Ron Paul: Hands off Ukraine and Edward Snowden!

On Wednesday night's episode of The Independents, longtime former congressman and three-time former presidential candidate Ron Paul explained the Paulite approach and interpretation to the unfolding violence in Ukraine:

Paul also talked about his petition to the White House seeking clemency for NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden:

Stay tuned for tonight's theme show (9 pm ET, 6 pm PT, repeats three hours later), entitled "You're on Drugs."

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Hugh Akston||

    That's a nice thought, Ron. But if the US doesn't at the very least impose sanctions on whatever in the Ukraine, then people might get the impression that we really don't have that much control over what happens in the world.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Who did he hand them off to?

  • John Galt||

    Now that "being on drugs" has been established as a method used to strip citizens of all human rights and constitutionally guaranteed protections it shall be standard practice to assume that all citizens "are on drugs" until they may be allowed to prove otherwise by showing their connection to, or membership in, the elite ruling class.

  • GILMORE||

    Ok = since I failed to get in any hate on weds night...

    "Kennedy = Still Traumatized by Hunting Accident"

    ...that said = holy frijoles, GEAT()@#$@& Question! "When does 'your version' of diplomacy begin?"

    He rambles a bit about how 'talking is always good...' (which sort of begs, 'talking about WHAT, exactly?')... unable to clearly state how one 'not intervenes' when a state's existing "leadership" lacks political legitimacy. merely "talking" at that point with opposition figures would amount to 'intervention' by his own measure.

    Matt also makes a great follow-up with (paraphrase), 'how do you reconcile non intervention with active meddling by other world powers'?

    he is effectively reduced to admitting that Russia somehow has greater priority to intervene due to mere 'proximity'; then waffles about spending money. Then suggests his 'advice' might be to 'make two states out of there'. Which seems contradictory to his original premise.

    Does anyone really come away from this with any sense that there's a coherent, distinct "Libertarian" foreign policy theory at all?

    What is most distinct is the inability to state clear principles that *determine a basis for action*, or what distinguishes what is in our self-interest from what is not.

    As an aside = Would libertarians (in retrospect) object vehemently to the covert support that the US provided the polish Solidarity movement? Or even the "moral support" people like Reagan offered? Just curious.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement