FREDHEADS: Compare Fred Thompson to Ron Paul here

[Carl Corey]

The problem I have is that states like Iran have stated their objective is the destruction of the US. To me that doesn't sound like someone that is going to stop gunning for us after we roll out.

I think Iran only wants the destruction of Israel though I guess some people spin that for obvious reasons, Israel can take care of itself though.

The infrastructure required for delivery of any kind of alternative energy besides Nuclear Power just does not exist, and Nuclear Power plants do not get built in couple of months. True viable alternative energy is 7-10 years away. What is the short term plan to limit our dependence on foreign oil markets?

Yes, this worries me too. We don't have as many nuclear plants as we should, we don't reprocess spend fuel which is just plain stupid. Wind energy is promoted even though it's not a viable alternative energy source.

Ron Paul doesn't oppose nuclear energy, but other than that there doesn't seem to be a plan. Not even the experts have the answer though, so besides funding the construction of nuclear plants and dams there is little that can be done, unless funding for some major research is provided. Giuliani seems the best candidate to me when it comes to this issue.

[TreeOfLiberty]

I believe the major thing we must do is curb oil consumption. The tax breaks Dr. Paul advocates for small businesses would allow many more businesses to spring up in rural areas. This would help limit alot of the driving we as Americans do. I know hundreds of people that drive 100+ miles every day just to go to work in a major city.

Feel free to brainstorm other ways Dr. Paul's economic ideals would help lower foreign oil dependency.

My understanding of our consumption of oil has less to do with our driving habits and more to do with our consumption habits. We refine more oil for use in other industry than just fuel to use in our vehicles. Fossil fuels power our industry. We have too large reserves that would supplant anything that we import from the middle east if we would allow them to be tapped.

I agree that truly free market solutions will bring about viable alternate engery solutions. Wind and Solar are not viable. Neither is grain ethanol. It takes more energy to produce ehtanol for fuel than the fuel produces. Makes very little sense to me to go down that route considering the impact it is having on food prices. Cellulosic ethanol has some promise...but I'm sold that it's the answer. It just doesn't have the lower heating value required to deliver the energy required.

Coal gasification and liquification has promise if we would remove the regulations.

Short term, there is no way we get off oil. But starting your SUV every morning isn't causing our problems.

[RonPaulalways]

The problem I have is that states like Iran have stated their objective is the destruction of the US. To me that doesn't sound like someone that is going to stop gunning for us after we roll out.

It's not Iran we need to worry about. The only reason there is some heated rhetoric coming out of Iran once in a while is because of the US's support for Israel, and Israel's possession of over 200 nuclear bombs.

Iran will under go a revolution and become a pure republic within 5 years of the US ending the sanctions and taking an even handed approach in the middle east.

[Fyretrohl]

My understanding of Dr Paul's position on how to loosen up our dependence on foreign oil is to allow the states to decide to do with their resources. IE: Free Utah to go after its clean coal. Free Alaska, Florida, or other states to choose to open up their oil fields. We are dependent on other countries, because, people want to refuse to allow us to use our own resources.

[dblee]

I didn't include Obama in the fascist-police-state makers above, not because he is any less dangerous, but because I think his danger probably comes from a different direction. I just can't identify that direction as yet.

Communist-police state.

[Gammerus]

My understanding of Dr Paul's position on how to loosen up our dependence on foreign oil is to allow the states to decide to do with their resources. IE: Free Utah to go after its clean coal. Free Alaska, Florida, or other states to choose to open up their oil fields. We are dependent on other countries, because, people want to refuse to allow us to use our own resources.

Then maybe we could finally work on solar energy in Arizona. We only have three things in Arizona: Cactus, Citrus, and Sun. It is about time the desert sun was good for something other than skin cancer.

[Goldwater Conservative]

The problem I have is that states like Iran have stated their objective is the destruction of the US. To me that doesn't sound like someone that is going to stop gunning for us after we roll out.

No, that's what Ahmadinejad has said about Israel. And he's a powerless figurehead. Look at the population in Iran, 2/3 of them are under the age of 30. Many of those are generally sympathetic to or even fans of much of Western culture. They only rally behind Ahmadinejad, who they otherwise mock for being the idiot he is, because we keep rattling the saber. They are a fraction of the threat the Soviets were, and we should conduct our foreign policy accordingly. Speak softly (and don't meddle) but carry a big stick.

[crackyflipside]

I used to be a Fred Thompson supporter for a while, mostly for his very traditional conservative views of spending, but found Ron Paul to be a bit more in line with my views of conservatism.

[yongrel]

Gunny's posts in this thread are incredible.

I hope you don't mind Gunny, but I emailed your words to about 200 folks.

[mosquitobite]

Gunny's posts in this thread are incredible.

I hope you don't mind Gunny, but I emailed your words to about 200 folks.

Same here. I emailed my dad and said "if this guy can't convince you, well I guess I will finally give up."

[Anonymous_Coward]

Fellow RP supporters ( and former FT ), I skimmed a little through the topic, and some of you just said Iran talked about destroying Israel.

And you people, even after all the media spins and lies, believe it. Please be so kind to point me to where Iran's leader made such statement. (don't worry, you will find more ammo to support Ron's view of complete withdrawal from Iraq).

[givmeliberty]

I just got on the forum, but I noticed your request for sources on Iran's statement on destroying Israel. Actually, you could just google this and find a whole page of sources confirming this....
Here are just a few.

http://www.rferl.org/featuresarticle...d727624ed.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/31/opinion/31wed1.html

http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2006/s1619481.htm

[Anonymous_Coward]

Thanks for your responde. And I did google. The only time he said that was in the first link you posted. The other links just refer that one as far I know. The third link however mentions that multiple times Iran called for the destruction of Israel, yet I only find one.

If you can find another source apart from that speech, i would appreciate it ( I will continue googling ).
In the mean time, what do you think about what wikipedia states about the translation of the speech? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmoud...22_translation

Here are a few quotes:
"One may wonder: where did this false interpretation originate? Who is responsible for the translation that has sparked such worldwide controversy? The answer is surprising. The inflammatory 'wiped off the map' quote was first disseminated not by Iran's enemies, but by Iran itself. The Islamic Republic News Agency, Iran's official propaganda arm, used this phrasing in the English version of some of their news releases covering the World Without Zionism conference. International media including the BBC, Al Jazeera, Time magazine and countless others picked up the IRNA quote and made headlines out of it without verifying its accuracy, and rarely referring to the source. Iran's Foreign Minister soon attempted to clarify the statement, but the quote had a life of its own. Though the IRNA wording was inaccurate and misleading, the media assumed it was true, and besides, it made great copy. "


"According to Juan Cole, a University of Michigan Professor of Modern Middle East and South Asian History, Ahmadinejad's statement should be translated as:

The Imam said that this regime occupying Jerusalem (een rezhim-e eshghalgar-e qods) must [vanish from] the page of time (bayad az safheh-ye ruzgar mahv shavad).[13]

Norouzi's translation is identical.[12] According to Cole, "Ahmadinejad did not say he was going to 'wipe Israel off the map' because no such idiom exists in Persian". Instead, "He did say he hoped its regime, i.e., a Jewish-Zionist state occupying Jerusalem, would collapse.""

Even, Iran's regime denied the initial translation.
If you truly believe that Ahmadinejad means to completely annihilate Israel and have other quotes please correct wikipedia or provide links that made their own translation, and not quote the flawed original one.

[Carl Corey]

Well, like Ron Paul said, Iran attacking Israel is as likely as Iran trying to invade Mars, or something of that order.

Somehow I'm not surprised that Iran never actually called for the destruction of Israel.

It's however no big secret that there are sentiments in that direction. Everyone with a bit of historical knowledge knows about the six day war, which Israel won with ease without needing any foreign assistance.

Leaves one to wonder what exactly the purpose is of US involvement in the Middle East.

[Pete]

As a long-time conservative Republican, I'd like to welcome "Paul-curious" Thompson supporters and to say what a great thread this has been so far.

The main points of difference between Fred's and Ron's platforms have been foreign policy and monetary policy. I stuck at Ron's foreign policy at first, but altered my assessment of risks and appropriate actions for reasons that have been well-discussed by other posters. Fred did not particularly address monetary policy one way or the other, but it forms the basis of Ron's campaign.

To most people, taking on the Federal Reserve seems about as urgent as battling the National Park Service, but the operations of the Fed are at the root of profligate spending, our industrial decline, and the inability of most Americans to save and invest. For an explanation of the issues, I encourage everyone who is new to the campaign to view this film, 'FIAT EMPIRE - Why the Federal Reserve Violates the U.S. Constitution':

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...39329002339531

I promise you that once you gain an understanding of the monetary issue, you will see that Ron's campaign has a vast dimension that is not being picked up by most of the public at this time. Paul supporters joke about "taking the red pill", and this is the reason why.

Pete

[Pharoah]

Yes, the whole "wipe Israel off the map" spin was something that was never actually said. It's probably yet another meme we have to thank Frank Luntz for... I posted about this previously, but either no-one remembers or no-one believes me. C'est la vie.

[Charles Wilson]

Yes, the whole "wipe Israel off the map" spin was something that was never actually said. It's probably yet another meme we have to thank Frank Luntz for... I posted about this previously, but either no-one remembers or no-one believes me. C'est la vie.

You make a good point. Israel has between 200 and 300 nukes, the leaders of Iran would have to be insane to attack Israel. I do not think any world leader believes that the leaders of Iran are insane -- only the Republican warmongering neocons are trying to make that argument and they do so for political purposes.

[GunnyFreedom]

Hey, by all means, if my arguments can help bring people to RP, or even just to awaken someone to the Strict Constitutionalist and libertarian position on these issues, then use em up!

[Ivash]

Edit: How on earth did I even get on this link? It is several years old!

Anyways, the fact that we didn't have a shooting war (and the fact that no shooting war is likely) proved my argument, which was that a shooting war in America with Islam ignored logic.