Topic: Foreign Policy
Enough is enough, says Paul On CNN, Ron Paul talked of the US responsibilities to both Pakistan and the rest of the world.by Mitch W
(Libertarian)
Thursday, December 27, 2007
In a spontaneous appearance on "The Situation Room," Republican representative and presidential candidate Ron Paul (R-Tex) talked about the recent assassination of former Pakistani Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto and shared foreign policy views that - once again - differed greatly from those held by other candidates.
"Enough is enough," the doctor said of America’s current foreign policy.
Paul told Wolf Blitzer that, if he were the current US president, he would not worry about Pakistan’s internal affairs and would instead work to involve America even less.
The interview came on the heels of statements from many headline-making candidates who claimed that they would increase American involvement in Pakistan - either by taking charge of the situation via the UN Security Council or by orchestrating a Federal investigation into the assassination. Giuliani, McCain and Clinton all began to immediately spout how their 'experience' would help them in such a situation.
While Dr. Paul claimed that, as president, he would urge that Pakistan take a sensible approach to the tragedy, he added that he would commit no military aid and no intelligence cooperation to the effort. Representative Paul also said that the United States should cease the flow of troops and money into the country - and the Middle East, in general.
He said that America has given money that has aided a dictator who overthrew an elected government. Pakistani president Pervez Musharraf is nothing more than a US puppet. This sort of U.S. puppet government, according to Paul, is simply angering Al Qaeda in the region.
When asked if he was concerned about Al Qaeda or an Islamic fundamentalist regime taking over a country with nuclear capabilities if America were to leave Pakistan to its own devices, Paul replied that he was. He was also concerned, he added, with numerous Soviet nukes that are unaccounted for and are likely currently floating around central Asia.
Paul closed the interview by reviewing the global responsibilities that his country should have. America should be friends with people, trade with people and sort things out democratically, he said. It should not bribe other countries with donations and aid or threaten them with attack. The US should exercise neutrality, talking and trading with other countries, and then leaving them alone.
People will, undoubtedly twist this interview and/or this article out of context, but it’s great to finally see a candidate respond to a situation honestly. While the other candidates are pandering to the media to avoid saying something wrong, Paul is sticking to his guns marvelously. And while they attack each other over, essentially, the same foreign policies, Dr. Paul is once again standing alone - and arguably above the competition.
Not to mention, it was intriguing to see another honest interview on a major network.
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 286 thumbs so far
2007 Mitch W, all rights reserved.
Published: Thursday, December 27, 2007
Last modified: Thursday, December 27, 2007
The views expressed in this
article are those of Mitch W only and do not represent
the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates. Mitch W is
solely responsible for the contents of this article and is not an
employee or otherwise affiliated with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
Posted By: Timur Rozenfeld
Date: 2007-12-27 16:05:14
Yes, it was an excellent interview and Ron Paul was not afraid to call Musharraf a puppet nor say some other honest things about our failing foreign policy.
Wow, every candidate wants to increase the US presence in Pakistan now!!!!!
WE CAN'T GO INTO PAKISTAN NOW TO HUNT DOWN OSAMA. DO THESE CANDIDATES ACTUALLY EXPECT PAKISTAN TO LET US IN NOW.
A fomer SEAL buddy of mine said they are virtually near civil war in Afghanistan now (a guy on the ground there). Iraq is a nightmare. They have been battling in the middle east for 3000 years. Let them battle it out amongst themselves with a good non-interventionist strategy. Why go over there and stir up the hornets nest.
GO RON PAUL
Posted By: Richard Wicks
Date: 2007-12-27 16:32:28
"They have been battling in the middle east for 3000 years"
This is a myth often told in the West. 100 years ago, they were the Ottoman Empire. It wasn't really until the British Empire came in that all this conflict erupted, and it got really bad when the United States started to place dicators into power like the Sa'ud Family, and the Shah of Iran via Operation Ajax.
I know I speak for many when I judge federal investigations into the Kenedy assasination and the demolition of the world trade towers to be at best unconvincing and inconclusive. I think it is laughable to propose a federal investigation into events in a country half way around the globe. Why don't they just anounce the conclusion they want to come to, the conclusion that military action is needed, and spare tax payers the cost and humiliation of another federal investigation.
"They have been battling in the middle east for 3000 years"
Richard, I see your point, but it's still an essentially true statement, like saying ""They have been battling in Europe for 3000 years". It's more or less accurate, but really doesn't illuminate. If the statement is intended to imply that since there has been a history of war in the Middle East, then future war is inevitable, then I point to the example of Europe. The Ottoman Empire did in fact make war to expand its control, by the way, and kept control by force.
A few months ago I had to search for articles on RP--now there's so much on the Internet I have to decide between which articles I want to bring to the attention of others!
i am a british pakistani (plus ron paul supporter)..bhutto was not the beacon of light that the american govt. was peddling, she was involved in MAJOR corruption, and those charges were only dropped when Bush and Co. suddenly realised that she may be our answer for pakistan..when she came to pakistan recently she said she would support (and probably even increase the scope) of the war on terror..now how would something like that go down with the taliban and al-qaeda.
what got her killed was her strong anti-taliban talks plus her support from America.
Nawaz Sharif (another opposition leader) has not had threats made coz he is not in the american cmap (not that i support nawaz sharif..he is just as bad lol)
Ron Paul completely nails it - again. The posters at Free Republic are smearing him as usual but Paul is right. It's time to look after America first and foremost and leave these Middle Eastern s--tholes alone. Who cares about these people? They don't want liberty they've been fighting for hundreds of years. In 2005 Iraq Parliament voted for Sharia Law!
After the CNN/YouTube debacle and the atrocious manner in which the MSM has treated Ron Paul, CNN is scrambling to save it's worthless @$$ in the eyes of the public that has, by now, probably stopped watching them disseminate the lies and disinformation.
What scares me, with the secret reach of the Patiot Act, could the Paul supporters be hunted down as traitors?
Enough is too much, already. The deeper we get into world-building, the harder it is to reverse the economic and political course. It is not difficult to see how so many vested interests are tied to the current interventionist system: media, intellectual "elites," banking moguls, war-making businesses, mercenaries, multinational corporations, and so forth.
The economic and social chasms that are being created in America are enormous. We have people trapped in multiple layers of realization about the next course of action--whether to continue the world-building mission or return to a humble, non-interventionist foreign policy (and take time to lick our wounds).
Staying the present course--and reinforcing our role as the world's policeman--is coming to an end. It was a ridiculous idea created by wealthy, idealistic, self-serving and greedy "elitists." Their solution--because they have no other--will be to continue the turmoil until there is virtually nothing left of the Empire. The money, the manpower, and the hardware are going to be frittered away. (We're already having trouble with NATO nations.) Yet, we still see the "mainstream" candidates wanting to do more with Pakistan--I'm sure this will go over well with American public.
The other course is to desist from interventionism, draw back, rebuild, fix the government, and fix the economy. The vested interests will resist until they lose their business, or their fortunes, or are swinging at the end of a rope. But this turn of events will not be easy, either. American lifestyles will have to change; people will have to become self-sufficient, do more with their money, spend less, and work in more meaningful (productive) jobs. We'll have to completely retool many jobs that have been created--the security apparatus, the warmaking industries, and so forth.
But whatever one's worldview is, both courses of action--more intervention, less intervention--are bound to lead to the same result. Lean times are ahead.
When asked What she would you like to tell President Bush? ...
She would tell him, she replies, that propping up Musharraf’s government, which is infested with radical Islamists, is only hastening disaster. “I would say, ‘Your policy of supporting dictatorship is breaking up my country.’ I now think al-Qaeda can be marching on Islamabad in two to four years.”
I think Dr. Paul has prescribed the best medicine for this situation
it's a terrible thing when someone is assasinated because they don't believe in the same thing that others do.I urge all Ron Paul supporters to keep an eye out for the crazies and non supporters.don't let them stop us
Another interesting note not mentioned, is that Bhutto mentioned in an interview that Osama Bin Laden was murdered. It was just a side note as she mentioned the name of the murderer. The interviewer didn't even question her about that.
Want to comment on this
article? Leave your comment here. Your email address is
required to track your comment. However, we will neither
publish your email address nor distribute it to other
organizations or persons. The only reason we might use
it would be if we needed to contact you regarding your
comment. All comments are subject to our
terms of use policy.
2007 Mitch W, all rights reserved.