Show #3: 911- Calling Dr. Ron Paul; save us from this senseless foreign policy.
Also included, a portion of Ron Paul’s response in the first presidential debate.
This podcast lasts 7 minutes. For previous podcasts go to archives.
Today, I would like to speak about Ron Paul’s foreign policy. As anyone who has watched all the debates or even one of them will know, Ron Paul stands away from the pack. He opposes the neo-conservative agenda of policing the world and using force as a way to achieve peace. The idea of achieving Middle Eastern stability through the barrel of a gun is senseless and Paul has made that clear.
Ron Paul has been the only one to take off the table a nuclear strike against Iran, while all the others seem eager like a three year old before a bowl of chocolate ice cream, to invade and bomb through air strikes and possibly a military attack.
As Paul has mentioned, “War is the health of the state.” And the truth is, the state is sick. The war has cost almost half a trillion dollars to this point and may even surpass one trillion dollars. Can you count the zeros? The state is sick. Congress’ approval is low; the president’s has one of the lowest in the last 30 years and 70% of the American people are ready for this war to end. But if the state is sick, it seeks healing through more war, because it is salvation of a dying state.
Ron Paul wrote in 1997. That is, 10 years ago the following:
Most fundamentally, U.S. foreign policy toward Iraq is flawed; it totally ignores history, and reflects a lack of understanding of long-time justifiable Arab distrust of the West. The Middle East has been savaged and ruled by outsiders for a thousand years, and U.N. quick-fixes will only aggravate the understandable resentment of those seen as foreign infidels by the Arabs.
And he notes:
There is no direct national security interests for us to be in Iraq. We are not the policeman of the world, we can’t afford it, and our interventionist efforts usually backfire. Our policy in this region has been designed more to promote the United Nations than to deal with any threat to our national security. Control of the region’s huge oil reserves is a much more important factor than U.S. security.
And he concludes with the following words:
Policy toward Iraq is based on the special interests of powerful financial and oil interests. It is not designed to protect U.S. national security. It is instead a threat to our security because it may lead to war and loss of American lives, increase terrorism and certainly an additional expense for the US taxpayer. The hyped rhetoric coming from Washington which describes Hussein as the only evil monster with which we must deal in the world is a poor substitute for wise counsel.
A policy designed to protect American security and promote neutrality and friendship with all nations would go a long way toward removing the serious threat to peace in the Middle East.
A foreign policy designed to impose American democracy, to aid the enemy of the enemy, is to expect more civil war and bloodshed in the streets of Bagdad in the years to come. Have we not learned? Stay away from entangling alliances.