Issue: Foreign Policy: Iran

[LibertyEagle]

Dr. Paul made several comments about Iran in the last debate. One thing he mentioned was that Iran was not a threat to our national security.

Does anyone know of anything from Dr. Paul that explains his stance on this further and possibly anything else from foreign policy experts, for example, that can be used to substantiate what he said?

Right now, I am being asked about something someone read in which Dr. Paul was said to have said that Iran had no military prowess.

Can anyone help me out on this please?

 

[Gee]

Iran might have a nuke in 1 or 2 years time, if they are even making one.

The USSR has something like hundreds of nukes not accounted for...

It would take even longer for Iran to make a delivery system and a small enough nuke to be launched on a rocket. It would take much, much longer still for that deliver system to be able to reach the United States.

Israel has at the least 75 nuclear warheads, and they have delivery systems.

Iran is very aware that both the USA and Israel can reduce their country to a sea of molten glass.

I could see how Iran could be a threat to our troops in Iraq, but our national security? Iran could certainly be a threat to us in the future, there is no doubt about that. But that time is a long way off, and any reasonable person would try to use that time to prevent war of any sort, including nuclear war.

 

[CJLauderdale4]

Gee-- well put...

Israel of course will never admit that they have those nukes, so we'll just pretend they do...

The "pre-emptive" crowd, however, doesn't look at conventional military might. They know we can destroy them. They consider the "what-ifs" surrounding a nuke in a shipping container, suitcase, or small vehicle that has somehow made it into the country. Thus, intervene before they can make one.

What's funny about this, is that if we focused on border control and WMD detection devices/methods, we wouldn't need to worry about any of these motivating pre-emptive factors.

So, since we refuse to secure the border or spend serious money detecting WMDs in shipping containers, we need to keep nuking Iran on the table...

whatever...

 

[LibertyEagle]

So, there isn't anything anyone knows of in which Dr. Paul has given some kind of detail... any at all... on his statement that Iran is not a threat to our national security?

I would like to have something out of his own mouth to use to rebut detractors.

 

[RPR-omaha]

Also a lot of people will say that Ron Paul said Iran never attacked us. This is true. Then those people will talk about Hezbollah and how Iran sponsors them and they have attacked Americans. They will say Ron Paul is lying. However, In the debate Ron said "They have never directly attacked us".

He has obviously taken the terrorist sponsored attacks into account. It is just another example of people hearing what they want to hear come out of ron paul's mouth and not what he actually said.

And his view his right. Read Llepard's post too he makes good points. All Iran can do is use proxies against us. If they really believed in attacking us they would do that directly. Most of the people who want preemptive attacks taken against Iran don't seem to realize Iraq borders Iran. I wonder what Iran's response would be to attacks from the US??

 

[aravoth]

If we attacked Iran we'd be finished as a nation. Doing something like that has consequences you can't even fathom. For one, it would push more extremism, becuase it would appear that we are targeting only muslims. Second, China imports so much oil from Iran that they would not stand idly by while we seized all of the Iranian ports. Thats 50% of the world oil supply. Europe would be livid, the Chinese would most likely drop the ecomnomic bomb on us by calling in our debt, the dollar would crash, and the US would be replaced by Russia as the new sphere of influence. Simply because people would be forced to trade in russian oil reserves. And we'd be sitting in soup lines with the lights out, because we'd have a military in shambles, a dollar that is worthless, and a national debt so high that my great grandkids would never be able to pay it off. And all those retarded social programs that people love so much won't save anyone, because even the mighty dollar wouldn't be able to buy you a pack of sudafed.

I could be wrong of course, but thats my opinion.

 

[angrydragon]

I think you're right aravoth.

 

[wecandoit]

If we attacked Iran we'd be finished as a nation. Doing something like that has consequences you can't even fathom. For one, it would push more extremism, becuase it would appear that we are targeting only muslims. Second, China imports so much oil from Iran that they would not stand idly by while we seized all of the Iranian ports. Thats 50% of the world oil supply. Europe would be livid, the Chinese would most likely drop the ecomnomic bomb on us by calling in our debt, the dollar would crash, and the US would be replaced by Russia as the new sphere of influence. Simply because people would be forced to trade in russian oil reserves. And we'd be sitting in soup lines with the lights out, because we'd have a military in shambles, a dollar that is worthless, and a national debt so high that my great grandkids would never be able to pay it off. And all those retarded social programs that people love so much won't save anyone, because even the mighty dollar wouldn't be able to buy you a pack of sudafed.

I could be wrong of course, but thats my opinion.

Nobody wants you to be right, but everything they do seems to be designed to destroy our nation...hello NAU?

 

[Revolution9]

They have pushed out Peter Pace and replaced him with an Admiral spouting the war Party line about they hate us because of our democracy and freedoms. Mullen must be stopped.

http://starbulletin.com/

"The enemy now is basically evil and fundamentally hates everything we are -- the democratic principles for which we stand ... This war is going to go on for a long time. It's a generational war."

Rudy McRomneyson Will Be Defeated
Randy

 

[Ponce]

Dr. Paul made several comments about Iran in the last debate. One thing he mentioned was that Iran was not a threat to our national security.

Does anyone know of anything from Dr. Paul that explains his stance on this further and possibly anything else from foreign policy experts, for example, that can be used to substantiate what he said?

Right now, I am being asked about something someone read in which Dr. Paul was said to have said that Iran had no military prowess.

Can anyone help me out on this please?

Hey amigo, if even a dumb Cuban refugee like me knows what is going on then so should you...... attacking Irq is not about protecting the US but the state of Israel as will be with Iran.

Neither one of this two countries represented any danger to the people of the US or anyone else as far as I have been able to acertain, the fact that they "could be" a danger in the future is not reason for walking in and start killing the population.

Make peace not war, Ron Paul in 2008

 

[aravoth]

Nobody wants you to be right, but everything they do seems to be designed to destroy our nation...hello NAU?

They even try that some shit like that and I'll personally show them all why american patriotism is ledgendary. Even if I'm all alone.

 

[beermotor]

Dr. Paul made several comments about Iran in the last debate. One thing he mentioned was that Iran was not a threat to our national security.

Does anyone know of anything from Dr. Paul that explains his stance on this further and possibly anything else from foreign policy experts, for example, that can be used to substantiate what he said?

Right now, I am being asked about something someone read in which Dr. Paul was said to have said that Iran had no military prowess.

Can anyone help me out on this please?

Try Jane's?

They have no navy to speak of; a few small patrol boats and some very old diesel subs. Whoop-tee-doo.

 

[MGS]

What did Leiberman say??

 

[angelatc]

H. attacking Irq is not about protecting the US but the state of Israel as will be with Iran.

Neither one of this two countries represented any danger to the people of the US or anyone else as far as I have been able to acertain, the fact that they "could be" a danger in the future is not reason for walking in and start killing the population.

Yes, but there is a large number of people in the country that believe that we have a moral obligation to police the world.

 

[ThePieSwindler]

Lieberman is my state senator - im going to call his offices NOW. It won't do anything, but i don't fucking care. I'd also urge everyone to contact their local representative to ask them to vote against HR 2640, the bill that will expand gun control and the Brady Act by defining anyone who is "mentally ill" (which is a loaded term, and can be applied to anyone who takes anti-depressants, and is defined differently from shrink to shrink) as being unfit to own a firearm.

 

[Brock Landers]

Lieberman is my state senator - im going to call his offices NOW. It won't do anything, but i don't fucking care. I'd also urge everyone to contact their local representative to ask them to vote against HR 297, the bill that will expand gun control and the Brady Act by defining anyone who is "mentally ill" (which is a loaded term, and can be applied to anyone who takes anti-depressants, and is defined differently from shrink to shrink) as being unfit to own a firearm.

I start getting "mentally ill" every time someone tries to take away my right to bear arms. How's that for a Catch-22?

 

[RonPaul4President]

Any law that hinders a U.S. citizen's, or legal permanent resident's, right to keep and bear arms makes me mentally ill.

 

[Ponce]

Yes, but there is a large number of people in the country that believe that we have a moral obligation to police the world.

Only the ones with oil or gas........

 

[Captain Shays]

What scares me the most about Iran is my own government. Ron Paul made a speech about a possible Gulf of Tonkin incident which would serve as a pretext for attacking Iran.
The war drums are beating but to no avail. Just like the days before we entered WWII FDR was promising the people that he didn't want to get un involved or violate our policy of neutrality yet behind the scenes he was trying to goad Germany into attacking us which they didn't bite on since their memory was fresh relative to our entrance into WWI.
So he cut off the oil and steel shipments to Japan, which they rightfully viewed as a preemption and their response was to attack us at Peral Harbor.

This isn't partisan. The war hawks are flying on both sides. It does'nt matter which of the candidates gets elected out of the CFR members. They will ALL follow orders and the program once elected and we'll see an expansion of the conflict in the Middle east and probaly to include North Korea and even more probaly it will become a self expanding conflict to unclude India-Pakistan-China-Russia and Europe along with Australia.

People maybe just don't know how much we have riding on this election.

 

[LibertyBelle]

I had a nightmare a few years ago:

the US attacked Iran and North Korea, and a joined force around the world attacked the US with full intent. Leading the way, China and Russia, Brazil flashed in my dream, too. (Learned after my dream that Brazil has a protection contract with Russia.) My first thought upon waking, 'We are being lied to.'

This is how I woke up and started the deprogramming process of my (previously) unfortunatley pickled sheep brain.

I do believe this is exactly what will happen. Whether it be literally, economically, or both....the ship will sink.