Ron Paul DESTROYS Bachmann on Iran war debate.

page: 4
127
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 16 2011 @ 01:03 PM
link   
""What did we do with Libya? We talked them out of nuclear weapon, and them we killed them!!!""

This was just the best comment, just wow! What an eye opener! Paul for World President!!!




posted on Dec, 16 2011 @ 01:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by jjf3rd77
WOW all these people supporting Ron Paul and not a single comment about the very real threat that Iran will use Nuclear Weapons on us, when they get it.




"In the IAEA report referenced by Bachman last night on page 4, section C, second sentence it clearly states that there is an absence of any indicators that Iran is considering reprocessing irradiated nuclear fuel to extract plutonium."

Dude, Iran does not pose a threat. Besides the fact they are no where near getting nukes, Israel has 300 nukes and has not signed the nonproliferation treaty. Why?

I can see why Iran wants nukes and I don't blame them for that. We are tolerant of Islam in the US, Iran would only want to attack us in retaliation or because of an aggressive US foreign policy.

The fact is, Iran is not a threat to the US, at all.



posted on Dec, 16 2011 @ 01:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by CREAM

Originally posted by jjf3rd77
WOW all these people supporting Ron Paul and not a single comment about the very real threat that Iran will use Nuclear Weapons on us, when they get it.




"In the IAEA report referenced by Bachman last night on page 4, section C, second sentence it clearly states that there is an absence of any indicators that Iran is considering reprocessing irradiated nuclear fuel to extract plutonium."

Dude, Iran does not pose a threat. Besides the fact they are no where near getting nukes, Israel has 300 nukes and has not signed the nonproliferation treaty. Why?

I can see why Iran wants nukes and I don't blame them for that. We are tolerant of Islam in the US, Iran would only want to attack us in retaliation or because of an aggressive US foreign policy.

The fact is, Iran is not a threat to the US, at all.


The United States stands with Israel. Always has and always will. Get used to it.



posted on Dec, 16 2011 @ 01:30 PM
link   
The Shi'i are obsessed with eschatology and convinced of their own Apocalyptic delusion. While I have little doubt the Iranians are working on a nuke, I highly doubt they will start a war...that wouldn't really conform to their vision of the End Times.

I suspect the Iranian regime is trying to PROVOKE war. And if cooler heads don't prevail, the preemptive action by the United States will make the Iranian's delusion a reality and give them all the justification they need to begin their Shi'i Armageddon.



posted on Dec, 16 2011 @ 01:34 PM
link   
Opinions requested:
Answer A, B, or Other (and define Other)

A. Our country will be safer with a president that thinks to hold would-be enemy countries in check by threatening to attack, and/or accusing them of future acts of war based on theories and/or personal opinions.

B. Our country will be safer with a president that refuses to attack or demonize would-be enemy countries based on theories and/or personal opinions.

I'm a B-liever



posted on Dec, 16 2011 @ 01:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by monkcaw
The Shi'i are obsessed with eschatology and convinced of their own Apocalyptic delusion. While I have little doubt the Iranians are working on a nuke, I highly doubt they will start a war...that wouldn't really conform to their vision of the End Times.

I suspect the Iranian regime is trying to PROVOKE war. And if cooler heads don't prevail, the preemptive action by the United States will make the Iranian's delusion a reality and give them all the justification they need to begin their Shi'i Armageddon.



Their vision of the End Times = Suicide Nuke attack on Israel = they all get 72 virgins in heaven.



posted on Dec, 16 2011 @ 01:40 PM
link   
Originally posted by jjf3rd77


WOW all these people supporting Ron Paul and not a single comment about the very real threat that Iran will use Nuclear Weapons on us, when they get it


Iran knows if they launch their whole country will be nuked. Its nonsense to say they will launch at Israel as soon as they get it.

We still don't definitely know if Iran intends to build a bomb. If they do they want it for the same reason as the others. Its the ultimate deterrent against hostile nations & it gives them status.



posted on Dec, 16 2011 @ 01:45 PM
link   
The real test for Ron Paul occured today. On his radio show Rush Limbaugh was openly mocking Ron Paul. He went out of his way to be respectful of the other candidates and was careful not to discredit them All the while he openly discredited and mocked Paul.

I generally agree with most of what Rush says and stands for but he seems to be schilling for the same establishment candidates that the media and Washington elites are pushing.

In my mind the candidate we should be supporting is the one the media and pundits hate the most. That is Ron Paul. It seems there's no room at the inn for the truth.

So the question is this - whose followers allegiance is stronger Pauls or Limbaughs?
Can Limbaughs disdain for Paul have a chilling effect of Pauls surge? Or will Rush's comments backfire and gin up the base for Paul even more?
edit on 16-12-2011 by beanandginger because: added content



posted on Dec, 16 2011 @ 01:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by rogerstigers

Originally posted by Grimpachi
Are you all insane? Do any of you know anybody from Iran? I know several people and I can tell you from talking with them that if Iran gets a nuclear weapon the radical religious faction will have no problem initiating a war against Israel. They believe their Savior will rise up and lead them to victory over the world.


Yes, I have met and worked with people from Iran. Yes, the theologians there are a bit on the crazy side. But if Iran were to detonate a nuclear missle in someone elses country resulting in a retaliatory strike killing millions on both sides, based on the input I have had from these Iranian ex-pats, no amount of military oppression would stop the tidal wave of anger and rage that would be inflicted upon the Iranian government and supreme council by the people of Iran.

The Ayatollah knows this.. that's why they would do nothing. They are in a one sided M.A.D. situation. They cannot destroy the government of Israel with one bomb and they cannot survive the aftermath of an attack, either. In addition, the fallout would hit Jordan, Iraq, and parts of Iran causing long term collateral damage. And neither China nor Russia would tolerate them launching a nuclear strike for a number of reasons.

So in a nutshell... IF Iran is making a nuclear weapon.. which is definately not certain at all... the act of using it would result in the annihilation of their own country.


You make valid points except the fact we are talking about a religious belief with them. It does not matter what is sensible to you and me they believe God is on there side and through the ashes they will be victorious. Those with that kind of religious view are not thinking about who would turn against them because in their mind it has been foretold. Do you think a suicide bomber is worried about retaliation? I have been all over the world as a civilian and as a soldier. We are not dealing with the nation like Russia. The Cold War was a piece of cake compared to this. This is not a situation where rationality of a mutually assured destruction becomes a deterrent.

What Ron Paul proposes is reminiscent of America's seclusionist era. It sounds great at first but last time we wound up.in a World war. The world cannot afford the possibility of another, it wouldn't survive.

I cannot stand Michelle Bachmann or any of the other candidates but if Ron Paul does not prove to me that he would do what ever is necessary to keep nuclear weapons out of the hands of Iran then I cannot vote for him. It is as simple as that.



posted on Dec, 16 2011 @ 01:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThromBombudill
The reason so many in power want nuclear arms eliminated, is because it makes large scale conventional war impossible.
They have no concern for "collateral" damage. It just makes all their precious "toys" useless.
Even 1 nuc would have made the Iraq debuncle over before it started. You don't have to destroy everything, the EMP pulse would have made all the fancy high tech weaponry useless.
A word to the wise, next time some "leader" spouts the the desire to rid the world of nuclear weapons, ask yourself why ???.
Is to protect "us" or is it to protect their "toys"
Just something to chew on.
edit on 16-12-2011 by ThromBombudill because: (no reason given)


Just to let you know 90% of the United States military equipment is shielded from EMP's.



posted on Dec, 16 2011 @ 01:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Eurisko2012
The United States stands with Israel. Always has and always will. Get used to it.


Many of Americans also stands with Palestine, things change. Get used to it.

edit on 16-12-2011 by CREAM because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 16 2011 @ 02:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Eurisko2012
 


Well, not quite. In their storyline the United States is playing the part of the Great Satan, a powerful force which makes Muslim life hard and more oppressive than any other time in history. When Muslims cannot take anymore, Allah sends the Hidden Imam, the Mahdi, and he sets things right along with Jesus.

Of course "by setting things right" we assume all hell brakes loose and, as you said earlier, lots of Jews (and Christians) will die. My point was maybe we can avoid this by not fulfilling their expectations. It seems we are just abetting the Shi'i Apocalypse.



posted on Dec, 16 2011 @ 02:06 PM
link   
The U.S.A. nukes Japan twice and now they (Bachmann & Co.) want to launch a war on a country for merely developing the technology?

This logic does not compute.

This is why the rest of world doesn't respect the U.S.A. Trust me, when the United States government wage war on their own people (and they will), do you think the rest of world is going to be sympathetic? They won't be. What's good for the goose is good for the gander right? Folks can say and think what they want but once the U.S.A. is broken by it's masters, I honestly don't think the rest of the world will suddenly extend forgiveness for it's blind-sided "patriotism" and hubris.

That being said, I genuinely hope Ron Paul will succeed, redeem the U.S.A. and protect her people.



posted on Dec, 16 2011 @ 02:15 PM
link   
sometimes the best defense is a good offense.

especially when, as mentioned previously, you may be dealing with a group of people who dont care about death or what happens afterwards. a group who may be happy to die in a strike against their enemy.

suicide bombers arent worried about retaliation. simple as that. wonder if that suicide bomber happens to have his finger on a nukes launch button?

ron paul has a lot of good ideas and i agree with a lot of his views. but the fact is america is the most powerful country, and in order to keep that up, sometimes you have to do things that arent just fun and friendly. that is just how world politics is. sometimes somebody is going to get their feelings hurt.

this everyone in peace, lovey dovey crap just doesnt work in the real world. the minute we lay down our arms, some other opportunist will pick them up and proceed to take what we can no longer defend.

agree with it or not, its the reality of the world we live in.



posted on Dec, 16 2011 @ 02:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by CaptainIraq
Sometimes I wish I could kind of whisper little hints to Dr. Paul during the debates - because while his ideas are certainly the strongest, his delivery doesn't match some of the time. Specifically:

MIM-104 Patriot Missile System. 'Nuff said. Not only that, Israel is looking to upgrade their patriots to the David's Sling, an even more advanced missile-defense system. How can anyone seriously think that Iran can even touch Israel? They have arguably the most advanced military outside of the US. Compare that to Iran's third-rate military. Night and Day.

You know what this reminds me of? North Korea. Anyone remember how we were all set to go to war with them as they were just about to get nuclear weapons, because we were convinced that they would use them on S.K. at the first opportunity? What happened there? If I remember correctly, I stopped seeing North Korea in the headlines after we figured out that they had nukes for sure - and, correct me if I'm wrong, they didn't use them. But wait, 'ol Kim is a madman who wanted to wipe S.K. off the map, just like the mainstream media told me! Why didn't he use his nukes then?


I say let Iran have nukes, if it's going to prevent another useless war. Ironically, it seems, the most deadly weapon we have ever created turned out to be the most peaceful one. Can anyone imagine what the 'Cold War' era would've been like without nukes? I don't even want to think about it...
edit on 16-12-2011 by CaptainIraq because: (no reason given)


I'm sorry but you have no clue what you're talking about. I have served the DMZ in Korea and sense they got nukes the aggression is only worse. Earlier this year they fired missiles into South Korea they have sank one of South Koreas warships and that is only what has hit the news. That area is anything but stable. I have not served their in many years but it wasn't safe then and it has only gotten worse. North Korea uses the threat of war for what is essentially a payoff from us. We have sent them oil, food, goods and money. If you look back you can find these stories in old newspapers. More goes on there than you will ever know. It is a miniature Cold War that really isn't that cold.



posted on Dec, 16 2011 @ 02:23 PM
link   
What politicians do best, put a foot in their mouth...

Michele Bachmann ( Politician )



She is a 100% certified Herp Derpster



posted on Dec, 16 2011 @ 02:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Eurisko2012
 


The current spoken/unspoken foreign policy of the United States is stand with Israel. Yet if you include all of the foreign aid that we give nations that are hostile to Israel, that amount is greater than we give Tel Aviv. This doesn't sound like a net-positive for Israel, does it?
I also wonder if you're aware of something that happened in 1981 when Israel bombed a facility in Iraq. Israel thought the facility was capable of producing nuclear weapons that could be used against them. After bombing the facility, the United States Congress passed a measure condemning Israel for it's "excessive force" and not consulting the United States first. Ron Paul was one of a handful of Congressmen who voted against that. Ron Paul said that Israel had the right to defend itself when it felt threatened - that it doesn't need Americas permission. Now we think we need to usurp their rights by taking the lead in bombing other countries in the name of "peace".



posted on Dec, 16 2011 @ 02:26 PM
link   
When I saw this last night, two words came out of my mouth:

"OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOh Sh*t."



posted on Dec, 16 2011 @ 02:27 PM
link   
reply to post by pngxp
 


We're not laying down our arms. Pay attention. We're simply returning our arms to defense of our own nation... because the world is NOT peaceful.



posted on Dec, 16 2011 @ 02:33 PM
link   
reply to post by jjf3rd77
 


I am totally with you on this. Go back and check my first post, it is the exact point I was trying to make. How anyone can think I ran obtaining nuclear missiles is okay is beyond me. I think most of the people is too young or too naive to understand what's at stake. I love most of what Ron Paul stands for but he is just dead wrong on this.

I'm glad you spoke up we need some voices of reason here.





new topics
top topics
 
127
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join