Skip to comments.Paul says he'd lift sanctions on Iran
Posted on 12/19/2007 11:36:37 AM PST by SJackson
MANCHESTER, N.H. (AP) - Campaigning in New Hampshire today, Republican Ron Paul says he would lift sanctions on Iran and order the U.S. Navy to pull back from its shores.
Paul says if the U.S. relieved pressure on Iran, people would breathe a sign of relief, interest rates probably would not go up and oil prices probably would drop.
Speaking in Manchester, Paul said the Bush administration has been looking for war with Iran.
That is great to hear.
Ron Paul is the ONLY conservative running in 2008.
Humble foreign policy and not being the Policemen of the world and not killing American troops overseas for failed missions.
RON PAUL 2008
Loving Castro and Islamist Iran is not conservative.
What a WACK JOB!
you are an absolute pyscho
1) Destroy our nuclear arsenal & dismantle the U.S. Military
2) Remove all our police forces
3) Remove any established religions
You do those three things & I'm sure maybe a very few of us surviving in the remote hills might be able to play Taps over a radioactive / dead America.
I'll 2nd that!
McGovernism is not a conservative value.
I guess Jimmy Carter was the ONLY conservative running in 1980.
I’m sure there are many supporters of Iran as well as of Castro who are pleased with his position.
We need to either bring down the Iranian government, or shut up about them.
I prefer the former, but I think even the latter is preferable to the last six years of “empty threats as policy”.
Hey, we got us a live one here!
If there’s a huge wasp’s nest forming up above my front door under the roof. Ron Paul would say “don’t bother them and they won’t bother you”.
You know someone accused us “Fred-Heads” of going to other threads to attack other candidates. Why does he think we have to do such things, when some of these people speak for themselves and say things like this article says?
Republican Ron Paul says he would lift sanctions on Iran and order the U.S. Navy to pull back from its shores.
Well isn’t that precious. I assume Paul will not be returning to the House after the next election.
you forgot the DING,DING,DING
Many of the people in Iran are probably peace-loving & decent.
However, they acquiesce quickly to the nutters who they allow to run their affairs, and they stand by and watch as their fellow Iranians are killed or beaten for not being pious enough.
So they need to have sanctions, because they won’t do anything to stop the evil in their midst and have proven themselves to be spineless.
That has to be the funniest joke I've heard today.. you sound just like his cult.. good one, thanks for the laugh...
(maybe a good opportunity to post this again.. I need to update it..)
Don't be fooled.. Paul is no Conservative. Votes speak louder than rhetoric.
Ron Paul's Voting Record (ya, ya, I know, there is an excuse for all of these, state's rights are more important than stopping abortion and fixing the border, Ronnie is making a statement, or everyone else was voting against it and he was just playing the game, yadda, yadda, yadda)
Here are some more ‘Conservative(sic)’ votes by Paul:
Voted NO on federal crime to harm fetus while committing other crimes.
Voted NO on forbidding human cloning for reproduction & medical research.
Voted NO on barring transporting minors to get an abortion.
Voted YES on funding for alternative sentencing instead of more prisons.
Voted NO on more prosecution and sentencing for juvenile crime.
Voted NO on military border patrols to battle drugs & terrorism.
Voted NO on allowing school prayer during the War on Terror.
Voted NO on allowing vouchers in DC schools.
Voted NO on passage of the Bush Administration national energy policy.
Voted NO on implementing Bush-Cheney national energy policy.
Voted YES on barring website promoting Yucca Mountain nuclear waste dump.
Voted NO on speeding up approval of forest thinning projects.
Voted NO on reforming the UN by restricting US funding.
Voted NO on requiring lobbyist disclosure of bundled donations.
Voted NO on prohibiting lawsuits about obesity against food providers.
Voted NO on prohibiting product misuse lawsuits on gun manufacturers
Voted NO on prohibiting suing gunmakers & sellers for gun misuse.
Voted NO on decreasing gun waiting period from 3 days to 1.
Voted NO on emergency $78B for war in Iraq & Afghanistan.
Voted NO on $266 billion Defense Appropriations bill.
Voted YES on more immigrant visas for skilled workers.
Voted YES on providing $70 million for Section 8 Housing vouchers.
Voted NO on promoting work and marriage among TANF recipients.
Voted NO on treating religious organizations equally for tax breaks.
Let's also not forget Paul's Pork Projects (that he voted for before he voted against when he calls them unconstitutional but he is just playing the game when he submits them because everyone else does it.. yadda yadda yadda..)
Interesting posting history.
She is flatly against weekends, which are nowhere in the Constitution.
>>Republican Ron Paul says he would lift sanctions on Iran
Sanctions against Iran, Cuba or any nation only hurts U.S. business interests. The rest of the world still trades with them with the resulting benefits.
Yeah, we should keep our noses out of the business of other regions of the world -
right up to the point where we have nukes lighting off in our country or our economy collapses because of some critical world supply is cut off by some petty tyrant halfway across the world.
Unbelievably childishly naive.
The guy becomes more disconnected with the real world with each passing day.
I’m guessing the Paulestinians will soon try to tell us how this is the “real” conservative stance to take.
Last time I checked, surrendering isn’t a conservative position.
Ol’ Trace doesn’t think much of Thomas Jefferson’s handling of the Barbary pirates, I presume.
Interesting posting history.
She is flatly against weekends, which are nowhere in the Constitution.
To be fair, I don’t post on weekends or evenings either.
I made a slight mistake a few days ago when I stated flatly that I'd be voting for whomever the Republican party nominates for President.
Ron Paul is the poster child for why I should never ever make such a hasty statement. If the Republican Party were to go all crazy and nominate Paul, or any looney critter like Paul, I ain't voting for him. I might have to stay home and self-medicate.
What’s her position on hump day? That’s not in the Constitution either. Dang forefathers!
That out to gain him several more millions from Jew-hating Islamic, Neo-Nazi and white supremacist backers...
Hey, Monday isn’t in the Constitution either, so I don’t believe it exists.
Ron Paul is as much of a Conservative as Fred Phelps is a Christian.
Ya know, I’m coming around to his point of view. After all, if the U.S. military was completely disbanded there’d be no war anywhere, right? Because there certainly wasn’t any war in the Middle East before there was a U.S. military. In fact, there wasn’t any war anywhere before the U.S. started going against the Constitution and sending evil imperial robots out to conquer the universe. Have I slipped over into the comic books again or am I in RonPaulLand?
Did you forget the sarcasm tag, or did that year and a half coma affect your thought process?
Paulosi would give the Barbary Pirates a hug too.
A very good case for all these "no" votes can be made by asking the question, "Is this within the Constitutionally permitted scope of the federal government"?
Conservatives know that there is a big difference between "I don't like X" and "X must be made illegal". It's one of the most important things that differentiates us from liberals.
I am speechless! And for an Irish woman that is almost a miracle.
Would it be Constitutional for me to pay you Tuesday for a hamburger today?
Gads....what a clown.
Monday, and every other day of the week, are state issues since they aren’t mentioned as powers of the federal government...
unless you think it falls under weights and measures...
COLMES: You answered the question in less than a minute, so it could have happened a few days ago. Let me move on to some other things here, because when the Iran NIE report came out, you said they're undoubtedly intent upon nuclear weapons. You said, I don't care what the latest NIE says, that's foolishness, you said, that represents our inability to get a handle on it, more than anything else.
If you're president, are you not going to care what 16 different intelligence agencies say on any particular issue?
THOMPSON: I'm going to concentrate on improving our intelligence capabilities. As you probably know, I served on the Intelligence Committee. I have met with foreign leaders. And I've met with CIA officers in far away places dealing with questions such as this. We have a real problem with our intelligence community. It's created confusion and inconsistency. We now have a report dealing with one of the most important issues facing our country that's totally inconsistent with one that came out just two years ago.
The Israelis don't believe it. The British don't believe it. They have pretty good intelligence agencies. And we're concentrating on the wrong thing in this report. Whether or not Iran today has a weaponization program is not the important point. The important point is they continue to enrich uranium. That's the most difficult part of the process. Once they have enriched uranium, and it's enriched sufficiently, the weaponization will take a short period of time, and I don't trust the Iranians to make the right decision in the future.
COLMES: The reports show though that they're not nearly as far along as some people thought, and the rhetoric coming out of the administration, which was very close to war mongering, from my point of view, seemed to be discounted by what this report actually said.
THOMPSON: Well, you're not paying close enough attention to what I just said, Alan. To start with, we don't know how far along they are. None of our estimates have ever been precise. None of them have ever pretended to be precise. But the point is that everybody agrees they continue to enrich uranium. And in the future, with a turn of a screw, they could turn it into a weapons program. And it depends on their intent in the future.
That means that we need to continue the policies that we have, of being tough on them and making sure our allies join us in the appropriate kinds of sanctions.
I know. I wonder what triggers the posting reflex? Remote controlled brain implant?