MasterDoc1
Posts: 173
Joined: 6/21/2005
Status: offline
|
Rolling Stone caught up with the seventy-two-year-old Texan in between votes at his day job in the House of Representatives.
(interview follows)
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.
(end interview)
It's Ron Paul and Peace or ANYONE ELSE*** and ENDLESS war.
Don't make me laugh by suggesting Obama, Clinton, Edwards or any other candidate*** would end this war.
***Statement does NOT apply to anyone who believes with their BRAIN (not just their heart) that Kucinich or Gravel could be ELECTED.
|
Oppose the war? Read these 750 words - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread