Ron Paul
2006 Ron Paul Chapter 26

Ron Paul Disadvantages To Intervention

26 April 2006

Home Page   Contents
Congressional Record (Page H1758)   Cached

Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.
Disadvantages To Intervention
26 April 2006

2006 Ron Paul 26:1
Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 5 minutes.

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 won’t 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 doesn’t work, and we don’t 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 don’t 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 don’t 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 don’t 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 doesn’t 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.

Previous   Next

Home Page   Contents   Concordance   Links