IBTimes: Ron Paul on Iran at Arizona Republican Debate: Answer Gets Boos & Cheers [VIDEO]

[sailingaway]

http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/303612/20120223/ron-paul-iran-arizona-republican-debate-answer.htm

 

[Jlasoon]

They booed first, and shut right up after he mentioned gas prices, running out of money, and the collapse of the Soviets in Afghanistan. Its a very easy debate if you ask me, don't ever get into it with Neocons on the security side of the debate. Attack the wallet. You'll be surprised by number of people who want to pay higher gas prices, higher food prices, higher everything prices to save Iranians and Syrians.

 

[tommyzDad]

/\ This guy!

 

[ZENemy]

/\ This guy!

I second that

 

[Henry Hazlitt]

They booed first, and shut right up after he mentioned gas prices, running out of money, and the collapse of the Soviets in Afghanistan. Its a very easy debate if you ask me, don't ever get into it with Neocons on the security side of the debate. Attack the wallet. You'll be surprised by number of people who want to pay higher gas prices, higher food prices, higher everything prices to save Iranians and Syrians.

It is sad but you're completely right and I liked the way Ron set it up by first saying that he has tried the moral and the constitutional argument so now he will try to economic one.

I still think he can win points by claiming that they should declare war through congress. It also wouldn't hurt if he name drops Eisenhower as an inspiration. Attacking nation building as well is still viable. However the economic argument will work much better this time around. He should tell them "if you want to go to war you have to cut a dollar of the budget for every dollar you spend on the war" and they know they can't promise that. He could also ask them if they are willing to go more into debt for the war.

 

[Romulus]

They booed first, and shut right up after he mentioned gas prices, running out of money, and the collapse of the Soviets in Afghanistan. Its a very easy debate if you ask me, don't ever get into it with Neocons on the security side of the debate. Attack the wallet. You'll be surprised by number of people who want to pay higher gas prices, higher food prices, higher everything prices to save Iranians and Syrians.

That's right... and when Mitt said something like, I don't mind paying $4 a gallon to keep Iran from getting a nuke and the crowd went silent! Bwhaha... even Neocons will choose their gas guzzlers over and Iran war... THAT is the victory angle...

Iran War = High Gas/Bad Economy = Ron Paul Winning Argument (Economic one) !!!

 

[thoughtomator]

It also wouldn't hurt if he name drops Eisenhower as an inspiration.

considering Eisenhower signed off on Operation Ajax it would be a most ironic reference

 

[Butchie]

He should have left out the highlighted part, I will never understand why he keeps saying that, stop trying to get NeoCons to feel sorry for Iran.

"I don't want them to get a weapon, but what I think is what they're doing is encouraging them to have a weapon because they feel threatened. If you look at a map of Iran, we have 45 bases around the country plus submarines, the Iranians can't possible attack anybody. We're worrying about the possibility of one nuclear weapon."

 

[Romulus]

considering Eisenhower signed off on Operation Ajax it would be a most ironic reference

Sheep don't know

 

[sailingaway]

He should have left out the highlighted part, I will never understand why he keeps saying that, no one is ever going to care or empathize with Iran and on top of that it's not our business if they feel threatened or not, stick to the other stuff, stop trying to get NeoCons to feel sorry for Iran.

"I don't want them to get a weapon, but what I think is what they're doing is encouraging them to have a weapon because they feel threatened. If you look at a map of Iran, we have 45 bases around the country plus submarines, the Iranians can't possible attack anybody. We're worrying about the possibility of one nuclear weapon."

that is not what he is doing, he is pointing out that what we are doing is self fulfilling. By threatening them we make them MORE not less likely to go for a bomb, so it works against our interests.

 

[Jlasoon]

He should have left out the highlighted part, I will never understand why he keeps saying that, stop trying to get NeoCons to feel sorry for Iran.

"I don't want them to get a weapon, but what I think is what they're doing is encouraging them to have a weapon because they feel threatened. If you look at a map of Iran, we have 45 bases around the country plus submarines, the Iranians can't possible attack anybody. We're worrying about the possibility of one nuclear weapon."

I understand that position, it's a no win scenario. I got hammered at school by my professor and neocons for having the gall to quote OBL on the American military bases in Saudi Arabia. They don't care. Like I said on top, focus on the economic impacts, that usually shuts them up pretty quick.

 

[alucard13mmfmj]

"I don't want them to get a weapon, but what I think is what they're doing is encouraging them to have a weapon because they feel threatened. If you look at a map of Iran, we have 45 bases around the country plus submarines, the Iranians can't possible attack anybody. We're worrying about the possibility of one nuclear weapon."

I'd like to ask, If Ron withdraws most/all troops from bases around the world.. wouldnt that 45 bases around iran dissapear? Meaning Iranians could possibly attack someone? Or does that go with the argument that the only reason they want to attack is because of those 45 bases around them.

I think that is what is damning about that point. People get confused. Like if the bases keep iran from attacking, then wouldnt withdrawing bases let them attack?!

Need to address that issue slightly more clearly =s.

 

[Darthbrooklyn]

These Neocons and the sheep that fall for their crap have no idea what a boon to the cause it would be if the US "preemptively" attacked Iran.. They would immediately run out saying "See what the US has done, they attacked us without any provocation etc etc etc..." What a rallying cry that would be for people with already embedded US resentment..

 

[Butchie]

that is not what he is doing, he is pointing out that what we are doing is self fulfilling. By threatening them we make them MORE not less likely to go for a bomb, so it works against our interests.

I realize you and I see it that way, to conservatives tho he appears like a liberal trying to drum up sympathy for our "enemies".

"I'd like to ask, If Ron withdraws most/all troops from bases around the world.. wouldnt that 45 bases around iran dissapear? Meaning Iranians could possibly attack someone? Or does that go with the argument that the only reason they want to attack is because of those 45 bases around them.

I think that is what is damning about that point. People get confused. Like if the bases keep iran from attacking, then wouldnt withdrawing bases let them attack?!

That's a good point.

 

[jmdrake]

What Ron Paul said:

"I don't want them to get a weapon, but what I think is what they're doing is encouraging them to have a weapon because they feel threatened."

What Ron Paul should have added:

And one of my opponents, Senator Rick Santorum, actually agrees with me on this point. There is video of him at a campaign stop saying, and I quote, No nuclear power has ever been attacked. They aren't getting this nuclear weapon so they can drop it on Israel. They may someday I don't know. What they want a nuclear weapon for is so that they are protected. So we and Senator Santorum are in agreement. Where we disagree is that I don't want Iran to want to have a nuclear weapon.

If Ron Paul had said that he would have won the debate straight up and positioned himself to win the presidency. I don't know why he hasn't used these words by Santorum against Santorum.

 

[jmdrake]

He should have left out the highlighted part, I will never understand why he keeps saying that, stop trying to get NeoCons to feel sorry for Iran.

"I don't want them to get a weapon, but what I think is what they're doing is encouraging them to have a weapon because they feel threatened. If you look at a map of Iran, we have 45 bases around the country plus submarines, the Iranians can't possible attack anybody. We're worrying about the possibility of one nuclear weapon."

Rick Santorum agrees with Ron Paul on that point. It's a shame Ron Paul hasn't pointed that out.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jRW30b_51KY

 

[r3volutionpaul91]

"I don't want them to get a weapon, but what I think is what they're doing is encouraging them to have a weapon because they feel threatened. If you look at a map of Iran, we have 45 bases around the country plus submarines, the Iranians can't possible attack anybody. We're worrying about the possibility of one nuclear weapon."

I'd like to ask, If Ron withdraws most/all troops from bases around the world.. wouldnt that 45 bases around iran dissapear? Meaning Iranians could possibly attack someone? Or does that go with the argument that the only reason they want to attack is because of those 45 bases around them.

I think that is what is damning about that point. People get confused. Like if the bases keep iran from attacking, then wouldnt withdrawing bases let them attack?!

Need to address that issue slightly more clearly =s.

what i think he's trying to say is, if we remove the bases iran will most likely NOT attack because our national defense will be even stronger, look at china for example.

 

[WilliamC]

I realize you and I see it that way, to conservatives tho he appears like a liberal trying to drum up sympathy for our "enemies".

Like a reporter once said, "Ron Paul irritates more idiots with fewer words than any other politician ever."

Those who want preemptive war are both stupid and evil, and personally I have a hard time talking to them myself because of their stupidity and evilness, it makes me uncomfortable to be around those who enjoy the thought of wanton killing and destruction.

 

[singe22]

45 bases or not, why the hell do we even have them. Its not serving our National defense. Countries in that region should deal with this crap not us. Our economy is tanked, with more to come.