Skip to comments.Ron Paul: Iran wants to disrupt world oil supply because we are provoking them
Posted on 12/15/2011 10:05:50 AM PST by mnehring
In a town hall yesterday, Ron Paul said that Iran is acting in a rational manner by threatening to disrupt the world oil supply in the Persian Gulf. He believes Iran is only defending itself from the provocations of the West and told the crowd that if he were president, hed be provoking them a lot less.
Were just looking for trouble, Paul said. Were building the war propaganda against Iran just as we did against Iraq.
Since Paul believes that Iran doesnt have nuclear weapons to defend itself, he characterized Irans response as saying we cant really defend ourselves so we might sink a boat, sink a ship out there in the Persian Gulf.
Heres the full video:
(video at source)
------ How would I deal with the threat or the so-called threat of the Iranians, that they are going to disrupt the oil supply?
Well Id be provoking them a lot less because theyre reacting to the provoking of the West saying were gonna put on sanctions. We have them surrounded with nuclear weapons and were claiming that theyre gonna build a nuclear weapon and theres no evidence for this.
So were just looking for trouble. Were building the war propaganda against Iran just as we did against Iraq.
And its the march on. You know its Libya and its in Egypt and now were involved in Syria, now were sending troops into Africa. And also, of course were still in Iraq, were into Pakistan and weve been in Afghanistan for a long time.
And people want to go to war against Iran. And I think theyre reacting to the provocations of so many other people saying that were liable to bomb you because you are building a nuclear weapon. But our CIA doesnt confirm that nor does the UN confirm that.
So theyre acting actually in a rational manner because theyre saying theyre gonna attack us and start bombing us. They have to say well, we dont have any nuclear weapons, we cant really defend ourselves. So we might sink a boat, sink a ship out there in the Persian Gulf, hoping that we might back off.
I just think were treating the whole thing wrong.
Cranial rectal inversion. The guy is nutso!
Yeah, right. According to Paul, Iran would be a good citizen of the world if it wasn’t for America and Israel “provoking” them. Stick to diagnosing runny noses, Dr. Paul. I hope you know more about medicine that you do about foreign policy. Frakkin’ idiot.
Paul is at least consistent in being a nutcase.
There is much to like about Ron Paul.
Then there’s stuff like this.
“Aside from that, Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?”
Is that the same thing as cranial rectumtimistus?
Blame America First. That’s RuPaul’s entire stock-in-trade.
Where are the Paultards on this thread, I’m in the mood for a good ZOTting.
And why is 0bama disrupting our oil supplies?
The Democrats don’t have a primary battle, so they’re messing around supporting Paul. Let’s return the favor and run Pee Wee Herman in the Democrat primary. It’s hard to tell Pee Wee and Obama apart. Pee Wee is more manly, I guess.
OPPS, the crazy uncle got out of the attic again!
now that is scary
Paul is ready for a giggle jacket anyway!
Dr. Paul, take two aspirin then don’t call me in the morning.
The Persians want to screw up world oil because they are criminals.
Ron Paul Goes Full Metal Truther
"And its just think of what happened after 9/11. Immediately, before there was any assessment, there was glee in the administration because now we can invade Iraq. So the war drums beat " - Ron Paul
Just a few examples from the article...
REP. PAUL: I vote against it, so I don't endorse the system.
MR. RUSSERT: But when it passes overwhelmingly, you take the money back home.
REP. PAUL: I don't take it. That's the system.
The mere fact that we are alive provokes them. So how could we possibly provoke them less?
The Lyndon LaRouche of the Republican Party
dude’s a total nut case.
I guess it depends upon what the meaning of rational is.
IMHO, the Mullahs are completely nuts. But also, our sanctions & threats are driving Iranians further into a paranoiac religious fervor that says if they are going down, they are going to use what they have to take down everything & everyone they can with them. It would make sense that Iran would try and disrupt the world oil supply -- which would hit us the hardest --in order to strike back at us.
We are putting Iran in a no-win scenario -- essentially poking sticks at a cornered and crazy dog, then acting shocked at the dog's response and using that response for more stick-poking. All he is saying is, "Quit poking sticks at them".
There may come a time when we have to do something about Iran, but the first thing we should do is to stop exacerbating the problem -- unless we are prepared for the result of $5 a gallon gasoline on this flagging economy and another war that we can't afford right now, and probable Iranian terrorism here in the US.
Ron Paul's is completely rational thinking on this. Nothing crazy here.
The man is completely detached from reality.
damn this Ron Paul jerk loves Iran...maybe he should relocate there...do us a favor...
every day he becomes more senile.
Such vitriol on this post!
No refutation of his statements, though.
The truth is that the US has been dickin’ Iran around since Mossadegh nationalized British Petroleum’s assets in 1953. In comes the Shah, our friend. He turns bloody repressive on his own people, but what the heck! He’s our guy! Carter abandons him; we get Kohmenie’s bunch. Meanwhile, Saddam is next door doing our bidding, spending years at war with Iran. Good boy, that Saddam. Whoops! He invades Kuwait. We whack him once, but leave him in power. After 9/11 we whack him again, and string him up.
Face it: the US is the bully boy in the middle east, in a global quest to assure and control the flow of oil.Turn the table around for a moment. Would you put up with 1/10th the meddling in our national affairs if those shoes were on your feet?
The truth sucks when your nationalist pride gets tweaked by inconvenient facts. Screw the Middle East; bring our men and women of the Armed Forces home.
Boy, he just keeps on lobbing those nutbar bombs out there, doesn’t he?
This constant refrain that Ron Paul "blames America" reminds of the old joke about the Lone Ranger and Tonto:
The Lone Ranger and Tonto are riding through one of the many canyons when suddenly rising from the hill on their right are hundreds of Indians. They start to spur their horses forward when they realize that there are hundreds of Indians ahead of them. Wheeling to the left, they once again see hundreds of Indians rising from the hill. They begin to back away in the direction from which they had come and they realize they are surrounded. The Indians had spread out. They are trapped.
The Lone Ranger turns to Tonto, his life-long friend, and says "Tonto, my friend, I think I must say that I have treasured our times together but now I think we are doomed."
"We?" replied Tonto "What's all this 'we', Paleface?"
When was the last time the people that control US policy, foreign or domestic, represented the will of American people on anything? When have they NOT acted against the best interests of the average American citizen. How did destroying Iraq at the cost of Trillions of dollars help the average American? What good did the US-NATO do in bringing Al Qaeda to power in Lybia by bombing the hell out of innocent civilians that posed no threat to the US? How is that moral? How is that American? Why would anyone want to be associated with that? I don't.
If these usurpers in D.C., the District of Criminals, gave a damn about the security and safety of the American people they would have closed our south border years ago. More Americans are killed by and more wealth lost too illegal aliens in one year than to Muslim terrorists in decades. If they gave a damn about us they wouldn't have shipped all our jobs overseas nor given away Trillions to foreign banks. No these clowns are acting for other interests and not mine nor any other American. It isn't our government anymore.
Finally, a Ron Paul / Iran apologist who actually thinks she makes sense.
Ron Paul deep in thought.
Please tell us who you don’t want to go to war with, I could not care less if Iran gets a nuke. That seems to me to be Israel’s problem. Israel has nukes, maybe as many as 200, they have the best trained air force in the middle east, they are building there own missile shield, why should I send my son to war against a Nation that can neither attack us, nor harm our business interests, our weaknesses in energy are easily rectified in months if the necessity requires it, there is no political will because there is no necessity to drill, if global energy supplies are disrupted we will drill asap.
I don't give a damn whether Ron Paul said it, Newt Gingrich said it or anyone else said it. It's about logic to me. Does it make sense? -- not just "Does it appeal to emotions?" or "Did my guy say it?"
We've been running on easily manipulable emotions for too long -- it's those same emotions that elected Barrack Obama. We need strategic thinkers, not wild-eyed zealotry. Conservatism used to have a tradition of thinkers and intellectuals who actually thought things out instead of who just pissed people off so they go jumping off of cliffs. What in the hell happened to that tradition? Because it was from there that we used to be able to come to agreement on issues based on principles. Now it's all some mob mentality that attacks ad hominem and name calls to make their point.
We've got to do better than this if we want any sort of future for this country.
Is there a dispute over facts or just the propaganda spin?
Paul IS NOT a conservative.
I will forever baffled me that paulbots continue to say that he is.
Paul should be running on the libertarian ticket, the question is would they want him back.
Where did I say that he was? Not saying that he is or isn't, but I never said that 'Ron Paul was a Conservative".
What I did say was that Conservatism used to have a tradition of thinking, not just spewing.
Sad thing is that Barry Goldwater wouldn't even fit today's template of "a Conservative", which is far more internationalist Rockefeller Republican than anything Goldwater would recognize as his own.
The ruling class acts in their own interests not the interests of the American people.
There is a lot not to like in Ron Paul, but at least he would act in what he believes to be the best interests of the American people, I am not so sure about most of the others.
While I agree with your sentiment, sadly the West can not allow Iran to get a nuke. Sorry we just can't allow that.
Hey Ron, how rational is it to want to create a nuclear holocaust in the belief that only in that way can the 12th imam reappear?
Public schools, very few are left that can actually think for themselves and actually know what Constitutional Conservatism really is. For example, whatever happened to declaring war before going to war as prescribed by our Constitution?
Yes, it did! And guess who helped them start it? Us -- as part of the "Atoms for Peace Program"!
Let’s see now ... the regime in Iran appears to be of the belief that if they can initiate global chaos and destruction they can summon the return of the 12th Mahdi, ushering in an era of global peace under Islam, and you don’t care if they get nuclear weapons?
Simply labeling his statements here "delusional and dangerous" is not a legitimate logical refutation without saying what specifically about them you consider "delusional" or "dangerous" and why.
"pssst I was a Goldwater girl."
psst So was Hillary Clinton.
Ok, whatever you want to think. There are pages of documented evidence posted on these Paul threads that demonstrate he is both delusional and dangerous.
There appears no reason to repeat then, as you as an apparent Paul supporter chose to ignore.
Boy, you Paultards have no clue, do you? All of you are as nuts as your cult leader and VERY dangerous. Do you honestly think Iran is disrupting the oil supply because we are in the Middle East? Or, perhaps, do they realize that by doign this they control the cost of petroleum which benefits them politically, monetarily and politically? which on makes more sense?
Query me this, Mr. Wizard:
If Iran blocks the Straights of Hormuz, doesn’t that impede their own ability to sell their high priced oil? Kind of counter-productive, I’d say.
You know what? I wish that there were. But there aren't. There are pages of silly "RuePaul" photoshops, some nonsense about "fake eyebrows" and pages & pages of mischaracterizations & distortions of what he said when I've gone back to the original sources on them, demagoguery, and the like.
I understand that there are reasons to love or hate any candidate -- some legitimate, some just because they rub you the wrong way. But most of what I've seen here just isn't a serious analysis of the words and the ideas.
I don't think that we disagree that this country is in deep doo-doo -- economically, militarily, politically and socially. We've got to get serious. If someone has an idea worth looking at --an idea that has a history, and upside & a downside, then I don't care who brings it up. Like I said, Ron Paul, Newt Gingrich or Bozo the Clown. It's about the issue, not the people.
We are in dangerous waters no matter what we choose -- war with Iran, no war with Iran -- what are the up and downsides to each? I just don't want to see us jumping into Iran like we did in Iraq and find ourselves ten years from now regretting that decision -- if the globe is still spinning by then.
And Newt is?
Not silly pictures: