REALITY CHECK: Is Ron Paul Right on Israel?

RON PAUL got CRAPPED on by the MSM for saying "We don't need to protect Israel, they can defend themselves" when Israeli PM NETENYAHU said "We don't need America to protect us, we can defend ourself" at the last UN meeting.

Too funny.

reply to post by CALGARIAN


Israel doesn't need the 82nd Airborne out there protecting their borders. They can,indeed, protect themselves.

This does not mean that we shouldn't support Israel.

Originally posted by projectvxn
reply to post by CALGARIAN

 

Israel doesn't need the 82nd Airborne out there protecting their borders. They can,indeed, protect themselves.

This does not mean that we shouldn't support Israel.

They can now, sure. After how many billions of US money and weaponry?

reply to post by CALGARIAN


They bought most of it.

As far as money is concerned the US government shouldn't be giving tax payer money to anyone. And I support Israel.

reply to post by projectvxn

But Ron Paul is wrong to say we shouldn't worry about Iran, because it's our fault we pissed them off. That's horrible "diplomacy" right there.

You want a reality check? Ron Paul is right. Israel has a lot of the newer military hardware, except, of course, the F22. Besides F15s and F16s, it has three nuclear capable Dolphin Class subs. They have been storing parts for years and are the leading edge of some technologies, and a top rated Intelligence agency.

Israel has also had years of actual combat experience against larger forces. Anyone old enough to remember the Six Day War? And Nukes? Israel has between 150 and 200 nuclear Missiles. If it were to turn into a nuke war, Israel has more than enough ordinance to lay waste to Iran, Syria, Egypt, or any other country in the region.

Recently Americans have begun to read and hear that “Israel receives $3 billion in annual U.S. foreign aid.” That's true.

But it's still a lie. The problem is that in fiscal 1997 alone, Israel received from a variety of other U.S. federal budgets at least $525.8 million above and beyond its $3 billion from the foreign aid budget, and yet another $2 billion in federal loan guarantees. So the complete total of U.S. grants and loan guarantees to Israel for fiscal 1997 was $5,525,800,000.

One can truthfully blame the mainstream media for never digging out these figures for themselves, because none ever have. They were compiled by the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs. But the mainstream media certainly are not alone.

Although Congress authorizes America's foreign aid total, the fact that more than a third of it goes to a country smaller in both area and population than Hong Kong probably never has been mentioned on the floor of the Senate or House. Yet it's been going on for more than a generation. Probably the only members of Congress who even suspect the full total of U.S. funds received by Israel each year are the privileged few committee members who actually mark it up. And almost all members of the concerned committees are Jewish, have taken huge campaign donations orchestrated by Israel's Washington, DC lobby, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), or both. These congressional committee members are paid to act, not talk. So they do and they don't.

source

And yet, it seems, no man or woman has a chance of becoming president without swearing full, blind, unwavering support to Israel. So why does Israel need the United States to support it?
I, much like Doctor Paul, think Israel can take care of itself.

reply to post by jjf3rd77

reply to post by autowrench


I was 16 during the 6 Day War and wanted to fly to Israel to help fight back the aggressors.

Fast forward 45 years. Now I see the Israeli government as a belligerent bully that needs it's a$$ kicked!

Ouch, he just called Ron Paul a "Zionist".

Yes, Israel can indeed protect itself, no doubt about it.
But just because they CAN doesn't mean they should.

Let's just say Iran attacks and Israel retaliates with a vengeance.
What happens next?

The world will be symapthetic to Iran's cause and conveniently forget that Iran started the conflict.
I can see nothing more than escalation at that point.
What will Ron Paul have to say then?

That's what Ron Paul is overlooking so he is indeed "under reacting".

Jews have TOO much influence in this country. You could just tell in last nights debate how desperate Bachman got with it being the last debate and all, she tried stroking the Jews ego and tried to gain some favor with them when she and RP went back and forth over Iran. I say if Iran wants to put a crater in the ground where Israel is at, the US should stay out of it. They prob deserve it because of the way they treat the people in Palestine.

Originally posted by tothetenthpower
reply to post by jjf3rd77

 

The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.

Iran hasn't attacked a nation in a century. They aren't going to start a war. At least there is no indication of them wanting to do so. All they want is the ability to tell the rest of the world to mind their own business by having an ace in the hole.

The nuke. IMO every nation has the right to a trump card to prevent itself from being manipulated by outside forces, against it's own will and against it's own interests. It just so happens in today's world that you need a nuclear weapon to do that.

Let them eat cake.

If you wanna blame anybody, blame Canada, we are the ones who developped and sold CANDU reactors to those middle eastern nations anyway.

~Keeper

As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.

True words,well written. The Iranian people want nothing more than to carry on with their lives,just like you and I.

And if the Iranian people want to change their government,let them rise up and do so.

Same here in the US,if it gets any worse.

Ron Paul is right,we don't need intervention,we need diplomacy and trade.

No harm doing the good ol lend lease program like we did in WW2, until we get attacked then its on like donky kong

Originally posted by Alxandro
Ouch, he just called Ron Paul a "Zionist".

Yes, Israel can indeed protect itself, no doubt about it.
But just because they CAN doesn't mean they should.

Let's just say Iran attacks and Israel retaliates with a vengeance.
What happens next?

The world will be symapthetic to Iran's cause and conveniently forget that Iran started the conflict.
I can see nothing more than escalation at that point.
What will Ron Paul have to say then?

That's what Ron Paul is overlooking so he is indeed "under reacting".

What will Ron Paul say if war breaks out between Israel and Iran? It's their problem let them deal with it. He has said this many times and Benny has also said they don't need Americas help. It's time to take Israel at their word and cut them off. And seeing how Iran hasn't started a war in a couple of hundred years they won't be starting one anytime soon.

Originally posted by buster2010

What will Ron Paul say if war breaks out between Israel and Iran? It's their problem let them deal with it. He has said this many times and Benny has also said they don't need Americas help. It's time to take Israel at their word and cut them off. And seeing how Iran hasn't started a war in a couple of hundred years they won't be starting one anytime soon.

*sigh*

Ron said that he would go to war with a DECLARATION from congress.

reply to post by tothetenthpower

If you wanna blame anybody, blame Canada, we are the ones who developped and sold CANDU reactors to those middle eastern nations anyway.

Sorry somebody had to do it.
2nd.

Originally posted by CALGARIAN

Originally posted by buster2010

What will Ron Paul say if war breaks out between Israel and Iran? It's their problem let them deal with it. He has said this many times and Benny has also said they don't need Americas help. It's time to take Israel at their word and cut them off. And seeing how Iran hasn't started a war in a couple of hundred years they won't be starting one anytime soon.

*sigh*

Ron said that he would go to war with a DECLARATION from congress.

Yes but only if America itself were attacked and that congress is the only one that can declare war. What goes on over there is their business not ours. This is something he has said many times.

What it all comes down to is an American proxy with Iran war via Israel. Israel and the U.S. and Britain are basically governed by the same banksters who have no loyalty to a single country. Israel wouldn't exist without the U.S and Britain after WWII and the United Nations (NWO).

The American people would not support a war with Iran. Americans are becoming shock resistant... but if an ally is attacked, well... reign in the bombs. It's the perfect situation because America will get what they want out a war without the bad publicity of starting it. Although... the Christian fundamentalists would happily accept a war with Iran if it means a war in 2012 to bring in this so called 'rapture' and convert all remaining muslims and jews to Christianity.

Israel has received the same amount in foreign aid from the United States than ALL OTHER COUNTRIES OF THE WORLD COMBINED. How can this be? Ron Paul is right - if the U.S. hadn't armed Israel with Nukes, maybe they would have been forced to be more diplomatic instead of a regional bully.

The irony is that the U.S. claims the Iranians and the whole Middle East is in the midst of a religious war, when the whole basis of Israel being a country is a constant religious war.

This has been in planning for a LONG TIME. It has nothing to do with Politics/Religion/Iranian Nukes - it's the 70's and 80's all over again; limiting China and Russian access to the geo-strategic country of Iran.

The government and media have done an excellent job in meshing religion and politics; linking critical comments about Israel to being anti-semetic.

Either way - if it is a war they want, a war they will get. They will find a way to create a Boogie Man. It just sucks that when war happens, to be critical will be seen as "Anti-Israel", and with these new laws, that alone could make you a terrorist.

Scary. Time to make 'pro war' T-Shirts.

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 aggressions 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 causes them.

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 does 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.

To anyone who doesn't understand or were still asleep I hope this will open your mind and wake ya up.