[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
|
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
United States News Title: Ron Paul interview by Joe Sansone PART 1 Editor’s note: This interview is the first in a three part series to be conducted over the next couple weeks with Republican presidential candidate and Congressman from Texas, Dr. Ron Paul. This interview deals mostly with foreign policy and national security. Foreign Policy and National Security Question 1: Dr Paul, there seems to be a cooling of relations with Russia and you’ve mentioned the possibility of a new Cold War with Russia developing. This could be partly attributed to U.S. foreign policy and partly attributed to Putin’s apparent moves to retain power. What do you attribute the cooling in the U.S./Russia relationship to and how if possible will you avert a new Cold War? Dr. Ron Paul If you look at US policy on Russia’s periphery, you can see part of the reason for the cooling relations. From Georgia to Kazakhstan and the Ukraine, our foreign policy seems to be focused on provoking Russia rather than seeking friendly and mutually-beneficial relations. The United States has troops stationed in a ring around Russia and regularly interferes in the internal affairs of the new states of the former Soviet Union. The “Orange Revolution” in Ukraine, for example, was partly funded by the US government. There is no reason for a “new Cold War” with Russia, and the foreign policy I intend to pursue as president – peaceful relations, engagement, and trade – will greatly improve US/Russia relations. Question 2: Congressman Paul, the issue of Iran obtaining nuclear weapons and the possibility of war with Iran seems to be increasing. You’ve stated your opposition to a war with Iran. How will you resolve the Iranian issue? What policy if any do you think the U.S. should have toward third world nations that seek to obtain nuclear weapons? Dr. Ron Paul General William Odom, who directed the National Security Agency under President Reagan, recently wrote an article titled “Exit From Iraq Should Be Through Iran,” claiming that cooperation between Washington and Tehran “is the single most important step that could be taken to rescue the US from its predicament in Iraq.” I believe we can restore such cooperation with Iran through diplomacy, trade, and travel, rather than threatening a nuclear strike. Our extension of economic sanctions against the Iranian people amounts to sheer war propaganda, and we’re losing out opportunity to pursue a peaceful option the more we shut them out. We need to re-open the doors to diplomacy with Iran, by removing sanctions and actually talking with them—as we did with the Soviet Union during the Cold War. President Reagan was “the Great Communicator,” and we need to hearken back to his policy of communication to prevent war with Iran or any other country that seeks to obtain nuclear weapons. Question 3: You’ve stated that you do not support maintaining empire overseas and that it is both dangerous and too costly. There seems to be varying views here even among non interventionists. Dr. Paul can you clarify your non interventionist foreign policy? What will the U.S. military look like under your administration? Do you still want an international military presence around the world with the U.S. as the arsenal or strategic reserve of Western civilization? Is there a risk of a potential adversary like China filling the vacuum? Dr. Ron Paul The United States has troops stationed in 130 foreign countries worldwide. Those are 130 countries whose own national development is thwarted by our presence—a presence which is too costly for our federal budget to sustain. I don’t understand this talk of our presence as a “strategic reserve of Western civilization”. Instead, the best indication of our civilization has been our prestige in international trade. We should let the best measure of our American greatness come from free and peaceful trade with other nations, not from displays of our military might. While we engage in deficit spending to fund our military exploits overseas, detracting from our own productivity, countries like China are filling the void by expanding their trade opportunities. We should seek to promote the Jeffersonian ideals of friendly commerce with all nations, and entangling alliances with none. Question 4: You voted against the war. One of the reasons was because Congress wasn’t Declaring war and was basically giving the president a blank check to use force. Some candidates like Senator Hillary Clinton have recently claimed that they thought they were voting for diplomacy when they voted in 2002 to authorize the president to use force. What are your thoughts on Senator Clinton’s claim? Is there any legitimacy to it? Dr. Ron Paul It is clear to anyone witnessing the US run-up to the war against Iraq that the resolution passed by Congress at the end of 2002 would lead to military action. The threatening rhetoric from the neo-cons in the Administration and the almost weekly legislation threatening Iraq that was passed in Congress left little doubt among serious foreign policy observers that the US was on a course toward war. The resolution passed in 2002 accelerated that course exponentially. Those who claim otherwise after the fact are either not being completely truthful or were at the time not paying attention. Question 5: The 2008 Beijing Olympics have been dubbed the ‘Genocide Games’. Communist China continues to oppress its citizens and religious minorities. In particular their oppression of Tibet’s Buddhists has garnered international attention. Some have called on the U.S. to boycott the Beijing Olympics. What are your views? Dr. Ron Paul I’m certainly troubled by oppressive actions by the Chinese Communist Party in the wake of the 2008 Olympics. Communist China continues its brutal legacy of egregious human rights abuses, especially as we have seen recently against Tibet’s Buddhists. The persecution isn’t just against religious minorities, either—how many tens of thousands Chinese citizens have been displaced as the government razed hutongs in Beijing and rice paddies in the western provinces? Communist China, though increasingly globalized, has not accepted basic tenets of freedom that we hold dearly in America, such as property rights and freedoms of religion or association. The truth of the matter is that the United States is heavily subsidizing these actions through taxes, but the 2008 Olympic Games itself receives no federal subsidies from the US government. The United States Olympic Committee is a private organization funded by civilians and corporations, and the decision to boycott the Beijing Games would best be left to them. Question 6: President Bush and the Democrats all seem to not support protecting and policing U.S. borders. Recently the Democratic governor of New York struck a deal with the Bush administration giving driver’s licenses to illegal aliens. The deal seems to achieve both amnesty for illegal aliens and advance a national ID card. (Editors note: The governor of NY back peddled on illegal alien driver’s licenses today) How can the U.S. government wage a war against terrorism yet remain completely defenseless against the potential threat of being infiltrated by foreign terrorists and saboteurs? Dr. Ron Paul It can’t. We claim to be fighting a war to protect our national security when we’ve left the back door unlocked at home. If we were truly worried about national security, we would first secure our borders, and oppose amnesty for illegal aliens. This is especially important given that a number of the 9/11 terrorists were in our country with expired visas—we cannot be complacent, or we run the risk of jeopardizing our nation’s safety. I have a six-point plan for defending this country’s borders, and strict enforcement of visa rules is one of the most important measures we can take to prevent infiltration by terrorists. Question 7: Congressman Paul, you have stated that U.S. foreign policy may have been a contributing factor toward the 911 attacks. Do you think the immigration policies promoted by Hillary Clinton and Rudy Giuliani in the 1980s and 1990s were a contributing factor to the 911 attacks? If so should they apologize? Dr. Ron Paul Endorsing and promoting policies that give amnesty to illegals and that make it easier for illegals to enter the United States are leaving this country more vulnerable to terrorist attack. Certainly voters should compare the records of those who have been consistently in favor of controlling our borders and in opposition to amnesty with those who have taken the opposite approach over the years. But what is most clear is that the United States needs a president who understands that to really make us safe against future terrorism, we must change our foreign policy and get control of our borders. These two cannot be separated from each other Civil Liberties Question 8: Many of you’re supporters consider you the first Civil Rights leader of the 21st century because of your vigorous defense of the Bill of Rights. Your campaign seems to be uniting people. Can Ron Paul unite this divided country? Dr. Ron Paul I see no greater unifying message than that of freedom, peace, and prosperity, and that is what this campaign is all about. Every day my support grows exponentially as Americans realize that government has overstepped its bounds and is threatening both their lives and livelihoods with foreign and economic policies that are bringing the nation to ruin. My message is what this country was founded on; what this country ended slavery for; what every people across the world seek: freedom.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: A K A Stone (#0)
My main concern with RP is this: And will he become more Republican if elected? He has been allowed to hold office as a Republican. Hmmmmm. Are there party loyalties that will disappoint us later? I'm playing devils advocate here.
I agree with most all of Ron Pauls stances. I'm sure that if elected he would disappoint us all in some way or another. But any man would do that since none of us agree on everything. One thing I differ on Ron Paul is I would favor an amendment to the constitution to ban abortions once and for all. He just wants the states to decide. His position is better that the current situation but not as far as I would like to see it taken. But if he was president he wouldn't be involved in the amendment process anyways.
|
|
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
|