PDA

View Full Version : Derbyshire - Ron Paul has most honest position on Iran




Inkblots
08-15-2011, 04:58 PM
Here's a great talking point regarding Ron Paul's policy toward Iran, courtesy of the always incisive John Derbyshire:


I’d like to ask a question of the anti-Paulists. Here’s the question: Why are you so outraged by his assertion, in last Thursday night’s debate, that if the Iranians want to develop nuclear weapons, we should go ahead and let them?

It seems clear to me that given Iran’s resources (and Chinese and Russian duplicity), any system of sanctions would leak like a sieve — as, in fact, pretty much all systems of sanctions against unpopular nations always have. The only way to prevent Iran from going nuclear if she wants to is therefore by military action. In fact, since one-off strikes would have uncertain effect, the only true way would be full-scale military invasion and long-term occupation.

Which Republican candidate advocates such a course of action?

If the answer is “None” (which of course it is), then what, in effect, is the difference between Dr. Paul’s Iran policy and that of Romney, Bachmann, Perry, and the rest?

If no U.S. leader or potential leader is willing to do the one thing sure to kill Iran’s nuclear ambitions, then how is it eccentric, much less worthy of mockery, for Dr. Paul to say we should leave them to it and rely on deterrence?
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/274681/appalled-paul-john-derbyshire

hellsingfan
08-15-2011, 05:26 PM
But I think the other candidates WOULD go to a full-on war.

I think Paul needs to point out why the negoiations with Iran failed- they failed because of us. Also Brazil and Turkey negotiated a plan with Iran, but no one wanted to accept it. They just want war- all the 'talks' were non-sense and plans other countries negotiated were thrown under the carpet, however good they may have been.

Paul needs to assert that he'll use REAL diplomacy rather than the non-sense we had in the past. Not to mention CIA says there is no evidence for Iran developing a nuke.

samuel
08-15-2011, 05:31 PM
I made a video that adds in a lot of third-party information to Ron's Iran answer in the debates.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xq5jjjzpvi0

Inkblots
08-15-2011, 05:38 PM
But I think the other candidates WOULD go to a full-on war.

Really? None of the other candidates has ever said so.

And they'd be destroyed if they did. Advocating for a war with Iran is literally insane! Our armed forces are stretched literally to the breaking point trying to occupy Iraq and Afghanistan and conduct regime change in Libya, we're teetering on the brink of a total fiscal collapse, and one of these candidates is going to advocate for the full-on invasion of the 18th largest nation on earth, whose land area is one and a half times larger than Iraq and Afghanistan COMBINED, a nation whose estimated armed forces, including paramilitary units, are LARGER than the US military? And with the sure certainty that NONE of our NATO allies or Arab partners would support us in such an invasion?

Not even Bill Kristol is so much of a mad man as to advocate for something like that at this time. So Derb's point stands: what's the alternative to Paul's position? He's just the only one being honest.

hellsingfan
08-15-2011, 05:48 PM
^ You're just talking about what is 'common sense'.. If you haven't figured this out already- most of these shills don't follow common sense. They'll go to war. None of them have denied that military action is potential.

The fact of the matter is, they can't just do a one-time strike and expect 'oh its not a full war'.. Iran can just go to Iraq and fight the soldiers over there. Or to Afghanistan... since they're both bordered by Iran.

ANY military strike on Iran, regardless if you put boots on their ground, will result in a full war. And as far as I know, none of the other candidates have rejected this option.

Or if you think they won't perhaps we should submit this specific question for debates and see what they say.

PeteinLA
08-15-2011, 05:58 PM
Agree with many of the comments here. Hopefully he can turn the question around on them in future debate. "The real question is what are you going to do Rick when they do get a nuke? Start another war?" Short of patrolling the Iranian frontier and the CIA shadowing every nuke scientist in the country I don't see how your going to guarantee that they don't acquire one.

That would be the general gist of the argument. Basically showing how blabbing about how your going to stop them from getting a nuke is hollow political rhetoric and has no basis in actual useful policy.

Inkblots
08-15-2011, 06:20 PM
Or if you think they won't perhaps we should submit this specific question for debates and see what they say.

Great suggestion. Let's try to make it happen.

Napoleon's Shadow
08-18-2011, 12:27 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nv9QiL2p0dk

Jingles
08-18-2011, 12:41 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nv9QiL2p0dk

My god. FORCE IS NOT JUSTIFIED UNLESS IT IS USED AGAINST YOU! Why is it so hard for people to understand that? And other countries don't have nuclear weapons that they claim Iran wants to attack!? Why would a country be so suicidal!? I just don't understand the logic to their arguments. Why so quick to war?

ughhhhhhhhhhhh