Ron Paul's Goofy Stance on Iran

[InTheLight]

Watching the debate last night I was struck by the naive and ludicrous answer that Ron Paul gave in response to a question about Iran and suddenly realized that his stance on Iran closely mirrors Obama's ideas, or as the moderator said "Candidate Paul is running to the left of Obama on Iran". The question was about what would Paul do as President if it was confirmed that Iran had a nuclear weapon.

Paul refused to answer the question directly, prompting the moderator to ask the same question three times. He still got no straight answer.

Paul said:
"There's no evidence that Iran is close to getting a nuclear weapon"
"We have caused Iran's desire to want a nuclear weapon"
"Look what we did with Libya, we talked them out of their nuclear weapons and then we killed them. It makes more sense to work with people. We have 12,000 diplomats in our service, we ought to use diplomacy."

Exasperated the moderator asked what the U.S. response should be if Iran militarily closed the Straits of Hormuz, a bottleneck for the transportation of oil out of the Middle East.

Paul once again ignored the question, then turned the situation around and said that Iran would close the Straits if we bombed them.

Paul then said that the President was wise to withdraw economic sanctions on Iran because sanctions are an act of war and if the sanctions were maintained that this would cause Iran to close the Straits of Hormuz.

Paul also said that "it would be wrong to declare war on 1.2 billion Muslims and say all Muslims are the same is dangerous talk." Hmmm...this is a classic strawman argument--thinking that we are declaring war on all Muslims if Iran gets a nuclear weapon. Unless he thinks the population of Iran is 1.2 billion.

Then he said that the radical Muslims come here but don't go to Switzerland or Sweden proving that it's our fault that we are being attacked by terrorists. I wonder if Paul has forgotten about attacks on England, Spain, Germany, Malaysia, Sri Lanka, Canada, Algeria, Turkey, etc. etc.

Then he said that we were considering going to war because Iran captured one of our drones.

Then he (emphatically) said there was no U.N. evidence that Iran is enriching uranium, no I.A.E.A. evidence that Iran is trying to build a nuclear weapon.

Is this man of sound mind?

 

[Havensdad]

Watching the debate last night I was struck by the naive and ludicrous answer that Ron Paul gave in response to a question about Iran and suddenly realized that his stance on Iran closely mirrors Obama's ideas, or as the moderator said "Candidate Paul is running to the left of Obama on Iran". The question was about what would Paul do as President if it was confirmed that Iran had a nuclear weapon.

Paul refused to answer the question directly, prompting the moderator to ask the same question three times. He still got no straight answer.

Paul said:
"There's no evidence that Iran is close to getting a nuclear weapon"
"We have caused Iran's desire to want a nuclear weapon"
"Look what we did with Libya, we talked them out of their nuclear weapons and then we killed them. It makes more sense to work with people. We have 12,000 diplomats in our service, we ought to use diplomacy."

Exasperated the moderator asked what the U.S. response should be if Iran militarily closed the Straits of Hormuz, a bottleneck for the transportation of oil out of the Middle East.

Paul once again ignored the question, then turned the situation around and said that Iran would close the Straits if we bombed them.

Paul then said that the President was wise to withdraw economic sanctions on Iran because sanctions are an act of war and if the sanctions were maintained that this would cause Iran to close the Straits of Hormuz.

Paul also said that "it would be wrong to declare war on 1.2 billion Muslims and say all Muslims are the same is dangerous talk." Hmmm...this is a classic strawman argument--thinking that we are declaring war on all Muslims if Iran gets a nuclear weapon. Unless he thinks the population of Iran is 1.2 billion.

Then he said that the radical Muslims come here but don't go to Switzerland or Sweden proving that it's our fault that we are being attacked by terrorists. I wonder if Paul has forgotten about attacks on England, Spain, Germany, Malaysia, Sri Lanka, Canada, Algeria, Turkey, etc. etc.

Then he said that we were considering going to war because Iran captured one of our drones.

Then he (emphatically) said there was no U.N. evidence that Iran is enriching uranium, no I.A.E.A. evidence that Iran is trying to build a nuclear weapon.

Is this man of sound mind?

What a ridiculous question. People are "nuts" and "out of their mind" unless they want to go blowing up tens of thousands of innocents, and putting our soldiers in harms way, over every two bit dictator that "might" get a weapon? THAT is the absurd position.

First, Paul was right:

http://www.cnn.com/2011/12/16/politics/truth-squad-iran-nukes/index.html

Second, it is insane to think that Iran poses any threat to the U.S.A. That is just absurd. They have no nuclear weapon, and if they did get one in the next ten years, THEY HAVE NO SERIOUS AIR FORCE! What are they going to do; shoot it at us with a catapult? Nuclear bombs, especially undeveloped nuclear bombs, are enormous objects. They would have to fly it over on a flippin WWII bomber. What do you think we would do? Go "Hey look at that pretty plane on the radar...lets let it fly over the Pentagon, and see what happens.."

This whole idea of trying to intervene with Iran is unbelievably stupid, yet the American people have bought into it. WHAT IS WRONG WITH PEOPLE?

Newt Gingrich: "I Know we have Abram Tanks and helicopters. But we have to look out. Iran has some of the most advanced slingshots in the world. I think we need to take them out."

Absurd.

 

[mandym]

Is this man of sound mind?

Very questionable.

 

[Havensdad]

Very questionable.

Coming from a person who thinks its "childish" to attack your political opponent on their record of flip-flopping and baby murder...

 

[mandym]

Coming from a person who thinks its "childish" to attack your political opponent ...

Enough said.

 

[Havensdad]

Enough said.

Yep, cause when someone murders children, we should just keep our mouth shut and smile, right?

 

[mandym]

Yep, cause when someone murders children, we should just keep our mouth shut and smile, right?

The fact that you think you have to "attack" others or bicker like children in order to debate or discuss serious issues says it all.

 

[Havensdad]

The fact that you think you have to "attack" others or bicker like children in order to debate or discuss serious issues says it all.

I think we should be like Jesus. He got mad. Baby murder and genocide on people, should induce anger...

Not getting angry over something so heinous, shows complicity. You get madder at someone getting mad at these liars, than you do at the ones actually facilitating the slaughter of the innocent. That is just sad.

 

[InTheLight]

What a ridiculous question. People are "nuts" and "out of their mind" unless they want to go blowing up tens of thousands of innocents, and putting our soldiers in harms way, over every two bit dictator that "might" get a weapon? THAT is the absurd position

.

His not being of sound mind, I'm talking about his evading the question three times, saying the U.S. was going to war with all 1.2 Billion Muslims, saying terrorists don't attack other countries, saying we should use diplomacy with Iran when they've completely rejected it, completely changing the moderator's scenario on the Straits of Hormuz question to fit his worldview, asserting that we were considering going to war because Iran has our drone, etc.

First, Paul was right:

http://www.cnn.com/2011/12/16/politics/truth-squad-iran-nukes/index.html

No, Paul is wrong to say there is no U.N. or IAEA evidence that Iran is pursuing building a nuclear weapon. From the CNN article:

Paul's blanket denial that "they [the IAEA] have no evidence" may also be wrong, depending on whether he is referring to evidence that Iran is pursuing a nuclear weapon.

From USA TODAY:
IAEA report, Nov. 8: The Agency has serious concerns regarding possible military dimensions to Iran's nuclear programme. After assessing carefully and critically the extensive information available to it, the Agency finds the information to be, overall, credible. The information indicates that Iran has carried out activities relevant to the development of a nuclear explosive device.

Los Angeles Times, Nov. 7:United Nations nuclear inspectors have concluded that Iran has acquired the technical means to design a nuclear weapon and would require about six months to enrich uranium to the quality needed for a bomb if it decided to do so, according to officials familiar with the evidence. http://articles.latimes.com/2011/nov/07/world/la-fg-iran-nuclear-report-20111108

Second, it is insane to think that Iran poses any threat to the U.S.A. That is just absurd.

I don't recall a direct threat to the U.S.A. being mentioned. I did hear scenarios involving Iran blowing Israel off the face of the map and Iran closing the Straits of Hormuz. Should we not get involved in preventing these things from happening? That would be insane.

They have no nuclear weapon, and if they did get one in the next ten years, THEY HAVE NO SERIOUS AIR FORCE! What are they going to do; shoot it at us with a catapult? Nuclear bombs, especially undeveloped nuclear bombs, are enormous objects. They would have to fly it over on a flippin WWII bomber. What do you think we would do? Go "Hey look at that pretty plane on the radar...lets let it fly over the Pentagon, and see what happens.."

Iran keeps rattling sabers. Every so often Iran announces they have the capability to hit the U.S. with missiles. Sure, I discount it as blather, but should we always ignore their claims? They (apparently) hacked into one of our drones and landed it safely.

This whole idea of trying to intervene with Iran is unbelievably stupid, yet the American people have bought into it. WHAT IS WRONG WITH PEOPLE?

I don't know--is there something wrong with a little preventative defense? Anyway, I believe our stance is that Israel would be the ones taking out any uranium enrichment facility.

 

[mandym]

I think we should be like Jesus. He got mad. Baby murder and genocide on people, should induce anger...

Not getting angry over something so heinous, shows complicity. You get madder at someone getting mad at these liars, than you do at the ones actually facilitating the slaughter of the innocent. That is just sad.

This will be my last word on this, I haven't gotten mad at anyone.

 

[Havensdad]

.

His not being of sound mind, I'm talking about his evading the question three times, saying the U.S. was going to war with all 1.2 Billion Muslims, saying terrorists don't attack other countries, saying we should use diplomacy with Iran when they've completely rejected it, completely changing the moderator's scenario on the Straits of Hormuz question to fit his worldview, asserting that we were considering going to war because Iran has our drone, etc.

I don't think he evaded anything. I think he was saying, "I'm not playing your silly what-if game, Mr. Moderator."

BTW, that moderator was anything BUT unbiased! He almost looked mad at Ron.

No, Paul is wrong to say there is no U.N. or IAEA evidence that Iran is pursuing building a nuclear weapon. From the CNN article:

Paul's blanket denial that "they [the IAEA] have no evidence" may also be wrong, depending on whether he is referring to evidence that Iran is pursuing a nuclear weapon.

From USA TODAY:
IAEA report, Nov. 8: The Agency has serious concerns regarding possible military dimensions to Iran's nuclear programme. After assessing carefully and critically the extensive information available to it, the Agency finds the information to be, overall, credible. The information indicates that Iran has carried out activities relevant to the development of a nuclear explosive device.

Los Angeles Times, Nov. 7:United Nations nuclear inspectors have concluded that Iran has acquired the technical means to design a nuclear weapon and would require about six months to enrich uranium to the quality needed for a bomb if it decided to do so, according to officials familiar with the evidence. http://articles.latimes.com/2011/nov/07/world/la-fg-iran-nuclear-report-20111108

The report listed no hard evidence. That was Paul's point, and he was right.

I don't recall a direct threat to the U.S.A. being mentioned. I did hear scenarios involving Iran blowing Israel off the face of the map and Iran closing the Straits of Hormuz. Should we not get involved in preventing these things from happening? That would be insane.

No. Israel should take care of themselves. Paul said specifically in the debate that the issue was one that Israel should handle. Israel has the resources to handle there own problems.

Also, Bachman and Santorum specifically referenced threats to the U.S. That is just insane.

Iran keeps rattling sabers. Every so often Iran announces they have the capability to hit the U.S. with missiles. Sure, I discount it as blather, but should we always ignore their claims? They (apparently) hacked into one of our drones and landed it safely.

Really? You actually think that our military is that incompetent? I think it is another "sink our own ship" scenario, or an accidental wreck at best.

I don't know--is there something wrong with a little preventative defense? Anyway, I believe our stance is that Israel would be the ones taking out any uranium enrichment facility.

Killing tens of thousands of people now, to prevent a possibility of tens of thousands of people being killed later, is the height of insanity.

 

[Bro. Curtis]

The fact that you think you have to "attack" others or bicker like children in order to debate or discuss serious issues says it all.

Ok, so back up your assertion that Dr. Paul's soundness of mind is "very questionable".

 

[InTheLight]

The report listed no hard evidence. That was Paul's point, and he was right.

Paul: There is no IAEA or U.N. evidence that Iran is intending to build a nuclear weapon.

The report:
The information indicates that Iran has carried out activities relevant to the development of a nuclear explosive device.

L.A. Times: United Nations nuclear inspectors have concluded that Iran has acquired the technical means to design a nuclear weapon and would require about six months to enrich uranium to the quality needed for a bomb if it decided to do so,

 

[billwald]

Go to war because of what another sovereign nation "has?"

Anyway, if Ron Paul is a Libertarian then he has pledged to never initiate violence and i can't think of a better reason for voting for him.

 

[marke]

Very questionable.

You are right, unfortunately. Ron Paul may be a good man, but he doesn't seem to have a good understanding of some pretty critical issues, like Americam foreign policy, for example.

 

[Havensdad]

You are right, unfortunately. Ron Paul may be a good man, but he doesn't seem to have a good understanding of some pretty critical issues, like Americam foreign policy, for example.

Actually he has an excellent understanding of foreign policy...one that agrees with the majority of the American people. Blowing up innocent civilians overseas, does not help our security. I cannot believe that these flip flopping, war mongering politicians have gotten any of the American people to buy into this...

 

[matt wade]

Havensdad, what I find funny is that these same people that think we should go invade Iran because they think some Muslims have access to nuclear weapons think that our current President is a Muslim. Would our resident war mongers think it OK for other nations to attack us since we have a Muslim in power that has access to nuclear weapons?

 

[Havensdad]

Havensdad, what I find funny is that these same people that think we should go invade Iran because they think some Muslims have access to nuclear weapons think that our current President is a Muslim. Would our resident war mongers think it OK for other nations to attack us since we have a Muslim in power that has access to nuclear weapons?

LOL. Thats funny right there...I don't care who you are.

As a vehemently pro-life person, it just makes me angry that my fellow conservatives will (rightly!) fight to protect a single unborn life over here (again, this is GREAT), but then will completely dismiss the thousands of mothers, fathers, and children that will get killed, (200,000 in Iraq..) because we get worried that some country that does not even have an air force, or sufficient gasoline, "might sometime in the future" get a weapon that we have thousands of, and then "might" decide to use it.

Apparently they think American Children are valuable, but not Iranian or Iraqi. Wonder why the middle east hates us?

 

[Salty]

...but then will completely dismiss the thousands of mothers, fathers, and children that will get killed, (200,000 in Iraq..)...
Apparently they think American Children are valuable, but not Iranian or Iraqi. Wonder why the middle east hates us?

First who killed most of the Iraq's?

Second what did the US Army prevent?

 

[Havensdad]

First who killed most of the Iraq's?

Second what did the US Army prevent?

Actually, according to this article, NOTHING. We killed more than what I thought (I was going back to the beginning of our involvement...which is confirmed to be about 200,000 deaths).

I hadn't figured in the 300,000 deaths we caused in the 12 years before that, putting sanctions on Iraq. Thanks. I guess that reinforces my point even more. Not only did these people get bombed all over the place, we also starved them and their children to death for 12 years.

Again, wonder why they hate us?