Ron Paul Against the War (In Rolling Stone)

[Asheran Mojomaster]

http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/ ... _war/print

Ron Paul: A Republican Takes the Lead Against the War

Tim Dickinson

Posted Nov 14, 2007 7:06 AM

Advertisement

Ron Paul may be an old-school Republican, but no other candidate running for president — in either party — has spoken out against the war in Iraq as bluntly as he has. Sure, the former obstetrician has a goofy nostalgia for the gold standard, not to mention medieval views on abortion and immigration. But his anti-war stance has not only helped him bank more campaign cash than Iraq-backer John McCain, it has garnered him more contributions from military families than any candidate in the race. On November 5th, Paul raised $4.2 million online — a record single-day haul for a GOP presidential candidate. Rolling Stone caught up with the seventy-two-year-old Texan in between votes at his day job in the House of ­Representatives.

What do you make of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and current U.S. posturing toward Iran?

He's a loudmouth, and he hurts their cause. But we help his cause when we gang up against him. When we pass sanctions against him, the dissidents in Iran who would like to get rid of him rally around him for nationalistic reasons.

We get hysterical over a guy who doesn't have a single weapon, and nobody's proven that he's ever violated the arms-nonproliferation treaty. Matter of fact, the International Atomic Energy Agency is going to have an agreement with him by the end of the year. That's why you have all of this warmongering going on: It is to try to find an excuse to start bombing him before they prove that he doesn't have a chance of having a weapon. That's exactly what we did with Iraq. I'm scared to death they're getting ready to do that with Iran.

The Bush administration says Iran is supporting the Iraqi insurgency. How much can we trust that assessment?

About as much as what we heard about Iraq before the war. What was true about that? Very, very little, if anything. They're capable of telling us anything if they want to go to war. And that's what they want.

Whether the Iranians have helped the insurgency or not is almost irrelevant from my viewpoint. Why wouldn't they have an interest? It's like saying that if the Russians were in Mexico, we wouldn't have an interest in who wins that war. We'd have every right. They're the next-door neighbor.

But the administration alleges that the Iranians aren't just backing the Shia against the Sunni — they are complicit in the slaughter of our soldiers.

I haven't seen any proof of that. They're assuming that it's true, but that's part of the war hysteria that's going on.

Giuliani seems to be the warmonger in chief — leading the drumbeat for war with Iran. What would a Giuliani presidency mean for our national security?

If someone is unhappy with the Bush policy, they would find Giuliani's would be even more extreme. But since Giuliani is so anxious to go to war, somebody ought to ask him why he didn't go when he was called up instead of ducking it like some of those other chicken hawks — he took, what, four deferrals?

The kids today are expected to go because Giuliani likes this stuff. But whether it's Cheney or Giuliani, these guys think it's quite proper to go to war when they feel like it. But they never had to expose themselves.

In a recent debate, you blasted Mike Huckabee for supporting the war, saying we're only staying in Iraq "to save face." But wouldn't leaving Iraq be a propaganda victory for bin Laden?

Everything is much worse if we stay. Right now they're very content to bleed us in Iraq. Bleed us financially and by killing Americans. We lose lives, we spend money we don't have, it furthers our financial crisis. The longer we're there, the stronger Al Qaeda gets. Our being there is the greatest incentive ­conceivable to help Osama bin Laden. The evidence is very clear. There's more Al Qaeda now than before. Which means we're in greater danger of being hit by terrorists than before.

Besides, who are the people telling us there'll be problems if we leave? The same ones who said it would be a ­cakewalk. What kind of credibility do they have?

You talk about limiting the size of government. How much of the Pentagon's budget would you ax?

We are now spending close to a trillion dollars a year, when you add up every single thing we do overseas. You could start off easily cutting $100 billion. Bring the troops home, you could save $200 billion the next year. And maybe $250 billion the year after that.

Quit paying to blow up bridges in Iraq and then paying to rebuild them. Bring that money home. Our bridges are falling down. Our levees are falling down. The only way we can get enough money is by stopping this insane foreign policy of running this empire that we can't afford. Policing the world? It's impossible.

I say, just quit it. Let's come home. Bring the troops home. Quit spending the money. Get rid of selective service. Don't have the draft. And no more wars like this. It's a real tragedy and a real black mark on our record.

[Fash]

Despite mostly supporting the war, I like Ron Paul and really wish he were a front-runner.

[Sueven]

I really appreciate the fact that Ron Paul represents an injection of libertarian values into the Republican party, something which is sorely needed. He's doing a great service in this sense.

That said, he's an awful presidential candidate. He advocates an isolationist foreign policy. This would be one thing if he was quite knowledgeable about foreign policy and had well-argued reasons why isolationism is the best tactic. I would disagree with him, but at least we could have a debate.

This is not the case. During the debate yesterday, he couldn't remember who the Kurds are. This is a... really bad thing. Combine that with his love for the gold standard, willingness to abandon restrained libertarianism when the issue on the table is abortion, and so forth... the dude has a lot of good things to say, but he'd be an unmitigated trainwreck disaster as president. I'm glad he's in the race and doing well, I'm also glad he's not a frontrunner.

Ron Paul as president, or even as legitimate frontrunning candidate, would do an awful lot to discredit the good parts of the libertarian ideals which he's championing. The fact that a mediocre libertarian candidate like Paul can attract as much support as he has is a credit to the growing strength of libertarian ideals.

[Asheran Mojomaster]

Ron Paul is far from perfect. I disagree with him on abortion and many of his ideas are very extreme. That being said, I think an extreme change is needed and he is the man to do it. Out of all of the candidates he is by far the best in my opinion. Do I think he would be the best president ever? No. Do I think he would be better than Guiliani, Clinton, Obama, or pretty much anyone else (though I like Kucinich even if he has almost the opposite views as Paul...I like his character, which is something most politicians don't have)? Yes, most definately. Isolationist ideals may be a good thing right now, and by isolationist I do not mean withdrawing from the world market, I mean withdrawing 90% of our military forces around the globe and isolating them from everyone else. We don't need to have any siginificant military force anywhere but here in our home country or in the countries of our allies.

(BTW, Ron Paul is not isolationist when it comes to the economy. He definately wants us to trade as much as possible with the rest of the world. His ideal economy is Austrian Laissez-Faire Economics)