PDA

View Full Version : Foreign Policy: Would Dr. Paul really allow Iran to obtain WMD's without hindrance?




Bulbear
01-31-2012, 02:31 PM
One of my liberal friends claimed he would never vote for Ron Paul as he "would allow Iran to acquire nuclear weapons without hindrance". Are his claims accurate? How can one defend Dr. Paul's view on the issue if so?

bluesc
01-31-2012, 02:39 PM
Well, he wouldn't use military force to prevent it.

That's not to say he wouldn't use diplomatic power though.

specsaregood
01-31-2012, 02:42 PM
How can one defend Dr. Paul's view on the issue if so?

How can one defend the US's position of having WMDs? Which country Iran or US have killed more innocents in the past century?

Schiff_FTW
01-31-2012, 02:47 PM
So your "liberal friend" is itching for the U.S. to start a third war in the Middle East? More likely a third World War, really, since China and Russia back Iran.

Not to long ago "liberals" used to be against unnecessary war.

bolil
01-31-2012, 02:47 PM
Because it is somehow our place to "allow" another country to do anything? Kids cost to much to raise for the US to pretend to be a parent.

Travlyr
01-31-2012, 02:51 PM
One thing we could do is invade Iran, kick the shit out of anybody who looks at Americans cross-eyed, and occupy their land for the next 100 years to make sure that they don't develop a nuclear weapon.

Think of the jobs we would create for Americans, and the prosperity for defense contractors of building weapons, uniforms, and badges.

jmdrake
01-31-2012, 03:00 PM
One of my liberal friends claimed he would never vote for Ron Paul as he "would allow Iran to acquire nuclear weapons without hindrance". Are his claims accurate? How can one defend Dr. Paul's view on the issue if so?

According to Iran hater Rick Santorum, Iran does not want a nuke to attack Israel, but rather so that they can be "protected". So quit threatening Iran and Iran won't pursue a nuke.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jRW30b_51KY

ronpaulhemp
01-31-2012, 07:02 PM
A war with Iran would be unsustainable in our already cash-strapped state. Diplomacy would probably be the only option the U.S. has, if it ever gets to that level.

webwriter
02-02-2012, 05:39 PM
If you read only US-based news (internet or print media) you likely have the wrong view of how sanctions against Iran are working. Try some of the non-US portals like BBC-UK, Euro Times, or the pretty biased, but still enlightening Asia Times. The fact is that China, India, and (former) Russia doesn't give a hoot about the US/EU sanctions. They are happily buying Iranian oil for gold or local currency and selling Iran their goods. That said (i.e. that sanctions are worthless) invading Iran would be a dreadful mistake, just like Iraq was. If we are worried about WMD, let's invade North Korea. They have less support than Iran so they would be easier to invade, and they definitely DO have WMD. Mitt et al are talking up more wars including Iran and Cuba. They count on an uninformed public to get away with it, Mr. Bush did a while back.

Kodaddy
02-02-2012, 05:57 PM
As president, RP would have no authority under the constitution, which he took an oath to uphold, to either help or hinder Iran's pursuit of a nuclear weapon.

My advice to your friend would be to take a course or study the Constitution of the United States of America.

Kodaddy
02-02-2012, 05:57 PM
As president, RP would have no authority under the constitution, which he took an oath to uphold, to either help or hinder Iran's pursuit of a nuclear weapon.

My advice to your friend would be to take a course or study the Constitution of the United States of America.

GunnyFreedom
02-02-2012, 06:03 PM
One of the primary reasons Ron Paul has been explaining Iran's motivation for wanting a nuclear weapon (also indicated in the Santorum video above) is because the best way to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon is to eliminate their motivation for wanting one in the first place. You do that diplomatically, and by removing the US troops and military bases surrounding Iran on every border. A good argument can be made that nearly every single aspect of Ron Paul's foreign policy works to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon.

PierzStyx
02-02-2012, 06:03 PM
According to Iran hater Rick Santorum, Iran does not want a nuke to attack Israel, but rather so that they can be "protected". So quit threatening Iran and Iran won't pursue a nuke.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jRW30b_51KY


Exactly!

soulcyon
02-02-2012, 06:14 PM
Ask him, what will Iran do with those nuclear weapons?

Borrow the enrichment process to treat cancer patients? To fuel nuclear power plants? The fear-mongering war propaganda is a poison, curiosity can cure this poison and release the truth.

Lishy
02-02-2012, 06:37 PM
I imagine a true president Paul would not take military action right away, and instead send in CIA spies to monitor the situation. If Iran is indeed harmless, then we needn't take any action whatsoever. And if a true conflict is brewing, then we respond accordingly, but avoid any diplomatic traps they have in place.

That's how I see is the most secure way to respond, at least. There's nothing wrong with gathering Intel on any potential threats in my opinion. If you understand the enemy, then you know what they want, and what their intentions are. There for, it's possible to end the tension without any conflict whatsoever.

Keeping in mind Iran is very paranoid of America. So it would take a lot of work to end the tensions as well. We must understand them in order to better talk to them.

RickyJ
02-02-2012, 06:41 PM
One of my liberal friends claimed he would never vote for Ron Paul as he "would allow Iran to acquire nuclear weapons without hindrance". Are his claims accurate? How can one defend Dr. Paul's view on the issue if so?

Ask your liberal friend why he is concerned about Iran in the least?

More than likely he will just repeat the propaganda he has his heard from his boob tube to you.

Then tell him that Iran already has had the capability to wipe out most of Israel with fuel-air bombs mounted on missiles and has had this capability for at least 10 years now. Iran does not need a nuclear weapon to take out most of Israel, yet they haven't done it. Iran does not want war, they aren't crazy!

Dianne
02-02-2012, 06:58 PM
So your "liberal friend" is itching for the U.S. to start a third war in the Middle East? More likely a third World War, really, since China and Russia back Iran.

Not to long ago "liberals" used to be against unnecessary war.

Your liberal friend, is not really a liberal. Here is the official definition of liberal which no longer exists among the democrats; once known as liberals: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism

Liberalism (from the Latin liberalis)[1] is the belief in the importance of liberty and equal rights.[2] Liberals espouse a wide array of views depending on their understanding of these principles, but generally liberals support ideas such as constitutionalism, liberal democracy, free and fair elections, human rights, capitalism, and freedom of religion

Liberalism is not for those that live in the United States only; but the same rights for liberty and the pursuit of happiness exist for all countries. No one, including the USA, has the right to steal liberties from any other country. I was a liberal, campaigning for George McGovern, Bill Clinton, Bill Clinton again. I donated to MoveOn.org and offered to volunteer for them to end these senseless, fake wars. I am a liberal in the true sense of the word. I support gay rights, I support the end of the war on drugs, I support the end of the Federal Reserve. I support the Federal Government getting out of my life!!! I didn't sign on to pay Federal Income Tax to murder people.. It is against my entire being to hurt anything God created. There really once was a "liberal" party platform the Democrats ran under. Now the Democrats are just as much of the scum the Republicans are. The dregs of the earth exist within both parties. Move-On.org got swept into the Obama political machine.. they were fake to begin with.... just bull shitters complaining about George Bush when Obama continued and even escalated the same Bush murders Move On had nothing to say badly about Obama. The so called "liberal" movement decided to change their name to the "progressive" movement.. because they have no interest whatsoever to providing freedom to anyone; just continue to fill their coffers with your blood and the blood of your sons... that's all the GOP and DNC and their Tokyo Rose media thrive on.

The One
02-02-2012, 07:03 PM
There is no liberal friend.

Dianne
02-02-2012, 07:12 PM
There is no liberal friend.

Actually the only liberals in this country, by definition are Ron Paul supporters. Freedom, choice, right to pursue happiness for all, capitalism, trade, peace, not just for Americans; but rights belonging to all.

The One
02-02-2012, 07:13 PM
Actually the only liberals in this country, by definition are Ron Paul supporters. Freedom, choice, right to pursue happiness for all, capitalism, trade, peace, not just for Americans; but rights belonging to all.

Not exactly what I meant...but no worries.

eduardo89
02-02-2012, 07:16 PM
I don't see why Iran shouldn't have the right to develop nuclear weapons if it wants them...

Kodaddy
02-02-2012, 07:45 PM
Is your friend worried that Iran would start another war in the middle east? What is the alternative? For the US to start another war in the middle east? Forgive me for not seeing the logic in this argument...

ryanmkeisling
02-02-2012, 08:03 PM
These "friends" everyone has, have a curious way of understanding the world. Fear drives almost every opinion and therefore every conflict. It is a never ending cycle; conflicts get resolved by compromised solutions which only creates more conflicts. Things then continue to move in one direction.

Dr.3D
02-02-2012, 08:14 PM
So that might be something a socialist would wonder about. Who else thinks it's a good idea to tell other people what they can do with their own property?