Originally posted by CharlesMartel
reply to post by Alaskan Man
Considering that Ron Paul has clearly shown that, like Jimmy Carter, he is incapable of recognizing evil in Iran, he has zero chance of getting the
I support his economic policies, but his blaming us for the Islamists' attacks on us, shows he is incompetent in foreign policy.
OH REALLY ?? Ive awaken my friend, I no longer believe the US government is sin free and crimson white and now dont believe all the propaganda the
msm feeds me.. Maybe you should research and do the same, oops you dont have to I did all the research for you.
In 1953, the US government overthrew the democratic government of Iran (which was pretty secular) and put in its place the Shah. The CIA trained
Iran's political policy, which was responsible for killing and imprisoning thousands of Iranians. The popular revolt created the Revolution in 1979,
which installed an Islamic regime in Iran. BECAUSE of US interventions, Iran became a fierce anti-American country. Let me ask you this: what is the
cause and what is the effect? So, Iran didn't attack the US. Quite the contrary, US attacked Iran, via CIA, in 1953. This is a fact. In 1953 there was
already a report saying that this intervention would generate blow-back. Blow-back is not ONLY the unpretending consequences of an action. It's an
unpretending consequence of an action which is hidden from the public, so that the people CAN'T put cause and effect together. No, I'm not inventing
this: former CIA specialists use the term in this way...
In 1998 Ron Paul said that, because of the disproportion of forces, the only way people in the Middle East could retaliate American agressions would
be through terrorism. And, as America intervene more and more, the terrorist threat would be greater. So, yes, terrorism is a retaliation tactic.
Everybody knows that terrorism CAN'T be used as war strategy. So we should be concerned with attacks from Islamic terrorists. OK, Ron Paul is too. BUT
he understands the causal relationship in these matters. What the other candidates are suggesting as a strategy to avoid terrorism is EXACTLY what
In 1947, George Kennan wrote an article under the pseudonym Mr. X, in which he said that the expansionism of the Soviet Union would demand an ever
increase of its military expenditures. This would eventually bring them down. That's exactly what happened. Same as Bin Laden's strategy. He said he
would put the US in a PERPETUAL war in the Middle East and that would crush America in the same way it did with the USSR. Most candidates are willing
to accomplish Bin Laden's strategy. Sun-Tzu always advised that, to win a war, you must know your enemy. And what do a lot of well-intentioned
Americans do? Well, they do EXACTLY what our enemy wants us to do. Let's put it this way: We have all been acting as a Bin Laden puppet, without
having a clue about this...
Finally, what's the big deal with Iran having a nuke? Let's just assume that it happens - and we don't have any indication of this, except from the
same sources of war propaganda that led to the Iraq War. Again, what's the big deal? Do you think they're going to use it? In the moment they do this,
they would be wiped off the face of Earth. Ron stated this in a former debate. Israel has 300 nukes. But why are they striving to get a nuke, if they
really are? Ron gave the correct answer: it's about respect. How do America treat North Korea? You know, North Korea HAS a nuke, is profoundly
anti-American, and was not invaded. Why? Because they have nukes! What happened to Lybia? It had nuclear power. Then they gave that power away. What
was the consequence? Well, America and other countries created a mess and Gaddafhi is dead!
EVEN if Iran gets a nuke (and, again, ONLY WAR PROPAGANDA suggests that -- the exact same allegation was brought up in a 2007, that Iran would get a
nuke within one year), that doesn't mean a threat. It means that America must use DIPLOMACY, not BOMBS to deal with them. And that's great. Look at
Vietnam: to prevent the communist takeover, America engaged in a nonsensical war and, eventually, lost. They became communist. BUT, when America
stopped dropping bombs and started trading and talking with them, they became a friend and are now westernized. THAT'S what Ron is talking about.
That's what George Washington advised: befriend every country, trade with them. In this way, both countries establish an interdependent relation and
the chance of having a conflict is significantly reduced...
WHEN America was a principled country, when it really defended liberty, peace, free markets etc., then America was loved all around the world!! Others
LOVED the freedoms America once HAD. Yes, had: We are loosing it, We are becoming a tyrannical Police State. People around the world don't hate
America's freedom: they hate the negation of the true American values that our government forces on other countries.
edit on 17-12-2011 by ker2010 because: (no reason given)