Ron Paul: Strike against Iran would risk a repeat of 'useless' Iraq war

[Comish]

An example of where RP gets it right.

 

 

 

 

 

 

By Michael A. Memoli

December 15, 2011, 7:40 p.m.

 

Ron Paul did it again. The libertarian-minded Republican separated himself from the pack of candidates at tonight's debate by urging restraint in response to a possible Iranian nuclear threat, saying the U.S. can ill afford a repeat of its now-concluded war in Iraq.

 

Paul said there was "no U.N. evidence" that Iran is developing a nuclear weapons program, calling claims to the contrary "war propaganda."

 

"To me the greatest danger is that we will have a president that will overreact, and we will soon bomb Iran," he said. "We ought to really sit back and think, not jump the gun and believe that we are going to be attacked. That's how we got into that useless war in Iraq and lost so much."

 

Paul said it "makes more sense" to directly engage with Iran diplomatically. And he even praised President Obama for "wisely backing off on sanctions" against Iran, which he called overreaching.

 

"We have 12,000 diplomats in our services. We ought to use a little bit of diplomacy once in a while."

 

Rick Santorum and then Michele Bachmann rebutted Paul. Santorum equated the leadership of Iran to Al Qaeda and said that the U.S. should be ready to strike against Iran's nuclear facilities.

 

"We know without a shadow of a doubt that Iran will take a nuclear weapon, they will use it to wipe our ally, Israel, off the face fo the map," Bachmann said. "And they've stated they will use it against the United States of America. We would be fools and knaves to ignore their purpose and their plan."

 

On a question about a U.S. drone now in the hands of the Iranians, Mitt Romney had a chance to again focus on a potential general election fight. He said Obama was showing timidity by simply asking Iran to return the drone.

 

"A foreign policy based on 'pretty please'? You've got to be kidding me," he said.

 

 

http://www.latimes.c...0,3158409.story

 

 

RP got it right.....???

 

Wow.

 

I could see RP as Treasury Secretary or in some role on domestic fiscal policy, BUT as COMMANDER IN CHIEF.........??

 

Clueless......................

 

When attacking a candidate for being "clueless," it is best to include the reason(s) for your opinion to avoid looking like an imbecile.

 

I'll preempt your response by assuming that you are critical of Dr. Paul's foreign policy of peace as it applies to the so-called War on Terror.

 

There is no denying the fact that the continued presence of U.S. troops in the Muslim world is breeding anti-American sentiments that appeal to radical extremists. Dr. Paul is the only presidential candidate on the ballot (save the Libertarian nominee) who understands that a reduced American footprint around the globe will not only save American lives and billions of dollars, but is the only true path to long lasting peace and prosperity for the United States.

 

The great thing about a discussion board is that we are free to disagree. I'd love for you to be right on this............but for every idealistic scenario that dreams the rest of the world wants peace as badly as we might, reality tends to interject.............

 

In a nuclear world, we cannot afford a 21st century Neville Chamberlain. Nice imbecile reference by the way. Always good to start a dialogue by inflaming the discussion. It usually indicates a lack of coherent reasoning.

[carlfense]

In a nuclear world, we cannot afford a 21st century Neville Chamberlain.

[Comish]

In a nuclear world, we cannot afford a 21st century Neville Chamberlain.

 

Glad you enjoyed the ol' "scrap of paper" reference.....................

[Malth]

I would not want RP as President, but I will give credit where credit is due, and I think it's really sad that every other candidate feels they have to take a war mongering stance on the issue.

[Excel]

While I hate that Paul and similar paleoconservatives/libertarians maintain and popularize the myth that our Nation was somehow better off with an "isolationist" foreign policy (while in reality we have never EVER had one) I do agree with him on the Iran issue.

[Sub-Husker]

In a nuclear world, we cannot afford a 21st century Neville Chamberlain.

 

Please name one appeasement that President Obama has made.

 

In contrast Obama has escalated the wars in Afghanistan and Pakistan, participated with Saudi troops in attacks in Yemen and Bahrain, started a war in Libya, is on the verge of starting one in Syria, and is threatening one in Iran.

[Comish]

In a nuclear world, we cannot afford a 21st century Neville Chamberlain.

 

Please name one appeasement that President Obama has made.

 

In contrast Obama has escalated the wars in Afghanistan and Pakistan, participated with Saudi troops in attacks in Yemen and Bahrain, started a war in Libya, is on the verge of starting one in Syria, and is threatening one in Iran.

 

This thread and insinuation about appeasement is based on a discussion of Ron Paul.................

[carlfense]

In a nuclear world, we cannot afford a 21st century Neville Chamberlain.

 

Please name one appeasement that President Obama has made.

 

In contrast Obama has escalated the wars in Afghanistan and Pakistan, participated with Saudi troops in attacks in Yemen and Bahrain, started a war in Libya, is on the verge of starting one in Syria, and is threatening one in Iran.

 

This thread and insinuation about appeasement is based on a discussion of Ron Paul.................

I'll play. Please explain how Paul saying that we should not go to war with Iran at the moment is appeasement.

[It'sNotAFakeID]

While I hate that Paul and similar paleoconservatives/libertarians maintain and popularize the myth that our Nation was somehow better off with an "isolationist" foreign policy (while in reality we have never EVER had one) I do agree with him on the Iran issue.

 

The closest we've ever been was during Woodrow Wilson's time. And even then, it really wasn't isolationist.

[Roark]

An example of where RP gets it right.

 

 

 

 

 

 

By Michael A. Memoli

December 15, 2011, 7:40 p.m.

 

Ron Paul did it again. The libertarian-minded Republican separated himself from the pack of candidates at tonight's debate by urging restraint in response to a possible Iranian nuclear threat, saying the U.S. can ill afford a repeat of its now-concluded war in Iraq.

 

Paul said there was "no U.N. evidence" that Iran is developing a nuclear weapons program, calling claims to the contrary "war propaganda."

 

"To me the greatest danger is that we will have a president that will overreact, and we will soon bomb Iran," he said. "We ought to really sit back and think, not jump the gun and believe that we are going to be attacked. That's how we got into that useless war in Iraq and lost so much."

 

Paul said it "makes more sense" to directly engage with Iran diplomatically. And he even praised President Obama for "wisely backing off on sanctions" against Iran, which he called overreaching.

 

"We have 12,000 diplomats in our services. We ought to use a little bit of diplomacy once in a while."

 

Rick Santorum and then Michele Bachmann rebutted Paul. Santorum equated the leadership of Iran to Al Qaeda and said that the U.S. should be ready to strike against Iran's nuclear facilities.

 

"We know without a shadow of a doubt that Iran will take a nuclear weapon, they will use it to wipe our ally, Israel, off the face fo the map," Bachmann said. "And they've stated they will use it against the United States of America. We would be fools and knaves to ignore their purpose and their plan."

 

On a question about a U.S. drone now in the hands of the Iranians, Mitt Romney had a chance to again focus on a potential general election fight. He said Obama was showing timidity by simply asking Iran to return the drone.

 

"A foreign policy based on 'pretty please'? You've got to be kidding me," he said.

 

 

http://www.latimes.c...0,3158409.story

 

 

RP got it right.....???

 

Wow.

 

I could see RP as Treasury Secretary or in some role on domestic fiscal policy, BUT as COMMANDER IN CHIEF.........??

 

Clueless......................

 

When attacking a candidate for being "clueless," it is best to include the reason(s) for your opinion to avoid looking like an imbecile.

 

I'll preempt your response by assuming that you are critical of Dr. Paul's foreign policy of peace as it applies to the so-called War on Terror.

 

There is no denying the fact that the continued presence of U.S. troops in the Muslim world is breeding anti-American sentiments that appeal to radical extremists. Dr. Paul is the only presidential candidate on the ballot (save the Libertarian nominee) who understands that a reduced American footprint around the globe will not only save American lives and billions of dollars, but is the only true path to long lasting peace and prosperity for the United States.

 

The great thing about a discussion board is that we are free to disagree. I'd love for you to be right on this............but for every idealistic scenario that dreams the rest of the world wants peace as badly as we might, reality tends to interject.............

 

In a nuclear world, we cannot afford a 21st century Neville Chamberlain. Nice imbecile reference by the way. Always good to start a dialogue by inflaming the discussion. It usually indicates a lack of coherent reasoning.

 

Actually, I would argue that in a "nuclear world," a non-interventionist foreign policy would be preferred. Why agitate so many worldwide by policing sovereign nations and thus making the U.S. a bullseye at which the anger of these radicals can be directed? Let regional conflicts be resolved within their respective regions and take a fraction of the money used to prop up the American global empire to accomplish the ultimate goal of the armed forces: national defense.

 

As for the imbicile comment, I wasn't referencing anything when I said it. To me, calling Dr. Paul "clueless" is an incendiary remark. I was merely trying to give you some advice...

 

[Sub-Husker]

In a nuclear world, we cannot afford a 21st century Neville Chamberlain.

 

Please name one appeasement that President Obama has made.

 

In contrast Obama has escalated the wars in Afghanistan and Pakistan, participated with Saudi troops in attacks in Yemen and Bahrain, started a war in Libya, is on the verge of starting one in Syria, and is threatening one in Iran.

 

This thread and insinuation about appeasement is based on a discussion of Ron Paul.................

 

What will Ron Paul appease to Iran... not to bomb or invade them?

[Comish]

In a nuclear world, we cannot afford a 21st century Neville Chamberlain.

 

Please name one appeasement that President Obama has made.

 

In contrast Obama has escalated the wars in Afghanistan and Pakistan, participated with Saudi troops in attacks in Yemen and Bahrain, started a war in Libya, is on the verge of starting one in Syria, and is threatening one in Iran.

 

Interestingly, Charles Krauthammer just weighed in on this yesterday......................his ability to wordsmith is fairly substantial................

http://www.washingto...EzwO_story.html

[Sub-Husker]

Interestingly, Charles Krauthammer just weighed in on this yesterday......................his ability to wordsmith is fairly substantial................

 

In fact, Bush’s increasing coolness toward Russia was grounded in certain unpleasant realities: growing Kremlin authoritarianism that was systematically dismantling a fledgling democracy; naked aggression against a small, vulnerable, pro-American state (Georgia)...

 

Krauthammer is a bleeping idiot.

 

Georgia flat-out initiated an assault on civilian targets in South Ossetia in order to depopulate that autonimous republic, with US backing.

 

That was a massive miscalculation by dick cheney, who was in Georgia just before their invasion started.

[carlfense]

In a nuclear world, we cannot afford a 21st century Neville Chamberlain.

 

Please name one appeasement that President Obama has made.

 

In contrast Obama has escalated the wars in Afghanistan and Pakistan, participated with Saudi troops in attacks in Yemen and Bahrain, started a war in Libya, is on the verge of starting one in Syria, and is threatening one in Iran.

 

Interestingly, Charles Krauthammer just weighed in on this yesterday......................his ability to wordsmith is fairly substantial................

http://www.washingto...EzwO_story.html

Ah, Krauthammer, that "fair and balanced" opinion writer. If he (and the GOP) believe that the actions listed are appeasement then they must also believe that anything short of outright war is appeasement. Diplomacy itself must be appeasement.

 

The far-right hatred of Obama is dangerously disconnected from reality. This is just further evidence.

 

What a sad state of affairs. (I wonder how the average 'bagger would react to the fact that Ronald Reagan himself did more appeasing than Barack Obama. Actually . . . I know how they would react. They would deny that it ever happened.)

[Sub-Husker]

Unmoored from such inconvenient realities, Obama went about his reset. The signature decision was the abrupt cancellation of a Polish- and Czech-based U.S. missile defense system bitterly opposed by Russia.

 

The Russians, rightly so, did not want a weapon system on their border that was designed for a first strike.

 

As for assistance on Iran, Moscow has thwarted us at every turn, weakening or blocking resolution after resolution. And now, when even the International Atomic Energy Agency has testified to Iran’s nuclear ambitions, Russia declares that it will oppose any new sanctions.

 

Except that Russia never delivered on the S-300s promised to Iran.

 

Even worse has been Obama’s vaunted “engagement” with Iran. He began his presidency apologetically acknowledging U.S. involvement in a coup that happened more than 50 years ago.

 

Holy cow... an Americam president acknowledged a truth that everyone in the world already knew.