Explore Candidates → Ron Paul on Iraq and Foreign Policy
Ron Paul on Iraq and Foreign Policy
Q: What's the most pressing moral issue in the US today? A: I think it is the acceptance just recently that we now promote pre-emptive war. I do not believe that's part of the American tradition. We in the past have always declared war in the defense of our liberties or go to aid somebody, but now we have accepted the principle of preemptive war. We have rejected the just- war theory of Christianity. And now, tonight, we hear that we're not even willing to remove from the table a pre-emptive nuclear strike against a country that has done no harm to us directly and is no threat to our national security! We have to come to our senses about this issue of war and pre-emption and go back to traditions and our Constitution and defend our liberties and defend our rights, but not to think that we can change the world by force of arms and to start wars.
2007 GOP debate at Saint Anselm College Jun 3, 2007
Darfur Legislation Sponsorships * Genocide Accountability Act/Darfur Peace and Accountability Act Did Not Co-Sponsor * NATO Bridging Force Did Not Co-Sponsor * Presidential Special Envoy Did Not Co-Sponsor * Darfur Accountability and Divestment Act Did Not Co-Sponsor Votes * Darfur Peace and Accountability Act Voted For * Funding Amendment for Protection Voted Against * Funding Amendment for Humanitarian Aid Voted For * NATO Bridging Force Voted Against * Presidential Special Envoy Voted Against * Darfur Accountability and Divestment Act Voted Against * China Resolution No Vote
Q: How do you reconcile this moral leadership kind of role of conservatism with the very libertarian strain of conservatism--the Barry Goldwater conservatism--that you represent? A: You do it by understanding of what the goal of government ought to be. If the goal of government is to be the policeman of the world, you lose liberty. And if the goal is to promote liberty, you can unify all segments. The freedom message brings us together; it doesn't divide us. I believe that when we overdo our military aggressiveness, it actually weakens our national defense. I mean, we stood up to the Soviets. They had 40,000 nuclear weapons. Now we're fretting day and night about third-world countries that have no army, navy or air force, and we're getting ready to go to war. But the principle, the moral principle, is that of defending liberty and minimizing the scope of government.
2007 GOP primary debate, at Reagan library, hosted by MSNBC May 3, 2007
Q: Would you go to war with Iran if they developed nuclear weapons and threatened Israel? PAUL: Well, one thing I would remember very clearly is the president doesn't have the authority to go to war. He goes to the Congress. Q: So what do you do? PAUL: He goes to the Congress and finds out if there's any threat to our national security. And thinking back to the 1960s, when I was in the Air Force for five years, and there was a Cold War going on, and the Soviets had 40,000, and we stood them down, & we didn't have to have a nuclear confrontation, I would say that we should go very cautiously. We should be talking to Iran right now. We shouldn't be looking for the opportunity to attack them. They are at the present time, according to the IAEA, cooperating. I think that we ought to be talking about how to get along with some people that are deadly, like the Soviets and the Chinese and the many others. We don't have to resort to war every single time there is a confrontation.
2007 GOP debate at UNH, sponsored by Fox News Sep 5, 2007
Rep. Paul (R-TX) has criticized U.S. "meddling" in the Middle East, which, he says, "has only intensified strife and conflict." He has said U.S. financial aid to Middle Eastern countries is only "adding fuel to the fire" and is "foolish and unconstitutional." Though he advocates some U.S. diplomatic role in brokering an end to violence in the West Bank, he says the U.S. "should draw the line at any further entanglement.' Paul spoke out against a July 2006 House resolution condemning attacks on Israel and "supporting Israel's right to defend herself." He argued that the resolutions "strong message" could lead to an escalation of the war between Israel and Lebanon.
Rep. Paul (R-TX) appears to be generally opposed to sanctions on Cuba. He has worked against the agricultural trade sanctions, which he says, "have done nothing to topple the Castro regime, but they have hurt American farmers and the Cuban people." In 2000, Paul voted to end trade restrictions on Cuba , which he believes would benefit his constituency of Texas farmers.
There are also practical reasons to oppose governmental foreign aid. Though it may be given with the best intentions, government agencies simply cannot do the kind of job that private charities do in actually helping people in need.
This week, Congress will vote to send more than 20 billion of your hard-earned dollars overseas, when it passes the Foreign Operations Appropriations bill for 2007. Our annual foreign aid bill is one of the most egregious abuses of the taxpayer I can imagine. Not only is it an unconstitutional burden on America's working families, but this yearly attempt to buy friends and influence foreign governments is counterproductive and actually results in less goodwill toward the United States overseas.
Yet the more foreign aid we send to the Middle East, the more hopelessly entangled we become in the intractable conflicts that define it. Worse yet, the practice of buying friends casts very serious doubt on the lofty claims that we are promoting democracy.
Rep. Paul (R-TX) strongly opposes the United Nations. He introduced the American Sovereignty Restoration Act in 2003, which would withdraw the United States from the United Nations and would "evict the organization from its New York headquarters." That act has never been passed. He argues that the United Nations cannot be reformed and that it "is inherently illegitimate, because supra-national government is an inherently illegitimate concept."
One thousand nuclear weapons is enough to kill the world 2 or 3 times. Creating more weapons benefits those that make the weapons not the people.
Q: Your position on the war is pretty simple: Get out. What about trying to minimize the bloodbath that would certainly occur if we pull out in a hurry? PAUL: The people who say there will be a bloodbath are the ones who said it will be a cakewalk or it will be a slam dunk, and that it will be paid for by oil. Why believe them? They've been wrong on everything they've said. So why not ask the people who advised not to go into the region and into the war? The war has not gone well one bit.
2007 GOP debate at UNH, sponsored by Fox News Sep 5, 2007
Q: If General Petraeus' strategy is not working so far in September, what do you do then? PAUL: The sooner we come home, the better. If they declare there's no progress in September, we should come home. It was a mistake to go, so it's a mistake to stay.
2007 GOP debate at Saint Anselm College Jun 5, 2007
Voted YES on redeploying US troops out of Iraq starting in 90 days
Out of Iraq Caucus bill; Bill H R 2237 ; vote number 2007-330 on May 10, 2007
Voted NO on declaring Iraq part of War on Terror with no exit date
Resolution on Prevailing in the Global War on Terror; Bill HRES 861 ; vote number 2006-288 on Jun 12, 2006
This resolution [opposing a troop surge], unfortunately, does not address the disaster in Iraq. Instead, it seeks to appear opposed to the war while at the same time offering no change of the status quo in Iraq. As such, it is not actually a vote against a troop surge. A real vote against a troop surge is a vote against the coming supplemental appropriation that finances it. I hope all of my colleagues who vote against the surge today will vote against the budgetary surge when it really counts: when we vote on the supplemental.
Q: Your position on the war is pretty simple: Get out. PAUL: Yes, I would leave. I would leave completely. Why leave the troops in the region? The fact that we had troops in Saudi Arabia was one of the three reasons given for the attack on 9/11. So why leave them in the region? They don't want our troops on the Arabian Peninsula. We have no need for our national security to have troops on the Arabian Peninsula.
2007 GOP debate at UNH, sponsored by Fox News Sep 5, 2007
"I am suggesting very strongly that we should have a foreign policy of non intervention, the traditional American foreign policy, and the traditional republican foreign policy."