tradgedyandhope
Member
- Joined
- Jun 25, 2011
- Messages
- 176
(Aired October 3rd 2011) In this Interview John Stossel does very well sticking up for Ron Paul up against Bill O'Reilly extremely arrogant remarks
Just another case of FAUX NEWS doing it's best to try to diminish Ron Paul.
It's also quite comical to see FAUX (and other outlets) going crazy over Herman Cain breaking into the 'top tier' of the Repugnicant field - after spending weeks doing all it could to IGNORE Ron Paul when he was 3rd.
lol
Whatever...
Stossel...I love you, but that was weak. Maybe it's just the difficulty of debating with O'Reilly, but come on. These should be the points:
1. Is it plausible for a country who can't even refine their own oil to get nukes?
2. Ideally, Iran should NOT have nukes, but if they somehow get one, what's the ideal course of action?
3. Do we truly explore and exhaust all non-military solutions to the problem? Do our embassadors in the region even speak the languages or know a shit about cultures? I'd bet a lot of money that they don't.
4. If Iran acquired a nuke even after all non-military options failed, do the benefits of intervention exceed the negatives? There are economic consequences. What about other countries who will see us as an aggressor: will this inspire anti-American sentiment there, leading to domino effects of hate? What the hell is victory then? Would this war be any different from Vietnam?
Article III, sec. 3. you have to be convicted of treason first O'Reilly you pin head.Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
Why does nobody raise the issue of North Korea when talking about Iran, Has North Korea used their bomb yet. Last I checked they didn't. You can draw the equivalency between Iran and NK.