Hotair: Rand Paul differentiates foreign policy from his father’s brand

[kcchiefs6465]

and they would have a lot more if they weren't spending all their resources trying to perfect the hi tech of nuclear fission. Their government is playing a playing a game too. They are not blameless in this.

And even if they were, would you approve of actions to target and disrupt infrastructure with regards to their nuclear weapons program? We can start with sanctions, go towards assassinating scientists? Assuming you do not have a problem with those would you approve more drastic measures? Perhaps start bombing specific targets related to their nuclear weapons program and/or gradually move towards a full scale ground war? (I am not saying you agree with any of these, as I really do not know, though I would like your opinion on how far is too far) Why should Iran be barred from having a nuclear weapon? Kim Jong Un has some. Pakistan has some. Israel undoubtedly has some and isn't even part of the the Non-Proliferation Treaty. (Which Iran is) What disqualifies Iran from having a nuclear weapon? (Though I'd honestly like to see less nuclear weapons, as I'm sure quite a few other people would) I'm simply asking why not Iran? The rhetoric coming out of North Korea the last few months is as threatening or more threatening than anything Iran ever said. (Or is said to have said, i.e. misinterpreted)

 

[klamath]

You can disagree with him and disagree with what I said, but that is what I believe from watching Ron closely on this at the time. You did bring Ron in about OBL, no one else broached that subject. However, we can disagree.

And that is a flat out lie. OBL and UBL were mentioned in this thread before I responded but then again your typical unobjective moderation skills.

 

[sailingaway]

Well, it isn't a lie, because I didn't see those posts. I saw you bring up Ron on OBL to unrelated comments. It may have been mentioned earlier.

 

[klamath]

And even if they were, would you approve of actions to target and disrupt infrastructure with regards to their nuclear weapons program? We can start with sanctions, go towards assassinating scientists? Assuming you do not have a problem with those would you approve more drastic measures? Perhaps start bombing specific targets related to their nuclear weapons program and/or gradually move towards a full scale ground war? (I am not saying you agree with any of these, as I really do not know, though I would like your opinion on how far is too far) Why should Iran be barred from having a nuclear weapon? Kim Jong Un has some. Pakistan has some. Israel undoubtedly has some and isn't even part of the the Non-Proliferation Treaty. (Which Iran is) What disqualifies Iran from having a nuclear weapon? (Though I'd honestly like to see less nuclear weapons, as I'm sure quite a few other people would) I'm simply asking why not Iran? The rhetoric coming out of North Korea the last few months is as threatening or more threatening than anything Iran ever said. (Or is said to have said, i.e. misinterpreted)

I have stated before I think killing scientists IS an act of war. No questions asked. I also think cyber attacks are an act of war.

 

[alucard13mmfmj]

im confused why we went into iraq................................

 

[klamath]

Well, it isn't a lie, because I didn't see those posts. I saw you bring up Ron on OBL to unrelated comments. It may have been mentioned earlier.

Like I said your unobjective moderation. You don't like me so you accuse me of stuff I didn't do and then when I prove I didn't then you say oh well but you have done stuff before. God I would hate to have you in any kind of government office.

 

[sailingaway]

im confused why we went into iraq................................

Most of us are.

Bush and Cheney and Powell said they had weapons of mass destruction and something or other.

Even at the time, before I'd ever heard of Ron, I just prayed my government knew more than I did and knew what it was doing.

 

[sailingaway]

Like I said your unobjective moderation. You don't like me so you accuse me of stuff I didn't do and then when I prove I didn't then you say oh well but you have done stuff before. God I would hate to have you in any kind of government office.

I didn't say you had done it before I said that THIS time you raised that to unrelated points, however, I didn't go back and read the whole thread to see if the topic might have been discussed before.

 

[klamath]

I didn't say you had done it before I said that THIS time you raised that to unrelated points, however, I didn't go back and read the whole thread to see if the topic might have been discussed before.

Which even proves my case more. You didn't even bother to even look back through the thread before accusing me of bringing OBL up..

 

[sailingaway]

Which even proves my case more. You didn't even bother to even look back through the thread before accusing me of bring OBL up..

I was only referring to your use of it as deflection to an unrelated point, to begin with.

Another deflection?

 

[kcchiefs6465]

I have stated before I think killing scientists IS an act of war. No questions asked. I also think cyber attacks are an act of war.

Good. So should Iran retaliate and strike Israel tomorrow, you would not object? (What I mean is that Iran retaliating against Israel is justifiable (and predictable) since Israel has been doing what they shouldn't have been doing for quite some time now, hand in the cookie jar and all that- Which would lead me to my next question of why haven't they?) I would also assume that you would agree that since Israel (a sovereign nation) has committed an act of war against Iran (a sovereign nation) that the United States should have no part in it whatsoever. Especially no military support, amirite?

 

[kcchiefs6465]

im confused why we went into iraq................................

You could make the case that the effects of sanctions came full circle and brought us to Iraq. I wouldn't, because I know we would have been there one way or another. Though blaming the Clinton era sanctions as a cause of 9/11 isn't that much of a stretch. And blaming 9/11 for us going into Iraq isn't that much of a stretch.

 

[klamath]

Good. So should Iran retaliate and strike Israel tomorrow, you would not object? (What I mean is that Iran retaliating against Israel is justifiable (and predictable) since Israel has been doing what they shouldn't have been doing for quite some time now, hand in the cookie jar and all that- Which would lead me to my next question of why haven't they?) I would also assume that you would agree that since Israel (a sovereign nation) has committed an act of war against Iran (a sovereign nation) that the United States should have no part in it whatsoever. Especially no military support, amirite?

If Israel did it which it has been rumored that they did then yes. However there are just as many rumors that Iran has funded kill operations in Israel. We may have done it as well. It is pretty Fucked up.

 

[klamath]

I was only referring to your use of it as deflection to an unrelated point, to begin with.

Another deflection?

I didn't bring it up GOT IT?

 

[kcchiefs6465]

If Israel did it which it has been rumored that they did then yes. However there are just as many rumors that Iran has funded kill operations in Israel. We may have done it as well. It is pretty Fucked up.

Truth. Which is simply why I am stating that should we have been involved in the assassination of scientists (which we probably were, who am I kidding) we should have no more part in it, and should Israel and Iran have something they need to 'discuss' let 'em have at it. We are hindering Israel's progression with providing them a cushion to lean on. They would be much more willing to resolve this if we weren't unconditonally backing them up. This post kind of brings me full circle on why I'm pissed at what Rand said/every other politician says regarding Israel. If they were truly a friend to Israel they would stop financially and militarily supporting her enemies, (as well as her) let her make her own decisions on what is a proper reaction, and not get in the way of resolutions to these problems that will continue to fester lest they are nipped at the bud. Wouldn't ya say?

 

[klamath]

Truth. Which is simply why I am stating we should we have been involved in the assassination of scientists (which we probably were, who am I kidding) we should have no more part in it, and should Israel and Iran have something they need to 'discuss' let 'em have at it. We are hindering their progression with providing them a cushion to lean on. They would be much more willing to resolve this if we weren't unconditonally backing them up. This post kind of brings me full circle on why I'm pissed at what Rand said/every other politician says regarding Israel. If they were truly a friend to Israel they would stop financially and militarily supporting her enemies, (as well as her) let her make her own decisions on what is a proper reaction, and not get in the way of resolutions to these problems that will continue to fester lest they are nipped at the bud. Wouldn't ya say?

Basically I agree with you. I don't like what Rand said either however Even if we elected RP our country would pretty much one sidely back Israel if a full scale war broke out. RP would not stop it because he would have to carry out a declaration of war or be impeached, that would be his choices.

 

[Matt Collins]

im confused why we went into iraq................................

 

[Brett85]

Matt, why has Rand been holding meetings lately with neo-conservative foreign policy people?

 

[Matt Collins]

Matt, why has Rand been holding meetings lately with neo-conservative foreign policy people?

Well the first time he met with Kristol here is what happened:
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showth...tings-with-neocons-McConnell-and-Bill-Kristol

But this time I don't know. My guess is that Rand was reaching out again just to make sure they knew he wasn't crazy or a "political isolationist" meaning that he was unwilling to work with others. Knowing Rand the way I do, I would bet that Rand went in there and said something along the lines of 'we have some fundamental disagreements but I'm here to talk about things we can agree on'. This makes it harder for them to fight him during an election since he has reached out to them.

 

[A Son of Liberty]

...to make sure they knew he wasn't **crazy** or a **"political isolationist"**???

WTF...

Hey Josh, why don't you just change the name of this forum to Crazy ol' former political isolationist Ron Paul Forums?

Good luck with that stuff, Matt. I wish you the best.

SMMFH.