Replies

Very rational comment.

And how is the US going to stop Iran from getting a nuke?

And how is the US going to stop Iran from getting a nuke?

Very simple. Beat the hell out of them.

Any other questions, Paultard?

I think Santorum's debate answer to that was along the lines of by any means necessary. He mentioned the virus to destroy their nuclear supply manufacturing as Stuxnet did and the killing of Iranian nuclear scientists as happened in July along with sanctions and maybe other means.

Aas a pure mental exercise I can appreciate Ron Paul's "devil's argument" for some other country wanting a nuclear weapon but this is I-R-A-N. It's not Sweden. Iran is not the Soviet Union just as Col West pointed at when he referred to the old "mutually assured destruction" Cold War policy.

Paulbots, of course, smear West as part of the globalist military industrial complex.

Ron Paul is too isolationist for practical purposes. Already taking the DOD down to 3% of GDP where Clinton had it, Democrats want to dismantle the U.S. military for a grand social state that won't exist if our enemies are left unchecked and, let's not kid ourselves, our "allies" have already gutted and dismantled their militaries in favor of giant (failing) social states because they know the U.S. is on the job.

Since Obama wanted to keep plausible deniability regarding the War Powers act and starting his own war, the Libyan kinetic military action meant NATO had to depend on France's single carrier which had to return to port quickly for maintenance.

The Brits are down from three carriers to one and it's on the verge of retirement with no Harriers to fly from it since they've all gone to scrap. There's a period of about six years where the Brits will have NO carrier at all to deploy and when the new one is launched, their F-35s won't even be ready to fly from it.