Should RP tell the truth about IRAN? It's about BIG oil, stupid!

swissaustrian said:
I´m reffering to Netanyahu´s speech in congress which was after the quotes you linked to above
Click to expand...

Everyone on the forum has misinterpreted that speech, what Netanyahu said is that they don't want U.S. troops in Israel or defending Israel's borders but Iran does not share a border with Israel, they have no problem at all with the U.S. attacking Iran.
 
Ron Paul can carry SC on Foreign Policy if he focuses on future glory and forgets about past mistakes. It's the same foreign policy, Paul would not be lying, he would simply be focusing on one perspective rather than another.

My advise would be between now and November forget the past. It's done and gone and no longer exists. The only thing important is the Paul vision for the future, and that's bring the troops home, and establish the strongest and safest national defense in American history, including protecting and defending South Carolina and re-opening all the bases we closed.

Ron Paul, and everybody in his administration will already know that our past foreign policy was in error as a matter of course. All the people receptive to such education already support us.

What is left is to win the votes of people who will get extremely pissed off on hearing that little Johnny died for a mistake. So until November leave "mistake" out of the vocabulary altogether. We didn't make mistakes in the past -- only because the past no longer exists -- the only thing that matters is the awesome stuff we will do in the future, like bring little Jimmy back home to Charleston so he can raise his kids and love his wife, as families ought to.
 
F3d said:
Iran is obviously pursuing a nuclear weapon. Cancer treatment? lol

Sanctions also show this. There's no reason for them to continue this energy source when it's hurting their economy badly.
Click to expand...

Iran is obviously pursuing cancer treatment. Nuclear weapons? lol
(See how easy that is, and just as meaningless?)

"Sanctions also show this. There's no reason for them to continue this energy source when it's hurting their economy badly."

So the fact that they don't bend their sovereignty to our force is 'proof' they are developing nuclear weapons? please.
 
Kevin Smyth said:
Everyone on the forum has misinterpreted that speech, what Netanyahu said is that they don't want U.S. troops in Israel or defending Israel's borders but Iran does not share a border with Israel, they have no problem at all with the U.S. attacking Iran.
Click to expand...
Ron Paul also uses this speech as an argument.
Of course, you´re right they wouldn't be trying to stop the US from attacking. But it seems they're also not encouraging the US, because they know full well (at least the Mossad people) that Israel will be the target of the counterattack and that this might even motivate some sunni extremists to fight for the shiite Iranians.
 
We get that its about oil, the military industrial complex, billions of dollars, but I think we'd agree the vast majority of people have no idea. I think the country is ready to connect the dots and RP is the perfect person to explain it. It would have to be presented carefully in a manner that won't confuse. . But this would definitely cancel the notion RP is weak on Iran and show why the opposite view is mainstream.



this link discusses Iraq only http://www.businesspundit.com/the-25-most-vicious-iraq-war-profiteers/
 
Last edited:
i really wish he doesnt use the words Military industrial complex.the simpler more effective term is 'war profiteerng corporations and lobbyists'. MIC sounds conspiratorial even if eisenhower used it
 
I wish Ron would begin to utilize the big picture. I don't think too many people find it hard to believe that these wars have something to do with oil and finance.
 
Dsylexic said:
i really wish he doesnt use the words Military industrial complex.the simpler more effective term is 'war profiteerng corporations and lobbyists'. MIC sounds conspiratorial even if eisenhower used it
Click to expand...

he already does and has...he just doesn't explain it... remember blowback? and how he talked then explained that? to bring it up, explain, and tie it to eisenhower will actually validate the word and not make it seem as "kooky" or a "conspiracy theory"...he could say something like, ....Military industrial complex orrrr the war profiteering corporations...
 
Iran is obviously pursuing cancer treatment. Nuclear weapons? lol
(See how easy that is, and just as meaningless?)
Click to expand...

You're making no sense. It's like Iraq saying the insecticides and biological agents (e.g. anthrax) provided by the U.S. and other countries were being used for civilian applications. That's not how it went, though. Iraq did, of course, dismantle it's chemical and bioweapons programs in 1991.

So the fact that they don't bend their sovereignty to our force is 'proof' they are developing nuclear weapons? please.
Click to expand...

Uh, the sanctions are obviously affecting the internal affairs in Iran. That's why Iran is bluffing and going to Latin America. Iran's government isn't doing this to please people with cancer or harass the U.S. and other countries just because they want to show they have a right to utilizing nuclear energy.

Syria tried pursuing nuclear weapons. Iraq tried pursuing nuclear weapons. Why wouldn't Iran? Its in their interest to do so.

Another example: Kim took advantage of the U.S. in the 1990's by using the bribe money to fund their nuclear program, while the intention of the bribe was to halt the nuclear program. Didn't work.
 
Last edited:
"Who is profiting off Iraqi oil?"

BP is extracting 1 million barrels a day from Iraqi's largest field, Rumalia. (The field is in Southern Iraq, where Britians troops were located) BP is hoping to increase production 300%.

Tony Heyward (ex BP CEO) & Nat Rotchchild (British Financier) just bought oil & gad fields in Kurdistan... Halliburton has been rewarded multiple contracts for building & repairing many oil rigs & even Chinese National energy companies are inside & profiting.

I would love to see Dr.Paul explain the true situation to Americans, but it is complex & needs to be thought out... not in a 1 minute debate format.
 
GunnyFreedom said:
Ron Paul can carry SC on Foreign Policy if he focuses on future glory and forgets about past mistakes. It's the same foreign policy, Paul would not be lying, he would simply be focusing on one perspective rather than another.

My advise would be between now and November forget the past. It's done and gone and no longer exists. The only thing important is the Paul vision for the future, and that's bring the troops home, and establish the strongest and safest national defense in American history, including protecting and defending South Carolina and re-opening all the bases we closed.

Ron Paul, and everybody in his administration will already know that our past foreign policy was in error as a matter of course. All the people receptive to such education already support us.

What is left is to win the votes of people who will get extremely pissed off on hearing that little Johnny died for a mistake. So until November leave "mistake" out of the vocabulary altogether. We didn't make mistakes in the past -- only because the past no longer exists -- the only thing that matters is the awesome stuff we will do in the future, like bring little Jimmy back home to Charleston so he can raise his kids and love his wife, as families ought to.
Click to expand...
This makes a lot of sense. America has a bright future if we choose wisely.

Ron Paul 2012
 
He should just start stating the truth. Why not mention Iran is one of the few countries without a Rothchild Central Bank, oil, and geopolitical politics. We end up going to war, he looks like more of a prophet.
 
I´ve tried to simplify this issue as far as possible and posted it in the campaign suggestion box:
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showth...ans-6-GASOLINE-they-certainly-don-t-want-that
People vote because of their guts and pockets. This fact can be used to explain the dire effects of a war against Iran to the average Joe.
The msm war propaganda excludes the dire consequences of such a war for American consumers at the gasoline pump from the conversation. To highlight this fact in the debates, in ads, and on the campaign trail could help converting people to the non-interventionist foreign policy of Ron Paul. Right now gasoline prices are arround $3. Analysts estimate that oil prices might double due to a war against Iran (see e.g. here: http://www.pimco.com/EN/Insights/Pa...al-Strike-on-Iranian-Nuclear-Facilities-.aspx ) This means that we would get $6 GASOLINE. This is the last thing the already anemic US economy needs. Additionally, higher oil prices would also push prices of many other goods up, because they require oil to be produced. A massive spike in price inflation would be the consequence.
My idea in a nutshell: Use the fear of voters about higher gasoline prices to make them object to an Iran war. Link the two issues of gasoline prices and a war against Iran
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Dsylexic said:
i really wish he doesnt use the words Military industrial complex.the simpler more effective term is 'war profiteerng corporations and lobbyists'. MIC sounds conspiratorial even if eisenhower used it
Click to expand...

not sure if you watched the Doug Wead on Geraldo where he said Ron Paul would not send troops "to die for some Pentagon contractor." That was perfect. Just hope RP starts to jump on this soon. This has to be the biggest hurdle right now imo.
 
Machiavelli said:
He should just start stating the truth. Why not mention Iran is one of the few countries without a Rothchild Central Bank, oil, and geopolitical politics. We end up going to war, he looks like more of a prophet.
Click to expand...

while true, the rothchild thing will link to other theories that he doesn't need going against him..
 
Machiavelli said:
He should just start stating the truth. Why not mention Iran is one of the few countries without a Rothchild Central Bank, oil, and geopolitical politics. We end up going to war, he looks like more of a prophet.
Click to expand...

95% of voters have no idea who the Rothchilds are. Now is the time to secure votes, not to educate. We have 50 days between now and Super Tuesday, both the campaign and especially the grassroots needs to stay focused on the target goal - getting people to the polls and voting for Paul. We don't do that by introducing issues that are foreign to most people.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Brian4Liberty
American Neocons Get Their Iran War as Congress Sleeps
Replies
0
Views
1K
Brian4Liberty
Brian4Liberty
W
Oil Prices are likely to Rise following the Attacks on Iranian Oil Fields Buckle up
Replies
3
Views
799
A. Havnes
A
PAF
President Trump: Stop Bombing Yemen and Exit the Middle East!
Replies
1
Views
313
TheTexan
TheTexan
PAF
US Policy: Let Israel Escalate Against Iran, Then Tell Iran Not To Escalate Back
Replies
2
Views
579
69360
6
Snowball
Update. I cannot vote for Trump.
6 7 8
Replies
154
Views
59K
Dr.3D
Dr.3D
Back
Top