Where does RP stand on issues like Darfur?

[Jerome]

As he is non-interventionist, where would he stand on something like this when there is apparent genocide taking place? Again, more fodder on other boards that I'm promoting him on...

 

[Jordan]

I'm pretty sure hes against any and all intervention by the US in Darfur. I'm sure he thinks its the role of things like the Red Cross to deal with humanitarian aid and for the governments to work their own mess out.

 

[sparebulb]

Not to be flippant, but I'm sure that the good doctor is against the violence in Darfur.

I would imagine that he would be against direct US involvement there for one simple reason: We would be easy, fat targets and an irritant for Islamic factions in Africa. Think Somalia.

I have no problem with US logistical support for a contingent of interested African countries to deal with the problem. I don't know what RP's position would be.

 

[Goldwater Conservative]

Let the UN deal with it. Let's not be in the UN. If private citizens want to join in, let them.

My take? All those other countries get the same vote as us, so let them foot an equal portion of the burden. We'll have a national volunteer sign-up sheet to send our share of the support, and I'm sure people like the Falafel-man and Hannity would gladly go address the crisis in the name of spreading democracy, improving the lives of people in other countries, and enforcing UN resolutions.

 

[apropos]

He was asked this exact question at the Value Voters debate.

Paul basically said that the U.S. would not intervene in Darfar because there was no constitutional authority to do so. He said that private citizens should donate their time, money, and support to the Darfur issue if they feel strongly about it.

Paul's response at that debate sounded like he learned the lessons of Somalia and Black Hawk Down.

 

[pcosmar]

He was asked this exact question at the Value Voters debate.

Paul basically said that the U.S. would not intervene in Darfar because there was no constitutional authority to do so. He said that private citizens should donate their time, money, and support to the Darfur issue if they feel strongly about it.

Paul's response at that debate sounded like he learned the lessons of Somalia and Black Hawk Down.

For those that think this is an important issue, Buy food and weapons, hire a plane and drop supplies.
Give them the guns to fight for themselves.

 

[RonPaulForLife]

We'll have a national volunteer sign-up sheet to send our share of the support

That's not a bad idea. Private donations can support the UN and the Darfur effort. The UN would pay soldiers. I'm sure a good number of ex-US-military would join the UN force. Hell, we can even allow active US military to volunteer if they want to, subject to callback in case of national emergency.

 

[Danman114]

He was asked this exact question at the Value Voters debate.

Paul basically said that the U.S. would not intervene in Darfar because there was no constitutional authority to do so. He said that private citizens should donate their time, money, and support to the Darfur issue if they feel strongly about it.

Paul's response at that debate sounded like he learned the lessons of Somalia and Black Hawk Down.

What if Congress voted to support (financially or militarily) one side in Darfur. Would Paul comply?

 

[SeanEdwards]

Blackwater has been lobbying hard to be given the peacekeeping job in Darfur.

I can't help but wonder if all that money the save Darfur folks are spending on TV ads would not get better results if it was spent to hire a private army.

 

[JeffersonReincarnate]

He is against interfering at all with those conditions. We cannot do anything for the corruption in that part of the world but go to war with all of Africa. The charity that we send there goes directly to corrupt governments and the feeble supplies we provide are fleeting... there's nothing to change that region but the grace of God and time.

This doesn't mean he's pro-genocide, though, let's make sure that remains nice and clear.

 

[sickmint79]

no government involvement; the people should support charity involvement

 

[Ncturnal]

Darfur was mentioned in a recent CNN interview. I'll try to find it because he had a chance to explain his position well.

 

[Ncturnal]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rVwuYKGIn38 The mention of Darfur starts at 5:40.

 

[Jerome]

Thank you for the responses and video. Those were very helpful. Knowing Paul, I knew we wouldn't get officially involved, but hadn't looked at the fact that he encourages those who feel strongly to get involved themselves. Great policy.

 

[JimDude]

You know, there is nothing wrong with us trying to help the people of Darfur, but we have to ask ourselves, if we sent troops there, would we really help? If American citizens really want to get the military involved, than it should ask the congress to offically declare it. In order to officially do it, we'll have to have a actual debate about it and than we can decide with a up or down vote. Its the way the founders wanted us to engage this. Lets follow the constitution!

 

[gworrel]

I think that Ron Paul would agree that we should take the "we" out of the question, "What should we do about Darfur?" We should not do anything. Individuals should be allowed to keep their own money to donate to whatever causes they believe in.

Right now there are advocates and lobbyists for every problem under the sun descending on Washington to solve their pet problem. I do not mean to minimize the problem in Darfur but it is only one major problem of many around the world and within the US.

Doesn't it make more sense for each of us to have the freedom to donate our own money to causes we believe in, or not to donate at all. That is what freedom is all about. The reason some people do not like it is because they think they know best how our money should be spent.