Perhaps he could pull the other one, it has bells on it.
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, he’d be “provoking them a lot less.”
“We’re just looking for trouble,” Paul said. “We’re building the war propaganda against Iran just as we did against Iraq.”
Since Paul believes that Iran doesn’t have nuclear weapons to defend itself, he characterized Iran’s response as saying “we can’t really defend ourselves so we might sink a boat, sink a ship out there in the Persian Gulf.”
Here’s 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 I’d be provoking them a lot less because they’re reacting to the provoking of the West saying “we’re gonna put on sanctions”. We have them surrounded with nuclear weapons and we’re claiming that they’re gonna build a nuclear weapon and there’s no evidence for this.
So we’re just looking for trouble. We’re building the war propaganda against Iran just as we did against Iraq.
And it’s the march on. You know it’s Libya and it’s in Egypt and now we’re involved in Syria, now we’re sending troops into Africa. And also, of course we’re still in Iraq, we’re into Pakistan and we’ve been in Afghanistan for a long time.
And people want to go to war against Iran. And I think they’re reacting to the provocations of so many other people saying that “we’re liable to bomb you because you are building a nuclear weapon.” But our CIA doesn’t confirm that nor does the UN confirm that.
So they’re acting actually in a rational manner because they’re saying “they’re gonna attack us and start bombing us”. They have to say “well, we don’t have any nuclear weapons, we can’t 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 we’re treating the whole thing wrong. …
-----
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?
My,how nasty!
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:
Swann debunked most of the accusations. The earmarks thing -- I tore through all that a long time ago. His people put an earmark in the bill and he votes against the bill. It passes anyway. It's the system -- not him.
I'll give you another one -- the newsletter controversy -- "Ron Paul is a racist". Problem is that Civil Rights leader Barbara Jordan and his local NAACP head stood up for Ron Paul on that one -- known him for years, not a racist. Racism is collectivism, the precise opposite of his philosophy of respect for the rights of the individual. Ron Paul is NOT a racist -- just ask the twenty African Americans on youtube who have gone through all of that newsletter crap and found he came up clean. And a photo with Dom Black - -especially when you don't know who he is and he's just another voter who asks for a picture with you -- doesn't a racist make.
I have turn this guy upside and sideways -- and have found one big thing wrong with him: He says what he thinks without regard to how people are going to twist his words and his motives for their own benefit.
What he is really "dangerous to" is the status quo of the Federal Reserve, the bankers and business as usual corruption in DC that stuck us with paying or the bailouts and the rest of the mess that was made there. Otherwise, I think that Ron Paul loves his country, believes in out freedoms and is willing to fight for them. He puts the interests of the US and the American people ahead of any other considerations, including his own ego. I can't see where that is supposed to be such a bad thing.
Ok, then. It matters not to you I posted actual words. You beleive what you want and vote the way you want.
Bye bye
Right. So we let Iran close the Straits of Hormuz and choke off our oil. We let them develop nukes which they will launch against Tel Aviv. Israel will nuke Iran and the entire middle east is radioactive, including the oil. All so Ron Paul and his followers can be “isolationists.” Thats not a foreign policy. Thats plugging your ears and closing your eyes to make the problem go away. Paul is not qualified to be president.
Thinking something and doing something are two different things. I believe that the lord will return, but I don’t believe I can do anything to make it happen any sooner than the father’s plan.
Iran’s threat is empty till they can act, and they simply cannot act in any meaningful way, and if you fall for their rhetoric you are a fool. Iran is not Nazi Germany, or Japan, they are a looser dictatorship that could have fallen if Obama would just have given rhetorical support to the opposition.
Iran can not close the Straits of Hormuz, you give then way more power than they can bring to bare.
In any event that would be an act of war and then I would support the use of force to open them! Sink there navy, that would take us all of ten minutes, they simply are no threat to us!!!
The rhetoric against Iran is scare tactics used against you to stop thinking about how things really are.
They used it against you after 911, now you let TSA feel you up, and your paying higher taxes to think your safe, when every attempt against our airlines since has been stopped by passengers, who did it for free.
I know why you gave up your freedom, you were afraid, and you believed they could protect you, but now your freedom is gone and they are never going to give it back!
You don't, but they do.
Iran’s threat is empty till they can act, and they simply cannot act in any meaningful way, ...
So you see no problem with allowing them to develop the means to act in a meaningful way.
Peddle your "stupid" somewhere else; I ain't buying.
The Nazi’s and Japanese and Italians thought they could rule the world, the Soviets thought that communism was the future of a prosperous society, Paul Pot thought he could rule Cambodia by killing, well everybody. The Roman’s thought there empire would last forever. England thought they could rule the waves forever.
If wishes were horse.
The Gods of the Copybook Headings with terror and slaughter return!
However, there is a difference between a civilian nuclear program and a nuclear weapons program. The US, EU and Russia have all conceded Iran's civilian program, provided it be monitored. In fact, there was a deal to aid the civilian nuclear power program in exchange for monitoring and an end to Iranian refining.
Perhaps he could pull the other one, it has bells on it.
I was just referring to who started their nuclear program. In all honesty, until you brought it up and I did my homework as a result, I didn’t know how Iran’s nuke program got started.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.