Why I Don’t Trust Trump on Iran: Ron Paul

Bring our troops home, close the US Embassy in Baghdad – a symbol of our aggression - and let the people of the Middle East solve their own problems. Maintain a strong defense to protect the United States, but end this neocon pipe-dream of ruling the world from the barrel of a gun. It does not work. It makes us poorer and more vulnerable to attack. It makes the elites of Washington rich while leaving working and middle class America with the bill. It engenders hatred and a desire for revenge among those who have fallen victim to US interventionist foreign policy. And it results in millions of innocents being killed overseas.

There is no benefit to the United States to trying to run the world. Such a foreign policy brings only bankruptcy – moral and financial. Tell Congress and the Administration that for America’s sake we demand the return of US troops from the Middle East!

Yup, this.

Bring the troops home, protect the United States.

Originally Posted by Anti Federalist

Yup, this.

Bring the troops home, protect the United States.

Even as a kid I knew, when this did not happen after 911, that we were not being told the truth.

Ron Paul

Originally Posted by Anti Federalist

Yup, this.

Bring the troops home, protect the United States.

Trump threatens Iraq with crippling sanctions if US troops are expelled

Originally Posted by Warlord

Ron Paul

+1

Originally Posted by Ender

Why I Don’t Trust Trump on Iran
written by Ron Paul
Monday January 6, 2020

President Trump and his Secretary of State Mike Pompeo told us the US had to assassinate Maj. Gen. Qassim Soleimani last week because he was planning “Imminent attacks” on US citizens. I don’t believe them.

Why not? Because Trump and the neocons – like Pompeo – have been lying about Iran for the past three years in an effort to whip up enough support for a US attack. From the phony justification to get out of the Iran nuclear deal, to blaming Yemen on Iran, to blaming Iran for an attack on Saudi oil facilities, the US Administration has fed us a steady stream of lies for three years because they are obsessed with Iran.

And before Trump’s obsession with attacking Iran, the past four US Administrations lied ceaselessly to bring about wars on Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Libya, Serbia, Somalia, and the list goes on.

At some point, when we’ve been lied to constantly and consistently for decades about a “threat” that we must “take out” with a military attack, there comes a time where we must assume they are lying until they provide rock solid, irrefutable proof. Thus far they have provided nothing. So I don’t believe them.

President Trump has warned that his administration has already targeted 52 sites important to Iran and Iranian culture and the US will attack them if Iran retaliates for the assassination of Gen. Soleimani. Because Iran has no capacity to attack the United States, Iran’s retaliation if it comes will likely come against US troops or US government officials stationed or visiting the Middle East. I have a very easy solution for President Trump that will save the lives of American servicemembers and other US officials: just come home. There is absolutely no reason for US troops to be stationed throughout the Middle East to face increased risk of death for nothing.

In our Ron Paul Liberty Report program last week we observed that the US attack on a senior Iranian military officer on Iraqi soil – over the objection of the Iraq government – would serve to finally unite the Iraqi factions against the United States. And so it has: on Sunday the Iraqi parliament voted to expel US troops from Iraqi soil. It may have been a non-binding resolution, but there is no mistaking the sentiment. US troops are not wanted and they are increasingly in danger. So why not listen to the Iraqi parliament?

Bring our troops home, close the US Embassy in Baghdad – a symbol of our aggression - and let the people of the Middle East solve their own problems. Maintain a strong defense to protect the United States, but end this neocon pipe-dream of ruling the world from the barrel of a gun. It does not work. It makes us poorer and more vulnerable to attack. It makes the elites of Washington rich while leaving working and middle class America with the bill. It engenders hatred and a desire for revenge among those who have fallen victim to US interventionist foreign policy. And it results in millions of innocents being killed overseas.

There is no benefit to the United States to trying to run the world. Such a foreign policy brings only bankruptcy – moral and financial. Tell Congress and the Administration that for America’s sake we demand the return of US troops from the Middle East!
http://ronpaulinstitute.org/archives...trump-on-iran/

Ahh, a breath of common sense. Something that this forum has been digressing away from.

Originally Posted by Warlord

Ron Paul

Originally Posted by ClaytonB

+1

+2

Originally Posted by Ender

Even as a kid I knew, when this did not happen after 911, that we were not being told the truth.

Uh, ya, but you should then be smart enough to know we aren't being told the truth now.

Originally Posted by Anti Federalist

Yup, this.

Bring the troops home, protect the United States.

Ya, but I also don't mind if somebody assassinates CIA assets who are secretly working in foreign governments and working with the neocons to start a war with Iran.

At some point, when we’ve been lied to constantly and consistently for decades about a “threat” that we must “take out” with a military attack, there comes a time where we must assume they are lying until they provide rock solid, irrefutable proof. Thus far they have provided nothing. So I don’t believe them.

I won’t believe it until Adam Schiff and John Brennan agree (and when monkeys fly out of Nancy Pelosi’s butt).

Originally Posted by dannno

Uh, ya, but you should then be smart enough to know we aren't being told the truth now.

I am- and so should you.

Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty

I won’t believe it until Adam Schiff and John Brennan agree (and when monkeys fly out of Nancy Pelosi’s butt).

It's already known, Ron Paul actually mentioned on his show today that Suleimani has already murdered a lot of people.

The question was whether he was about to do it again. Does that matter?

I believe that he was a CIA stooge who infiltrated the Iranian regime and was trying to foment war between the US and Iran.

My sources tell me he had a bioweapon that he was bringing to Iraq to use against innocent people and US military.

Ron Paul is working off of information from the mainstream media. He has done it before, and had to correct himself, before.

Originally Posted by Ender

I am- and so should you.

Nope, you are buying it hook, line and stinker.

Originally Posted by dannno

Nope, you are buying it hook, line and stinker.

I'll take Ron's word for it before anyone here or on the MSM- which I never read, BTW

Originally Posted by Ender

I'll take Ron's word for it before anyone here or on the MSM- which I never read, BTW

Ron sometimes speculates on information from the MSM, which is often false. He later will backtrack it. This will be one of those cases.

Originally Posted by dannno

It's already known, Ron Paul actually mentioned on his show today that Suleimani has already murdered a lot of people.

The question was whether he was about to do it again. Does that matter?
...

If it’s called “pre-emptive” for an “imminent threat” then it matters.

As to what he has done in the past, who knows? I doubt he was out shooting people himself, or personally planting IEDs. He was most likely supplying many different militias and groups. If supplying weapons is equal to personally murdering people, the list of guilty people on this planet is extremely long. Every weapon manufacturer would be considered guilty.

Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty

If it’s called “pre-emptive” for an “imminent threat” then it matters.

As to what he has done in the past, who knows? I doubt he was out shooting people himself, or personally planting IEDs. He was most likely supplying many different militias and groups. If supplying weapons is equal to personally murdering people, the list of guilty people on this planet is extremely long. Every weapon manufacturer would be considered guilty.

Wish I could +rep you again!

Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty

If it’s called “pre-emptive” for an “imminent threat” then it matters.

As to what he has done in the past, who knows? I doubt he was out shooting people himself, or personally planting IEDs. He was most likely supplying many different militias and groups. If supplying weapons is equal to personally murdering people, the list of guilty people on this planet is extremely long. Every weapon manufacturer would be considered guilty.

No, he did more than that and Ron Paul said on his show that he was responsible. He is a terrorist, and a CIA stooge trying to foment war, playing into the neocons hands. I would recommend watching the PJW video. He is personally responsible for hundreds of murders - if you take your logic about supplying and coordinating, it would be much higher than that, probably tens of thousands or more.

The point is if you have somebody who has already murdered hundreds of people, and you take them out pre-emptively based on intelligence of another attack that is yet to come, that is ENTIRELY different than taking out an innocent person who has never committed such an act for a pre-crime.

Also, I don't cry when CIA stooges are killed.

Originally Posted by dannno

...
The point is if you have somebody who has already murdered hundreds of people, and you take them out pre-emptively based on intelligence of another attack that is yet to come, that is ENTIRELY different than taking out an innocent person who has never committed such an act for a pre-crime.
...

Yes, there is difference between pre-emptive action against someone who hasn’t done anything (pre-crime), and prosecuting, convicting and punishing someone who has already committed a crime.

Originally Posted by dannno

I believe that he was a CIA stooge who infiltrated the Iranian regime and was trying to foment war between the US and Iran.

If he was so close to enemies of Israel as an asset, won't that be bad news for our closest ally Israel? Would top GOPA donors have approved romoval of an asset that was so close to top leaders in Iran and Lebanon?

Two and two don't add up about this theory.


Soleimani Reveals Details of Role He Played in the 2006 Israel-Hezbollah War

Thursday, 3 October, 2019

Commander of the Quds Force of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Commander, Major General Qasem Soleimani(L) stands at the frontline in the town of Tal Ksaiba in Salahuddin province March 8, 2015. REUTERS/Stringer/File Photo


London - Adil al-Salmi

The Iranian State TV broadcast on Tuesday an exclusive interview with Commander of the Quds Force of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Commander, Major General Qasem Soleimani, who has given an insight on his role in Lebanon during the 2006 Israel-Hezbollah war.

This is the first interview of Soleimani, who is in charge of foreign operations especially in Syria and Iraq.

During the 90-minute interview, Soleimani gave details of his role in Lebanon in advising ‘Hezbollah’ during the 34-day war. He came to Lebanon accompanied by Hezbollah military leader Imad Mughniyeh who was later assassinated in 2008.

Mughniyeh was considered the engineer of the 2006 war, which killed 1,200 Lebanese and 160 Israelis.

Soleimani spoke about the incident that triggered the war, represented in a group from Hezbollah managing to “attack a vehicle of the Zionists, inside the occupied lands and captured two wounded persons from inside the vehicle as hostages” on July 12.

After one week of his arrival to Lebanon, he traveled to Iran to brief Khamenei on the updates in Lebanon -- Soleimani returned on the same day with a message to Hezbollah Secretary-General Hassan Nasrallah.

The Major General remained in the country until the end of the war. He didn’t mention the presence of other Iranians and only narrated his personal experience during the interview.

He also recounted how, under Israeli bombardment of Hezbollah's stronghold in Beirut's southern suburbs, he and Mughniyeh moved out Nasrallah from his "operations room" where they were based, and then they returned to the command center.

The interview, which was carried out by Iran's Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei's office, came days after it published a photo showing Nasrallah next to Khamenei and Soleimani, in an apparent recent meeting between the three in Tehran.

Originally Posted by dannno

My sources tell me he had a bioweapon that he was bringing to Iraq to use against innocent people and US military.

Curious, how is track record of this source, had this source taken any position on Iraq's bioweapon factories/WMDs/yellowcake that respected neoconseratives enabler Colin Powell had presented at UN meeting to justify Iraq invasion?