Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Wednesday, December 19, 2007
John Stossel :: Townhall.com Columnist
Ron Paul on War
by John Stossel
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Do you feel the leaked information from a global warming alarmist organization is meaningful?



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.

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author
John Stossel blogs at http://blogs.abcnews.com/johnstossel/ is an award-winning news correspondent and author of Myths, Lies, and Downright Stupidity: Get Out the Shovel--Why Everything You Know is Wrong.
 
TOWNHALL DAILY: Be the first to read John Stossel's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.
 
©Creators Syndicate
Hey Ron hit rudy with the 13th amendment
13TH AMENDMENT: "If any citizen of the United States shall accept, claim, receive, or retain any title of nobility or honour, or shall without the consent of Congress, accept and retain any present, pension, office, or emolument of any kind whatever, from any emperor, king, prince, or foreign power, such person shall cease to be a citizen of the United States, and shall be incapable of holding any office of trust or profit under them, or either of them."

Rudy was knighted by Queen Elizabeth II on Feburary 13th, 2002.



just talk
Yes, just talk to someone that wants to rob you, kill you, rape your daughters, yep, talk is all it takes. None of these crimes would ever happen if we just talked to our attackers. Sure. Prove to me that talking helps in every single instance. I dont want to hear an opinion, I want cold hard facts that talk will solve everything.

Con4fred makes my point.
No engagement in the issues, just empty generalizations and condescending dismissal of Paul and his supporters as "crazy" or "scary".

Do you really think the status quo in the GOP, with "W" at the helm, refusing to secure the borders, reneging on the fence, conducting Congressional business just as fraudulently as any bunch of Democrats, is the answer?

Our marvelous military has performed miracles while on a fool's mission. How long do you think it will take for the Iraqi citizens to vote the radical Mulahs into to power? Why do members of the military give more money to Ron Paul than to any other candidate? Do our troops scare you too?

Our President, along with all five of the so called top tier Republicans, scare me no less than Hillary.

Note to Sergey
Sergey wrote;

“After the battle of Stalingrad Soviet Army was on the offensive. In the early 1944, we (Russians) already threw out Germans from Finland, Hungary and were marching through the Europe on the way to Germany.”

Your comment suggests that you may believe that the U.S. entered the war in 1944. The U.S. entered the war in late 1941.

“US entry was more about dividing Europe and preventing Russia dominance.”

If U.S. entry was for the purpose of preventing Soviet dominance, there would have been no lend-lease. The U.S. would have done nothing to assist the Soviets so that the Germans could have bled them even more. The Soviet Union could never have successfully invaded and occupied Eastern Europe without U.S. assistance. The U.S. would not have destroyed German war making potential, or at the very least, the U.S. would have immediately helped the Germans rebuild their massive armaments potential. Together, the U.S. and Germany would have attacked the Soviet army and would have thrown it out of Eastern Europe.

You state that the U.S. wanted to prevent “Russian” (Soviet) dominance. I guess the best way to do this was to assist the Soviet Union in invading, occupying and holding Eastern Europe for half a century.


I've said it before
It's not RP that scares me, it's his supporters!

Ron Paul doesn't have a clue
Mr. Paul's galactically astonishing directed ignorance never once encompasses the ringing truth that the ascendant forms of Islam today will never acquiesce to the idea that there WILL be somewhere the people are sovereign (and make up any damn laws they like, right out of their own heads) and not what these backward facing islamozoids conceive of as god's will. It is THEY who have declared war on freedom loving peoples since it is THEIR individual responsibility before god to ensure that god and therefore 'justice' is sovereign and not the mind of man

They are compelled to ensure that they do all they can to achieve this. They cannot do otherwise.

Mr. Paul needs to get his head to a place where recognition of this objective reality, and the reality that NOT excoriating his support by Stormfront and it's live alikes and it's leader, who appears weekly with David Duke, will end up HURTING this nation.

Ron Paul and his utterly ignorant foreign policy and it's delusional 1930 isolationist dreams are just as much a danger to this nation as the idea that fluoride in the water is a communist plot to destroy the USA. Now I wonder who had that idea?

Neo-Cons are terrified of Dr. Paul
I've been one of those "right of Attila" type conservatives since I was 16 years old. I once thought the most destructive political force on the planet was the Liberal-Socialist-Marxist. Sorrowfully, I've found one thing worse, that is, the Neo-Con movement. Worse, because we know what the Libs want for us, but Neo-Cons disguise the fact the they're taking us to the same place; World Government under the U.N. These vicious, name calling attacks on Ron Paul and his followers are consistent with what I've suspected about townhall.com in general. This site is a diversion and a source of misinformation for well meaning conservatives.

After a lifetime of supporting Republicans there is no chance that I'll show up on election day '08 to vote for anyone other than Ron Paul.

why Mormons should vote for Dr Paul
Pres Benson on US Foreign Policy:
http://www.latterdayconservative.com/modules/wfsection/arti cle.php?articleid=166

Benson: “…There is one and only one legitimate goal of United States foreign policy. It is a narrow goal, a nationalistic goal: the preservation of our national independence. Nothing in the Constitution grants that the President shall have the privilege of offering himself as a world leader. He's our executive; he's on our payroll, in necessary; he's supposed to put our best interests in front of those of other nations. Nothing in the Constitution nor in logic grants to the President of the United States or to Congress the power to influence the political life of other countries, to "uplift" their cultures, to bolster their economies, to feed their peoples or even to defend them against their enemies. This point was made clear by the wise father of our country, George Washington: “I have always given it as my decided opinion that no nation has a right to intermeddle in the internal concerns of another; that every one had a right to form and adopt whatever government they liked best to live under them selves; and that if this country could, consistent with its engagements, maintain a strict neutrality and thereby preserve peace, it was bound to do so by motives of policy, interest, and every other consideration. -- George Washington (1732-1799) Letter to James Monroe (25 Aug. 1796)


Pres J Reuben Clarke on US Foreign Policy – Let Us Have Peace
http://www.zeios.com/OurRepublic/Articles.aspx?ArticleId=47