: What do you make of President Obama’s
approach to Iraq and Afghanistan now that he’s in office? RON PAUL: Every bit as bad as the last administration,
maybe even worse. Because he’s not getting out of Iraq, that’s
a pretense. And he’s expanding rapidly what’s happening
in Afghanistan. He’s continuing the bombing of Pakistan,
he has not changed his attitude about Iran. They’re talking about denying any shipments
of gasoline to the people of Iran just to further antagonize the situation. What he is doing is a little more dangerous
because he has neutralized the anti-war left. The antiwar left has just left. At least Bush was honest, I mean he was upfront.
He believed in pre-emptive preventive war, but everybody was hopeful that Obama would
do differently, but he hasn’t. So he has quieted down the left and there
is a very weak anti-war movement in this country now. And that obviously is something I hope to
participate in reviving and it has to be coming from the old right
as well as true progressives who believe that all this warmongering and
killing makes no sense whatsoever. LARRY KING: So you would get out of Afghanistan
and Iraq posthaste? RON PAUL: I would, and my saying during the
campaign was “we just marched in, we can just march home.” Nothing good can come of it and it’s an
undeclared war. It’s an immoral war. We don’t have any money. The longer we’re
there, the worse it’s going to get and we just need to come home. We can’t nation-build and besides, I will
win this argument because we are bankrupt and we can’t afford it, so it’s going to end badly if we don’t
come to our senses and just say, “Let’s quit this militarism around the
world.” I mean, we’re in 130 countries with 700
bases around the world and we cannot sustain these and it is, it’s pumped up by both the Left and the
Right in the Congress, “Oh, we can’t do away with this weapon.
It will be bad for jobs.” There is conservative Keynesism and Liberal
Keynesism, always government management, which always fails and gives us the financial
crisis that we’re in. CARL CAMERON: Congressman Paul, yet another
question about electability … Do you have any, sir? There’s always the question as to whether
or not … (LAUGHTER) … you are, in fact, viable. Your differences with the Republicans on the
— with the rest of the Republicans on this stage has raised questions about whether or
not you can actually win the general — the Republican nomination, sir. RON PAUL: Well, we’ve only had two little
primaries so far. So it’s pretty premature to decide which
one is going to be the candidate. But, you know, when you think about it, if you measured everything I’ve ever said,
every vote I’ve ever taken against the Constitution, you know, I’m a strict constitutionalist. Are you suggesting the Republicans should
write me off because I’m a strict constitutionalist? I’m the most conservative member here. I have voted, you know, against more spending
and waste in government than anybody else. (APPLAUSE) So you’re suggesting that I’m not electable
and the Republicans don’t want me because I’m a strict fiscal conservative, Because I believe in civil liberties? Why should we not be defending civil liberties
and why should we not be talking about foreign policy that used to be the part of the Republican
Party? “Mr. Republican” Robert Taft didn’t even
want us to be in NATO, and you’re saying now that we have to continue
to borrow money from China to finance this empire that we can’t afford? Let me see if I get this right. We need to borrow $10 billion from China, and then we give it to (Pakistan’s) Musharraf, who is a military dictator who overthrew an
elected government. And then we go to war, we lose all these lives
promoting democracy in Iraq. I mean, what’s going on here? (CHEERS AND APPLAUSE)

7 comments on “Dr. Consistency: Ron Paul’s Foreign Policy Views

  1. please note the arrogant grin on McCain's and Romney's faces… (4:00-5:30) To me it seems like these two don't take the whole thing serious enough. They lose themselves in nothing but empty "patriotic" slogans.

    Huckabee seems to be a nice guy, but he's simply not made for politics, he's a church minister. -Probably a good one though.

    Go Ron Paul, go!

  2. Check out the pissed off look on that fucking little worm John McCains face. He cant stand it when someone tells the truth and exposes the New World Order open borders assholes like (McCain) himself.

  3. If Ron Paul was part of the NWO, why would he purposely create such a huge opposition knowing full well that it could threaten his "evil diabolical plans"? He's so consistent with his message and views, disregarding these claims is all too easy.

    Ron Paul r3VOLution 2012!!!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *