It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Ron Paul: Sanctions against Iran are 'acts of war'

page: 3
16
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 30 2011 @ 11:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by dontreally
reply to post by Observor
 


Israel has no intention to ever use the nukes they have; but they are beneficial to staving off any full blown Arab invasion of Israel. As long as Arabs know Israel has a bomb, they'll think twice about violating her sovereignty, lest Cairo, or Damascus, or Tehran, be wiped off the map.


Wait.. that sounds familiar.. almost like M.A.D.

Funny, whenever I mention that in regards to Iran I get "these are suicidal crazies who will detonate a nuclear weapon the moment they get one. Islam wants to take over the world!"




posted on Dec, 30 2011 @ 12:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by dontreally
reply to post by Observor
 


Israel has no intention to ever use the nukes they have; but they are beneficial to staving off any full blown Arab invasion of Israel. As long as Arabs know Israel has a bomb, they'll think twice about violating her sovereignty, lest Cairo, or Damascus, or Tehran, be wiped off the map.

In which case what is the "strategic advantage" that Israel loses if one of those countries also possesses a nuclear weapon?



posted on Dec, 30 2011 @ 01:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by dontreally
reply to post by buster2010
 


So you don't find anything morally wrong with Ron Paul saying he wouldn't have interfered with the Nazis despite knowing as we today what the Nazis were doing. He would have just let the Nazis murder as many Jews as they wanted? And invade as many sovereign nations as they pleased? There's nothing callous and isolationist about that???

You realize, not every nation agrees with libertarian values. Not every nation would act as America would, or would respect Americas "non interventionist" policy; some nations, as a matter of fact, would take advantage of that.

Taiwan would be defenseless against China, South Korea wouldn't have their buffer against the North, Israel would be completely exposed to their enemies.....Let me ask you a simple question: WHY does America defend Taiwan? Why does America defend South Korea? What are the two types of countries that threaten them? They are communist countries.

Communism isn't dead, and it isn't a dream that dies easy. America's presence in those parts of the world is necessary to defend those very values that we appreciate here in the west.


If there is no attack on America then America shouldn't get involved. We have gone broke playing policeman to the world and what have we gotten out of it? Nothing but dead Americans and a debt we'll never be able to pay off. The best thing for America to do is bring everyone home and just build bases that will strengthen our boarders. The rest of the world can just learn how to get along with each other.



posted on Dec, 30 2011 @ 01:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by dontreally
reply to post by buster2010
 

So you don't find anything morally wrong with Ron Paul saying he wouldn't have interfered with the Nazis despite knowing as we today what the Nazis were doing. He would have just let the Nazis murder as many Jews as they wanted? And invade as many sovereign nations as they pleased? There's nothing callous and isolationist about that???

Although Ron Paul is very clear he wouldn't have invaded Germany to save Germans, Jews or not, from their government (non-intervention), he also says that in the event such a nation starts a war against another and the Congress believes US national security is threatened because of that and declare war upon the aggressor nation, he would enter it. He says this clearly in a video posted by Hawkiye on another thread. So he is not an isolationist.

So quite likely he would stop Germany if Germany continued invading neighbours and the US Congress felt the actions were against US national security.

Anyway, what's with all this Jews and Germany business. US didn't intervene to stop a genocide in Rwanda in 1994 despite having the plans for the genocide with them in avdance, They didn't even have to send their own troops, they simply needed to get the UNSC to authorise a force to be sent to Rwanda and couldn't be bothered to do that. Are Jews supposed to be some special people whose lives are worth more than others' and others supposed to die for them if some others try to get them?



posted on Dec, 30 2011 @ 01:55 PM
link   
Shall we return back on the topic on hand, as OP had entitled? There is more than enough of Israel and Arabs issue on other threads than this.

I have no issue on whom seeks for the highest office in the land, if not in the world, be it Mr. Ron Paul, President Obama, Secretary of State Hilary Clinton, or Mr. John Huntsman, etc, for that choice for the encumbent is upon the sacred votes of society at large, not just mine alone.

More critically, it is the message that the encumbent brings to the public. And sadly, I feel that there is an error here by Mr. Ron Paul, and it must be corrected here and now before more dammage is done to society.

If you dont like the service of a shopkeeper, reasonably due to his product, price or service, would you continue to patronise him? I doubt so, nor would you recommend your family, relatives and friends.

This is only natural and a right of humans. It is only a commercial transaction, which are of choices, nothing more. Similarly sanctions.

But for Mr. Ron Paul to claim that such acts are act of war which in reality prevent wars and loss of precious human lives, I fear he may be suffering from senility, thus the loss of logic and reason.

If he is right, it would mean the economic sphere would be a real battlefield, with every worker packing a 9mm, if not AK 47 daily, in the competitive market place dictated by Capitalism - survival of the fittest, which also means the shopkeeper has now a right to shoot you if you don't patronise his stall.

Extrapoliate it into the international stage, you would have a clearer understanding of What sanctions truly mean, and realise it is not 'An act of War', as Mr. Ron Paul dumbfoundedly denounced, and would be frightening if he meant it should he becomes the leader of the nation. We would be at war daily.

And he had held many dubious views over critical issues that are alarming for the security of the nation. It is one thing for supporters to be loyal, but is quite another to support critically wrong beliefs held by the leader, which go against logic and reason. It becomes more than support and had entered into the realm of culthood,- cult of personality, where the leader is held as a mighty being, capable of no wrong, by his supporters.

I hope that he and his supporters may realize the mistakes made, and correct them. We are all flawed anyway. But if not and such beliefs are continued to be held throughout, he will not make much gain, and if against all reason and logic he becomes the President, then USA will be in a lotta pain.

I sincerly and humbly apologise to supporters of Mr. Ron Paul, if my insignificant post proves offensive. I seek nothing, but only the truth to be told, or we will never progress as a race - the human race.



new topics

top topics
 
16
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join