Widgetized Section

Go to Admin » Appearance » Widgets » and move Gabfire Widget: Social into that MastheadOverlay zone

Ron Paul: U.S. involvement in Libya was still a mistake

By KEVIN FREKING
August 29, 2011

Republican presidential contender, Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, speaks at a restaurant at the Polk County GOP summer picnic event held at the Iowa State Fairgrounds in Des Moines, Iowa on Saturday, Aug. 27, 2011. (AP Photo/Nati Harnik)

Republican presidential hopeful Ron Paul said Sunday the apparent overthrow of Moammar Gadhafi’s regime in Libya does not justify U.S. involvement there and may end up delivering al-Qaida what he called “another prize.”

The Texas congressman has made his mark in the presidential race as a strict libertarian who would scale back the role of the federal government in domestic and foreign affairs. A recent Gallup poll shows him in third place in the GOP race for the presidency.

Asked on “Fox News Sunday” whether getting rid of Gadhafi was a good thing, Paul conceded that it was but added that Gadhafi’s departure did not mean the long-term result would be good for the United States. He said that getting rid of Saddam Hussein was also good, but that the long-term result in Iraq has not been a success for the U.S.

“We’ve delivered Iraq to the Iranians,” he said.

Paul said troops are already required to ensure order in Libya and that no one knows who the rebels in Libya represent.

“We have no idea of what’s going to come out of Libya. I’m very skeptical,” he said.

Paul said U.S. foreign policy should be focused on national security. Instead, he said, its foreign policy has drifted toward picking dictators around the world.

He said he resents the power that has flowed to the executive branch and the judiciary.

“I want to obey the Constitution and follow its very great restrictions on the government,” he said.

Paul’s disdain for government interaction continued with the Federal Emergency Management Agency, which has worked to help people along the East Coast deal with Hurricane Irene. He called the concept of FEMA a gross distortion of what insurance is supposed to provide and that it encourages people to build in unsafe areas, namely along beaches.

“FEMA has been around since 1978. It has one of the worst reputations for a bureaucracy ever,” Paul said. “You can’t imagine how many calls we get because FEMA is getting in the way and they can’t get their checks, they can’t get their bailout.”

Enhanced by Zemanta

20 Responses to Ron Paul: U.S. involvement in Libya was still a mistake

  1. DreamReliquary

    August 29, 2011 at 4:48 am

    “Was” a mistake… Libya is far from over, and we still don’t have a solid idea of how it will play out. Not the first coup we’ve backed.

  2. Sandune

    August 29, 2011 at 9:21 am

    What we do know, Dream, is that Islam has another reason to destroy America. I’m with Ron Paul on this.

    The GOP is the war machine and apparently found President Obama a willing part.

  3. Danny Adams

    August 29, 2011 at 6:37 pm

    I suppose whether it was worth it remains to be seen. “Worth it”, by the apparent definition of the present (and past) administration, likely being defined as the oil fields, the 144 tons of gold in Libya’s central bank, a beachhead into Africa, and the weakening (by removing Ghadafi’s substantial financial support) of the African Union, which has been fighting Western incursions into its oil and agricultural interests.

  4. woody188

    August 29, 2011 at 6:41 pm

    Considering the rebels are al-Qaeda (much as any other Muslim group supported by US intelligence) there is reason to be very skeptical.

    Last I heard Gadhafi’s army left Tripoli due to NATO bombing, which al-Qaeda used their absence to run in and take some nifty photos ops (just like a certain CIA/DIA run psyop in Firdous Square, Iraq) but that Gadhafi’s army was moving back into place and driving al-Qaeda out with little resistance.

    The important thing to remember is that we were always at war with Gadhafi, and al-Qaeda is our friend. War is peace. Amen and God bless.

    • woody188

      August 29, 2011 at 6:43 pm

      Rather convenient how AFRICOM was set up just before this invasion. Just saying…

  5. Carl Nemo

    August 29, 2011 at 10:37 pm

    A spot-on synopsis of our goals on the African continent goes both to Danny Adams and Woody188.

    Africom’s mission is basically neocolonialism redux no different than when European nations of the 18th and 19th centuries staked their claims on the “Dark Continent” only to unravel in the 20th century, leaving it neglected for another round of modern era, high tech supported exploitation.

    Africa’s natural resource riches are mind-boggling to be sure. The Chinese are already working their piece of the action with little resistance from the indigenous leadership due to the fact they don’t meddle in the local’s handling of their unwashed masses regardless of how brutal it might be. They’re simply there for the oil, diamonds, hardwoods and exotic minerals for building China’s future as the world’s premier superpower.

    Our “Africom” mission is an example of the U.S. being a day late and a dollar short as usual when it comes to staking our ‘claim’ to such resources in faraway places. China is also succeeding well in South America too while our failed attempt at empire seems to be a fait accompli due to national insolvency.

    http://www.africom.mil/AboutAFRICOM.asp

    Carl Nemo **==

  6. egc52556

    August 30, 2011 at 1:09 pm

    “strict libertarian” ???

    Strict Libertarians don’t let the government decide what to do with a woman’s womb over the woman’s own choice.

    Feh.

    • Almandine

      August 30, 2011 at 7:27 pm

      Maybe in addition to the scriptures you quote on the home page of your website you could check out the ten commandments. That “bearing false witness” one in particular.

      • Jon

        August 30, 2011 at 8:56 pm

        Oddly enough, the names we use today for the most obvious stars in the night sky are almost entirely Arabian, written down by Islamist scholars.

        And “The Ten Commandments”? They may be fine for you and your Judeo-Christian deity, but a strict libertarian wouldn’t have the government interfere with worshipping Odin, Marduk, Zeus, Moloch, or Amon Ra, let alone the miscellaneous prophets of one or the other.

        J. – The loud looter.

  7. Almandine

    August 30, 2011 at 9:37 pm

    Nor would the strict libertarian allow one to murder in the name of personal liberty… especially when the liberty of the innocent murdered is that with which the murderer is most charged with protecting.

    In the current case, none of those extraneous worshipped ones you cite need be brought to bear on the matter of murder and its consequences, as the original charge of letting govts decide what to do with a woman’s womb is the fallacy.

    In the words of the libertarian in question:

    “Abortion on demand is the ultimate State tyranny; the State simply declares that certain classes of human beings are not persons, and therefore not entitled to the protection of the law. The State protects the “right” of some people to kill others, just as the courts protected the “property rights” of slave masters in their slaves. Moreover, by this method the State achieves a goal common to all totalitarian regimes: it sets us against each other, so that our energies are spent in the struggle between State-created classes, rather than in freeing all individuals from the State. Unlike Nazi Germany, which forcibly sent millions to the gas chambers (as well as forcing abortion and sterilization upon many more), the new regime has enlisted the assistance of millions of people to act as its agents in carrying out a program of mass murder.”

    Face validity not necessarily withstanding, that strict libertarian credo cannot be assaulted by appeal to “choice” unless the murdered can be shown to demand his demise, and the murderer can thereby be shown to promote the murdered’s liberty at the highest level possible via becoming a hallowed instrument wielded in the name of “self-determination”. Without that, abortion is just codified theft of life and its potentiality perpetrated by knaves inhabiting “progressive” culture. Brazen looters, as it were.

  8. Jon

    August 31, 2011 at 7:25 pm

    Except that abortion isn’t murder, any more than masturbating into a sock is. Life does not begin at conception.

    J.

    • Almandine

      August 31, 2011 at 11:18 pm

      Thank you God.

    • Almandine

      September 1, 2011 at 9:08 am

      Mumbled like a true progressive…

  9. Carl Nemo **==

    August 31, 2011 at 10:16 pm

    I have to differ with you on this one Jon. Seemingly the human heart begins to beat on the 22nd day post fertilziation of the embryo.

    Here’s a link with a time table from initial fertilization to the full development of a child in utero.
    http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/facts/fetaldevelopment.html

    Masturbation into a ‘sock’ is simply an act of sexual self-titillation with no possibility of another being coming from the process. So it’s like comparing oranges to less than apples. / : |

    I’m not pro life due to the burgeoning overpopulation of planet earth. If societies don’t make an effort get haphazard procreation under some type of serious control then the citizens of earth will literally eat themselves out of their home, the earth. Currently the planetary population is around 7 billion with 10.5 billion projected by 2050, possibly sooner. Inflation alone will result in the price of commodities to skyrocket which will foment civil wars and unrest across the globe. The end result will be mighty resource wars competing for the last easily exploitable resources, an ugly scenario indeed.

    Carl Nemo **==

    • Jon

      August 31, 2011 at 10:57 pm

      22 days later isn’t at conception either.

      Exactly when and where life begins is highly debateable. Some say life only really begins when you retire.

      J.

      • Carl Nemo **==

        August 31, 2011 at 11:00 pm

        Since that’s been my status since 1995, I heartily agree… : )

        Carl Nemo **==

      • Almandine

        August 31, 2011 at 11:23 pm

        Life actually predates conception, being the condition of both procreants well before the act of procreation. Their gifts of life – passed on to their offspring – could not have happened otherwise.

        Sex ain’t really the Big Bang.

        • Carl Nemo **==

          September 1, 2011 at 11:51 am

          Gee Al you are certainly elevating the act of procreation to a highly ‘spiritual’ level between two consenting adults. Assuredly they have their oars in the water when engaged in this lust driven act, generally not sullied by in depth analysis as to the end result of their coupling; I.E., ‘gifting life’ to a future being. Then seemingly aborted couplings are far cheaper and less socially traumatizing than a viable fetus. / : |

          It would probably work if both parties had the intellect and self control of “Spock”…no?

          Carl Nemo **==

          • Almandine

            September 1, 2011 at 1:32 pm

            Hi Carl –

            My point was entirely about the debate surrounding “when life begins” as a biological, not spiritual, function. “Intent to reproduce” is not the controlling issue regarding the newly created human being; it is only the fact that procreation has happened at all that makes the question meaningful with regard to terminating that life. Logically speaking, life must have existed prior to the “coupling”… ergo, if the debate about the ending that life via abortion is a legal question that hinges on “when life begins”, it must in fact be answered – at the moment of impregnation.

            Under natural law, the upshot of such termination would be murder; under societal law, it’s who has the best politics. We know the current answer to that one.

            On a related front, perhaps you can help me out with something I’ve been puzzling over for some time now: I thought “gift” was a noun and “give” was the verb. How did gift squirm its way into verbhood?

            • Carl Nemo **==

              September 1, 2011 at 2:19 pm

              Seemingly the word is used as both a noun and as a transitive verb in our times. Here’s a little etymological background on the word gift.

              Gift:

              From the Old English “asgift,” meaning, “payment for a wife” in the singular and meaning “wedding” in the plural. The Middle Dutch “gift,” now written as “gif,” meant the same, but today means “poison.” The Old High German “gift” also became “poison.” From the root “geb-“, from which in English we get “give.” There is another German word, however, which incorporates the word “gift”, but which retains the older meaning of “payment for a wife”. The word is “Mitgift”, which is the modern German word for “dowry”.

              ***

              gift (g ft)
              n.
              1. Something that is bestowed voluntarily and without compensation.
              2. The act, right, or power of giving.
              3. A talent, endowment, aptitude, or inclination.
              tr.v. gift·ed, gift·ing, gifts
              1. To present something as a gift to.
              2. To endow with.

              [Middle English, from Old Norse; see ghabh- in Indo-European roots.]

              I used the term ‘gifting life’ in a somewhat facetious sense when relating it to humans at the moment of their primal ecstacy, having little thought to the consequences for the most part for themselves and society in general. It’s said the first and the last child are generally a mistake with those in between planned, although that’s up for debate too when dealing with welfare mothers with eight plus children spanning from age 14 to their late thirties. Ah…the cost of maintaining a ‘civilized’ society…no? / : |

              Carl Nemo **==