Tuesday, February 28, 2012

Ron Paul on War & Peace

Q: I was intrigued by your comments about Abe Lincoln. “According to Paul, Abe Lincoln should never have gone to war; there were better ways of getting rid of slavery.”

A: Absolutely. Six hundred thousand Americans died in a senseless civil war. No, he shouldn’t have gone to war. He did this just to enhance and get rid of the original intent of the republic. I mean, it was that iron fist..
Q: We’d still have slavery.
A: Oh, come on. Slavery was phased out in every other country of the world. And the way I’m advising that it should have been done is do like the British empire did. You buy the slaves and release them. How much would that cost compared to killing 600,000 Americans and where the hatred lingered for 100 years? Every other major country in the world got rid of slavery without a civil war. I mean, that doesn’t sound too radical to me. That sounds like a pretty reasonable approach.
Meet the Press: 2007 "Meet the Candidates" series - Dec 23, 2007

Ronald Reagan in 1983 sent Marines into Lebanon, and he said he would never turn tail and run. A few months later, the Marines were killed, 241 were killed, and the Marines were taken out. And Reagan addressed this subject in his memoirs. And he says, “I said I would never turn tail and run.” He says, “But I never realized the irrationality of Middle Eastern politics,” and he changed his policy there. We need the courage of a Ronald Reagan.
2007 Republican Debate in South Carolina - May 15, 2007

In 2002, as war with Iraq loomed, I proposed that Congress officially declare war against Iraq, making it clear that I intended to oppose my own measure. The point was to underscore our constitutional responsibility to declare war before commencing major military operations, rather than leaving the decision to the President or passing resolutions that delegate to the president the decision making power over war.
The Revolution: A Manifesto, by Ron Paul, p. 52-53 - Apr 1 2008

Following the creation of the Fed, the government would discover elastic money would prove useful in funding war. It is no coincidence that the century of total war coincided with the century of central banking. When governments had to fund their own wars without a paper money machine to rely upon, they economized on resources. They found diplomatic solutions to prevent war, and after they started a war they ended it as soon as possible.

Now with central banks, governments could just print what they needed, and therefore they were more willing to pull the trigger and pick fights. The diplomats were powerless to stop governments itching to try out their newfound funding machines.
End the Fed, by Ron Paul, p 63 - Sep 29, 2010

Today, the Israeli political lobby is a powerful political force. Two to three hundred nuclear weapons, under Israel's control, make Israel more powerful than all the Arab and Muslim countries put together. But that's not where the real power lies. The UN can labor tirelessly in "controlling" one nuclear weapon (in Iran) that doesn't exist while the international community does not put pressure on Israel to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. In contrast, the world community rarely even admits that Israel's nukes exist--and at the same time Iran has never been ruled in noncompliance with the NPT. The fact that Muslim nations become annoyed with this policy is written off by most in the West by charging anti-Semitism.
Liberty Defined, by Ron Paul, p. 317 - Apr 19, 2011


Dr. Paul needs to study history a bit better, he's been listening to rhetoric for too long. The US Civil War was not started over freeing the slaves. Slavery wasn't even a primary reason for the war until the Emancipation Proclamation made it a reason, mostly to garner support from the North's black population. The Civil War was started by South Carolina, a member of the Confederate States, attacking Fort Sumter. The split was initially caused by an argument over slavery in the new territories to the west, and the fact the southern states hated Lincoln, but the fact is every state in the US has the constitutional right to secede whenever they so choose. The Constitution is a pact willingly entered into for mutual protection with the requirement that the state follows the federal laws. If South Carolina hadn't attacked Sumter the entire Civil War would have been an illegal action.

Also, the Confederacy recieved a good deal of support from Britain, even though they had abolished slavery in 1833. So obviously their anti-slavery attitudes hadn't been completely dissolved.

I respect Ronald Reagan a great deal, but he was not perfect. Pulling our troops out of Lebanon immediately following the death of those Marines was stupid. It informed the terrorists of the world what they had to do to get the United States to leave. They just had to kill enough people. The problem with fighting fanatics is that they aren't reasonable people, that's why they're called fanatics. They don't care how many people they lose. The only way to solve the problem is to wipe it out.

I do agree that Congress should have to officially declare war before we go and invade another country however. The whole idea of calling things police actions or conflicts to avoid this bothers the heck out of me. They fund it, but they refuse to actually have the balls to stand up and declare war. The last time Congress actually officially declared war was World War II.

Dr. Paul is right about this being the century of war, partially, nearly every century has been a century of war. Heck, there is even a period between the British and French called The Hundred Years' War, so saying they found ways to end them quickly is false. The fact is countries still had large wars even before central banks, but those wars were largely over resources and empire building instead of ideology or a call to protect those who cannot protect themselves. On top of that the loss of life was just as great as WWI and II. The Crimean War (1853-56) saw losses nearly as great as than WWII. The Franco-Prussian War (1870-71) also saw deaths upwards of 200,000. We've lost more people to murders in our cities on a yearly basis than both Gulf Wars combined. So I guess it depends if you'd rather spend money or lives, personally I'll spend the money.

Regarding Israel's nukes... I'm not worried about Israel having nukes, and neither is anyone in the Western world. Do you know why? Because they all know that Israel will not use them unless they are attacked first. Even Pakistan isn't willing to use their nukes unless India starts something with them. Iran is not like either of those countries. They are led and controlled by a group of religious fanatics that believe, and continually speak to the fact, that the US is the Great Satan, that Israel must be wiped off the map, and that any oppression of Islam condones any actions taken against the oppressor. Guess what counts as oppression... not allowing multiple wives, charging people with murder when they commit "honor killings," and any other "religious obligations" that are illegal by a country's laws.

You do not deal with a bully by ignoring him, contrary to the stupid belief currently cycling through our society. You beat the crud out of him until he gives up. If you have a friend that is too weak to stand up for himself do you help defend him, or do you watch as that bully beats him to a pulp? If you stand by and watch then I call you a coward. You defend him, and then you teach him how to defend himself, but you do not abandon him and hope he comes out okay because you're not the one being attacked.


No comments:

Post a Comment