Can someone please ask Rand Paul to talk to Ted Cruz and convince him to not support war?

[AminCad]

Ted Cruz has come out today in support of a negotiating stance that makes normalization between the U.S. and Iran an impossibility:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?432799-Sadly-Ted-Cruz-has-come-out-for-war-with-Iran

 

[LibertyEagle]

In the other thread you started on this, I saw nothing in what you quoted that said one thing whatsoever about Cruz wanting the U.S. to go to war with Iran.

So, either prove your claim or please stop starting inflammatory threads with misleading titles.

 

[AminCad]

LibertyEagle, the US political establishment will not accept Iran continuing to expand its nuclear enrichment capabilities, which is what's going to happen in the absence of a deal, and an escalation of sanctions.

Obama and most of the House and Senate leadership have said that if the US and Iran don't come to an agreement, and Iran's nuclear enrichment continues to expand, the US will be forced to take military action.

Both sides are ratcheting up their pressure:

Graham Calls Again for War Resolution Against Iran

and the only possible outcome, if this doesn't stop, is war.

 

[TaftFan]

This is a stupid idea, sorry.

 

[LibertyEagle]

LibertyEagle, the US will not accept Iran continuing to expand its nuclear enrichment capabilities, which is what's going to happen in the absence of a deal, and an escalation of sanctions.

Obama and most of the House and Senate leadership has said that if the US and Iran don't come to an agreement, and Iran's nuclear enrichment continues to expand, the US will be forced to take military action.

Both sides are ratcheting up their pressure:

Graham Calls Again for War Resolution Against Iran

and the only possible outcome, if this doesn't stop, is war.

I agree with you about all this. But, Cruz didn't say he supported war. I just don't believe in putting words in someone's mouth in a thread title, no less.

 

[AminCad]

This is a stupid idea, sorry.

You mean opposing a deal is a stupid idea, or asking Paul to talk to his colleague to support a position that makes a deal possible?

But, Cruz didn't say he supported war. I just don't believe in putting words in someone's mouth in a thread title, no less.

His position is in support of war with Iran. I didn't claim he came out and said so. No one says they want a war with Iran. They just create the conditions which make one much more likely.

 

[TaftFan]

You mean opposing a deal is a stupid idea, or asking Paul to talk to his colleague to support a position that makes a deal possible?



His position is in support of war with Iran. I didn't claim he came out and said so. No one says they want a war with Iran. They just create the conditions which make one much more likely.

I'm talking about asking someone on this forum to talk to Rand to talk to Cruz.

 

[FrankRep]

Again, Ted Cruz said nothing about a War with Iran.

 

[Saint Vitus]

Again, Ted Cruz said nothing about a War with Iran.

He's said plenty about it in the past.

 

[twomp]

As time goes by, the Cruzaders are going to find it more difficult to defend his hawkish tendencies. Sooner or later, they will realize like some of us already here have. There is a REASON Goldman Sachs, AIPAC and company support Ted Cruz.

 

[LibertyEagle]

As time goes by, the Cruzaders are going to find it more difficult to defend his hawkish tendencies. Sooner or later, they will realize like some of us already here have. There is a REASON Goldman Sachs, AIPAC and company support Ted Cruz.

I don't see anyone lavishing praise on Ted Cruz. I am just saying that there is no reason to stretch the truth in a thread title.

 

[Brett85]

He's on record as supporting military action to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon, and he opposes the one alternative that will actually cause us to avoid a war with Iran. I like Cruz overall, but on this issue he's no different from Rick Santorum or John Bolton.

 

[RM918]

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/12/ron-paul-sanctions-against-iran-are-an-act-of-war/

Unwilling to back down from the growing criticism that his foreign policy would be “dangerous,” Ron Paul told voters in Iowa that western sanctions against Iran are “acts of war” that are likely to lead to an actual war.

Paul said that Iran would be justified in responding to sanctions by blocking the Straits of Hormuz, adding that the country blocking the strategically important strait is “so logical” since they have no other recourse.

He then compared the situation to China blocking off the Gulf of Mexico to trade.

“I think the solution is to do a lot less a lot sooner, and mind our own business, and we wouldn’t have this threat of another war,” Paul said.

Relevant!

 

[phill4paul]

Relevant!

Oh, no, no, no, no ,no, no. This, with Ted Cruz is different. Don't you see?

 

[RM918]

Oh, no, no, no, no ,no, no. This, with Ted Cruz is different. Don't you see?

It's up to other folks what they're willing to accept to make progress in one direction or another. I'm not going to trash them for it, the last people I find any worth in being antagonizing to are the people on this board.

I care about three major things: Solvency, ending the belligerence of the US and ending the drug war which ties in to the other two. So long as a candidate makes some progress on moving forward on those while at the very least not making things worse than they already are, I'm willing to support them. Cruz's kneejerk Israel-firstism he's displaying here and his wanting to keep sanctions does make me extremely concerned, unfortunately.

 

[phill4paul]

Cruz's kneejerk Israel-firstism he's displaying here and his wanting to keep sanctions does make me extremely concerned, unfortunately.

Well, there is that caveat. Guess we will just have to wait and see. Right?

 

[ObiRandKenobi]

is obama going to sanction bombing iran? no.
hillary? she would love to, but she won't because she wants to be president more.
christie? he would love to, but he won't because he wants to be president more.
rand? no.
ted cruz? no.

 

[dinosaur]

is obama going to sanction bombing iran? no.
hillary? she would love to, but she won't because she wants to be president more.
christie? he would love to, but he won't because he wants to be president more.
rand? no.
ted cruz? no.

Of that list, the only one I'd trust not to bomb Iran (as president) is Rand. Of course Cruz would never be president anyway because he would lose the general election. So I guess there is really not much to worry about from him on that front.

 

[Christian Liberty]

He's on record as supporting military action to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon, and he opposes the one alternative that will actually cause us to avoid a war with Iran. I like Cruz overall, but on this issue he's no different from Rick Santorum or John Bolton.

"There is no greater security threat to the US than Iran"_ Sen. Ted Cruz.

Cruz is a Zionist shill. And yet he masquerades as a conservative. That makes him more dangerous in the grand scheme of things than liberal interventionists, who are easy to discredit.

I understand he's good on some things fiscally, but I don't want anything to do with him. Foreign policy is easily the most important issue.

It's up to other folks what they're willing to accept to make progress in one direction or another. I'm not going to trash them for it, the last people I find any worth in being antagonizing to are the people on this board.

I care about three major things: Solvency, ending the belligerence of the US and ending the drug war which ties in to the other two. So long as a candidate makes some progress on moving forward on those while at the very least not making things worse than they already are, I'm willing to support them. Cruz's kneejerk Israel-firstism he's displaying here and his wanting to keep sanctions does make me extremely concerned, unfortunately.

You shouldn't be extremely concerned. You should be completely opposed to this wicked man, as I am.

He's not helping with any of what you mention. His loyalty is to Israel, not the US.

Well, there is that caveat. Guess we will just have to wait and see. Right?

Nope. I already know what Ted Cruz really is. Evil.

 

[Christian Liberty]

Of that list, the only one I'd trust not to bomb Iran (as president) is Rand. Of course Cruz would never be president anyway because he would lose the general election. So I guess there is really not much to worry about from him on that front.

I don't even truly trust Rand not to, to be honest. Politics corrupts, and its possible it could get to him too.

But Rand is the only one who I think LIKELY would not do so. I can't say the same for the others.