U.S. Rep. Ron Paul | Pakistan |
Pakistan
The Indonesia Crisis
19 May 1998 1998 Ron Paul 52:21
As the Asian crisis spreads, I would expect Europe to feel the crunch next. Unemployment is already at a 12% level in Germany and France. The events can be made worse and accelerated by outside events like a Middle Eastern crisis or a war between India and Pakistan both now rattling their nuclear weapons. Eventually though, our system of “crony capitalism” and fiat money system will come under attack. Our system of favoring industries is different than the family oriented favoritism of Suharto, but none-the-less is built on a system of corporate welfare that prompts constant lobbying of Congress and the Administration for each corporation’s special interests. We have little to talk about as we preach austerity, balanced budgets and sound money to the current victims. Our day will come when we will humble ourselves before world opinion as our house of cards comes crashing down.
Pakistan
The Indonesia Crisis
22 May 1998 1998 Ron Paul 54:21
As the Asian crisis spreads, I would expect Europe to feel the crunch next. Unemployment is already at or approaching 12% in Germany and France. The events can be made worse and accelerated by outside events like a Middle Eastern crisis or a war between India and Pakistan both now rattling their nuclear sabers. Eventually though, our system of “crony capitalism” and fiat money system will come under attack. Our system of favoring industries is different than the family-oriented favoritism of Suharto, but none-the-less is built on a system of corporate welfare that prompts constant lobbying of Congress and the Administration for each corporation’s special interests. We have little room to talk as we preach austerity, balanced budgets and sound money to the current victims. Our day will come when we will humble ourselves before world opinion as our house of cards comes crashing down.
Pakistan
Time To Reconsider Destructive Embargo Policies
17 June 1998 1998 Ron Paul 61:6
President Clinton imposed sanctions against India and Pakistan after those countries detonated nuclear devices. House Agriculture Committee Chairman Bob Smith (R– Ore.) and ranking minority member Charlie Stenholm (D–Texas) have urged Clinton to exempt food and agricultural commodities from those sanctions. Pakistan is an important market for U.S. agricultural products, ranking third in purchases of U.S. wheat.
Pakistan
U.S. Foreign Policy of Military Interventionism Brings Death, Destruction and Loss of Life
17 November 1999 1999 Ron Paul 115:8
General Musharraf’s successful coup against Prime Minister Sharif of Pakistan was in retaliation for America’s interference with Sharif’s handling of the Pakistan-India border war. The recent bombings in Pakistan are a clear warning to Musharraf that he, too, must not submit to U.S.-CIA directives.
Pakistan
U.S. Foreign Policy of Military Interventionism Brings Death, Destruction and Loss of Life
17 November 1999 1999 Ron Paul 115:11
The recent military takeover of Pakistan and the subsequent anti-American demonstration in Islamabad should not be ignored. It is time we in Congress seriously rethink our role in the region and in the world. We ought to do more to promote peace and trade with our potential enemies, rather than resorting to bombing and sanctions.
Pakistan
Sudan Peace Act
13 June 2001 2001 Ron Paul 40:11
One can only assume this is the same United Nations which booted the United States off its Human Rights Commission in favor of, as Canadian Sen. Jerahmiel S. Grafstein, called them recently, “those exemplars of human rights nations . . . Algeria, China, Saudi Arabia, Uganda, Armenia, Pakistan, Syria and Vietnam.”
Pakistan
Foreign Interventionism
September 25, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 80:8
Following the September 11th disasters a militant Islamic group in Pakistan held up a sign for all the world to see. It said: AMERICANS, THINK! WHY YOU ARE HATED ALL OVER THE WORLD. We abhor the messenger, but we should not ignore the message.
Pakistan
The War On Terrorism
November 29, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 98:2
The terrorist enemy is no more an entity than the “mob”or some international criminal gang. It certainly is not a country, nor is it the Afghan people. The Taliban is obviously a strong sympathizer with bin Laden and his henchmen, but how much more so than the government of Saudi Arabia or even Pakistan? Probably not much.
Pakistan
The War On Terrorism
November 29, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 98:6
The predominant nationality of the terrorists was Saudi Arabian. Yet for political and economic reasons, even with the lack of cooperation from the Saudi government, we have ignored that country in placing blame. The Afghan people did nothing to deserve another war. The Taliban, of course, is closely tied to bin Laden and al-Qaeda, but so are the Pakistanis and the Saudis. Even the United States was a supporter of the Taliban’s rise to power, and as recently as August of 2001, we talked oil pipeline politics with them.
Pakistan
The War On Terrorism
November 29, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 98:20
The argument that we need to do so because Hussein is producing weapons of mass destruction is the reddest of all herrings. I sincerely doubt that he has developed significant weapons of mass destruction. However, if that is the argument, we should plan to attack all those countries that have similar weapons or plans to build them- countries like China, North Korea, Israel, Pakistan, and India. Iraq has been uncooperative with the UN World Order and remains independent of western control of its oil reserves, unlike Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. This is why she has been bombed steadily for 11 years by the U.S. and Britain. My guess is that in the not-too-distant future, so-called proof will be provided that Saddam Hussein was somehow partially responsible for the attack in the United States, and it will be irresistible then for the U.S. to retaliate against him. This will greatly and dangerously expand the war and provoke even greater hatred toward the United States, and it’s all so unnecessary.
Pakistan
The War On Terrorism
November 29, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 98:36
As we continue our bombing of Afghanistan, plans are made to install a new government sympathetic to the West and under UN control. The persuasive argument as always is money. We were able to gain Pakistan’s support, although it continually wavers, in this manner. Appropriations are already being prepared in the Congress to rebuild all that we destroy in Afghanistan, and then some- even before the bombing has stopped.
Pakistan
Saddam Hussein
19 December 2001 2001 Ron Paul 107:4
For instance, just this week, we had Stinger Missiles fired at our airplanes. Fortunately, they did not hit our airplanes. But we paid for those Stinger Missiles. And this week there was an attack in India by allies, supposedly, in Pakistan, who are receiving billions of dollars from us at the current time. This vacillation, shifting, on and off, friends one time, enemies the next time, this perpetual war seems to me not to be in the best interests of the United States.
Pakistan
Yields Time To Mr. Rohrabacher
19 December 2001 2001 Ron Paul 109:4
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will continue to yield, would the gentleman do the same thing to Pakistan and Syria and Saudi Arabia and Egypt?
Pakistan
19 December 2001 2001 Ron Paul 111:7
Mr. Speaker, House Joint Resolution 64, passed on September 14 just after the terrorist attack, states that, “The president is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on Sept. 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons.” From all that we know at present, Iraq appears to have had no such role. Indeed, we have seen “evidence” of Iraqi involvement in the attacks on the United States proven false over the past couple of weeks. Just this week, for example, the “smoking gun” of Iraqi involvement in the attack seems to have been debunked: The New York Times reported that “the Prague meeting (allegedly between al-Qaeda terrorist Mohamad Atta and an Iraqi intelligence agent) has emerged as an object lesson in the limits of intelligence reports rather than the cornerstone of the case against Iraq.” The Times goes on to suggest that the “Mohamad Atta” who was in the Czech Republic this summer seems to have been Pakistani national who happened to have the same name. It appears that this meeting never took place, or at least not in the way it has been reported. This conclusion has also been drawn by the Czech media and is reviewed in a report on Radio Free Europe’s Newsline. Even those asserting Iraqi involvement in the anthrax scare in the United Stats — a theory forwarded most aggressively by Iraqi defector Khidir Hamza and former CIA director James Woolsey — have, with the revelation that the anthrax is domestic, had their arguments silenced by the facts.
Pakistan
The Case For Defending America
24 January 2002 2002 Ron Paul 1:35
Unfortunately, it has been seen only as an opportunity for Pakistan and India to resume their warring ways, placing us in a very dangerous situation. This could easily get out of control since China will not allow a clearcut Indian victory over Pakistan. The danger of a nuclear confrontation is real. Even the British have spoken sympathetically about Pakistan’s interest over India. The tragedy is that we have helped both India and Pakistan financially and, therefore, the American taxpayer has indirectly contributed funds for the weapons on both sides. Our troops in this region are potential targets of either or both countries.
Pakistan
Stimulating The Economy
February 7, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 5:55
1. There’s a danger that the definition of terrorism will become so vague and broad that almost any act internationally or domestically will qualify. If our response in Afghanistan becomes the standard for all countries in their retaliation, negotiated settlements of conflicts will become a thing of the past. Acts of terror occur on a regular basis around the world, whether involving Northern Ireland and Britain, India and Pakistan, the Palestinians and Israel, Turkey and Greece, or many other places. Traditionally, the United States has always urged restraint and negotiations. This approach may end if our response in Afghanistan sets the standard.
Pakistan
Stimulating The Economy
February 7, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 5:58
4. There’s risk that our massive deployment of troops in the many countries of the world may contribute to a greater conflict. We are today in the middle of a dangerous situation between Pakistan and India over Kashmir, both of whom possess nuclear weapons and both of whom we generally finance. Exposing ourselves to such risk, while spending endless sums supporting both sides, makes no sense.
Pakistan
Stimulating The Economy
February 7, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 5:59
5. Our pervasive military presence may well encourage alliances that would have been unheard of a few years ago. Now that we’ve committed ourselves internationally to destroying Afghanistan and rebuilding it, with a promise that we’ll be there for a long time, might encourage closer military alliances between Russia and China, and even others like Pakistan, Iran and Iraq, and even Saudi Arabia- countries all nervous about our military permanency in this region. Control of Caspian Sea oil is not a forgotten item for these countries, and it will not be gracefully conceded to U.S. oil interests. If these alliances develop, even U.S. control of Persian Gulf oil could be challenged as well.
Pakistan
America’s Entangling Alliances in the Middle East
April 10, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 21:15
It’s costly, to say the least. Already our military budget has sapped domestic spending and caused the deficit to explode. But the greatest danger is that one day these contained conflicts will get out of control. Certainly the stage is set for that to happen in the Middle East and south central Asia. A world war is a possibility that should not be ignored. Our policy of subsidizing both sides is ludicrous. We support Arabs and Jews, Pakistanis and Indians, Chinese and Russians. We have troops in 140 countries around the world just looking for trouble. Our policies have led us to support Al Qaeda in Kosovo and bomb their Serb adversaries. We have, in the past, allied ourselves with bin Laden, as well as Saddam Hussein, only to find out later the seriousness of our mistake. Will this foolishness ever end?
Pakistan
Predictions
24 April 2002 2002 Ron Paul 25:11
Major moves will be made by China, India, Russia, and Pakistan in Central Asia to take advantage of the chaos for the purpose of grabbing land, resources, and strategic advantages sought after for years.
Pakistan
Don’t Force Taxpayers to Fund Nation-Building in Afghanistan
May 21, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 43:21
The occupation of Afghanistan is unnecessary. It is going to be very costly, and it is very dangerous. My colleagues might say, well, this is all for democracy. For democracy? Well, did we care about democracy in Venezuela? It seemed like we tried to undermine that just recently. Do we care about the democracy in Pakistan? A military dictator takes over and he becomes our best ally, and we use his land, and yet he has been a friend to the Taliban, and who knows, bin Laden may even be in Pakistan. Here we are saying we are doing it all for democracy. Now, that is just pulling our leg a little bit too much. This is not the reason that we are over there. We are over there for a lot of other reasons and, hopefully, things will be improved.
Pakistan
Don’t Force Taxpayers to Fund Nation-Building in Afghanistan
May 21, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 43:27
So I would say that we should move cautiously. I think this is very dangerous. I know nobody else has spoken out against this bill, but I do not see much benefit coming from this. I know it is well motivated, but it is going to cost a lot of money, we are going to get further engaged, more troops are going to go over there; and now that we are a close ally of Pakistan, we do know that Pakistan and India both have nuclear weapons, and we are sitting right next to them. So I would hardly think this is advantageous for our security, nor advantageous for the American people, nor advantageous to the American taxpayer.
Pakistan
Opposing The Amendment
21 May 2002 2002 Ron Paul 45:9
My colleagues might say, well, this is all for democracy. For democracy? Well, did we care about democracy in Venezuela? It seemed like we tried to undermine that just recently. Do we care about the democracy in Pakistan? A military dictator takes over and he becomes our best ally, and we use his land, and yet he has been a friend to the Taliban, and who knows, bin Laden may even be in Pakistan. Here we are saying we are doing it all for democracy. Now, that is just pulling our leg a little bit too much. This is not the reason that we are over there. We are over there for a lot of other reasons and, hopefully, things will be improved.
Pakistan
Opposing The Amendment
21 May 2002 2002 Ron Paul 45:16
So I would say that we should move cautiously. I think this is very dangerous. I know nobody else has spoken out against this bill, but I do not see much benefit coming from this. I know it is well motivated, but it is going to cost a lot of money, we are going to get further engaged, more troops are going to go over there; and now that we are a close ally of Pakistan, we do know that Pakistan and India both have nuclear weapons, and we are sitting right next to them. So I would hardly think this is advantageous for our security, nor advantageous for the American people, nor advantageous to the American taxpayer.
Pakistan
Is America a Police State?
June 27, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 64:9
So far our post-9/11 policies have challenged the rule of law here at home, and our efforts against the al Qaeda have essentially come up empty-handed. The best we can tell now, instead of being in one place, the members of the al Qaeda are scattered around the world, with more of them in allied Pakistan than in Afghanistan. Our efforts to find our enemies have put the CIA in 80 different countries. The question that we must answer some day is whether we can catch enemies faster than we make new ones. So far it appears we are losing.
Pakistan
Is America a Police State?
June 27, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 64:76
Maybe there is no real desire to remove the excuse for our worldwide imperialism, especially our current new expansion into central Asia or the domestic violations of our civil liberties. Today’s conditions may well be exactly what our world commercial interests want. It’s now easy for us to go into the Philippines, Columbia, Pakistan, Afghanistan, or wherever in pursuit of terrorists. No questions are asked by the media or the politicians- only cheers. Put in these terms, who can object? We all despise the tactics of the terrorists, so the nature of the response is not to be questioned!
Pakistan
Is America a Police State?
June 27, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 64:83
We pump up the military in India and Pakistan, ignore all the warnings about Saudi Arabia, and plan a secret war against Iraq to make sure no one starts asking where Osama bin Laden is. We think we know where Saddam Hussein lives, so let’s go get him instead.
Pakistan
Is America a Police State?
June 27, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 64:93
Planned assassination, a preemptive strike policy without proof of any threat, and a vague definition of terrorism may work for us as long as we’re king of the hill, but one must assume every other nation will naturally use our definition of policy as justification for dealing with their neighbors. India can justify a first strike against Pakistan, China against India or Taiwan, as well as many other such examples. This new policy, if carried through, will make the world much less safe.
Pakistan
Questions That Will Not Be Asked About Iraq
September 10, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 85:10
9. Is it not true that the vast majority of al-Qaeda leaders who escaped appear to have safely made their way to Pakistan, another of our so-called allies?
Pakistan
Questions That Will Not Be Asked About Iraq
September 10, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 85:24
23. How can our declared goal of bringing democracy to Iraq be believable when we prop up dictators throughout the Middle East and support military tyrants like Musharaf in Pakistan, who overthrew a democratically-elected president?
Pakistan
Questions That Will Not Be Asked About Iraq
September 10, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 85:35
34. Is it not true that Pakistan, especially through its intelligence services, was an active supporter and key organizer of the Taliban?
Pakistan
Statement Opposing the use of Military Force against Iraq
October 8, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 96:36
Reality: Iraq is but one of the many countries that have not complied with UN Security Council resolutions. In addition to the dozen or so resolutions currently being violated by Iraq, a conservative estimate reveals that there are an additional 91Security Council resolutions by countries other than Iraq that are also currently being violated. Adding in older resolutions that were violated would mean easily more than 200 UN Security Council resolutions have been violated with total impunity. Countries currently in violation include: Israel, Turkey, Morocco, Croatia, Armenia, Russia, Sudan, Turkey-controlled Cyprus, India, Pakistan, Indonesia. None of these countries have been threatened with force over their violations.
Pakistan
Unintended Consequences
November 14, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 102:7
Pre-emptive war against Iraq may well prompt traditional enemies in the regions to create new alliances, as the hatred for America comes to exceed age-old hatreds that caused regional conflicts. Iraq already has made overtures and concessions to Iran and Kuwait, with some signs of conciliation being shown by both sides. Total domination of the entire Persian Gulf and the Caspian Sea regions by the U.S. will surely stir survival instincts in these countries as well as in Russia. As the balance of power continues to shift in the U.S.’s favor, there will be even more reasons for countries like China and Pakistan to secretly support the nations that are being subjected to U.S. domination in the region. The U.S. will never have a free ride in its effort to control the entire world’s oil supply. Antagonisms are bound to build, and our ability to finance the multiple military conflicts that are bound to come is self-limited.
Pakistan
Unintended Consequences
November 14, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 102:9
Islamic fundamentalism in the entire region will get a shot in the arm once the invasion of Iraq begins, especially in Saudi Arabia, Yemen, and Turkey. Our placing the Shah in power in Iran in the 1950’s was a major reason that the Ayatollah eventually made it to power in the late 1970’s- a delayed but nevertheless direct consequence of our policy. Balance of power in this area of the world has always been delicate, and outside interference serves only to destabilize. There’s no evidence that our current efforts will lead to more stability. Promoting democracy, as it’s said we’re doing, is a farce. If elections were to occur in most of the Arab countries today, Osama bin Laden and his key allies would win. Besides, it seems we adapt quite well to working with military dictators that have ousted elected leaders, as we do in Pakistan by rewarding their cooperation with huge subsidies and future promises.
Pakistan
Unintended Consequences
November 14, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 102:10
In the chaos that may erupt, several countries might see an opportunity to move on their neighbors. Already we have been warned that cooperation from Russia means no American criticism or resistance to its moves in Georgia or Chechnya. China could attack Taiwan. North Korea could renew its struggle against South Korea. India may see this as an opportunity to settle the Kashmir dispute with Pakistan- with the real risk of nuclear war breaking out. It seems the obsession about Iraq’s improbable possession of nuclear weapons far exceeds the more realistic possibility that our pre-emptive strike against Iraq may precipitate a nuclear exchange between these two countries, or even a first strike with nuclear weapons by Israel against Iraq.
Pakistan
Unintended Consequences
November 14, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 102:15
Anti Americanism now sweeping the world will significantly increase once we launch our attack. Already we have seen elections swayed in Europe, Turkey, and Pakistan by those unfriendly to the United States. The attitude that the world’s "King of the Hill" must be brought down will escalate, especially if the war goes poorly and does not end quickly with minimal civilian deaths.
Pakistan
Republic Versus Democracy
29 January 2003 2003 Ron Paul 6:53
Ever since 1913, all our Presidents have endorsed meddling in the internal affairs of other nations and have given generous support to the notion that a world government would facilitate the goals of democratic welfare or socialism. On a daily basis we hear that we must be prepared to send our money and use our young people to police the world in order to spread democracy. Whether it is Venezuela or Colombia, Afghanistan or Pakistan, Iran, Iraq, Korea or Vietnam, our intervention is always justified with the tone of moral arrogance that it is for their own good. Our policymakers promote democracy as a cure-all for the various complex problems of the world. Unfortunately, the propaganda machine is able to hide the real reasons for our empire-building.
Pakistan
Republic Versus Democracy
29 January 2003 2003 Ron Paul 6:55
There is abundant evidence that the pretense of spreading democracy contradicts the very policies we are pursuing. We preach about democratic elections, but we are only too willing to accept some for-the-moment friendly dictator who actually overthrew a democratically elected leader or to interfere in some foreign election. This is the case with Pakistan’s Musharraf. For a temporary alliance, he reaped hundreds of millions of dollars, even though strong evidence exists that the Pakistanis have harbored and trained al Qaeda terrorists, that they have traded weapons with North Korea, and that they possess weapons of mass destruction.
Pakistan
War No Excuse For Frivolous Spending
3 April 2003 2003 Ron Paul 46:3
Although generous to certain corporate interests, this bill actually contains less money than the administration requested for homeland security. One area of homeland security that Congress did not underfund is its own security; this bill provides the full amount requested to ensure the security of the Congress. Still, one could reasonably conclude from reading this bill that the security of Turkey, Pakistan, and Jordan are more important to Congress that the security of Houston, New York and other major American cities.
Pakistan
War No Excuse For Frivolous Spending
3 April 2003 2003 Ron Paul 46:5
Incredibly, this bill sends 175 million dollars in aid to Pakistan even though it was reported in April that Pakistan purchased ballistic missiles from North Korea! Furthermore, it is difficult to understand how $100 million to Colombia, $50 million to the Gaza Strip, and $200 million for “Muslim outreach” has anything to do with the current war in Iraq. Also, this bill spends $31 million to get the federal government into the television broadcasting business in the Middle East. With private American news networks like CNN available virtually everywhere on the globe, is there any justification to spend taxpayer money to create and fund competing state-run networks? Aren’t state-run news networks one of the features of closed societies we have been most critical of in the past?
Pakistan
Statement Opposing Trade Sanctions against Syria
October 15, 2003 2003 Ron Paul 106:4
This bill imposes an embargo on Syria for, among other reasons, the Syrian government’s inability to halt fighters crossing the Syrian border into Iraq. While I agree that any foreign fighters coming into Iraq to attack American troops is totally unacceptable, I wonder just how much control Syria has over its borders — particularly over the chaotic border with Iraq. If Syria has no control over its borders, is it valid to impose sanctions on the country for its inability to halt clandestine border crossings? I find it a bit ironic to be imposing a trade embargo on Syria for failing to control its borders when we do not have control of our own borders. Scores cross illegally into the United States each year – potentially including those who cross over with the intent to do us harm – yet very little is done to secure our own borders. Perhaps this is because our resources are too engaged guarding the borders of countless countries overseas. But there is no consistency in our policy. Look at the border between Pakistan and Afghanistan: while we continue to maintain friendly relations and deliver generous foreign aid to Pakistan, it is clear that Pakistan does not control its border with Afghanistan. In all likelihood, Osama bin Laden himself has crossed over the Afghan border into Pakistan. No one proposes an embargo on Pakistan. On the contrary: the supplemental budget request we are taking up this week includes another $200 million in loan guarantees to Pakistan.
Pakistan
Borrowing Billions to Fund a Failed Policy in Iraq
October 17, 2003 2003 Ron Paul 110:4
Mr. Speaker this reconstruction of Iraq – that we are making but a down-payment on today – is at its core just another foreign policy boondoggle. The $20 billion plan to “rebuild” Iraq tilts heavily toward creating a statist economy and is filled with very liberal social-engineering programs. Much of the money in this reconstruction plan will be wasted - as foreign aid most often is. Much will be wasted as corporate welfare to politically connected corporations; much will be thrown away at all the various “non-government organizations” that aim to teach the Iraqis everything from the latest American political correctness to the “right” way to vote. The bill includes $900 million to import petroleum products into Iraq (a country with the second largest oil reserves in the world); $793 million for healthcare in Iraq when we’re in the midst of our own crisis and about to raise Medicare premiums of our seniors; $10 million for "women’s leadership programs" (more social engineering); $200 million in loan guarantees to Pakistan (a military dictatorship that likely is the home of Osama bin Laden); $245 million for the "U.S. share" of U.N. peacekeeping in Liberia and Sudan; $95 million for education in Afghanistan; $600 million for repair and modernization of roads and bridges in Iraq (while our own infrastructure crumbles).
Pakistan
Borrowing Billions to Fund a Failed Policy in Iraq
October 17, 2003 2003 Ron Paul 110:10
I opposed our action against Iraq for two main reasons. I sincerely believed that our national security was not threatened and I did not believe that Saddam Hussein’s regime was involved in the attack on the United States on 9/11. I believe what we have learned since the intervention has supported my view. Meanwhile, while our troops are trying to police the border between Syria and Iraq our own borders remain as porous as ever. Terrorists who entered our country could easily do so again through our largely un-patrolled borders. While we expend American blood and treasure occupying a country that was not involved in the attack on the US, those who were responsible for the attack most likely are hiding out in Pakistan - a military dictatorship we are now allied with and to which this supplemental sends some $200 million in loan guarantees.
Pakistan
Misguided Policy Of Nation Building In Iraq
17 October 2003 2003 Ron Paul 111:40
There is a border between Pakistan and Afghanistan. Pakistan’s on our side, Afghanistan is half and half, but right on that border is Osama bin Laden most likely.
Pakistan
Misguided Policy Of Nation Building In Iraq
17 October 2003 2003 Ron Paul 111:41
And he is probably in Pakistan. So do we decide that we have to go after Pakistan? No, we recognize that the borders are uncontrollable.
Pakistan
A Wise Consistency
February 11, 2004 2004 Ron Paul 2:29
When the definition of terrorism is vague and the enemy pervasive throughout the world, the neo-conservatives — who want to bring about various regime changes for other reasons — conveniently latch onto these threats and use them as the excuse and justification for our expanding military presence throughout the Middle East and the Caspian Sea region. This is something they have been anxious to do all along. Already, plans are being laid by neo-conservative leaders to further expand our occupations to many other countries, from Central America and Africa to Korea. Whether it’s invading Iraq, threatening North Korea, or bullying Venezuela or even Russia, it’s now popular to play the terrorist card. Just mention terrorism and the American people are expected to grovel and allow the war hawks to do whatever they want to do. This is a very dangerous attitude. One would think that, with the shortcomings of the Iraqi occupation becoming more obvious every day, more Americans would question our flagrant and aggressive policy of empire building. The American people were frightened into supporting this war because they were told that Iraq had: “25,000 liters of anthrax; 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin; 500 tons of sarin, mustard, and VX nerve gas; significant quantities of refined uranium; and special aluminum tubes used in developing nuclear weapons.” The fact that none of this huge amount of material was found, and the fact that David Kay resigned from heading up the inspection team saying none will be found, doesn’t pacify the instigators of this policy of folly. They merely look forward to the next regime change as they eye their list of potential targets. And they argue with conviction that the 500-plus lives lost were worth it. Attacking a perceived enemy who had few weapons, who did not aggress against us, and who never posed a threat to us does nothing to help eliminate the threat of terrorist attacks. If anything, deposing an Arab Muslim leader — even a bad one — incites more hatred toward us, certainly not less. This is made worse if our justification for the invasion was in error. It is safe to say that in time we’ll come to realize that our invasion has made us less safe, and has served as a grand recruiting tool for the many militant Muslim groups that want us out of their countries — including the majority of those Muslims in Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Afghanistan, and the entire Middle East. Because of the nature of the war in which we find ourselves, catching Saddam Hussein, or even killing Osama bin Laden, are almost irrelevant. They may well simply become martyrs to their cause and incite even greater hatred toward us.
Pakistan
The Lessons of 9/11
April 22, 2004 2004 Ron Paul 27:13
In our effort to change the political structure of Iraq, we continue alliances with dictators and even develop new ones with countries that are anything but democracies. We have a close alliance with Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, many other Arab dictatorships, and a new one with Kadafi of Libya. This should raise questions about the credibility of our commitment to promoting democracy in Iraq — which even our own government wouldn’t tolerate.
Pakistan
The Lessons of 9/11
April 22, 2004 2004 Ron Paul 27:33
Our failure to pursue al Qaeda and bin Laden in Pakistan and Afghanistan — and diverting resources to Iraq — have seriously compromised our ability to maintain a favorable world opinion of support and cooperation in this effort.
Pakistan
Opposing Aid To Pakistan
15 July 2004 2004 Ron Paul 61:2
I appreciate the opportunity to spend 5 minutes on an issue that I wanted to bring up in the form of an amendment, and that deals with the $300 million that will be going to Pakistan. And I call this to attention because I think it is a very unwise expenditure. But I want to make my case for this in the context of overall foreign policy.
Pakistan
Opposing Aid To Pakistan
15 July 2004 2004 Ron Paul 61:5
I believe that this policy is a failure and has been very costly. If we think about the last 100 years how many lives were lost, how much blood has been spilled, how many dollars have been spent in this effort to make the world safe for democracy, the world is probably as unsafe now as it has ever been. And here we are. We are proposing that we send $300 million under this policy to Pakistan.
Pakistan
Opposing Aid To Pakistan
15 July 2004 2004 Ron Paul 61:6
We are in Iraq to promote democracy, but here we send money to a military dictator who overthrew an elected government. And there just seems to be a tremendous inconsistency here. There was a military coup in 1999. There is the strong possibility that Osama bin Laden may well be in Pakistan. And to actually send money there, we are prohibited from really going in there and looking for Osama bin Laden; so we give the government of Pakistan money in the hopes that they will be helpful to us.
Pakistan
Opposing Aid To Pakistan
15 July 2004 2004 Ron Paul 61:7
There is quite a bit of difference between the foreign policy of neutrality and friendship with everyone versus giving money and support to everyone. And if we look at our history, it has not worked very well. We have in the past given money to both sides of a lot of wars, and right now we try to be friends and we give money in support to both India and Pakistan. I do not bring this amendment up here to be pro either one or anti either one. I want to have a pro-American foreign policy and not say, well, I want to punish Pakistan and help India or vice versa.
Pakistan
Opposing Aid To Pakistan
15 July 2004 2004 Ron Paul 61:9
But, specifically, is it a wise expenditure to put $300 million into the government of Pakistan with the pretense that we are promoting democracy by supporting a military dictator at the same time our young men are dying in Iraq promoting democracy? It does not add up, and it suggests that there are other motives for some of these expenditures and some of our motivations around the world.
Pakistan
America’s Foreign Policy Of Intervention
26 January 2005 2005 Ron Paul 6:48
What if the principle of preemptive war is adopted by Russia, China, Israel, India, Pakistan, and others, and justified by current U.S. policy?
Pakistan
America’s Foreign Policy Of Intervention
26 January 2005 2005 Ron Paul 6:50
What if Pakistan is not a trustworthy ally and turns on us when conditions deteriorate?
Pakistan
America’s Foreign Policy Of Intervention
26 January 2005 2005 Ron Paul 6:64
Before 9/11 our CIA ineptly pursued bin Laden, whom the Taliban was protecting. At the same time, the Taliban was receiving significant support from Pakistan, our trusted ally that received millions of dollars from the United States. We allied ourselves both with bin Laden and Hussein in the 1980s, only to regret it in the 1990s. And it is safe to say we have used billions of U.S. dollars in the last 50 years pursuing this contradictory, irrational, foolish, costly and very dangerous foreign policy.
Pakistan
“Emergency” Supplemental Spending Bill
16 March 2005 2005 Ron Paul 29:3
We are told that this is emergency spending, and that we therefore must not question this enormous expenditure. Does an emergency require sending billions of American taxpayers’ dollars overseas as foreign aid an emergency? This bill is filled with foreign aid spending. If we pass this ill-conceived legislation, we will spend $656 million for tsunami relief; $94 million for Darfur, Sudan; $150 million for food aid, most to Liberia and Sudan; $580 million for “peacekeeping” overseas; $582 million to build a new American embassy in Iraq; $76 million to build a new airport in Kuwait (one of the wealthiest countries on earth); $257 million for counter drug efforts in Afghanistan; $372 million for health, reconstruction, and alternative development programs to help farmers stop raising poppy; $200 million in economic aid for the Palestinians; $150 million for Pakistan (run by an unelected dictator); $200 million for Jordan; $34 million for Ukraine.
Pakistan
Don’t Rush To War In Iran
16 February 2006 2006 Ron Paul 4:6
There has been no talk, it has been implied, but there has been no serious talk that Iran is a threat to our national security. There is no way. Even if they had nuclear weapons, they are not going to be a threat to our national security. Pakistan, that is not a democratic nation. It happens to be a military dictatorship. They have nuclear weapons. India has nuclear weapons. As a matter of fact, the nuclear weapons serve as a balance of power between two countries. The Soviets, had 30,000 nuclear weapons, and we followed a policy of containment. We did not say we have to go into the Soviet Union and bomb their establishment. No. Finally that problem dissipated. And yet we create unnecessary problems for ourselves. We go looking for trouble, and I see this as very detrimental for what we are doing with this resolution.
Pakistan
Iran, The Next Neocon Target
5 April 2006 2006 Ron Paul 21:10
Our obsession with democracy, which is clearly conditional when one looks at our response to the recent Pakistani elections, will allow the majority Shia to claim leadership title if Iraq’s election actually leads to an organized government. This delights the Iranians, who are close allies of the Iraqi Shia.
Pakistan
Iran, The Next Neocon Target
5 April 2006 2006 Ron Paul 21:25
There is no evidence of a threat to us by Iran and no reason to plan and initiate a confrontation with her. There are many reasons not to do so: Iran does not have a nuclear weapon and there is no evidence that she is working on one, only conjecture. Even if Iran had a nuclear weapon, why would this be different from Pakistan, India, and North Korea having one? Why does Iran have less right to a defensive weapon than these other countries? If Iran had a nuclear weapon, the odds of her initiating an attack against anybody, which would guarantee her own annihilation are zero, and the same goes for the possibility she would place weapons in the hands of a nonstate terrorist group.
Pakistan
Iran, The Next Neocon Target
5 April 2006 2006 Ron Paul 21:26
Pakistan has spread nuclear technology throughout the world, and in particular, to the North Koreans. They flaunt international restrictions on nuclear weapons, but we reward them just as we reward India. We needlessly and foolishly threaten Iran, even though they have no nuclear weapons, but listen to what a leading Israeli historian, Martin van Creveld had to say about this: “Obviously we do not want Iran to have a nuclear weapon, and I do not know if they are developing them. But if they are not developing them, they are crazy.”
Pakistan
Iran, The Next Neocon Target
5 April 2006 2006 Ron Paul 21:42
The President states: Iran’s “desire to have a nuclear weapon is unacceptable.” A desire is purely subjective and cannot be substantiated nor disproved. Therefore, all that is necessary to justify an attack is if Iran fails to prove it does not have a desire to be like the United States, China, Russia, Britain, France, Pakistan, North Korea, India and Israel whose nuclear missiles surround Iran. Logic like this to justify a new war, without the least consideration for a congressional declaration of war, is indeed frightening.
Pakistan
Iran, The Next Neocon Target
5 April 2006 2006 Ron Paul 21:65
First, Iran doesn’t have a nuke and it is nowhere close to getting one, according to the CIA. If they did have one, using it would guarantee almost instantaneous annihilation by Israel and the United States. Hysterical fear of Iran is way out of proportion to reality. With a policy of containment, we stood down and won the Cold War against the Soviets and their 30,000 nuclear weapons and missiles. If you are looking for a real kook with a bomb to worry about, North Korea would be high on the list. Yet we negotiate with Kim Jong Il. Pakistan has nukes and was a close ally of the Taliban up until 9/11. Pakistan was never inspected by the IAEA as to their military capability. Yet we not only talk to her, we provide economic assistance, though someday Musharraf may well be overthrown and a pro-al Qaeda government put in place. We have been nearly obsessed with talking about regime change in Iran, while ignoring Pakistan and North Korea. It makes no sense and it is a very costly and dangerous policy.
Pakistan
Iran Has A Right To Enrich Uranium
26 April 2006 2006 Ron Paul 29:4
What do we do for those who are totally in defiance to international law in the NPT Treaty, like India and Pakistan? We reward them and subsidize them. At the same time, there is no proof that there has been any violation of this treaty by Iran, and yet the rewards go to those who are in total defiance.
Pakistan
Big-Government Solutions Don’t Work
7 september 2006 2006 Ron Paul 74:61
In the late 1970s and the late 1980s, the CIA spent over $4 billion on a program called Operation Cyclone. This was our contribution to setting up training schools in Pakistan and elsewhere, including the U.S. itself, to teach sabotage skills. The purpose was to use these individuals in fighting our enemies in the Middle East, including the Soviets. But as one could predict, this effort has come back to haunt us as our radical ally, Osama bin Laden, turned his fury against us after routing the Soviets.
Pakistan
Big-Government Solutions Don’t Work
7 september 2006 2006 Ron Paul 74:87
We must not forget that the 9/11 terrorists came principally from Saudi Arabia, not Iraq, Iran, Lebanon or Syria. Iran has never in modern times invaded her neighbors, yet we worry obsessively that she may develop a nuclear weapon some day. Never mind that a radicalized Pakistan has nuclear weapons and our so-called friend Musharraf won’t lift a finger against bin Laden who most likely is hiding in Pakistan. Our only defense against this emerging nuclear threat has been to use and threaten to use weapons that do not meet the needs of this new and different enemy.
Pakistan
Don’t Do It, Mr. President
6 February 2007 2007 Ron Paul 21:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, if the President were to ask me for advice on foreign affairs, this is what I would say: Don’t do it, Mr. President. It is a bad idea. There is no need for it. There is great danger in doing it. America is against it, and Congress should be. The United Nations is against it. The Russians, the Chinese, the Indians, the Pakistanis are against it. The whole world is against it. Our allies are against it. Our enemies are against it. The Arabs are against it. The Europeans are against it. The Muslims are against it.
Pakistan
Does Anybody Care? Has Anybody Noticed?
7 February 2007 2007 Ron Paul 23:17
But our policies toward Pakistan, India and North Korea serve as a great incentive for nations to seek a nuclear weapon, and thus gain respect at home and abroad while greatly lessening the odds of being attacked by us?
Pakistan
Does Anybody Care? Has Anybody Noticed?
7 February 2007 2007 Ron Paul 23:30
The careless support for this international war on terrorism has permitted the U.S. to intervene militarily and to bring about regime change in three countries: Iraq, Afghanistan, and Somalia. Now we are provoking Iran so we can have an excuse to do the same thing there. But who knows, maybe we will have to deal with a regime change in Pakistan first, a regime change that will not be to our liking.
Pakistan
In The Name Of Patriotism (Who Are The Patriots?)
22 May 2007 2007 Ron Paul 55:37
The war mentality was generated by the Iraq war in combination with the constant drumbeat of fear at home. Al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden, who is now likely residing in Pakistan, our supposed ally, are ignored, as our troops fight and die in Iraq and are made easier targets for the terrorists in their backyard. While our leaders constantly use the mess we created to further justify the erosion of our constitutional rights here at home, we forget about our own borders and support the inexorable move toward global government, hardly a good plan for America.
Pakistan
Unanticipated Good Results (When We Leave)
7 June 2007 2007 Ron Paul 59:2
First, we need to look at the inconsistent and counterproductive way we currently treat other nations. We reward and respect nations with nuclear weapons. Look at how we treat Russia, China, Pakistan, India and North Korea. Our policies serve as an incentive for rogue nations to achieve a nuclear capability. Saddam Hussein was so convinced of this that he pretended he was on the verge of getting a nuclear weapon. Iran is now doing the same thing, yet our CIA assures us they have quite a ways to go before they have a nuclear capability.
Pakistan
Unanticipated Good Results (When We Leave)
7 June 2007 2007 Ron Paul 59:4
The foolishness of our foreign policy has us spending money in Pakistan, a military dictatorship with nuclear weapons, which is harboring Osama Bin Laden. The irony that taxpayers are paying to help protect Osama Bin Laden is astounding. For all the so- called reasons we threaten Iran, the same logic could apply to Pakistan many fold and, for that matter, even to Saudi Arabia, from where 15 of the 19 hijackers came.
Pakistan
BLOCKADE OF IRAN
10 July 2008 2008 Ron Paul 43:12
This does not make them angels. This does not make them not want to desire to defend their country. But think about it: How many countries have nukes around them? Pakistan has nukes, India has them, Israel has them, the United States has them, China has them, the Soviets have them. And they are being threatened. War games are being practiced, with the potentiality of us being a participant in bombing them.
Pakistan
WHAT IF?
February 12, 2009 2009 Ron Paul 15:5
What if occupying countries like Iraq and Afghanistan – and bombing Pakistan – is directly related to the hatred directed towards us?
Pakistan
WHAT IF?
February 12, 2009 2009 Ron Paul 15:6
What if some day it dawns on us that losing over 5,000 American military personnel in the Middle East since 9/11 is not a fair trade-off for the loss of nearly 3,000 American citizens – no matter how many Iraqi, Pakistani, and Afghan people are killed or displaced?
Pakistan
THE END IS NOT NEAR
March 4, 2009 2009 Ron Paul 21:6
Our presence will serve as an incentive for al Qaeda to grow in numbers and motivate more suicide bombers. An indefinite presence, whether in Iraq, Afghanistan, or Pakistan, will continue to drain our financial resources, undermine our national defense, demoralize our military and exacerbate our financial crisis. All this will be welcomed by Osama Bin Laden, just as he planned it. It’s actually more than he had hoped for.
Pakistan
THE END IS NOT NEAR
March 4, 2009 2009 Ron Paul 21:8
The war in Afghanistan and Pakistan will be much bigger, unless the dollar follows the path of the dollar-based world financial system and collapses into runaway inflation. In this case, the laws of economics and the realities of history will prove superior to the madness of maintaining a world empire financed by scraps of paper.
Pakistan
AMERICA’S TREASURY IS BARE
May 14, 2009 2009 Ron Paul 54:5
This process bothers me a whole lot that we come to the floor with the supplementals. We rush them through. We talk about this excessive spending. And lo and behold, when we finally vote, we get a total of 60 people who would say, Enough is enough. And besides, what are we doing? Where are we spending this money? I thought we were supposed to, with this change in administration, that we would be fighting less wars. But no. The war in Iraq continues. We expand the war in Afghanistan. We spread the war into Pakistan. And we always have on the table the potential danger of Iran.
Pakistan
AMERICA’S TREASURY IS BARE
May 14, 2009 2009 Ron Paul 54:6
So when will it ever end? We can’t even define the enemy. Who exactly is the enemy over there? Is it the al Qaeda? The Taliban? Is it the Government of Pakistan? If you can’t define the enemy, how do you know when the war is over? If we are in war, which we are, how can this be anything other than war? When was this war declared? Oh, well, we got this authority 5 or 10 years ago. Who knows when? Perpetual war. This is what we are involved with. Perpetual spending. And then we say, well, we have to do that to be safe. That is what is preposterous. It is the very policy that makes us unsafe. We pursue this policy, and the more we do, the less safe we are. There is a big argument now about whether we are safer now with the new administration or is it making us less safe?
Pakistan
Foreign Policy
September 30, 2009 2009 Ron Paul 92:4
Now, the bill is defined as fortifying democratic institutions. That is a good goal. But it never, never works. We are in 130 countries, we have 700 bases around the world, and we pursue this, and we are bankrupting our country by trying to maintain this empire. I have often made the point that the way we treat our fellow countries around the world is we tell them what to do, and if they do it we give them money. If they don’t do it, we bomb them. Under this condition, we are doing both. We are currently dropping bombs in Pakistan. The CIA is dropping bombs, and innocent people get killed.
Pakistan
Afghanistan, Part 2
November 18, 2009 2009 Ron Paul 97:5
There was one individual – I don’t know his name – but they believed he was in Pakistan, so he was part of the terrorist group, the people who were opposing the occupation. So they sent 15 cruise missiles, drones, over looking for him. It took the 15th one to kill him. But 14 landed, and there was an estimate made that about 1,000 civilians were killed in this manner. How many more terrorists have we developed under those circumstances?
Pakistan
THE QUAGMIRE OF AFGHANISTAN
December 2, 2009 2009 Ron Paul 101:2
This is not new for us. This is more or less the rule rather than the exception, and I believe this comes about because of the way we go to war. In the last 60-some years, we have never had a declaration of war, but we have been involved in plenty. We’ve been involved in Korea, Vietnam, the Persian Gulf, and the Iraq War, and now Afghanistan, and it looks like it’s going to be Pakistan as well.
Pakistan
THE QUAGMIRE OF AFGHANISTAN
December 2, 2009 2009 Ron Paul 101:8
Yet what is the motivation for individuals to become radical against us, whether it’s in the Taliban or al Qaeda? There is one single factor that is the most influential in motivating somebody to commit suicide terrorism against anybody or us, and that is occupation by a foreign nation. And now, where have we occupied? We have occupied Iraq and Afghanistan. We are bombing Pakistan. But not only the literal occupation, but also, we have this threat on Pakistan.
Pakistan
Statement Before Foreign Affairs Committee
December 10, 2009 2009 Ron Paul 103:7
Nevertheless, the president’s National Security Advisor, Gen. James Jones, USMC (Ret.), said in a recent interview that less than 100 al-Qaeda remain in Afghanistan and that the chance they would reconstitute a significant presence there was slim. Are we to believe that 30,000 more troops are needed to defeat 100 al-Qaeda fighters? I fear that there will be increasing pressure for the US to invade Pakistan, to where many Taliban and al-Qaeda have escaped. Already CIA drone attacks on Pakistan have destabilized that country and have killed scores of innocents, producing strong anti-American feelings and calls for revenge. I do not see how that contributes to our national security.
Pakistan
Statement Before Foreign Affairs Committee
December 10, 2009 2009 Ron Paul 103:8
The president’s top advisor for Afghanistan and Pakistan, Richard Holbrooke, said recently, “I would say this about defining success in Afghanistan and Pakistan. In the simplest sense, the Supreme Court test for another issue, we’ll know it when we see it.” That does not inspire much confidence.
Pakistan
Sanctions on Iran, Part 1
December 15, 2009 2009 Ron Paul 104:5
And also, one of the purposes of enticing us over there and being involved is to give a greater incentive to recruit those individuals who become violent against us. And this has been unbelievably successful. So we’ve been involved in Iraq. We’ve been involved in Afghanistan. We’re bombing Pakistan and almost, this is like another bonus for those who want us to be attacked, is that we’re over there and just fomenting this anger and hatred toward us.
Pakistan
Sanctions on Iran, Part 3
December 15, 2009 2009 Ron Paul 106:3
One must understand a little bit about the pressures put on this country to act in a defensive way. They happen to be surrounded by a lot of nuclear bombs. And they don’t have a history, the Iranians. As bad as they are for their leadership and how bad their regime is, they’re not expansionists territorially. I mean, how many years has it been since they invaded another country for the purpose of taking over another country? It is just not in recent history at all. But the countries around them, India – India has nuclear weapons, China has nuclear weapons, Pakistan, Israel, the United States. I mean, they’re all around them, so I’m sure they feel like a cornered rat.
Pakistan
Schizophrenic foreign policy leads to problems
23 November 1998 Texas Straight Talk 23 November 1998 verse 12 ... Cached
The only constitutional -- and therefore legal -- use of our military is in the direct protection of US sovereignty. While we expend billions of dollars and countless lives to (unsuccessfully) oust third-rate dictators who have absolutely no ability to threaten our nation on the basis that they might attain "weapons to mass destruction," we all but ignore real threats (such as the Chinese, North Koreans, military renegades in Russia, Syria, Pakistan, and others).
Pakistan
Predictions for an Unwritten Future
29 April 2002 Texas Straight Talk 29 April 2002 verse 16 ... Cached
China, India, Russia, and Pakistan will take advantage of the chaos for the purpose of grabbing land, resources, and strategic advantages they have sought for years in central Asia.
Pakistan
Important Questions about War in Iraq
03 September 2002 Texas Straight Talk 03 September 2002 verse 11 ... Cached
With American forces stretched thin in the Middle East and the administration preoccupied, will China take the opportunity to invade Taiwan? Will India and Pakistan engage in a full-fledged war? Will adversaries like Russia consider us weakened and move against us?
Pakistan
Our Incoherent Foreign Policy Fuels Middle East Turmoil
02 December 2002 Texas Straight Talk 02 December 2002 verse 4 ... Cached
The same is true of Pakistan, where General Musharaff seized power by force in a 1999 coup. The Clinton administration quickly accepted his new leadership as legitimate, to the dismay of India and many muslim Pakistanis. Since 9/11, we have showered Pakistan with millions in foreign aid, ostensibly in exchange for Musharaff’s allegiance against al Qaeda. Yet has our new ally rewarded our support? Hardly, as the Pakistanis almost certainly harbored bin Laden in the months following 9/11. In fact, more members of al Qaeda probably live within Pakistan than any other country today. Furthermore, North Korea recently announced its new nuclear capability, developed with technology sold to them by the Pakistanis. Yet somehow we remain friends with Pakistan, while Hussein, who has no connection to bin Laden and no friends in the Islamic fundamentalist world, is made a scapegoat.
Pakistan
Our Incoherent Foreign Policy Fuels Middle East Turmoil
02 December 2002 Texas Straight Talk 02 December 2002 verse 5 ... Cached
The tired assertion that America "supports democracy" in the Middle East is increasingly transparent. It was false 50 years ago, when we supported and funded the hated Shah of Iran to prevent nationalization of Iranian oil, and it’s false today when we back an unelected military dictator in Pakistan- just to name two examples. If honest popular elections were held throughout the Middle East tomorrow, the people in most countries would elect religious fundamentalist leaders hostile to the United States. Cliche or not, the Arab Street really doesn’t like America, so we should stop the charade about democracy and start pursuing a coherent foreign policy that serves America’s long-term interests.
Pakistan
War Profiteers
07 April 2003 Texas Straight Talk 07 April 2003 verse 21 ... Cached
-$175 million for Pakistan;
Pakistan
Reject the National ID Card
06 September 2004 Texas Straight Talk 06 September 2004 verse 7 ... Cached
The federal government has no constitutional authority to require law-abiding Americans to present any form of identification before they engage in private transactions. Instead of forcing all Americans to prove to law enforcement that they are not terrorists, we should be focusing our resources on measures that really will make us safer. For starters, we should take a look at our dangerously porous and unguarded borders. We have seen already this summer how easy it is for individuals possibly seeking to do us harm to sneak across the border into our country. In July, Pakistani citizen Farida Goolam Mahomed Ahmed, who is on the federal watch list, reportedly crossed illegally into Texas from Mexico. She was later arrested when she tried to board a plane in New York, but she should have never been able to cross our border in the first place!
Pakistan
Where is Your Money Going?
21 March 2005 Texas Straight Talk 21 March 2005 verse 13 ... Cached
-$150 million for Pakistan, which is run by an unelected dictator;
Pakistan
Deficts at Home, Welfare Abroad
07 November 2005 Texas Straight Talk 07 November 2005 verse 5 ... Cached
* $638 million for the unelected Musharraf government in Pakistan;
Pakistan
Another "Emergency" Spending Bill
20 March 2006 Texas Straight Talk 20 March 2006 verse 6 ... Cached
Is there really an “emergency” that requires $1.2 billion to pay off our allies for their help in Afghanistan? If Pakistan, Jordan, and other nations chose to join our war effort, why can’t their taxpayers foot the bill? Won’t those nations in closer proximity to Afghanistan benefit from the stability we are told U.S. troops will provide? Perhaps they should pay us for stabilizing their neighborhood. But it’s always American taxpayers who end up paying.
Pakistan
Hypocrisy in the Middle East
26 February 2007 Texas Straight Talk 26 February 2007 verse 5 ... Cached
The same is true of Pakistan, where General Musharaf seized power by force in a 1999 coup. The Clinton administration quickly accepted his new leadership as legitimate, to the dismay of India and many Muslim Pakistanis. Since 9/11, we have showered Pakistan with millions in foreign aid, ostensibly in exchange for Musharaf’s allegiance against al Qaeda. Yet has our new ally rewarded our support? Hardly. The Pakistanis almost certainly have harbored bin Laden in their remote mountains, and show little interest in pursuing him or allowing anyone else to pursue him. Pakistan has signed peace agreements with Taliban leaders, and by some accounts bin Laden is a folk hero to many Pakistanis.
Pakistan
Hypocrisy in the Middle East
26 February 2007 Texas Straight Talk 26 February 2007 verse 6 ... Cached
Furthermore, more members of al Qaeda probably live within Pakistan than any other country today. North Korea developed its nuclear capability with technology sold to them by the Pakistanis. Yet somehow we remain friends with Pakistan, while Saddam Hussein, who had no connection to bin Laden and no friends in the Islamic fundamentalist world, was made a scapegoat.
Pakistan
Hypocrisy in the Middle East
26 February 2007 Texas Straight Talk 26 February 2007 verse 7 ... Cached
The tired assertion that America "supports democracy" in the Middle East is increasingly transparent. It was false 50 years ago, when we supported and funded the hated Shah of Iran to prevent nationalization of Iranian oil, and it’s false today when we back an unelected military dictator in Pakistan- just to name two examples. If honest democratic elections were held throughout the Middle East tomorrow, many countries would elect religious fundamentalist leaders hostile to the United States. Cliché or not, the Arab Street really doesn’t like America, so we should stop the charade about democracy and start pursuing a coherent foreign policy that serves America’s long-term interests.
Pakistan
Entangling Alliances
11 November 2007 Texas Straight Talk 11 November 2007 verse 2 ... Cached
In the name of clamping down on "terrorist uprisings" in Pakistan, General Musharraf has declared a state of emergency and imposed martial law. The true motivations behind this action however, are astonishingly transparent, as the reports come in that mainly lawyers and opposition party members are being arrested and harassed. Supreme Court justices are held in house arrest after indicating some reluctance to certify the legitimacy of Musharraf's recent re-election.
Pakistan
Entangling Alliances
11 November 2007 Texas Straight Talk 11 November 2007 verse 3 ... Cached
Meanwhile, terrorist threats on US interests may be more likely to originate from Pakistan, a country to which we have sent $10 billion.
Pakistan
Entangling Alliances
11 November 2007 Texas Straight Talk 11 November 2007 verse 4 ... Cached
Now we are placed in the difficult position of either continuing to support a military dictator who has taken some blatantly un-Democratic courses of action, or withdrawing support and angering this nuclear-capable country. The administration is carefully negotiating this tight-rope by "reviewing Pakistan's foreign aid package" and asking Musharraf to relinquish his military title and schedule elections.
Pakistan
Entangling Alliances
11 November 2007 Texas Straight Talk 11 November 2007 verse 7 ... Cached
Free trade means no sanctions against Iran, or Cuba or anyone else for that matter. Entangling alliances with no one means no foreign aid to Pakistan, or Egypt, or Israel, or anyone else for that matter. If an American citizen determines a foreign country or cause is worthy of their money, let them send it, and encourage their neighbors to send money too, but our government has no authority to use hard-earned American taxpayer dollars to mire us in these nightmarishly complicated, no-win entangling alliances.
Pakistan
Entangling Alliances
11 November 2007 Texas Straight Talk 11 November 2007 verse 8 ... Cached
When we look at global situations today, the words of our founding fathers are becoming more relevant daily. We need to understand that a simple, humble foreign policy makes us less vulnerable and less targeted on the world stage. Pakistan should not be getting an "allowance" from us and we should not be propping up military dictators that oppress people. We should mind our own business and stop the oppressive taxation of Americans that makes this meddling possible.
Pakistan
On Foreign Entanglements: The Ties that Strangle
30 December 2007 Texas Straight Talk 30 December 2007 verse 3 ... Cached
Benazir Bhutto's assasination was a great tragedy. Pakistan is now more than ever teetering on chaos. And all the money we have sent Musharraf has inadvertently drawn a target on our backs.
Pakistan
On Foreign Entanglements: The Ties that Strangle
30 December 2007 Texas Straight Talk 30 December 2007 verse 4 ... Cached
Musharraf, unfortunately, appears to have learned how to work our system, much in the way a career welfare recipient has learned to do the same. The perpetual welfare recipient promises to look for a job. Musharraf has promised to look for Bin Laden. Both are terrible investments of American taxpayer dollars, however with Musharraf, its been an astonishing $10 billion loss over the last few years. But it is even worse than that. With his recent actions declaring martial law, and dismissing the justices of the supreme court, he is to the rest of the world, and to Pakistanis, a wildly unpopular, power hungry, brutal military dictator. The perception by most is that we are propping him up while simultaneously urging Ms. Bhutto back into Pakistan as a lamb to the slaughter.
Pakistan
On Foreign Entanglements: The Ties that Strangle
30 December 2007 Texas Straight Talk 30 December 2007 verse 5 ... Cached
The trouble is the average Pakistani will have little doubt regarding Bhutto's death, regardless if it was orchestrated by Musharraf or not. At this point It is almost irrelevant who was responsible or how she died. The perception is what will fuel the anger. My great fear is their anger towards Musharraf's military regime will be targetted towards his enablers - the United States.
Texas Straight Talk from 20 December 1996 to 23 June 2008 (573 editions) are included in this Concordance. Texas Straight Talk after 23 June 2008 is in blog form on Rep. Paul’s Congressional website and is not included in this Concordance.
Remember, not everything in the concordance is Ron Paul’s words. Some things he quoted, and he added some newspaper and magazine articles to the Congressional Record. Check the original speech to see.