2002 RP video - surprising statement

[militant]

found this tonight, 2002 pbs interview. watch at 4:07. ron paul advocates foreign intervention!! just... not american foreign intervention. any idea why? i'm gonna give him the benefit of the doubt here. could be iraq directly threatened israel, overtly, publicly, not just by being unfriendly and being in the region, but i'm not clear on whether that in fact was the situation at that time. thoughts, guys?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OenXhQvgYwo

[ronpaulitician]

Saddam sent missiles into Israel during the Gulf War.

It had proven itself a threat to Israel.

[Matt Collins]

I think what he was saying was that Isreal can do whatever they wanted in regard to that situation, but the US should stay out.

[cujothekitten]

found this tonight, 2002 pbs interview. watch at 4:07. ron paul advocates foreign intervention!! just... not american foreign intervention. any idea why? i'm gonna give him the benefit of the doubt here. could be iraq directly threatened israel, overtly, publicly, not just by being unfriendly and being in the region, but i'm not clear on whether that in fact was the situation at that time. thoughts, guys?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OenXhQvgYwo

Yeah, he thinks sovereign nations should be able to do what they need to do to defend themselves. He's for non-intervention, which means he doesn't get involved in the affairs of other nations.

[militant]

Saddam sent missiles into Israel during the Gulf War.

It had proven itself a threat to Israel.



we're talking early 1980's. the osirik reactor. the gulf war hadn't taken place, and i'm not aware of iraq making a specific threat or anything at that point...

[ThePieSwindler]

Wow he was REALLY soft spoken in this interview. Anyways.. he voted to allow israel to attack those reactors because keeping them from doing so would be as interventionist as nationbuilding. What the pro-israel crowd doesn't realize is that we hurt israel by being so involved with them, because we tell them what they can and cannot do - for example, they have tried to sign peace agreements with syria, which we have turned down. We hurt israel more than we help them.

[militant]

Yeah, he thinks sovereign nations should be able to do what they need to do to defend themselves. He's for non-intervention, which means he doesn't get involved in the affairs of other nations.


yes. but. where or what was the threat from iraq? i'm not saying there was none, i'm just asking for historical context, so i can understand how/why he would apply interventionism in this specific case. ideas?

[ThePieSwindler]

yes. but. where or what was the threat from iraq? i'm not saying there was none, i'm just asking for historical context, so i can understand how/why he would apply interventionism in this specific case. ideas?

Dude i just watched the whole thing and i have to say, this thread is absurd. All Ron Paul did was state that he was for allowing Israel to do as they wished because it is not our business to tell Israel what they can and cannot do in relation to their own national security. He said like one sentence pertaining to this.

[militant]

Wow he was REALLY soft spoken in this interview. Anyways.. he voted to allow israel to attack those reactors because keeping them from doing so would be as interventionist as nationbuilding. What the pro-israel crowd doesn't realize is that we hurt israel by being so involved with them, because we tell them what they can and cannot do - for example, they have tried to sign peace agreements with syria, which we have turned down. We hurt israel more than we help them.


agree entirely from "what the pro-israel crowd.." onward. but is that the situation, the first part - that he's saying he voted against an attempt to block isreal from doing it? i took his words to mean he actually supported the *actions* of isreal. 2 different things. i'm not meaning to quibble, i'm just trying to understand fully his thinking on as many types and instances of intervention as possible. sometimes i worry he's just a tad too non-interventionist for me, but i trust that far more than i trust anything we've done since the first world war.

[ThePieSwindler]

agree entirely from "what the pro-israel crowd.." onward. but is that the situation, the first part - that he's saying he voted against an attempt to block isreal from doing it? i took his words to mean he actually supported the *actions* of isreal. 2 different things. i'm not meaning to quibble, i'm just trying to understand fully his thinking on as many types and instances of intervention as possible. sometimes i worry he's just a tad too non-interventionist for me, but i trust that far more than i trust anything we've done since the first world war.

So you are trying to use this as an example to placate yourself that he is not a TOTAL non interventionist? Thats fine, as i had assumed the opposite that you were trying to put forth that he is not a true non-interventionist. Listen to everything else he said there. Ron is not a peacenik like Kucinich - he believes in going to war when it is necessary. As for intervention, well, he does not believe we should be involved in nation building, and when there IS a threat to our national security to bring it to the congress and deal with it accordingly. He voted to allow Israel to do that because, if you assume Ron Paul is consistent in his views (which he has proven time and time again), he believes that other nations should be left to do what they will, especially if that nation believes there is a threat to their national security, that we should not obstruct them from acting accordingly. By doing so we are involving ourselves in internal affairs of other nations.

[militant]

Dude i just watched the whole thing and i have to say, this thread is absurd. All Ron Paul did was state that he was for allowing Israel to do as they wished because it is not our business to tell Israel what they can and cannot do in relation to their own national security. He said like one sentence pertaining to this.


relax. as i've said elsewhere on this thread, i'm not complaining or saying he said anything incorrect. i'm just asking for historical perspective, and to get some clarification on what he actually said. i'm not trying to criticize him, i'm trying to understand him. relax, i'm on our side :)

[cujothekitten]

yes. but. where or what was the threat from iraq? i'm not saying there was none, i'm just asking for historical context, so i can understand how/why he would apply interventionism in this specific case. ideas?
There were threats made, not with nukes or anything, but with Saddam talking about wiping them off the earth... much likes Iran today. Israel took that as a threat and destroyed their plant. Iran bombed a separate plant as well. It probably wasn’t the smartest thing to do since they were far away from actually creating nukes (and we ignored their weapon making after the attack).

[militant]

So you are trying to use this as an example to placate yourself that he is not a TOTAL non interventionist? Thats fine, as i had assumed the opposite that you were trying to put forth that he is not a true non-interventionist. Listen to everything else he said there. Ron is not a peacenik like Kucinich - he believes in going to war when it is necessary. As for intervention, well, he does not believe we should be involved in nation building, and when there IS a threat to our national security to bring it to the congress and deal with it accordingly. He voted to allow Israel to do that because, if you assume Ron Paul is consistent in his views (which he has proven time and time again), he believes that other nations should be left to do what they will, especially if that nation believes there is a threat to their national security, that we should not obstruct them from acting accordingly. By doing so we are involving ourselves in internal affairs of other nations.


i would agree. we can't tell other countries what to do, and that includes telling them when they can and cannot intervene in *other* countries' affairs. but he didn't say he voted against a resolution or legislation that would try to block israel from acting - he said he supported israel's actions, from my hearing at least. i'm not criticizing, i'm just wondering what the trigger was, what behaviour from iraq made israel's intervention so solidly appropriate that ron paul himself would approve. the REAL reason i even posted this was because i thought i might be missing out on some info about that part of history, and i was hoping it would come up in discussion about that statement from the good doctor.

[Shellshock1918]

I think what he was saying was that Isreal can do whatever they wanted in regard to that situation, but the US should stay out.

ditto

Until we are threatened, its not our business.

[militant]

There were threats made, not with nukes or anything, but with Saddam talking about wiping them off the earth... much likes Iran today. Israel took that as a threat and destroyed their plant. Iran bombed a separate plant as well. It probably wasn’t the smartest thing to do since they were far away from actually creating nukes (and we ignored their weapon making after the attack).



ahh, ok, that's what i wanted to know. exactly that - what was the threat, what was the context. then once again, and so far, without fail, i am at the very least, personally ok with paul's decision and viewpoint. still haven't found anything specific to disagree with him on so far.. thanks for the info

[DXDoug]

pretty awsome video . good times..