Is this even worth responding to?

[tfurrh]

Here's an exchange on FB, its with my cousin. I think its wierd that his brother is a RP supporter, but he is spouting off untruths about RP, while insinuating that I haven't read my history books. The whole bottom statement doesn't even negate my comment, but I don't even know if its worth commenting.


M BlanchRon Paul remains media poison - Roger Simon
www.politico.com
Simon says the Texas representative's close second at Ames earned him press silence.

B.P. Long This drives me crazy. It feels like circular logic--he's not electable because the party and the media don't support him, and they don't support him because he's not electable.

M Blanch But... he's old and he says that he doesn't like all the free money they get... of course they want him to be "unelectable."

A Wright He also thinks Iran should have nukes

B.P. long ‎"Should" is such a strong word. =P

Tfurrh Russia, United Kingdom, France, China, India, Pakistan (sanctuary of OBL), North Korea, and Israel all have nukes. Did we intervene with any of those countries? Ron Paul does not want to see Iran develope a nuclear weapon, but is strongly opposed to our inconsistent, preemptive foreign policy. Remember, Iraq was supposed to have WMDs too.

A Wright Did you not pay attention when you took history? What was the Cold War about? JFK all the way to Reagan and Bush sr. actively opposed Russia's nukes. The UK, France, India, and Israel are all our allies. Pakistan was supposed to be our ally... too, but we are learning more about them every day. The Clinton administration gave China nukes. The second Bush admin. actively opposed North Korea, Iran, and Iraq getting nukes. Iraq was the only one to continuously kick out the UN inspectors. Saddam Hussein was not only supposed to have "WMDs" he used them on his own people and on the Iranians. He was supposed to have some still by treaty after the Gulf War, but would not even let the UN inspectors see those which was supposed to be part of the same treaty. When we went into Iraq, we did not even find his stockpiles of regular munitions that he had reported to the UN as part of that treaty. So you can't say he did not have them because he hid his regular stuff and there was plenty of evidence that the inspectors did find when they were allowed in to suggest he had or was actively developing nukes in violation to treaties.
Ron Paul said, "Sure, Iran should have nukes," in the recent GOP debate. I'm going off the man's words he said. I know he is a to the extreme isolationist, but that got us attacked in WW2, so as nice as the idea is, it is just impossible.
The only thing inconsistent in our foreign policy is the modern Democrat party. JFK would be horrified.

[neumoljiv]

have you ever heard of the 'nuclear non-proliferation treaty'?

[tfurrh]

have you ever heard of the 'nuclear non-proliferation treaty'?

is that one of them there 'entangling alliances?' Yeah, I just looked it up.

[tasteless]

Clinton gave China nukes?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9wYxcytt-6s

[sailingaway]

The only thing I'd respond to is the outright falsehood about Ron saying 'sure Iran should have nukes' which he absolutely DIDN'T say. He didn't WANT Iran to have nukes, he was just questioning whether it was our place to to set ourselves up as the one who decides what military the whole world can have. He was asking can we afford the expense. And we said the same thing about Pakistan but as soon as they got one we sent money, India too. Given that pattern, of course they want nukes, but how can you say it is the end of the world if they get one, and if it is, shouldn't Europe and Israel, who are a lot closer and whose defense we have been paying for for decades, be the ones to deal with it? If we are EVER going to have a sensible foreign policy, we are going to have to not always be 'the one' who deals with every single thing.

[sailingaway]

have you ever heard of the 'nuclear non-proliferation treaty'?

Are WE the automatic bill payer and enforcer for that?

[CaptUSA]

This guy is a tool.

Ask him if anything we've done is preventing Iran from getting a nuke or is it making them strive harder to get a nuke. We keep elevating the war rhetoric against them, their enemies have nukes, they see that countries with nukes get more international respect, we are pushing them to keep trying to get one. We are creating an enemy where one doesn't need to exist.

I wished that when Rick Santorum said he worked on the legislation to prevent Iran from getting nukes, that Ron would have said, "How'd that work out for ya? We're still talking about it and now we're raising the stakes! Your strategy is to keep raising the stakes until we get into another war!"

[Feeding the Abscess]

Are WE the automatic bill payer and enforcer for that?

Not sure, but I do know that under the treaty, we have an obligation to assist any signatory that wishes to produce nuclear facilities for energy purposes, which Iran followed. We reneged on the deal, and have acted like belligerent neanderthals in our dealings with them. So, I guess, some treaties are worth going to war over, but when we don't want to deal with others, we ignore them.

Score another point for "yeah, let's avoid those entangling alliances. Especially if we're going to expect others to abide by them while we wipe our ass with them".

[flightlesskiwi]

T

I wished that when Rick Santorum said he worked on the legislation to prevent Iran from getting nukes, that Ron would have said, "How'd that work out for ya? We're still talking about it and now we're raising the stakes! Your strategy is to keep raising the stakes until we get into another war!"

that would have been awesome!

it seems like this guy paid TOO much attention when he "took history". perhaps he should do some independent research.

[Elwar]

Clinton gave China missile technology. Not nukes.

Ask him if he would rather the US go bankrupt chasing down every fairy tale weapons of mass destruction story or live with Iran having nukes knowing that if they used them it would be the end of Iran.

[neumoljiv]

Are WE the automatic bill payer and enforcer for that?

no, why, do you want to abolish the treaty?






Not sure, but I do know that under the treaty, we have an obligation to assist any signatory that wishes to produce nuclear facilities for energy purposes, which Iran followed. We reneged on the deal, and have acted like belligerent neanderthals in our dealings with them. So, I guess, some treaties are worth going to war over, but when we don't want to deal with others, we ignore them.

Score another point for "yeah, let's avoid those entangling alliances. Especially if we're going to expect others to abide by them while we wipe our ass with them".

iran has persistently violated the treaty