Source: Campaign for Liberty
Date: 1/25/2009
Transcript:
Thanks for joining us. In the last couple days, the most frequently asked question to me has been, what do I think about Obama and his foreign policy? Is there reason to be optimistic that we’ll have positive changes around the world and especially in the Middle East?
He has spoken out clearly in the campaign what his policy would be in Iraq: he wants to bring the troops home and he wants to get them out of there in 16 months. And he may draw down on those troops, but quite frankly I don’t believe for a minute that he will ever take down and remove that very offensive embassy in Iraq, nor close the military bases. So overall I don’t think the policies would change. I think if the violence escalates, which is a very significant possibility, he would be sending troops in if he had to. Americans are still being killed in Iraq and there’s still a long way to go before there’s real peace in Iraq because the Sunnis are well-armed and they are not happy by being pushed out by the Shiites, so time will tell us about that.
But Obama was very explicit about his foreign policy in Afghanistan. He said we should escalate in Afghanistan; we should have more troops in Afghanistan. And that’s where the battle is, that’s where the battle with the Al-Qaeda is, is in Afghanistan. But when he talks about Afghanistan, he talks about Pakistan as well and it’s very weak. The American missiles sent off by our CIA with drones, ended up killing 22 civilians. So they said there were possibly a few Al-Qaeda suspects there, but some women and children were killed as well.
And believe me, that doesn’t go well on his diplomatic mission to work better with those individuals and our enemies in the Middle East. A matter of fact, that’s the incentive for the Al-Qaeda to develop and grow. And as long as we have that policy over there, we can expect things to get much worse. Just the same, just as well, right now Karzai was very unhappy with the Americans today, and American missiles had killed some Afghans, and he is just holding on by his strings, you know, to the presidency of Afghanistan. And that is likely to come to an end.
So really and truly, policies have not changed there, it’s exactly the same. Escalation of war, Afghanistan will be Obama’s war. But I wish I could say that well, let’s look forward, the attitude has changed, we’re gonna be out of Iraq and we’re gonna wind down in Afghanistan, but we’re in there and we are determined to have a long term presence in the Middle East. There’s a lot of things that drives that policy and we all know about it.
The number one probably is oil, that has a lot to do with it. The neocon philosophy has a lot to do with it, Israel has a lot to do with it, as well as this idea that we have to be over there for our national security reason to fight the Al-Qaeda, but quite frankly, I am convinced, and so many other Americans are, that the reason we have to worry about the Al-Qaeda is because we’re over there. The more we’re over there and the more Muslims we kill, the greater the incentive there will be for Al-Qaeda to try to come and kill us.
We need a significant change in foreign policy. We don’t need more of the same. We need less influence of the neocons. We don’t need a perpetuation of the foreign policy of the neoconservatives, and that policy of course is, a non-interventionist, pro-American, pro-Constitution foreign policy which means we ought to mind our own business, come home and take care of our own business here at home. And besides, financially, that’s what we must do, soon.
- The Leader Who Changed His Mind On Iraq What if America were occupied by 50,000 Chinese or Russian troops that terrorized and tortured...
- Ron Paul: Iraq is a Powder Keg In this speech to Congress, Ron Paul points out that our involvement in Iraq, Afghanistan...
- Ron Paul on Afghanistan Ron Paul discusses U.S. foreign policy in Afghanistan and growing unrest over Obama’s expansion of...
" - 
Damn… I voted for the wrong guy. I wont be fooled again.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I thank Mr. Ron Paul for this wonderful words and this speech
Obama more than the promises, and I want to tell him we want a man of acts not a man of talkings
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I LOVE YOU RON PAUL!!!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Don’t let the Bush wars go on without accountability and trials for the criminals responsable.The Obama administration must have the Department of Justice do their sworn duty to prosecute for the crimes of the past Bush administration criminals. Go to this web site and see what crimes I’m talking about and the reasons there is reluctance to prosecute…..it is a long but very informative read…………
……… http://bushcrimes.net/
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Apparently you will support the next Presidents Justice Department going after Obama for Afghanistan crimes and crimes yet to come related to his overseas contingency plans? Sheep.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Wrong on what, exactly? Ron Paul supporters ARE the ones who have done the research, you fool. You have clearly done nothing but mindlessly listen to the government and mainstream media’s load of bull.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
one example, this “NAFTA SUPERHIGHWAY” he believes that its some sort of conspiracy. i like ron paul, he makes alot of sense and i agree with alot of his ideas, but he’s wrong on alot of other thing, i am not influenced by the media, i watch cnn and listen to micheal savage daily,i listen to both arguements, i do the research, it is you that is fed all theis bias bullshit,eat a dick conservative faggot, it is people like you who are ruining the country.OBAMA !
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Ron Paul is wrong on alot of thing, do the research you idiots!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Is that the extent of your reasoning?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
What happened to the liberals’ NO MORE WAR ????ha ha
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Ron Paul is right on of course ,however Afganistan is not the target..Pakistan is nuclear & this is a must breakup Nation…Follow along the path…Jahadists’ want nuclear…This will serve as a good excuse…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
We should bring much of our armed forces home, but probably not all. Some presence in some places is needed as a deterrent. Situations could arise where our security is at risk and we would need to act swiftly. We could not do so if everything militarily was based in the states. I think we would become an easier target at home if we didn’t have some outposts. Having said that, I do agree that we get involved in too many areas that we shouldn’t. For instance, we should not have much of a presence in Europe. The countries there are fully capapble of defending themselves. We often get a lot of negative press for being there. None of those Europeans countries complain about the money our troops spend there though.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
With all due respect-
outposts make the best targets. Look at a list at all the terrorist attacks that have killed Americans from the 1980’s onward. Beirut. Kenya. Tanzania. Somalia. The USS Cole, off the coast of Saudi Arabia.
What Dr. Paul is saying is that bringing our boys home will not only beef up our national defenses, it will stop pissing everyone else off, and we will in effect be a harder target to hit and a less desirable target to hit.
Sounds good to me.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
GTO- I can’t disagree that any outpost could be a potential target. But, are you willing to wait until they’re on our shores before practicing a minimal amount of readiness? Also, in order to accomplish open trade with other nations we have to provide at least some sort of protection as these goods move. Who will want to export from here if pirates steal the fruits of their hard work with no recourse. I hope we would not open up a need for an expanded UN role.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I agree with that, we definitely don’t want the UN getting involved in…practically anything. When I was stationed in Camp Bucca detainment facility in Iraq, though, and I talked to self admitted terrorists about why they hate America, their answers usually were something along the lines that Americans were too intrusive on foreign soil. Scaling back on overseas bases and wars then, most likely, would soften foreign aggression in the first place. It also might increase the ability of armed forces to respond to crisis at home with more manpower, weapons, and equipment, in effect creating a maximum amount of readiness. We could also maintain a less intrusive presence by making port in foreign bases (as opposed to indefinitely occupying parts of countries with far flung American military bases).
There are also various nations like Sweden with tiny defensive armies and a policy of neutrality that trade expansively with many nations throughout the world without many Captain Jack Sparrows (sorry, just watched one of those movies) stealing their stuff.
I think Ron’s ideas make sense, but I’m not a very politically minded guy and don’t know a whole ton about stuff. I think neutrality would be worth a try, though. At least Ron is stimulating intellectual debate about actually making a real change, which is the best thing for us now.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Ron Paul = My Hero.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Mr. Paul i just wanted to take this opportunity to thank you for standing up and doing whats right. Not many American politicians can say they have done that. You have certainly got your head on straight when it comes to the big picture. Down with the stimulus package! P.S. i am a Canadian.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
We need more then ONE, WE NEED us.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Sorry, your former nationality (of Mr. Ron Paul)is Vietnamese? Because I see many kinds in your face is the same with Vietnamese.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0