The New Ron Paul Thread

[DigitalWarrior]

When exactly did we try being nice to Iran? Was it installing the puppet dictator, or when we gave Saddam chemical weapons to kill Iranians?

DW

 

[Beatnik]

We have plenty of reason to not be nice. A ton of reason. So much reason, being nice to Iran, is just fricking foolish and retarded thinking. It's been tried, it was proved foolish, retarded and fruitless then.

I'm not mocking, and I think my point was missed. I honestly just want a simple answer. If we're going to go over to Iran and kill Iranians, we need a one-sentence reason why we're doing it. Not just because I want one, but because the American public isn't going to read a doctoral thesis to try to figure out why we're bombing some city across the globe which most people have never heard of.

If we're not going to go across the globe and kill Iranians, then we need to stop supporting candidates who admit on TV that they're ok with the idea of nuking the place.

There's a middle ground here, one between Clintonesque head-in-the-sand appeasement on one side and random invasions or nuclear strikes on the other. RP is the only candidate out there who I hear trying to reach that middle ground.

 

[Marshall]

When exactly did we try being nice to Iran?

By using diplomatic channels regarding nuclear policy. They told the UN and member nations to stick it where the sun don't shine. Being "nice" to these folks doesn't work. All that's going to get us is a nuclear weaponed Iran. A nuclear Iran is not in our best interest.

'm not mocking, and I think my point was missed. I honestly just want a simple answer. If we're going to go over to Iran and kill Iranians, we need a one-sentence reason why we're doing it. Not just because I want one, but because the American public isn't going to read a doctoral thesis to try to figure out why we're bombing some city across the globe which most people have never heard of.

If we're not going to go across the globe and kill Iranians, then we need to stop supporting candidates who admit on TV that they're ok with the idea of nuking the place.

There's a middle ground here, one between Clintonesque head-in-the-sand appeasement on one side and random invasions or nuclear strikes on the other. RP is the only candidate out there who I hear trying to reach that middle ground.

No one is suggesting nuclear strikes. I think the thinking, though I can't say so, would be to take out their ability to make nukes or least knock it back a decade or so.

I don't cut the American peoples ability to understand, that short.

IRAN + TERRORIST + OIL + NUKES = DISASTER, IN MANY WAYS. Leave out the oil, still = disaster.


Just what kind of middle ground? They say they want them and, hey world, tough sh*t. We and the UN say no. What? Think they're going to accept half of one?

 

[ArmedBear]

DigitalWarrior- Are you unaware of what the Guardian's Observer is? Might as well quote the Cuban News Agency or the Daily Worker.

Libertarians have gone WAY downhill since the post-9/11 defections. Discernment is sorely lacking. Of course, that makes sense...

Sad thing. Got to remember to change my voter registration, now that I think of it.

 

[ArmedBear]

There's a middle ground here, one between Clintonesque head-in-the-sand appeasement on one side and random invasions or nuclear strikes on the other. RP is the only candidate out there who I hear trying to reach that middle ground.

Calling RP's isolationist platform a "middle ground" isn't accurate.

It's a third way, perhaps, but it's not a middle ground.

What, exactly, IS a middle ground between appeasement and nuclear attack, anyway?

Oh wait... We already HAVE that in Iraq: a politically-correct war where we put our fighting men on trial for shooting the enemy, where we refuse to be aggressive enough to win decisively, nor passive and morally degenerate enough (yet) to leave the place to the genocide we left and ignored in Indochina.

So score one for Ron Paul's third way in principle and for the long term, but take away that score for the reality that we ARE in Iraq already.

And I think it's about TIME we support politicians whom our enemies think MIGHT nuke them. That worked better for Reagan than the alternative strategies. Who else has given that impression, since Kennedy?

If nobody thinks we're going to use them, why have nukes at all? They're not exactly tactical weapons.

 

[samtechlan]

It is interesting to note all the warmongering towards Iran since NO ONE has done more to strengthen that nation than the current occupant of the White House. I know it's ancient history to some of you by now, somewhat as relevant in your mind as the War of the Roses, BUT the fact is that Saddam and the Iraqi Ba'ath party where the strongest enemies of Shi'ite Iran in the whole region. As long as Saddam was in power the Ayatollahs were contained--see Iran-Iraq war as Exhibit 1.

Now we continue to support a Shi'ite fundamentalis govt in Baghdad with extremely close ties to the Iranian Mullahs. That is happening TODAY, NOT 5 YEARS AGO.

And I think it's about TIME we support politicians whom our enemies think MIGHT nuke them. That worked better for Reagan than the alternative strategies. Who else has given that impression, since Kennedy?

Who exactly are our enemies? The Saudi regime that Bush is so close to? The Syrian regime which is one of the few remaining truly secular govt's, one which respects its native Christian community. Please don't confuse Israel's enemies with our country's. As Russell Kirk used to say, some conservatives (of the neo-con) persuasion confuse Tel Aviv with the capital of the United States.




_________________________________________________________

www.ronpaul2008.com

Two fantastic Austrian weapons:

One is mechanical: http://www.glock.com/

The other is intellectual: Austrian Economics www.mises.org

 

[R127]

You defend a Iran, a State Sponser of Terrorism, a country sending people to kill our troops in Iraq but yet convict the USA? I'm ashamed you even compare us to terrorist. I guess it's because you're so caught up with defending Ron Paul on this issue.

Get real. America's leadership created al qaeda. They put Saddam in power. They put the mullahs in power. They created new countries in the Middle East from disparate groups long at war with eacother and forget to give some groups a territory. They've systematically dismantled due process and the rule of law here at home. They've wrecked our economy, culture, run our dollar into the ground and sold our land out from underneath us to foreign interests. They confiscate half our wages through direct and indirect taxes yet still can't balance their budget. Yes, our corrupt domestic leadership is a far worse enemy than some third world goat herder with a grudge. We need to clean out the snakes at home, the real and present danger, before we start worrying about paper tigers and imaginary bogiemen.

 

[stevelyn]

Samtechlan and R127,

+ 1,000

 

[Art Eatman]

That is enough of the personal attacks, wandering off topic and misinterpreting historical events.

Art