Ron Paul on Fox Business: ‘No Reason in the World for Us To Be Involved in Syria’

Interviewed Tuesday on Fox Business, three-time presidential candidate Ron Paul rejected the ongoing United States intervention in Syria, stating emphatically that he sees “no reason in the world for us to be involved in Syria.”

Referring to the US government’s oft-repeated directive that Syria President Bashar al-Assad “must go” — be removed from power in the Middle East nation — Paul explains in the interview that it looks like that effort will fail while creating “a lot bigger chance that this is going to be a conflict between Russia and the United States.”

Watch Paul’s complete interview here:

Reprinted with permission from the Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity.

7 thoughts on “Ron Paul on Fox Business: ‘No Reason in the World for Us To Be Involved in Syria’”

  1. When our great country was established, the leaders at that time (as imperfect as they were) advised our future leaders in regards to foreign policy “to not get involved in the affairs of other nations needlessly, to establish peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none and to have with them as little political connection as possible, so far as we have already formed engagements, let them be fulfilled with perfect good faith. Here let us stop.”

    Their reasoning was based on historical knowledge of nations and empires whose leaders constantly engaged in military conflicts and wars, mostly for foreign policy reasons or interests and not from actual threats. To prevent future leaders of our new country from engaging in old world type of destructive behavior, they wisely (although not perfect up until WWII) delegated the war making decisions to the Legislature instead of the Executive. Wow, how we have done a 180 from the words of these wise men of the 18th century where today the legislature now delegates war making decisions to the Executive and the Executive uses it to engage in destructive behavior by meddling in the affairs of other nations and overthrowing govts to achieve foreign policy objectives or interests, and not in defense of our survival, our way of life, our liberties, or our vital interests.

  2. America, or at least the goons who hijacked it, have one reason to get involved in Syria and it's the same reason they got involved in Iraq and Afghanistan. It's called O-I-L!

    Syria is pipeline city. It always comes down to the bottom line with these greedy f*cks.

    Oh well, Viva La Revolution!

    1. There is another reason – it is called I S R A E L. America is in Syria to get rid of Assad. Why?
      Right-wing Israel wants him gone for the same reason it wanted Hussein and Khadafy
      gone. Any strong Arab leader who aids the Palestinians are marked for destruction by the Zionists. Israel has a particular problem – it must provide its Western immigrants a Western standard of living in a region of a more modest standard of living. It can only do so with massive aid from the West (direct aid, special access to markets, etc.) and the absence of any regional competition.
      A strong Iraq or Syria or Iran would remind these Western immigrants that their privileged position in Israel is tenuous and they might go back to the West. If they leave, Israel slips back into a standard of living more in line with the region. If oil was the only factor in destroying Iraq and Libya,
      the oil guys are pretty stupid because they got little out of the destruction. Israel got a lot

      1. Both true and false.

        True, Israel is a major factor, know doubt about that.

        False, big oil got plenty of goodies out of Iraq. Just ask Halliburton. Libya was more about extinguishing Gaddafies influence in the region and expanding Killaries influence back home.

        & most powerful people get stupid sooner or later. Absolute power tends to do that.

Comments are closed.