Ron Paul says that the US will probably be in Iraq until it goes bankrupt.

by adam dick, ronpaulinstitute.org
Questioned, in a Wednesday RT interview, about North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg’s recent comment that there is no intention to stay in Iraq “longer than necessary,” libertarian communicator Ron Paul quipped that “their definition of ‘necessary’ is a lot different than a lot of other peoples’.” In contrast to the foreign intervention proponents, including those in the United States government, Paul notes that the Iraq parliament has voted that the US military should leave Iraq — something Paul wrote about in an editorial earlier this week.
While Paul says in the interview that he wishes the American people would say “enough is enough” and demand an end to the US military intervention, he concludes regarding the US foreign intervention in Iraq and beyond that “I guess we’re gonna continue to do this until we go bankrupt, and then we’ll have to leave.”
The US military, Paul explains in the interview, should have never gone into Iraq in the first place, noting that the justification “was all based on lies.” Plus, says Paul, US intervention in Iraq has created the problem of terrorism in the country after the overthrow of the Iraq government and its leader Saddam Hussein who “was not friendly with al-Qaeda.” “Our policies,” says Paul, “stir up these hatreds and the organizations of the radicals.”
Watch Paul’s complete interview here:

In the Wednesday RT interview, Paul also comments that he thinks the US military involvement in Iraq will continue despite Paul believing President Donald Trump’s inclination is to support bringing the troops home. That inclination, Paul expects, will continue to be overcome by influences including of neoconservatives in the Trump administration and of neoconservative control in media.
In regard to US policy toward both Iraq and North Korea, Paul also comments that the desire for war profits contributes to the US government favoring intervention and militarism. Instead, Paul says at the interview’s conclusion that he thinks it is necessary for the US “to have a completely different foreign policy designed to have peace and trade with people and to talk with people when we have our disagreements.”