Ron Paul: Let Iran go Nuclear

I DO like they guy, esp. on economic matters. I just wish he wasn't as he is on Natl Defense:
http://www.newsmax.com/InsideCover/ron-paul-iran-bomb/2011/08/11/id/407043?s=al&promo_code=CD2C-1

 

He's a traditional conservative on national defense, and he's absolutely right about Iran.

 

he does have a point...

america cannot afford it's current imperialistic approach to foreign policy anymore. we couldn't afford it before, but we were all too caught up in post 9/11 hysteria to know better.

 

He'll get my vote over Obear!

 

While I do agree with Paul on many issues; his placing his head in the sand like the liberals.......the isolationist approach is plain stupid and dangerous!

Yes, we need to reassess where we have our military, close overseas bases, and start making heads roll on all the waste in Defense. (will we do the same on SS and Medicare?)
But, to pretend that Iran probably will not be the nuclear spark that blows up the Middle East, if not the world is lunacy!

So, the Islamic extremists (like our home grown extremists) tell you they want to kill you, or do mayhew.
(Ignore them; they are just looking for attention)
Then, they tell you how they are going to do it, and what they need to accomplish it. (like nuclear weapons)
(We just ignore it, justify it, or say it will be many years until anything will happen)
Then, they finally gain the weapons or ability to carry out their threats!
(And again, we say it's none of our business, or it's too late.)
Then, we act suprised when they actually carry out their threats?????


Why do the do-gooder peacenicks always have to be proven wrong with blood????!!!!!
Germany, Hitler, USSR, the Mullahs....

It called history! Learn from it!
And, don't repeat the mistakes.

Peace through Strength! Even the Founders understood this!

 

There's a difference between isolationism and noninterventionalism. Ron Paul is far from an isolationist. In fact he's the opposite of an isolationist. Our current policy is basically if we don't like someone we put sanctions on them to limit free trade. That's closer to isolationism.

I would rather us take a less militaristic approach around the world and not be the world's police.

 

Peace Through WAR, you mean? Like the last how many years in Iraq & Afghanistan?

Your history a tad narrow.

The Founders also understood the benefits of keeping our noses out of other peoples' business, and they didn't even like standing armies.

We need to learn not just from appeasement (which makes a handy straw man) but from pointless interventionism. And we might do well to recall Afghanistan's history as an ungovernable briarpatch that eats foreign armies. Anyway, I don't think we can stop Iran from going nuclear without flat-out war, which would end who-knows-where. On the other hand, a nuclear Iran would have to face the sobering reality of MAD like the rest of us.

 

this is why ron has no chance of winning the nomination...
i don't think he's a loon....but he sounds liken one when he says iran should be allowed to have a nuke...

i really would like to see someone like rp have a shot...
all the other bums have had a shot and we know where that got us...
but ANYONE that goes against the establishment/ruling class in this country will lose...
the press/money donors will see to that..

 

This is not a difficult thing to understand. There are certain facts here which can not be ignored.

Our nation is a massive global superpower that extends its reach culturally, militarily, and economically across the entire globe. We have overseas territories, military bases, and holdings that stretch around the world and which cost us trillions of dollars to maintain.

Our Constitution was not designed for this kind of global hyper-Empire. It just wasn't. Our Republic was supposed to be a small continental power that emphasized small, limited, and efficient government while maximizing liberty and minimizing foreign entanglements.

Conservatism, traditionally, was about preserving these basic truths. Over time, our central government began to consolidate and expand its power and as a nation we began extending our international reach and increasing our global power. At some point, preserving that global power became more important than preserving our founding values and as such it then became a "conservative" principle to maintain that global power to the detriment of who we are supposed to be as a nation.

People can call Ron Paul whatever they want, but Ron Paul stands with basic traditional American principles therefore I stand with Ron Paul.

 

he can stand for whatever he wants...
but when he says **** like "iran should be allowed to have a nuke"....he sounds like a loon..

 

When it comes to Nukes, a little bit of competition is a good thing.

 

Alright, so what do we do? Since Iran shouldn't have nukes, should be invade them? What's the answer, really?

What Ron Paul talks about is us getting involved with countries and it coming back to get us in "Blowback."

Speaking of Iran, who helped overthrow their democratically elected government in the 1950's?
Who gave aid to Iraq in the 1980's during their war with Iran?
Who was selling weapons to Iran in exchange for hostages?
Who helped support the Taliban to help fight the Reds?

Yeah, none of those caused problems for us later down the road for a short term gain.

Want to know why I'm not too worried about Iran going nuclear? The Israelis will slow them down, stop them, or if all else fails launch their own nukes at them if Iran throws a few at them.

Besides, if we're worried about terrorist getting them, why aren't we worried about Pakistan who already has nukes and could be playing for the other team?

 

Obviously, you are present the opposing "straw man".
If Iran get nukess; there will be a devastating war in the ME!
On this one, you can believe the Iranians.

 

This is all exactly right, I seriously doubt that Iran is capable of getting Nukes anyway.

 

I would also like to argue our national defense is extremely weak right now. We have trouble defending other countries borders against low tech terrorists while we let drug lords dominate our own border. What type of national defense is that?

 

Yeah, he does, but he sounds so good on economics. If he gets the nomination, I won't be too eskeert to vote for him.

 

He also attacked his rivals – “all these free-traders” – for wanting to continue the embargo on Cuba.

 

Dude has some blems, but he's no America-hating socialist like one US president I know of.

 

His Cuba view is not a blemish, however. It's the right call.

 

sssszzzzzZZZZZ(Yawn)of course, Cuba can use some of our Gulf oil, since we can't. Why didn't Barack think of that?