1998 Ron Paul 18:2
Early on, I talked about a policy of
nonintervention; and I would like to
talk a little bit more about that. Because
some might construe that if you
have a policy of nonintervention, it
means you do not care; and that is not
the case. Because we can care a whole
lot.
1998 Ron Paul 18:3
And there’ two very important reasons
why one who espouses the constitutional
viewpoint of nonintervention,
they do it. One, we believe in the
rule of law and we should do it very
cautiously, and that’s what we are
bound by here in the Congress. So that’s very important.
1998 Ron Paul 18:4
The other one is a practical reason,
and that is that there is not very good
evidence that our intervention does
much good. We do not see that intervention
in Somalia has really solved
the problems there, and we left there in
a hurry.
1998 Ron Paul 18:5
We have spent a lot of money in Bosnia
and the other places. So the evidence
is not very good that intervention
is involved, certainly the most abhorrent
type of intervention, which is
the eager and aggressive
and not-well-thought-out military
intervention. That is obviously the very worst.
1998 Ron Paul 18:6
And I would argue that even the policy of
neutrality and friendship and trade
with people, regardless of the enemy,
would be the best.
1998 Ron Paul 18:7
Of course, if you are involved in a
war or there’s an avowed enemy, declared
enemy, that is a different story. But for the most part, since World War II,
we have not used those terms, we have
not had declared wars, we have only
had, quote, “police actions,” and, therefore,
we are working in a never-never limbo
that nobody can well define.
1998 Ron Paul 18:8
And I think it’s much better that we define
the process, that everybody understands
it.
1998 Ron Paul 18:9
I would like to go ahead and close
with a brief summary of what we have
been trying to do here today. It was mentioned earlier, and I want
to reemphasize it, something that has
not been talked about a whole lot over
this issue, has been the issue of oil. It
is oil interests, money involved.
1998 Ron Paul 18:10
As I stated earlier, we were allies
with Hussein when we encouraged him
to cross the border into Iran, and yet,
at the same time, the taking over of
the Kuwait oil fields was something
that we could not stand, even though
there has not been a full debate over
that argument. We’ve heard only the
one side of that, who drew the lines and
for what reason the lines were drawn
there and whose oil was being drilled. And there is a major debate there that
should be fully aired before we say that
it is the fault of only one.
1998 Ron Paul 18:11
But it isn’t so much that it was the
crossing of borders. I do believe that oil
interests and the huge very, very important
oil fields of Iraq and what it
might mean to the price of oil if they
came on has a whole lot to do with
this.
1998 Ron Paul 18:12
We did not worry about the Hutus
and the Tutus in Africa. A lot of killing
was going on there; 1 million people
were being killed. But where was our compassion? Where was our compassion in
the killing fields of Cambodia? We did
not express the same compassion that
we seem to express as soon as oil is involved.
1998 Ron Paul 18:13
And we cannot let them get away with
the repetition of “we got to get the
weapons of mass destruction.” Of
course. But are they mostly in Iraq? I
would say we have done rather well
getting rid of the weapons there. They
are a much weaker nation militarily
than they were 10 years ago, and those
kind of weapons are around the world,
so that, as far as I am concerned, is a
weak argument.
1998 Ron Paul 18:14
Ad another subject that is not mentioned
very often, but the prime minister
of Israel just recently implied
that, hopefully, we will pursue this policy
of going in there and trying to topple
this regime. And I can understand their
concerns, but I also understand the
concerns of the American taxpayers
and the expense of the American lives
that might be involved. So I can argue
my case.
1998 Ron Paul 18:15
But even taking it from an Israeli
point of view, I don’t know how they
can be sure it is in their best interests
to go over there and stir things up. I mean, They’re more likely to be bombed
with a terrorist bomb if we go in there
and we start bombing Iraq. And if we do, Israel
will not stand by as they did once before. They have told us so.
1998 Ron Paul 18:16
So if we bomb first and then the goal
of Saddam Hussein is to expand the
war, what does he do? He lobs one over
into Israel, and then Israel comes in, and
then the whole procedure has been to
solidify the Islamic fundamentalists. Then there is no reason not to expect
maybe Iran and Syria coming in.
1998 Ron Paul 18:17
Right now Iraq is on closer ties with
Syria and Iran than they have been in
18 years. This is the achievement of our
policy. We’re driving the unity of
those who really hate America, and
will do almost anything. So we further
expose ourselves to the threat of terrorism. So if they are attacked and
they have no way to defend themselves
against a great Nation of ours, they
will strike out. And therefore, I think in
the practical argument, we have very
little to gain by pursuing this policy.
1998 Ron Paul 18:18
But it is not difficult for me to come
down on the side of arguing for peace. Peace is what we should be for. That
does not mean you give up your military,
but you use your military more
wisely than we have over the past 30 or
40 years. You use it for national defense.
1998 Ron Paul 18:19
Today we have a powerful military
force, but a lot of people don’t think
we are as strong in defense as we used
to be. So, yes, we are stronger than
others, but if we have a failed and a
flawed policy and a military that has
been weakened, then we are looking for
trouble.
1998 Ron Paul 18:20
So even the practical arguments call
for restraint and a sensible approach,
for debate and negotiations. It is for
this reason I think for the moment we
can be pleased that Mr. Annan went to
Iraq and came back with something
that is at least negotiable, and that the
American people will think about and
talk about. Hopefully this will lead not
only to peace immediately in this area,
but hopefully it will lead to a full discussion
about the wisdom of a foreign
policy of continued perpetual interventionism
and involvement in the internal
affairs of other nations.
1998 Ron Paul 18:21
If we argue our case correctly, we
argue the moral argument, we argue the constitutional
argument, and we argue the argument
for peace as well. I cannot see
how the American people cannot endorse
a policy like that, and I challenge
those who think that we should
go carelessly and rapidly into battle,
killing those who are not responsible,
further enhancing the power and the
authority of those who would be the
dictators. They do not get killed. Sanctions
don’t hurt them. The innocent
people suffer. Just as the economic
sanctions that will be put on Southeast
Asia as we give them more money, who
suffers from the devaluations? The
American taxpayer, as well as the poor
people, whether they are in Mexico or
Southeast Asia, in order to prop up the
very special interests. Whether it is the
banking interests involved in the loans
to the Southeast Asians, or
our military-industrial complex who tends to
benefit from building more and more
weapons so they can go off and test
them in wars that are unnecessary.
Notes:
1998 Ron Paul 18:1 I thank you very much for participating. Ron Paul thanks Rep. Roscoe G. Bartlett of Maryland.
1998 Ron Paul 18:3
The grammatically incorrect There’ two very important
reasons why one who espouses the constitutional viewpoint of
nonintervention, they do it. perhaps should be, There are two very
important reasons why one who espouses the constitutional
viewpoint of nonintervention does so.
1998 Ron Paul 18:7
Here, when Ron Paul is about to say police actions he gestures with his hands and fingers to denote quotation marks. Listen to the C-Span clip at 18:18:52 local time.
1998 Ron Paul 18:12
Where Ron Paul says, Hutus and Tutus he probably meant Hutus and Tutsis.
1998 Ron Paul 18:21 if we argue the more argument probably should be
if we argue the moral argument, or perhaps if we argue the more valid argument.
