More strange statements today from Ron Paul

[Little-Acorn]

Some of my friends have been speculating whether Ron Paul (R-TX) could win the 2012 election.

Considering the disaster the Democrats are fielding, Mickey Mouse could win the election.

And yes, even a foreign-policy kook like Ron Paul could conceivably win, if he got the Republican nomination.

Paul said today (Fox News Sunday) that, if he did not get the Republican nomination, he has no intention of running as an independent, and doesn't want to.

He also said that he believes that imposing heavy sanctions against Iran, would be effective in stopping them from getting nuclear weapons. And he said that almost in the same breath as his statement that if we look at what happened in Iraq, we imposed heavy sanctions against them, people starved and a few little kids died, and it pushed them into war.

When I hear Ron Paul talk about foreign affairs, sometimes I wonder if the man is completely sane.

If Ron Paul is elected President, within his four-year term we would see an attack by Iran against Israel, either with nuclear weapons or with conventional weapons backed by the credible nuclear threat. And that war has a good chance of spreading into the nuclear Armageddon that the world has so far been able to avoid despite all the nuclear proliferation that has taken place.

Ron Paul's unquestioned integrity and admirable fealty to the Constitution, will do us litte good once his foreign-policy naivety produces the results it must. He will quickly become the United States' version of Neville Chamberlain... with the crucial difference that Nazi Germany didn't have nukes, and still intended to trade with the people it had conquered once they won that war.

Fortunately, the blinders-on Ron Paul kooks, while voluble, are very few in number - barely enough to win straw polls of a few thousand people when vigorously regimented and shuttled from place to place. Once the main drive for the election gets under way, they will be drowned out as their scarce numbers always are, and Paul will be once again relegated to the fringe of conservatism. It's kind of a shame, really - his loyalty to the Constitution, and integrity to his own ideals, is sorely missed by this country. But his strange naivety in foreign affairs, and blinders-on refusal to examine the long history of Eurasia, completely trumps his many good points, and would make him a disaster as President.

[Wind Song]

Mitt Romney would be a better choice.

[Kathianne]

Some of my friends have been speculating whether Ron Paul (R-TX) could win the 2012 election.

Considering the disaster the Democrats are fielding, Mickey Mouse could win the election.

And yes, even a foreign-policy kook like Ron Paul could conceivably win, if he got the Republican nomination.

Paul said today (Fox News Sunday) that, if he did not get the Republican nomination, he has no intention of running as an independent, and doesn't want to.

He also said that he believes that imposing heavy sanctions against Iran, would be effective in stopping them from getting nuclear weapons. And he said that almost in the same breath as his statement that if we look at what happened in Iraq, we imposed heavy sanctions against them, people starved and a few little kids died, and it pushed them into war.

When I hear Ron Paul talk about foreign affairs, sometimes I wonder if the man is completely sane.

If Ron Paul is elected President, within his four-year term we would see an attack by Iran against Israel, either with nuclear weapons or with conventional weapons backed by the credible nuclear threat. And that war has a good chance of spreading into the nuclear Armageddon that the world has so far been able to avoid despite all the nuclear proliferation that has taken place.

Ron Paul's unquestioned integrity and admirable fealty to the Constitution, will do us litte good once his foreign-policy naivety produces the results it must. He will quickly become the United States' version of Neville Chamberlain... with the crucial difference that Nazi Germany didn't have nukes, and still intended to trade with the people it had conquered once they won that war.

Fortunately, the blinders-on Ron Paul kooks, while voluble, are very few in number - barely enough to win straw polls of a few thousand people when vigorously regimented and shuttled from place to place. Once the main drive for the election gets under way, they will be drowned out as their scarce numbers always are, and Paul will be once again relegated to the fringe of conservatism. It's kind of a shame, really - his loyalty to the Constitution, and integrity to his own ideals, is sorely missed by this country. But his strange naivety in foreign affairs, and blinders-on refusal to examine the long history of Eurasia, completely trumps his many good points, and would make him a disaster as President.

News today:

http://news.yahoo.com/israels-peres-says-iran-attack-more-more-likely-022212256.html


Israeli President Shimon Peres warned on Sunday that an attack on Iran is becoming increasingly likely, days before a report by the UN's nuclear watchdog on Iran's nuclear programme is due.
"The possibility of a military attack against Iran is now closer to being applied than the application of a diplomatic option," Peres told the Israel Hayom daily.
"We must stay calm and resist pressure so that we can consider every alternative," he added.
"I don't think that any decision has already been made, but there is an impression that Iran is getting closer to nuclear weapons."...

[Little-Acorn]

Now I see from newspaper articles that Ron Paul apparently did NOT support the use of sanctions. I stand corrected.


Paul opposes a bill passed by the House Foreign Affairs Committee last week that would strengthen sanctions against Iran. “When you put on strong sanctions, those are acts of war,’’ Paul said.

Instead, what Ron Paul suggested as a means of preventing Iran from building or acquiring nuclear weapons, is or offer them "friendship".


Asked by host Chris Wallace how he would persuade Iran not to build a nuclear weapon if he opposed the use of sanctions or military force, Paul responded, “maybe offering friendship to them.’’


I think I almost prefer the sanctions idea. While useless, at least sanctions offer the ILLUSION of doing something that can work.

But "friendship"?

I was right the first time. If elected, Ron Paul will be the Neville Chamberlain of the 21st century... except Chamberlain's opponent didn't have nukes, and was still interested in trade with the countries it conquered, not 100% annihilation.

Is it possible for an actual human above the age of 10 to be as naive as Ron Paul apparently is?


Quotes are from the Boston Globe, http://bostonglobe.com/news/nation/2011/11/07/paul-says-friendship-could-sway-iran/31cyILneO0df9rh4ppdPXL/story.html

[Little-Acorn]

Reminds me of a cartoon I once saw back when electronic calculators first came out. First came the basic 4-bangers, the simplest ones that could only add subtract, multiply, and divide. Soon manufacturers started putting more and more features on them to try to get more market share. But costs went up for the fancy ones too, and some had certain features that were very good while missing other features. Their ads tried to downplay the missing features while hyping the features it did have, of course.

The cartoon showed a salesman showing a calculator to a customer and saying, "It has multiple memories, transcendental functions, a big display, good battery life, and an attractive case. These advantages more than make up for the fact that it's missing the digit 9".

Ron Paul is missing the digit 9, and maybe a few others. What does his loyalty to the Constitution and economic conservatism matter, if he's going to stand idly by and let mass-murdering terrorist nations such as Iran, get nuclear weapons? If a legitimate-appearing freighter steams into New York, San Francisco, Boston, or Seattle, and then lets loose with a few megatons, how exactly will Ron Paul's concern for the Constitution do us any good at that point, if he let the other happen?

[SassyLady]

we would see an attack by Iran against Israel[/B], either with nuclear weapons or with conventional weapons backed by the credible nuclear threat. And that war has a good chance of spreading into the nuclear Armageddon that the world has so far been able to avoid despite all the nuclear proliferation that has taken place.



This might happen before there is a new president.

[SassyLady]

Reminds me of a cartoon I once saw back when electronic calculators first came out. First came the basic 4-bangers, the simplest ones that could only add subtract, multiply, and divide. Soon manufacturers started putting more and more features on them to try to get more market share. But costs went up for the fancy ones too, and some had certain features that were very good while missing other features. Their ads tried to downplay the missing features while hyping the features it did have, of course.

The cartoon showed a salesman showing a calculator to a customer and saying, "It has multiple memories, transcendental functions, a big display, good battery life, and an attractive case. These advantages more than make up for the fact that it's missing the digit 9".

Ron Paul is missing the digit 9, and maybe a few others. What does his loyalty to the Constitution and economic conservatism matter, if he's going to stand idly by and let mass-murdering terrorist nations such as Iran, get nuclear weapons? If a legitimate-appearing freighter steams into New York, San Francisco, Boston, or Seattle, and then lets loose with a few megatons, how exactly will Ron Paul's concern for the Constitution do us any good at that point, if he let the other happen?

I have tuned out anything Ron Paul has to say since I first heard his philosophy regarding Iran...in my mind Iran is his digit 9.

[revelarts]

Reminds me of a cartoon I once saw back when electronic calculators first came out. First came the basic 4-bangers, the simplest ones that could only add subtract, multiply, and divide. Soon manufacturers started putting more and more features on them to try to get more market share. But costs went up for the fancy ones too, and some had certain features that were very good while missing other features. Their ads tried to downplay the missing features while hyping the features it did have, of course.

The cartoon showed a salesman showing a calculator to a customer and saying, "It has multiple memories, transcendental functions, a big display, good battery life, and an attractive case. These advantages more than make up for the fact that it's missing the digit 9".

Ron Paul is missing the digit 9, and maybe a few others. What does his loyalty to the Constitution and economic conservatism matter, if he's going to stand idly by and let mass-murdering terrorist nations such as Iran, get nuclear weapons? If a legitimate-appearing freighter steams into New York, San Francisco, Boston, or Seattle, and then lets loose with a few megatons, how exactly will Ron Paul's concern for the Constitution do us any good at that point, if he let the other happen?

Acron can you tell me what acts of mass murder Iran has committed?
I'll wait.

Can you Show me, with any more assurance than we had with Iraq, that Iran has ANY nuclear capability.
Seem pretty obvious that they have allowed Inspectors into every nook and cranny yet we still only have potential, possible , one day maybe threat. with1 Nuke, just thinking about having a Nuke weapon is wrong "and we KNOW your Thing About it So we NEED TO ATTACK!!"

the IAEA report says that Iranians are Continual in compliance with the inspections, the only thing bad in the report are in an annex with accusations which includes info promoted by the U.S. and Israel which we can't cooberate but have to take on trust -cough WMDs cough--.

Acron You are convinced, by what evidence I'm not sure, that Iran is a HUGE THREAT,
I know it's useless for you here and you and you probably won't respond but for anyone else open to facts not Hype I'll go on.
You ASSERT that IRAN WILL attack Israel WHEN they get A (1) nuke but right now, in the real world, the only real evidence of attacking or ONLY regular serious threats of attack keep coming from Israel TOWARD Iran. Which would make Israel the Aggressor in any assessment not clouded by Hype and propaganda. The only mention of Iran "wiping Israel off the map" came in one speech years ago and quoted ad infinitum and out of context. By the way Israel has NUKEs but the IAEA is not allowed to see theirs.

The Iranians have no need to attack to become a power in the region WITHOUT nukes. When we took out Saddam we practically gave the country to Iran for those who REALLY COULD look into the future that was a given.
We've had this chat before but Iran is Outclassed Militarily for an Offensive war against Israel and the U.S. they have an ineffective Airforce and the people have a recent and bad taste in there mouthes from defending themselves from the US Backed attack on them from our ol friend Saddem Hussin.

The Iranians Have NEVER attacked anyone militarily. and they know it would be Suicidal to attack israel with A nuclear weapon. The Mullahs and Political Leaders in Iran are Politically Shrewd and calculating and are not the Knee jerk fanatical madmen foaming at the mouth as some would paint them to be.

But factions in the US and Israel are ITCHING LIKE MAD to Attack Iran, and have convinced many that Iran deserves it.
But it's more of a policy thing that the right and Hawks on the left feel is necessary to keep the American empire in stategic control.

General Wesley Clark , has reported that he saw paperwork that stated the Bush Adim had set plans to destroy the governments of 7 countries in 5 years .Iraq, Syria , Lebanon , Libya, Samolia , Sudan and Iran the idea was/is They must clean up all former soviet client regimes before the next super power comes on to challenge us (and Oil).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ha1rEhovONU&list=PL6A97DBAAAE5C6D2C&index=17&feature=plpp_video
On the left Obama's mentor Brysynski has promoted this type of global control the since the Carter adim. Clark some how missed this and doesn't see the plian bipartisan empire building/keeping.

Acorn I've just mention a plan to Attack 7 countries, 2 of those countries on the List HAVE been attacked by the US and our allies and YOU are promoting the attack of a 3rd on the list. You ASSERT that Iran WILL attack Israel yet they have not attacked it or ANY country EVER. which countries , In REAL unbiased terms is are aggressor nations? Which of just makes a more factual case here. Can you take your red white and blue glasses of for a minute and honestly answer that question?


We might try listing to A former Bush Admin Iranian Diplomat, rather than people like Krauthammer and Bill Krystal who are warmonger chicken hawks.
<object style="height: 390px; width: 640px"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/YdXp30ONoIQ?version=3&feature=player_detailpage"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/YdXp30ONoIQ?version=3&feature=player_detailpage" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="360"></object>


The Paul is Chamberlain Crap makes ZERO sense to anyone who's read more than an 8th grader about Germany pre-WW2 and Iran now. One has to stain the imagination to find any military, strategic or political similarities. the NAZIs had BUILT a HUGE WAR Machine and Hilter was Crying about "living space" and Making threats to his Neighbors and LITERALLY -that's real life- had past tense Rolled Troops into Neighboring Countries when Chamberlin made his idiotic moves. Has Iran Done anything Close, ever? Uh no and H$77 NO!
Are there radical Islamist in Iran yes but there are some we've just put in power in Iraq that "hate Israel" and now Libya what's wrong with this picture?

Your calculator comparison should be applied to your self with this change. the calculator you have is ok except you've adds made up numbers to come to it's conclusions.


Ron Paul is Right again.

[Gaffer]

Acron can you tell me what acts of mass murder Iran has committed?
I'll wait.

Can you Show me, with any more assurance than we had with Iraq, that Iran has ANY nuclear capability.
Seem pretty obvious that they have allowed Inspectors into every nook and cranny yet we still only have potential, possible , one day maybe threat. with1 Nuke, just thinking about having a Nuke weapon is wrong "and we KNOW your Thing About it So we NEED TO ATTACK!!"

the IAEA report says that Iranians are Continual in compliance with the inspections, the only thing bad in the report are in an annex with accusations which includes info promoted by the U.S. and Israel which we can't cooberate but have to take on trust -cough WMDs cough--.

Acron You are convinced, by what evidence I'm not sure, that Iran is a HUGE THREAT,
I know it's useless for you here and you and you probably won't respond but for anyone else open to facts not Hype I'll go on.
You ASSERT that IRAN WILL attack Israel WHEN they get A (1) nuke but right now, in the real world, the only real evidence of attacking or ONLY regular serious threats of attack keep coming from Israel TOWARD Iran. Which would make Israel the Aggressor in any assessment not clouded by Hype and propaganda. The only mention of Iran "wiping Israel off the map" came in one speech years ago and quoted ad infinitum and out of context. By the way Israel has NUKEs but the IAEA is not allowed to see theirs.

The Iranians have no need to attack to become a power in the region WITHOUT nukes. When we took out Saddam we practically gave the country to Iran for those who REALLY COULD look into the future that was a given.
We've had this chat before but Iran is Outclassed Militarily for an Offensive war against Israel and the U.S. they have an ineffective Airforce and the people have a recent and bad taste in there mouthes from defending themselves from the US Backed attack on them from our ol friend Saddem Hussin.

The Iranians Have NEVER attacked anyone militarily. and they know it would be Suicidal to attack israel with A nuclear weapon. The Mullahs and Political Leaders in Iran are Politically Shrewd and calculating and are not the Knee jerk fanatical madmen foaming at the mouth as some would paint them to be.

But factions in the US and Israel are ITCHING LIKE MAD to Attack Iran, and have convinced many that Iran deserves it.
But it's more of a policy thing that the right and Hawks on the left feel is necessary to keep the American empire in stategic control.

General Wesley Clark , has reported that he saw paperwork that stated the Bush Adim had set plans to destroy the governments of 7 countries in 5 years .Iraq, Syria , Lebanon , Libya, Samolia , Sudan and Iran the idea was/is They must clean up all former soviet client regimes before the next super power comes on to challenge us (and Oil).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ha1rEhovONU&list=PL6A97DBAAAE5C6D2C&index=17&feature=plpp_video
On the left Obama's mentor Brysynski has promoted this type of global control the since the Carter adim. Clark some how missed this and doesn't see the plian bipartisan empire building/keeping.

Acorn I've just mention a plan to Attack 7 countries, 2 of those countries on the List HAVE been attacked by the US and our allies and YOU are promoting the attack of a 3rd on the list. You ASSERT that Iran WILL attack Israel yet they have not attacked it or ANY country EVER. which countries , In REAL unbiased terms is are aggressor nations? Which of just makes a more factual case here. Can you take your red white and blue glasses of for a minute and honestly answer that question?


We might try listing to A former Bush Admin Iranian Diplomat, rather than people like Krauthammer and Bill Krystal who are warmonger chicken hawks.
<object style="height: 390px; width: 640px">


<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/YdXp30ONoIQ?version=3&feature=player_detailpage" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowscriptaccess="always" height="360" width="640"></object>


The Paul is Chamberlain Crap makes ZERO sense to anyone who's read more than an 8th grader about Germany pre-WW2 and Iran now. One has to stain the imagination to find any military, strategic or political similarities. the NAZIs had BUILT a HUGE WAR Machine and Hilter was Crying about "living space" and Making threats to his Neighbors and LITERALLY -that's real life- had past tense Rolled Troops into Neighboring Countries when Chamberlin made his idiotic moves. Has Iran Done anything Close, ever? Uh no and H$77 NO!
Are there radical Islamist in Iran yes but there are some we've just put in power in Iraq that "hate Israel" and now Libya what's wrong with this picture?

Your calculator comparison should be applied to your self with this change. the calculator you have is ok except you've adds made up numbers to come to it's conclusions.


Ron Paul is Right again.

Gee, who has iran attacked recently? They control hezzbollah. A terrorist organization that makes attacks throughout the world. They supply hamas. They support all the shia insurgents throughout the ME. They have for years supplied the insurgents in iraq with weapons and IED's. They supply the taliban and al quaeda in Afghan.

Just cause they use proxies doesn't mean they aren't fully involved in all the violence in the ME. And should they get even one nuke you can bet it will be given to hezbo along with target recommendations.

Your as naive as Paul. There's a new IAEA head for the un and he's not happy with what he's seeing. He's also questioning the reports of the former head (a muslim).

Ron Paul's foreign policy stance is not just naive, it's stupid. He's attained his highest level of incompetence as a congressman and doesn't need to go any higher. The friendly thing to do now is to throw in the towel and give his support to Cain, Bachmann or Gingrich.

[revelarts]

Gee, who has iran attacked recently? They control hezzbollah. A terrorist organization that makes attacks throughout the world. They supply hamas. They support all the shia insurgents throughout the ME. They have for years supplied the insurgents in iraq with weapons and IED's. They supply the taliban and al quaeda in Afghan.

Just cause they use proxies doesn't mean they aren't fully involved in all the violence in the ME. And should they get even one nuke you can bet it will be given to hezbo along with target recommendations.

Your as naive as Paul. There's a new IAEA head for the un and he's not happy with what he's seeing. He's also questioning the reports of the former head (a muslim).

Ron Paul's foreign policy stance is not just naive, it's stupid. He's attained his highest level of incompetence as a congressman and doesn't need to go any higher. The friendly thing to do now is to throw in the towel and give his support to Cain, Bachmann or Gingrich.

Frankly Your view is willing ignorant and overly fearful. The U.S. has used more Surrogates terrorist or "freedom fighters" than Iran can hope to ever use. And whenever the Soviets or Chinese have used surrogates some how we've never attacked them and CERTAINLY NOT PREEMPTIVELY.
preemptive military action is just plane invasion , which is still a war crime.

[red states rule]

I have tuned out anything Ron Paul has to say since I first heard his philosophy regarding Iran...in my mind Iran is his digit 9.

Paul lost me with this insane remark. Rudy called him on it and the crowd backed Rudy

<IFRAME height=315 src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/KuX73Ixqtbg" frameBorder=0 width=420 allowfullscreen></IFRAME>