I'm Not Much of a Ron Paul Fan But You Have to Love His Honesty
MR. RUSSERT: How many troops do we have overseas right now?
REP. PAUL: I don't know the exact number, but more than we need. We don't need any.
MR. RUSSERT: It's 572,000. And you'd bring them all home?
REP. PAUL: As quickly as possible. We--they will not serve our interests to be overseas. They get us into trouble. And we can defend this country without troops in Germany, troops in Japan. How do they help our national defense? Doesn't make any sense to me. Troops in Korea since I've been in high school?
MR. RUSSERT: What...
REP. PAUL: You know, it doesn't make any sense.
MR. RUSSERT: Under President Paul, if North Korea invaded South Korea, would we respond?
REP. PAUL: I don't--why should we unless the Congress declared war? I mean, why are we there? Could--South Korea, they're begging and pleading to unify their country, and we get in their way. They want to build bridges and go back and forth. Vietnam, we left under the worst of circumstances. The country is unified. They have become Westernized. We trade with them. Their president comes here. And Korea, we stayed there and look at the mess. I mean, the problem still exists, and it's drained trillion dollars over these last, you know, 50 years. So stop--we can't afford it anymore. We're going bankrupt. All empires end because the countries go bankrupt, and the, and the currency crashes. That's what happening. And we need to come out of this sensibly rather than waiting for a financial crisis.
MR. RUSSERT: So if Iran invaded Israel, what do we do?
REP. PAUL: Well, they're not going to. That is like saying "Iran is about to invade Mars." I mean, they have nothing. They don't have an army or navy or air force. And Israelis have 300 nuclear weapons. Nobody would touch them. But, no, if, if it were in our national security interests and Congress says, "You know, this is very, very important, we have to declare war." But presidents don't have the authority to go to war.
At minimum, Paul clearly recognizes the insanity of our foreign policy.
There's lots of other interesting-- and brutally honest-- stuff in that interview; it's really worth a read.
The one thing Paul really has is an amazing consistency to his views of government. Personally, I thinks he takes things too far-- it's why I don't think Libertarianism is an optimal political system. And his ideas on how to change the government are essentially never going to happen without some amazing revolution occurring.
But he is still an amazing breath of fresh air in the political landscape.
TO BE PERFECTLY CLEAR-- when I say "honesty" and "brutally honest", I don't mean to say that he is necessarily RIGHT. I just mean that he personally is being honest about his views.
Here and here are a couple of egregious examples about things he doesn't get quite right.
11 Comments:
Yep...you and Ron Paul are two sides of an intellectual/foreign policy dingbat coin. Doesn't surprise me at all.
I agree absolutely. Ron Paul is 100% forthright with his views. Almost every other politician is constantly dodging questions and such. People calling him a "dingbat" is ridiculous. He is a brilliant debater. He articulates clear and convincing reasons for all of the views that he holds. He is far more knowledgeable about history, economics, and our policies in general than any of the other Republicans.
As for the "going too far" argument. Don't worry, he can't achieve a perfectly free market because he can't get the votes in Congress. But what he can do is sell the philosophy of liberty for 8 years and get our country turned around and going back in the right direction.
In what sense are you saying that Ron Paul doesn't get certain things "right"?
Are you able to articulate what you feel he's gotten wrong other than just giving your opinion that he hasn't gotten them "quite right"?
wow maybe ron paul is the messiah?
certainly he will save the world if we only rally behind him!
Based on the 4:10 shill's comment, the worst of the right-wing brigade
must really be worried that Ron Paul's views are resonating with millions of people.
As I alluded to, Paul's views on evolution are not very good, and his view on how the Civil war was started is just wrong.
Well, if Paul's "views on evolution are not very good" (in your opinion) and if his view on how the Civil war was started is "just wrong" (pray tell, whose is RIGHT?)...then Ron Paul's views on the political issues of the day just don't matter, now do they?
Not a very sophisticated way (in my opinion) to assess the qualifications of a highly educated, politically experienced candidate whose views don't always reflect the same old same old of the other candidates running for President.
Simple-minded people no doubt make choices without giving much thought to the complete picture, but I'm surprised that you would.
Who says that anyone is "making a choice"?
"Who says that anyone is "making a choice"?
I did. Most other voters will too.
Do you let someone else choose for you?
"""Who says that anyone is "making a choice"?
I did. Most other voters will too.""
spooked does not seem to be "making a choice" while simultaneously criticizing and praising ron paul.
tell us; what do you imagine that his choice is?
It won't succeed as a matter of fact, that's exactly what I think.
Post a Comment
<< Home