2006 Ron Paul 26:2
Madam Speaker, I sought the time in opposition mainly because it is a very
opportune time to talk about our foreign
policy and the disadvantages that
intervention poses for us.
2006 Ron Paul 26:3
There are two types of foreign policy we can have: interventionism, where
we tell other people what to do; and
the more traditional American foreign
policy of nonintervention and not
using force to tell other people what to
do. The policy of foreign intervention
has been around a long time, and it is
not only one party that endorses it. In
1998 we had a similar bill come up to
the floor. It was called the Iraqi Freedom
Act. And that was the preliminary
stages of leading to a war, which is a
very unpopular, very expensive, and
deadly war going on right now in Iraq.
So this is a similar bill moving in that
direction.
2006 Ron Paul 26:4
The 1998 resolution, which required regime change and laid the plans out
for regime change, did not come up
under this administration. That occurred
with the previous administration.
2006 Ron Paul 26:5
But I have no qualms about the goals of the authors of this legislation. They
would like to see freedom in Iran. I
would, too. It is just that I believe the
use of force backfires on us, and when
we use force such as sanctions and subsidizing
and giving money to dissidents,
what we really do is the opposite
of what we want. Those individuals
who are trying to promote more freedom
in Iran actually are forced to ally
themselves with the radicals, so instead
of undermining the system, it
has made it worse. It is always argued
that they will welcome us when we
march in as liberators, and Iraq proved
that that was not the case. Iran wont
be much better.
2006 Ron Paul 26:6
But let me just say a few things about interventionism. Interventionism,
which is essentially something
that was gradually developed
over the 20th century, led to a century
of war and killing and was very expensive
to the American people in costs. It
means that we assume the moral right
and the constitutional authority to be
involved in the internal affairs of other
nations, and yet there is no moral
right for us to get involved in the internal
affairs of other countries, and
there is no constitutional authority for
us to do so.
2006 Ron Paul 26:7
We are not designated as the nation builder. No matter how well-intended
it is, it doesnt work, and we dont have
this authority to do this. We have not
been designated the policeman of the
world, although we have assumed that
role more so every year, and that has
been going on for several decades.
2006 Ron Paul 26:8
There are always more costs than anybody imagines. Iraq was supposed
to cost $50 billion. It is now hundreds
of billions of dollars. There is economic
harm done. There is inflation that it
causes. Yet it continues, and instead of
coming to an end, it tends to spread.
That is why I fear this so much.
2006 Ron Paul 26:9
I see the way we are dealing with Iran as just spreading a problem that
we contributed to in the Middle East.
Too many innocent lives are lost, innocent
American lives, GIs that go over
and are killed so needlessly, especially
since we dont achieve the goal of
bringing freedom and liberty and democracy
to these countries.
2006 Ron Paul 26:10
Interventionism endorses the principle that we have this authority to
change regimes. We have been doing it
for more than 50 years through activities
of the CIA in a secret manner, and
now we are doing it in a much more
open manner where we literally invade
countries. We initiate the force. We
start the war because we believe that
we have a monopoly on goodness that
we can spread and teach other people
to understand and live with.
2006 Ron Paul 26:11
There are too many unintended consequences, too much blow-back. It
comes back to harm us in the long run.
At one time we were an ally of Saddam
Hussein. At one time we were an ally of
Osama bin Laden. These things dont
work out the way we think they are
going to.
2006 Ron Paul 26:12
The one thing that interventionism endorses, which I strongly disagree
with, it really deemphasizes diplomacy.
It deemphasizes it to the point
where if we dont feel like it, we are
not willing to talk to people. When we
feel like it, we might demagogue it and
pretend we are talking. But it really
doesnt encourage diplomacy.
2006 Ron Paul 26:13
Another reason why interventionism is so bad for us, it encourages special
interests to get behind our foreign policy
and endorse what we are doing and
influence what we are doing, possibly
another country and possibly some industry
that might influence us.