Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Ron Paul: All We Are Doing Is Promoting Iran's Desire To Have a Nuclear Weapon
HotAirPundit ^ | DECEMBER 16, 2011 | HotAirPundit

Posted on 12/16/2011 3:04:45 PM PST by RobinMasters

This man is a rambling fool. Ron Paul's answer on the question of Iran is so far removed from common sense it isn't even funny. Bret Baier points out that his position is to the left of Barack Obama.

Take a look at this video and keep in mind, Glenn Beck would consider voting for this clown over Newt Gingrich.

Here's the video :

Ron Paul Republican Iowa Debate on Iran

(Excerpt) Read more at hapblog.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Foreign Affairs; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: feminism; galvestonsnoopy; iran; libcommies; libertarian; rino; ronpaul; victimology

1 posted on 12/16/2011 3:04:51 PM PST by RobinMasters
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: RobinMasters

Yo Ron, Iran would want nukes if we didn’t exist. Get a clue.


2 posted on 12/16/2011 3:08:32 PM PST by umgud
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RobinMasters

Dennis Kucinich with an M.D. and a gimmick.


3 posted on 12/16/2011 3:08:53 PM PST by 2ndDivisionVet (You can't invade the US. There'd be a rifle behind every blade of grass.~Admiral Yamamoto)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RobinMasters


4 posted on 12/16/2011 3:18:56 PM PST by 2ndDivisionVet (You can't invade the US. There'd be a rifle behind every blade of grass.~Admiral Yamamoto)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: umgud

Let’s get this out of the way first-Iran is a nutjob country with ridiculous leaders.
That said, I saw a map of American military installations in the region. It runs up and down both the Eastern and Western borders of Iran. Imagine if a country with which we had previously been at odds having military along the entire Canadian and Mexican borders of this country. That is the Iranian situation currently.
It is understandable they feel slightly anxious.


5 posted on 12/16/2011 3:24:36 PM PST by GeorgeTex (Obama-Four M President (Mendacious Manchurian Muslim Marxist))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: GeorgeTex

I was in that same thread yesterday...it was a good map driving the point home...

Who can blame the Iranian’s for reacting the way they are...Russians are reacting the same way as well in Eastern Europe.

That’s what that little spat between Putin and Bush was all about back at the Olympics...when the Georgia stuff blew up.

=8-)

What really caught my attention with that map is the fact that Pakistan is not too far from Israel, Iraq, Iran, Turkey, etc....and they have nukes. Those are in a compromise position as we speak.

The entire world IMHO is running on “edge” right now. I think that is what Ron Paul is trying to get across to people. A kinda “cool our jets” message I guess...

=8-)


6 posted on 12/16/2011 3:48:16 PM PST by =8 mrrabbit 8=
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: GeorgeTex
Of course all those bases have been built since 1979 when Iran decided to hold our embassy staff prisoner.

I wonder why ronpaul never brings that up in his tearful pleading for understanding of poor wittle Iran?

They started a war then but we were in no way suppose to respond or consider them a threat.

They have been ranting for 30 years how they are going to kill us but that was only because we were going to build bases 20 years in the future. Apparently they have crystal balls.

History began before yesterday.

7 posted on 12/16/2011 4:02:23 PM PST by Harmless Teddy Bear (*Philosophy lesson 117-22b: Anyone who demands to be respected is undeserving of it.*)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: RobinMasters

They want it. It doesn’t matter who “promotes it.” They have made up their minds.


8 posted on 12/16/2011 4:03:28 PM PST by Brilliant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RobinMasters

Oh My Gosh. Is this idiot that stupid?


9 posted on 12/16/2011 4:05:22 PM PST by Logical me
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RobinMasters
This is EXACTLY why he should never be the leader of our country.

This statement reflects cowardice and appeasement. It also is either an outright lie from a moron, or an unbelievably ignorant belief.

The guy is a looney toon.

10 posted on 12/16/2011 4:24:00 PM PST by Pox (Good Night. I expect more respect tomorrow.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Harmless Teddy Bear; GeorgeTex
Of course all those bases have been built since 1979 when Iran decided to hold our embassy staff prisoner. . .

History began before yesterday.

To be fair though you seem to be forgetting the entire TPAJAX Project in 1953 in which the United States CIA, along with the Brits, orchestrated the overthrow of the democratically elected PM Mosaddeq and gave all power over to the Shah. The Iranian people resented this to no end and it was probably the primary cause of the Islamic Revolution of 1979 in which Shah was also overthrown and the Ayatollahs were put into power. It is hard to be surprised at the reaction of the Iranians to our people in their country after we actively overturned their elected leaders and supported a man they saw as a tyrant for twenty years. I don't excuse the lunatics in Iran today, but at the same time, as you say, history began before yesterday.

11 posted on 12/16/2011 4:36:44 PM PST by cothrige
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: =8 mrrabbit 8=

You know what the phenomenon of Ron Paul proves is the awesome power of self-delusion in the face of what we humans don’t want to face/do!

Believe me I know more about Occupy-Iran islamist rulers than most here and that regime’s ultimate goal is not just self-preservation. It never was!


12 posted on 12/16/2011 4:57:50 PM PST by parisa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: cothrige

Mossedeq tried to overthrow the constitutional monarchy and usurp power. And the Islamists didn’t like the socialists.


13 posted on 12/16/2011 5:10:28 PM PST by rmlew ("Mosques are our barracks, minarets our bayonets, domes our helmets, the believers our soldiers.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: rmlew
Don't be silly. Mossedeq gained emergency powers from the parliament, and the Shah was largely a figurehead in the first place. And, more to the point, the coup had nothing to do with any of that anway, and rather was all about Mossedeq's move in 1951 to nationalize the oil industry. People love to conveniently forget how we did what we did, and colluded with the Brits in it, so that we could keep the oil profits. That is why we got rid of Mossedeq, who was supported and elected by the people of Iran, and put all the power in the hands of the Shah. And he repaid us nicely for it too. Great for us and all, I suppose, but naturally the Iranians resented us immensely and continue to down to this day.

No matter how one thinks of Mossedeq, he was democratically elected under their constitution and we overthrew him. This was a sovereign state and we controlled it effectively for 25+ years. Is it really at all surprising to anyone that by 1979 we would not be seen as anything but the bad guys by the Iranian people? We had no business, or right for that matter, to go into Iran and actually implement a coup to overthrow their elected leaders. People don't like it, but we made that bed and we are now lying in it.

14 posted on 12/16/2011 5:42:18 PM PST by cothrige
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: cothrige
No I do not. However you seen to forget that in 1979 Carter was kissing up to the Ayatollah like there was no tomorrow. In fact the US state department had cut the Shah's legs out for under him in one of the stupidest moves ever made which allowed the "Revolution" (brought to you by the USSR) to succeed.

And no it really had nothing to do with the "Islamic Revolution" which was sponsored by the USSR. So sorry but you attempt to excuse the Iranian barbarity is noted and dismissed as the nonsense that it is.

And sure you excuse the Iranian lunatics of today, yesterday and everyday. After all they call the USA the Great Satan and Israel the Little Satan so they are to be loved, cosseted, made excuses for and defended.

It is really interesting how someone who "loves" their country never does anything but cut it down and side with it's enemies.

15 posted on 12/16/2011 6:00:08 PM PST by Harmless Teddy Bear (*Philosophy lesson 117-22b: Anyone who demands to be respected is undeserving of it.*)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: rmlew
Shhhh

Don't confuse their little fantasy with reality.

After all, in their world if an ally asks us for help we should never give it.

16 posted on 12/16/2011 6:05:11 PM PST by Harmless Teddy Bear (*Philosophy lesson 117-22b: Anyone who demands to be respected is undeserving of it.*)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: cothrige

I’m really not sure of the answer here, but in line with a frequent meaning of “nationalize,” did:

“Mossedeq’s move in 1951 to nationalize the oil industry”

mean stealing oil companies property and other assets?


17 posted on 12/16/2011 6:06:01 PM PST by D-fendr (Deus non alligatur sacramentis sed nos alligamur.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: cothrige
Let us assume that we were completely wrong and imperialist etc in 1954. Does that mean that we should allow the mullahs to get nukes?

PS. 1954 was not the first time we intervened in Iran. In 1941, the pro-Hitler Reza Shah asked for our help in preventing the Anglo-Soviet invasion. FDR rebuffed him. We supported the installation of the new Shah, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi. We also intervened to help the Iranians retake northern Iran in 1946.

18 posted on 12/16/2011 6:43:48 PM PST by rmlew ("Mosques are our barracks, minarets our bayonets, domes our helmets, the believers our soldiers.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Harmless Teddy Bear
And no it really had nothing to do with the "Islamic Revolution" which was sponsored by the USSR. So sorry but you attempt to excuse the Iranian barbarity is noted and dismissed as the nonsense that it is.

Sorry, but you seem rather confused. I don't recall having "excused" anything. I merely followed through on what you stated regarding history starting today. I agree, it didn't start today. But, neither did it start in 1979. Conveniently forgetting the facts of wrong-headed international shenanigans is not productive. There seems to be an idea going around that American foreign policy is infallible, and never gives way to boneheaded moves. Oddly, this is often followed up with charges that Obama is going to get us killed with his foreign policy. (I dare you to figure that one out.)

And sure you excuse the Iranian lunatics of today, yesterday and everyday.

Again, who is excusing them? I don't excuse any of them, but neither do I excuse the morons who chose to overthrow their government and earn their barbaric hatred for the following several generations. Why do people insist that we can take a crap on people and still expect them to like us? If that were true then why is everybody here so pissed off at Obama, again, for his idiotic rudeness to the British people regarding the bust of Churchill? Naturally we believe this upsets our friends across the pond, as I think they say over there, but then we think we can actually perpetrate coups in Islamic countries and they will just love us. How silly.

After all they call the USA the Great Satan and Israel the Little Satan so they are to be loved, cosseted, made excuses for and defended.

But, you see, that is my point. If we had not done as we did in the 50s they would likely have not called us that. Sure, they would probably not love us, but then neither do Canadians. Last I checked, however, there isn't a Death to America Day in Toronto.

It is really interesting how someone who "loves" their country never does anything but cut it down and side with it's enemies.

So, your position is that admitting stupid moves sixty years ago which have led to constant fighting and discord is "siding with our enemies"? I can't imagine what passes for conservative these days. At one point in time responsibility for an error was a conservative virtue. If we did something wrong it was considered proper to admit it and learn from it. Now, apparently, we are to simply pretend we have been perfect throughout history and cannot possibly make mistakes. Sounds like a great plan for success, and it is perfectly crafted on the model of the liberal Left.

19 posted on 12/16/2011 7:39:36 PM PST by cothrige
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: D-fendr
I’m really not sure of the answer here, but in line with a frequent meaning of “nationalize,” did: “Mossedeq’s move in 1951 to nationalize the oil industry” mean stealing oil companies property and other assets?

Yep, but them's the breaks, as they say. When you invest in such barbaric places sometimes you get the short end of it. We are living with the results of our response to that act by Iran in 1951 and it was a bad idea. Staging a coup in Iran has not done anything good for the world or us and it is very odd, in my opinion, for people calling themselves conservative to go about pretending otherwise. We should learn a lesson from history on this point and reconsider doing the same things again and again and again all for the same ends.

20 posted on 12/16/2011 7:46:07 PM PST by cothrige
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: rmlew
Let us assume that we were completely wrong and imperialist etc in 1954. Does that mean that we should allow the mullahs to get nukes?

That is a good question, and I am not really arguing we should. Rather, I am arguing against the notion that our actions don't provoke other nations in any way, or the malignant notion that is so popular in these parts that American foreign policy is infallible and has never borne bad fruit. That silly view is not at all congruent with conservatism.

Rather, conservatism is the intelligent and reasoned approach as contrasted with the stubborn ignorance of the Left. Conservatives look at facts and respond appropriately, and if errors have been made we admit them and learn from them. We should understand the reality of international relations and the nuances involved, and seek practical results. Trying to carry off macho poses to look tough as candidates does not impress me at all.

Iran is a dangerous nation, and we should be watchful and do what has to be done for our own safety, but that shouldn't include intentional provocation when it isn't necessary or a view that the Iranian people themselves have no right to self-determination. It also shouldn't involve pretending that history started in 1979 and that we had no role in the twisted development of the America-hating nation that now occupies that place on the globe. We did a great deal to produce the current reality in Tehran, and we should be adult enough to admit it.

21 posted on 12/16/2011 8:01:24 PM PST by cothrige
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: RobinMasters; humblegunner; ejonesie22; Absolutely Nobama; BlackElk; Lakeshark
Captain Kirk, Mr. Spock and Ron Paul
22 posted on 12/16/2011 8:05:19 PM PST by Allegra (Hey! Stop looking at my tagline like that.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cothrige

I dunno about your conclusion then.

If our mistake was protecting oil assets in Iran, I think I disagree. If there was another way to do so, I have no idea.

I believe Iran was better, for it’s people, under the shah. I think it obvious that it was better for America and the world than the mullahs. Yes, there was oppression and certain constraints on freedom under the shah, but less than today? I don’t think so.

Contrary to your conclusion, I think it could be posited that the mistake was made in allowing Iran to collapse into what it is today rather than in helping make it what is was previous. And, I’m not certain that your point that the people of Iran were against their previous government and for the current one is valid.

Certainly the young revolutionary theocrats were against the shah’s Iran, but I think it entirely possible that the people as a whole would rather have that Iran than what they have now, back then and today.

thanks for your reply.


23 posted on 12/16/2011 8:08:39 PM PST by D-fendr (Deus non alligatur sacramentis sed nos alligamur.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: RobinMasters

That’s an insult to rambling fools.


24 posted on 12/16/2011 8:13:28 PM PST by RichInOC (Palin 2012: The Perfect Storm.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RobinMasters

We have nothing to offer Islamists.


25 posted on 12/16/2011 8:27:47 PM PST by Mike Darancette (Either Obama can beat any GOP candidate or no GOP candidate.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: D-fendr
I believe Iran was better, for it’s people, under the shah.

Let me entreat you to really consider this statement for a moment. Doesn't it seem even a little bit proper to consider that it should have been up to the Iranian people to decide what they thought was better for them? They elected their leadership and we overthrew it. It really is that plain and simple. I think we were better off under other leaders than Obama, but would that make it okay for a foreign nation to remove him from office and put somebody else of their choosing in power? I hardly think so.

I think it obvious that it was better for America and the world than the mullahs. Yes, there was oppression and certain constraints on freedom under the shah, but less than today? I don’t think so.

At that time, without a doubt. However, history doesn't spring up from nothing, and putting him into power had consequences. And even if the Iranians themselves were better off under the Shah, which they may very well have been, they would hardly accept our machinations that put him there. And the Shah's rule almost certainly conditioned the rise of those mullahs. I will certainly grant that they were becoming more powerful under Mossedeq but they took great advantage of increasing their power under the Shah and turning us into a powerful symbol of evil.

Contrary to your conclusion, I think it could be posited that the mistake was made in allowing Iran to collapse into what it is today rather than in helping make it what is was previous.

I'm sorry, but that still doesn't really make engaging in such onerous behaviour valid. Even if we could be better off why should we do such things? It doesn't reflect our own values of self-determination. We used to believe in upholding the rights of people to democratic choice, but when Iran chose in a way we didn't like we chose for them. I really can't think that is right, and I believe history has shown that it didn't work out even for our own good in the end.

And, I’m not certain that your point that the people of Iran were against their previous government and for the current one is valid.

They certainly may not love it now, but at the time they seemed rather supportive. And there is no doubt that they elected Mossedeq. And, in the end, I just don't think it should be up to us to approve those for whom Iranians vote. If they shoot at us, then it is our problem, but not what they do at the ballot boxes. What we did in the 50s has led to disaster after disaster for relations in that part of the world, and we really should be less obstinate in our denial of error.

thanks for your reply.

And thank you.

I do hope you will understand me in this, as these things do often create massive flame wars on this forum. I am not defending Iranian barbarism or the development of nukes over there. I am merely trying to be honest in my appraisal of the history of our foreign policy in places like Iran. Accusations of "blaming America" makes a fun soundbite in a debate I am sure, but it actually just excuses terrible mistakes and covers over the importance of sound foreign policy with phony notions of American infallibility. If we would make our lives better we have to be more mature and be open to self-criticism.

26 posted on 12/16/2011 8:47:57 PM PST by cothrige
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: cothrige

I’m not interested in flame wars either.

I have a problem with simple moral equivalency as a default position. America is truly unique in history.

So, I don’t accept without question that we never should interfere in ‘democratically elected governments’. Pure democracies devolve, often quickly to tyranny. We have many examples of the ‘people’s choices’ for government that were horrible for them and the world.

Like it or not we have power, we had an unusual amount after WWII. Power brings responsibility. I’m glad we didn’t isolate and let the world’s peoples figure out their futures.

I’m not a huge interventionist nor an isolationist; I think I’m a realist.

In short, going to a bottom line that they elected Mossedeq, doesn’t carry near the same weight for me; they elected Immanutjob too.

It counts, but the other factors, what it means to their people, America and the world counts also.

I think we’ll remain somewhat where we were prior, but I greatly appreciate your posts and courteous reply.


27 posted on 12/16/2011 9:33:04 PM PST by D-fendr (Deus non alligatur sacramentis sed nos alligamur.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: D-fendr
So, I don’t accept without question that we never should interfere in ‘democratically elected governments’.

I am comfortable with this point, and actually don't take an absolutist position on this either. Since I can't be sure of what may be happening out there somewhere I will allow that interference like you describe may be wise in some situations. However, I think our instinct on these things should be the conservative one, and that means to be cautious and keep interference to a minimum, only doing so in very extreme situations. Iran in 1953 hardly seems such a situation, and I think our decision then has borne much bad fruit.

Like it or not we have power, we had an unusual amount after WWII. Power brings responsibility. I’m glad we didn’t isolate and let the world’s peoples figure out their futures.

Perhaps, but such is only good if we do the right things for the right reasons. If we argue that we are right in what we do simply because we are America, and I don't say you are doing this but such is common in the GOP today, how then can we be responsible? Without a willingness to be self-critical and see our mistakes for what they are there can be no responsibility. That is to tread the primrose path of dalliance and surely recks not our own rede.

This is why I have often been disappointed by the arguments by GOP candidates in the past. They argue that any criticism of American policy is "blaming America" and this is to refuse to be responsible and is the opposite of what conservative values require. Strength is only a virtue in a cause that is right. If we see ourselves as unique to a degree that we cannot believe we are capable of error then our strength will simply be oppression. The founding fathers struggled precisely because they knew they were fallible men subject to human failings, and we certainly are no better.

I think we’ll remain somewhat where we were prior, but I greatly appreciate your posts and courteous reply.

I thank you for yours as well. It has been a pleasure.

28 posted on 12/16/2011 10:46:29 PM PST by cothrige
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Allegra

They shoulda armed photon torpedoes! LOL!


29 posted on 12/16/2011 10:55:53 PM PST by Absolutely Nobama (NO COMPROMISE! NO RETREAT! NO SURRENDER! I AM A CONSERVATIVE! CASE CLOSED!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Logical me
Oh My Gosh. Is this idiot that stupid?

And the paulbots still follow, but it is not their fault. They are not programmed to think for themselves. They just follow their messiah.
30 posted on 12/17/2011 4:41:00 AM PST by John D
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Allegra
That's really funny.

This last debate, he showed off his crazy uncle in the attic traits to the whole world......well, except his groupies.......

31 posted on 12/17/2011 6:56:52 AM PST by Lakeshark
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: RobinMasters

32 posted on 12/17/2011 3:50:58 PM PST by 2ndDivisionVet (You can't invade the US. There'd be a rifle behind every blade of grass.~Admiral Yamamoto)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson