Ron Paul Talks abt War (114 QUOTES)

* Astonishingly, American taxpayers now will be forced to finance a multi-billion dollar jobs program in Iraq. Suddenly the war is about jobs. We export our manufacturing jobs to Asia, and now we plan to export our welfare jobs to Iraq, all at the expense of the poor and the middle class here at home.
* Cliches about supporting the troops are designed to distract from failed policies, policies promoted by powerful special interests that benefit from war, anything to steer the discussion away from the real reasons the war in Iraq will not end anytime soon.
* 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 in and day and night about third-world countries that have no army, navy or air force.
* I have never met anyone who did not support our troops. Sometimes, however, we hear accusations that someone or some group does not support the men and women serving in our Armed Forces. But this is pure demagoguery, and it is intellectually dishonest.
* Legitimate use of violence can only be that which is required in self-defense.
* Setting a good example is a far better way to spread ideals than through force of arms.
* The most important element of a free society, where individual rights are held in the highest esteem, is the rejection of the initiation of violence.
* War is never economically beneficial except for those in position to profit from war expenditures.
* If the new nation of America could defeat what was then the most powerful military empire in the world without a draft, there is no reason why we cannot address our current military needs with a voluntary military.
* If we can't or won't define the enemy, the cost to fight such a war will be endless.
* How many American troops are we prepared to lose? How much money are we prepared to spend? How many innocent civilians, in our nation and others, are we willing to see killed? How many American civilians will we jeopardize? How much of our civil liberties are we prepared to give up?
* I rise to urge the Congress to think twice before thrusting this nation into a war without merit- one fraught with the danger of escalating into something no American will be pleased with.
* War is not popular. It may seem popular in the short run, when there appears to be an immediate victory and everyone is gloating, but war is not popular. People get killed, and body bags end up coming back. War is very unpopular, and it is not the politically smart thing to do.
* Military force is justified only in self-defense; naked aggression is the province of dictators and rogue states. This is the danger of a new "preemptive first strike" doctrine.
* Setting a good example is a far better way to spread ideals than through force of arms.
* The obligations of our representatives in Washington are to protect our liberty, not coddle the world, precipitating no-win wars, while bringing bankruptcy and economic turmoil to our people.”
* All initiation of force is a violation of someone else's rights, whether initiated by an individual or the state, for the benefit of an individual or group of individuals, even if it's supposed to be for the benefit of another individual or group of individuals.
* Astonishingly, American taxpayers now will be forced to finance a multi-billion dollar jobs program in Iraq. Suddenly the war is about jobs. We export our manufacturing jobs to Asia, and now we plan to export our welfare jobs to Iraq, all at the expense of the poor and the middle class here at home.
* Cliches about supporting the troops are designed to distract from failed policies, policies promoted by powerful special interests that benefit from war, anything to steer the discussion away from the real reasons the war in Iraq will not end anytime soon.
* I believe that when we overdo our military aggressiveness, it actually weakens our national defense.
* I have never met anyone who did not support our troops. Sometimes, however, we hear accusations that someone or some group does not support the men and women serving in our Armed Forces. But this is pure demagoguery, and it is intellectually dishonest.
* Legitimate use of violence can only be that which is required in self-defense.
* Setting a good example is a far better way to spread ideals than through force of arms.
* The most important element of a free society, where individual rights are held in the highest esteem, is the rejection of the initiation of violence.
* The most important element of a free society, where individual rights are held in the highest esteem, is the rejection of the initiation of violence.
* All initiation of force is a violation of someone else’s rights, whether initiated by an individual or the state, for the benefit of an individual or group of individuals, even if it’s supposed to be for the benefit of another individual or group of individuals. Legitimate use of violence can only be that which is required in self-defense.
* When one person can initiate war, by its definition, a republic no longer exists.
* Military force is justified only in self-defense; naked aggression is the province of dictators and rogue states. This is the danger of a new “preemptive first strike” doctrine. America is the most moral nation on earth, founded on moral principles, and we must apply moral principles when deciding to use military force.
* It is said we go about the world waging war to promote peace, and yet the price paid is rarely weighed against the failed efforts to make the world a better place.
* Fighting over there has nothing to do with preserving freedoms here at home. More likely the opposite is true.
* We have a lot of goodness in this country. And we should promote it, but never through the barrel of a gun. We should do it by setting good standards, motivating people and have them want to emulate us. But you can’t enforce our goodness, like the neocons preach, with an armed force. It doesn’t work.
* Americans, unfortunately, have very short memories, and they don’t remember our foreign policy that may have antagonized… The founders were absolutely right: stay out of the internal affairs of foreign nations, mind our own business, bring our troops home, and have a strong defense.
* The American people are generous – there’s no reason why we can’t help feed the world, and we do. But there’s no justification to use violence against our people to extract money to do good overseas.
* Clearly, language threatening to wipe a nation or a group of people off the map is to be condemned by all civilized people. And I do condemn any such language. But why does threatening Iran with a pre-emptive nuclear strike, as many here have done, not also deserve the same kind of condemnation?
* Iran is no threat to Israel, which has hundreds of nuclear weapons. And it certainly is no threat to the US, with its thousands of nuclear weapons. In fact, it is Iran that is threatened.
* It is with the complicity of Congress that we have become a nation of pre-emptive war, secret military tribunals, torture, rejection of habeas corpus, warrantless searches, undue government secrecy, extraordinary renditions, and uncontrolled spying on the American people.
* The constant refrain that bringing our troops home would demonstrate a lack of support for them must be one of the most amazing distortions ever foisted on the American public.
* If the mafia attacks someone in this country, we don’t bomb Italy.
* Defense of our homeland is one thing. Offensive tactics overseas are quite another. Worse yet, when our newly minted enemies find their way over here, where will our troops be to defend us?
* The constant refrain that bringing our troops home would demonstrate a lack of support for them must be one of the most amazing distortions ever foisted on the American public.
* Economist Lawrence Parks has explained how the creation of the Federal Reserve Bank in 1913 made possible our involvement in World War I. Without the ability to create new money, the federal government never could have afforded the enormous mobilization of men and material. Prior to that, American wars were financed through taxes and borrowing, both of which have limits.
* The best way to support the troops is through a sensible foreign policy that does not place them in harm's way unnecessarily or force them into uncomfortable, dangerous roles as occupiers.
* The dependency on government generated by welfarism and warfarism, made possible by our shift from a republican to a democratic system of government, is the real scandal of the ages.
* It was a mistake to go, so it's a mistake to stay.
* Don't we remember than when you sacrifice liberty for security, you lose both?
* We honor our veterans by ensuring that their service to the nation is never in vain.
* We cannot impose democracy in Iraq any more than we can erase hundreds of years of Iraqi history.
* Even opponents of the war now argue that we must occupy Iraq indefinitely until a democratic government takes hold, no matter what the costs. No attempt is made by either side to explain exactly why it is the duty of American soldiers to die for the benefit of Iraq or any other foreign country. No reason is given why American taxpayers must pay billions of dollars to build infrastructure in Iraq. We are expected to accept the interventionist approach without question, as though no other options exist.
* Those who seek to whip the nation into a frenzy of fear do a disservice to a country that expelled the British, fought two world wars, and stared down the Soviet empire.
* War does not justify the suspension of torture laws any more than it justifies the suspension of murder laws, the suspension of due process, or the suspension of the Second amendment.
* War cannot raise the standard of living for the average American.
* Is America better off as a result of our war in Iraq? The young men and women who were hurt or killed certainly are no better off. Their families are no better off. Taxpayers are no better off. Whether we are safer from terrorism here at home is an open question. We all hope and pray nothing happens. But even our own intelligence forces cautioned that an invasion and occupation of Muslim Iraq could breed resentment among sympathetic Muslims and serve as a recruiting tool for al Qaeda.
* Why should young Americans be hurt or killed to liberate foreign nations? I have never heard a convincing answer to this question.
* The federal government has spent tens of billions of U.S. tax dollars in the region, and a succession of presidents have held peace summits with Middle Eastern leaders, all to no avail. The endless supply of American money, however well-intentioned, gives the leaders of both sides a perverse incentive to remain engaged in the process indefinitely.
* Peace is too important to be left up to government officials, most of whom are safely insulated from the daily violence.
* The powers in charge keep us in a perpetual state of fear, keep us in a continuous stampede of patriotic fervor with the cry of grave national emergency. Always there has been some terrible evil to gobble us up if we did not blindly rally behind it by furnishing the exorbitant sums demanded. Yet, in retrospect, these disasters seem never to have happened, seem never to have been quite real.
* Some politicians simply love the thought of mandatory service to the state. To them, the American government is America. Patriotism means working for the benefit of the state.
* We should stop the endless game of playing faction against faction, and recognize that buying allies doesn't work. We should curtail the heavy militarization of the area by ending our disastrous foreign aid payments. We should stop propping up dictators and putting band-aids on festering problems. We should understand that our political and military involvement in the region creates far more problems that it solves.
* The greatest economic cost of war, however, comes from the expansion in the size and scope of government. Government always grows during wars and other crises.
* The sad irony is that while our soldiers have fought for the freedom of Europe, Korea, Vietnam, Kuwait, and Iraq, the government uses war to steadily diminish freedom here at home. While we fight a war in Iraq, we must also fight to maintain and restore individual liberty in America.
* Only by using American troops judiciously and in service of the Constitution can we avoid the kind of endless military entanglements we witnessed in Korea and Vietnam. We honor our veterans by ensuring that their service to the nation is never in vain.
* Today's American soldiers are the veterans of the future, and they should never be sent to war without clear objectives that serve definite American national security interests. They should never fight at the behest of the United Nations or any other international agency. They should never serve under a UN flag, nor answer to a UN commander. They deserve to know that they fight for the American people and the Constitution, and that the decision to send them into battle was made by their own congress rather than by UN bureaucrats who don't care about them.
* One Republican member stated that the Constitutional requirement that Congress declare war is an anachronism and should no longer be followed, while a Democratic member said that a declaration of war would be "frivolous." I don't think most Americans believe our Constitution is outdated or frivolous, and they expect Congress to follow it.
* Do you personally feel strongly enough about Iraq to leave your home, family, and job to join the war? If you are beyond the age of military service, would you want your children or grandchildren to do the same? After Pearl Harbor, almost all Americans would have answered yes to this question, but do we really have the same national unity and clear sense of purpose when it comes to Iraq?
* We are blessed to live under the Constitution, rather than under a King or dictator. Yet if we blatantly violate the Constitution by pursuing an undeclared war, we violate the rule of law. We invite the President, and future Presidents, to act in an imperial manner. We damage the separation of powers that is so critical to our freedom. We act more like Iraq than the United States of America when we ignore the Constitution.
* The young men and women who will be called upon to fight for the Constitution in Iraq deserve to see it followed at home.
* War is war, no matter what we call it. When we bomb another country, when we send troops, planes, and warships to attack it, we are at war. Calling war a "police action" or a "peacekeeping mission" does not change the reality.
* The Constitution requires a congressional declaration of war precisely because the founders wanted the most representative branch of government, not an imperial President, to make the grave decision to send our young people into harm's way.
* Remember that American tax dollars have been instrumental in the incredible militarization of the entire region. We give Israel about $3 billion each year, but we also give Egypt $2 billion. Most other Middle East countries get money too, some of which ends up in Palestinian hands. Both sides have far more military weapons as a result. Talk about adding fuel to the fire! Our foolish and unConstitutional foreign aid, though debatably well-intentioned, only intensifies the conflict.
* It is clear that we are not in the Middle East for national security reasons, but rather to protect powerful commercial interests. This assures we protect oil supplies for the West, and provides us with an excuse to keep the military industrial complex active.
* Our policy in the Middle East cannot possibly be successful. It's obvious there will be an inevitable conflict between our support for the moderate Arabs- which antagonizes the Islamic fundamentalists in the region- and our special treatment for Israel. It is clear that powerful financial interests in this country want to use our military force to protect their commercial and oil interests in the region, while at the same time there always will be powerful U.S. political support for the State of Israel. The two sides never will be reconciled by our attempt to support both.
* Our many failures in the last fifty years should prompt us to reassess our entire foreign policy of interventionism. We must end our efforts to police the world.
* The greatest threat to our national security is our own bad policy.
* Unquestioned loyalty to the state is especially demanded in times of war. Lack of support for a war policy is said to be unpatriotic. Arguments against a particular policy that endorses a war once started, are always said to be endangering the troops in the field. This, they blatantly claim, is unpatriotic and all dissent must stop. Yet it is dissent from government policies that defines the true patriot and champion of liberty.
* Sending troops off to war for reasons that are not truly related to national security -- and for that matter may even damage our security -- is hardly a way to patriotically support the troops.
* The only authentic way to best support the troops is to keep them out of dangerous, undeclared, no-win wars that are politically inspired.
* Who are the true patriots: those who conform or those who protest against wars without purpose? How can it be said that blind support for war, no matter how misdirected the policy, is the duty of the patriot?
* Out of fear of being labeled unpatriotic, most citizens become compliant and accept the argument that some loss of liberty is required to fight the war in order to remain safe. This is a bad trade-off in my estimation, especially when done in the name of patriotism.
* Once a war of any sort is declared, the message is sent out not to object or you will be declared unpatriotic.
* The greatest danger we face is ourselves: what we are doing in the name of providing security for a people made fearful by distortions of facts. Fighting over there has nothing to do with preserving freedoms here at home. More likely the opposite is true.
* The catch-all phrase, "war on terrorism" in all honesty, has no more meaning than if one wants to wage a war against criminal gangsterism.
* There's no logical reason to reject the restraints placed in the Constitution regarding our engaging in foreign conflicts unrelated to our national security. The advice of the founders and our early presidents was sound then and it's sound today
* Keeping our troops out of harm's way, especially when war is unnecessary, is never unpatriotic. There's no better way to support the troops.
* We should be ever vigilant when we hear the fear mongers preparing us for the next military conflict our young men and women will be expected to fight.
* As our country becomes poorer due to the cost of the war, anger surely will escalate. Much of it will be justified.
* We can continue to fund and fight no-win police actions around the globe, or we can refocus on securing America and bring the troops home.
* It was a mistake to go, so it's a mistake to stay. If we made the wrong diagnosis, we should change the treatment. So we're not making progress there and we should come home.
* You can't enforce our goodness with an armed force. It doesn't work.
* We have to come to our senses about this issue of war and preemption 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.
* Defend our interests, defend our liberties, and we do not need to be occupying Europe and Japan, Korea, all these countries. We have troops in 130 countries. We have 750 bases around the world. We can't afford it, and it causes trouble for us.
* We have lost over 5000 Americans over there in Afghanistan and Iraq, plus the civilians killed. How many more do you want to lose? How long are we going to be there? What do we have to pay to save face? All we're doing is saving face. It's time we came home.
* 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.
* My argument is that we shouldn't go to war so carelessly. When you do that, the wars don't end.
* The economic benefits of a foreign policy of nonintervention are extraordinary. The wars that result from meddling in the internal affairs of other nations cause much greater economic harm than most people imagine. The cliche that war is a stimulus to economic growth is blatantly false.
* The time has come for a change.
* How many more years will it take for civilized people to realize that war has no economic or political value for the people who fight and pay for it?
* Wars are always started by governments, and individual soldiers on each side are conditioned to take up arms and travel great distances to shoot and kill individuals that never meant them harm. Both sides drive their people into an hysterical frenzy to overcome their natural instinct to live and let live. False patriotism is used to embarrass the goodhearted into succumbing to the wishes of the financial and other special interests who agitate for war.
* War reflects the weakness of a civilization that refuses to offer peace as an alternative.
* A policy that endorses peace over war, trade over sanctions, courtesy over arrogance, and liberty over coercion is in the tradition of the American Constitution and American idealism. It deserves consideration.
* The absence of good reasoning to pursue this war prompts the supporters of the war to demonize the skeptics and critics. They have no other defense.
* Although I concede the history of the world is a history of frequent war, to capitulate and give up even striving for peace, believing peace is not a benefit to mankind, is a frightening thought that condemns the world to perpetual war and justifies it as a benefit and necessity. These are dangerous ideas, from which no good can come.
* Just as man's condition was not locked in place by the times and wars of old and improved with liberty and free markets, there's no reason to believe a new stage for man might not be achieved by believing and working for conditions of peace.
* Neocons, unfortunately, claim that war is in man's nature and that we can't do much about it, so let's use it to our advantage by promoting our goodness around the world through force of arms. That view is anathema to the cause of liberty and the preservation of the Constitution. If it is not loudly refuted, our future will be dire indeed.
* It's been true throughout history and remains true today, each side of major conflicts invokes God's approval. Our side refers to a crusade; theirs to a Holy Jihad. Too often wars boil down to their god against our God. It seems this principle is more a cynical effort to gain approval from the masses, especially those most likely to be killed for the sake of the war promoters on both sides who have power, prestige and wealth at stake.
* None should be pleased with the steady attack on the civil liberties of all American citizens and the now-accepted consensus that preemptive war for almost any reason is an acceptable policy for dealing with all the conflicts and problems of the world.
* Talk about hypocrisy! The mere thought that we fight wars for affirmative action in a country 6,000 miles from home, with no cultural similarities, should insult us all.
* The most important element of a free society, where individual rights are held in the highest esteem, is the rejection of the initiation of violence.
* It's time American soldiers quit being killed and it's time for us to quit killing a lot of other people who have not attacked us.
* We can achieve much more in piece than we can in these needless, unConstitutional, undeclared wars.
* Ultimately, our money, weapons, and interventionist policies never buy us friends for long, and more often we simply arm our future enemies. The politicians responsible for the mess are usually long gone when the trouble starts, and voters with a short attention span don't connect the foreign policy blunders of twenty years ago with today's problems. But wouldn't our long-term interests be better served by not creating the problems in the first place?
* The moral and Constitutional obligations of our representatives in Washington are to protect our liberty, not coddle the world, precipitating no-win wars, while bringing bankruptcy and economic turmoil to our people.

2 comments:

Peter M. Eyre said...

Fellow lovers of liberty,

Due to your interest in the message advocated by Ron Paul I wanted to make sure you were aware of the 2008 Liberty Forum (www.freestateproject.org/libertyforum), which is happening January 3-6th in Nashua, NH.

If you haven't yet heard, Dr. Paul is one of the keynote speakers for the second year in a row (check out this video to see his speech from 2007). Last year over 350 people attended. This year we're expecting even more (which is why we had to find a different venue that had greater capacity). It would be excellent if you could help us to spread the message of liberty by letting visitors to your site know about this event.

Note that for those under 18 registration fees are waived and that college students get a steep discount (they can email Chris Lawless, the coordinator for the Liberty Forum, at: dreepa@yahoo.com).

Thanks in advance. I hope to see you in NH!

In Liberty,

-Pete

Resilient Hawk said...

I am concerned. If Ron Paul cannot make a new leap, the way Huckabee has, then what? Fred Thompson, John Edwards, John McCain, all candidates talked about early on, all have but fizzled.

I think of Howard Dean in 2004. Much noise, online support, and then nothing when it mattered.

A Trendl
http://ron-paul-for-president.blogspot.com