Ron Paul: Let Iran go Nuclear

Was it really a warm and fuzzy thought that Russia had a nuke in the 50s-80s?

 

Good lord you have drinking the cool aid.

And just to clue you in there is no such thing as free market capitalism.

 

87:

I have said this many times. Israel with cease to exists in the future. The demographics are against the Jews because the Arabs are out breeding them two to one. At some point they will have the political power and Israel will change.

Secondly, what no one is talking about in this thread is that Iran has a lot of internal problems. Namely a lot of young Iranians who hate the mullahs. The old hard line Islamist are old and will start to die off. I think in the next twenty years Iran will have normalized relationships with the west if not sooner. We should be doing everything we can to undermine the Iranian government while supporting the pro democracy movement inside of Iran.

The Middle East and Central Asia is changing and I think that they will be less radical in the future as their woman become more educated and empowered. Between now and then there will be a lot of pain and I fear civil war. Only time will tell if I am write.

 

Agree with a lot of what you said, DD.
But, depending on whom comes to power, women may not be getting educated and empowered.
(That would be a best case scenerio)

 

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4108559,00.html

 

so you think the israelis are just going to let the arabs out-breed them and then just give up? say "oh well...we had a good run...it's your country now"?

highly unlikely...

i agree with your assessment of iran...
i think the majority would throw out the islamic rulers in a second if they could...
unfortunately the govt/military is just too strong...

 

Another one? Heh.

Let those countries fend for themselves. It is not a correct assumption to assume that Iran wants to use nukes against anybody when we only hear one side of the story. As an ancient civilization I'm sure the Persians know better than to start setting off nuclear weapons. I would prefer they didn't have one, but I would not use US resources to fight them.

Nukes mainly do one thing: it guarantees that no foreign troops will set foot in your country. I think thats what Iran wants. Israel has close to 500 nuclear war heads. They will never be invaded. Time to take the swimming wings off.

 

I don't know that Iran is determined to use nuclear weapons. They would be destroyed in minutes. They know that.

 

I don't think they will have a choice. They are a democracy and change will come through the ballot box.

 

Hezbollah would strongly disagree with this statement.

It's hard for Israel to justify dropping nuclear weapons on territory they've settled, even if it's filled with frothing at the mouth anti-semitic arabs. And as they launch Iranian rockets ever closer to Tel Aviv, they only act to prove the point that other than a delivery across the Middle East, Israel's nuclear capability is a ever shrinking deterrent.

Third parties are the answer. They can execute foreign policy and regardless of connections found to state entities, true comeuppance fails because the third party responsible is ethereal at best, backed by shrugged shoulders and disavowed ties.

 

^^^^^^^
THIS!

 

You're absolutely right that over the decades there have been many many good Republicans who haven't compromised their principles as they fought for limited-government and individual liberty. The problem is, none of these folks within the GOP rose to positions of power...especially the Presidency. Every Republican since Eisenhower has great expanded the power and scope of the Federal government (especially Nixon and W.Bush). Since you're absolutely convinced that the Republican party isn't equally culpable, let's go through a list of the top Republicans and you tell me which ones were successful in reducing the size of Government and expanding individual liberty:

Presidents:
-W. Bush
-Bush Sr.
-Reagan
-Ford
-Nixon
-Eisenhower

Senate Majority/Minority leaders:
-McConnell
-Bill Frist
-Bob Dole

Speakers of the House:
-Boehner
-Hastert
-Gingrich

I see 1 1/2 people on that list who made a real effort to reduce the size of government. Everyone else on that list is as responsible for the growth of government as their Democratic counterparts.

However, I bet we disagree on which party needs to die.

 

I liked the video you posted of the Daily Show on your facebook page, btw. You should definitely post it here

 

Carter decimated the military. Reagan got it built back, and(SURPRISE, haha) got blamed for growing the govt. He also got taxes lowered. Who WANTED to expand social spending, and acted on it? W did. I blame the takeover of congress by the dems on W's actions. Gingrich was largely responsible for the Contract with America, and enacted losts of positive reform, which kept Der Schlickmeister from going socialist to the degree Owebama has done.

Give us some Democrat positive accomplishments.

 

see below.

 

Not an excuse. Prez has power to veto.

 

What did you think I said, there?

 

What is interesting to me is the observation that Russia and/or China might well become the regional hegemon in the near future; and thus, the "rule setters" for that part of the world. After that happens, the posters who view U.S. power projection as immoral or imperialistic will get a chance to view an alternate system of political morality. They may revisit their present assessment of the United States with regret when they see how China and Russia force their wills, project their power, and protect their interests.

I am certain that America is the most moral world power in all of history. Directly after WWII, we were unchallenged military and economically; and we were the only country with nuclear weapons. We could have taken over the entire world, but did not. We could still occupy--to brutal effect, if we so chose--a great deal more area than we currently occupy. But, we don't. We also occupied Europe to keep it from falling into Soviet slavery and rebuilt our enemies whom we conquered. No other nation has ever done that. We do not enslave conquered nations; we build them up so that they are better off than before we conquered them.

We are a great nation, and for the most part, a moral people. If you think the world will be better off with American power in decline and Russian or Chinese power filling the void, then you might want to re-think your analysis.

 

great post

 

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/m...corn-polled-edition---ron-paul---the-top-tier