Ron Paul's Rivals’ Criticize His Policy On Iran,, Ron Paul in nuclear denial>?.

Well they are all ganging up on Paul now.. Paul never was a threat
now he is. So now they got a taste of blood and are on the attack.

Mr. Paul’s rivals have hammered him for days as too dovish and suggested that he would do nothing to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon. Mitt Romney again criticized Mr. Paul on Friday in an interview on the Fox News Channel, saying, “I don’t think Ron Paul represents the mainstream of Republican thought with regards to issues, particularly in foreign policy.”

Mr. Romney and other Republican candidates have said they would take military action if economic, diplomatic and other pressure did not prevent Iran from building a nuclear device, warning that Tehran could launch a first-strike nuclear attack on Israel.

Paul responds by sticking to his guns, he said as a crowd gathered in the Sioux Center.

others say Iran “might get a nuclear weapon someday, and wouldn’t it be good if we have a pre-emptive attack on Iran right now to make sure they never got a weapon.”

“I would say no, I wouldn’t do that, mainly because right now there are no signs they are” seeking to build a bomb, Mr. Paul said.

And if Iran did build a nuclear bomb, he said, “What are the odds of them using it? Probably zero. They just are not going to commit suicide. The Israelis have 300 of them.”

But Mr. Paul was also careful to say that the president is “obligated” to respond to an imminent attack on the United States. “You don’t have to wait until they have put their feet on our soil,” he said.

www.nytimes.com...

I think this is the only thing that is killing Ron Pauls
chance at winning the election. This just drives people
nuts! When people here him say there is no proof Iran is building
nuclear weapons..

For the first time, the IAEA gives a wide-ranging picture of research and development work in Iran that suggests military nuclear aims.

The report gives detailed information - some new - suggesting that Iran conducted computer modelling of a kind that would only be relevant to a nuclear weapon.

Analysts say it is increasingly unreasonable to continue to believe Iran has no nuclear military intentions.

www.bbc.co.uk...

How can Ron Paul just ignore these reports like
there is some big conspiracy against him..
This is not America or Israel stating this...
It just does not rub right with me people.
Is Ron Paul in nuclear denial?

reply to post by popsmayhem
Please see my new thread So Ron Paul's Foreign Policy is Crazy? with endorsements from some former CIA intelligence and terror experts (one being former head of the bin Laden tracking unit) specifically BECAUSE of his foreign policy and as he's the only one actually serious about national security.

If I were Iran, I would probably also be looking for a nuke or something else at this point, what with as hard as the US has been beating the war drums for quite some time now. The US only seems to respect and leave-alone nuclear armed states (reference North Korea and how they dropped off our radar after they went nuclear), and bullies those without.

As has been gone over here many times, Iran is not suicidal, has no delivery system even if they did become nuclear, and - seriously - they're going to attack either the only nation to have ever previously nuked another which is sitting on the largest nuclear stockpile in the world, or their middle-east proxy which is also nuclear, through some magical means?

It's the drumbeats of Iraq all over again. "And we can't let the smoking gun come in the shape of a mushroom cloud..."

I'm going to vote for him just to piss everyone off.

reply to post by popsmayhem

I think I'm going to have to agree with you. "There are no signs that they are seeking to build a bomb?" I can accept that his policy may very well be to not go to war until the attack on the US is imminent, but I can't accept the idea that he refuses to see what even the IAEA could see.

To be rational, I think he would have to say "I see what Iran is doing, and it's very worrying, but we don't have to do anything about it right now." But that's not what he's saying.

My main problem is that Rep. Paul and his supporters seem to be saying "The way we're in involved in the world now is bad, so the solution is not to be involved in the world." I think he, and they, are missing the third option, which is to be involved in a better, smarter, way.

Originally posted by Manhater
I'm going to vote him just to piss everyone off.

I'm voting for him to,
The thing that gets me
is Paul is totally in denial about the recent international
atomic watchdog report comprised of people from
many countries not just the USA

Oh I forgot it is some huge conspiracy and everyone else
are the liars and Paul is the only one telling the truth.

reply to post by charles1952

My main problem is that Rep. Paul and his supporters seem to be saying "The way we're in involved in the world now is bad, so the solution is not to be involved in the world." I think he, and they, are missing the third option, which is to be involved in a better, smarter, way.

You mean the way where we advocate cutting departmental bloat, eliminating redundant departments and consolidating/streamlining our intelligence agencies so we actually use intelligence instead of losing so much of it in jurisdictional crossovers, then presenting it to congress for review, declaration of war if needed, and a swift and overwhelming response with quick ending?

We have no intention to ignore the world or not consider threats, friend - we want to stop antagonizing it and spreading our forces out all over the world so they aren't here to defend us and leaving our borders wide open (with a running border war with the cartels down south, basically).

Work smarter, not harder or counter-productively - that's what Paul advocates, and is the reason he gets military and intelligence support.

Originally posted by charles1952
reply to post by popsmayhem

 

I think I'm going to have to agree with you. "There are no signs that they are seeking to build a bomb?" I can accept that his policy may very well be to not go to war until the attack on the US is imminent, but I can't accept the idea that he refuses to see what even the IAEA could see.

To be rational, I think he would have to say "I see what Iran is doing, and it's very worrying, but we don't have to do anything about it right now." But that's not what he's saying.

My main problem is that Rep. Paul and his supporters seem to be saying "The way we're in involved in the world now is bad, so the solution is not to be involved in the world." I think he, and they, are missing the third option, which is to be involved in a better, smarter, way.

Brilliant!!
I'm with you on this, it makes no sense that he denies the reports...
He is just a doctor not a nuclear scientist I think paul needs to leave
thatto the experts.

Originally posted by Praetorius
reply to post by charles1952

 

My main problem is that Rep. Paul and his supporters seem to be saying "The way we're in involved in the world now is bad, so the solution is not to be involved in the world." I think he, and they, are missing the third option, which is to be involved in a better, smarter, way.

You mean the way where we advocate cutting departmental bloat, eliminating redundant departments and consolidating/streamlining our intelligence agencies so we actually use intelligence instead of losing so much of it in jurisdictional crossovers, then presenting it to congress for review, declaration of war if needed, and a swift and overwhelming response with quick ending?

We have no intention to ignore the world or not consider threats, friend - we want to stop antagonizing it and spreading our forces out all over the world so they aren't here to defend us and leaving our borders wide open (with a running border war with the cartels down south, basically).

Work smarter, not harder or counter-productively - that's what Paul advocates, and is the reason he gets military and intelligence support.

How can Paul deny all the evidence Iran is trying to make nuclear weapons.

I do consider it crazy to invade some where because they might do something. I might do lots of things, but until I have done it they are just options and ideas. Justice is based on actions, not thoughts. If Iran needs the bomb to have its sovereignty respected, so be it. Iran is in a very tense part of the world with boarders to Russia, China, the Middle east and now getting confronted by the west.

When Mutually Assured Destruction is on the table it does take international negotiations to a new level. These gun loving, centre of the universe American's are a strange breed indeed. More concerned about places they do not care about rather than confront the real threats in their own backyard.

reply to post by popsmayhem
Well, first off, the IAEA report found no evidence they were, just that they had the capacity to start working towards such if they decided to.

Secondly, your BBC article is old - Iran just invited the weapons inspectors to come in and look around a couple of weeks ago, probably because they're nervous we're about to go all Iraq-y on them.

Also, look at Paul's quote from the NYT article you referenced:

And if Iran did build a nuclear bomb, he said, “What are the odds of them using it? Probably zero. They just are not going to commit suicide. The Israelis have 300 of them.”

But Mr. Paul was also careful to say that the president is “obligated” to respond to an imminent attack on the United States. “You don’t have to wait until they have put their feet on our soil,” he said.

So, where was this solid evidence that they're building a bomb, again?

And then where's the evidence that they plan to attack the US, anyway?

And lastly - why on earth would they NOT want a bomb (I certainly would, even though there's no solid evidence they are actually seeking one), as I already asked, when we're over there tearing up multiple muslim countries, have been actively threatening them for years, tinkering in their internal affairs with the CIA trying to spark a coup as well as calling for a (terrorist!) Iranian revolutionary cult to be taken off the terrorist watchlist (WE are trying to work with terrorists to overthrow an elected government!), and have them surrounded with our military bases?

North Korea got the nuke, and we left them alone. Is Iran not entitled to try to preserve itself against the clear and present danger WE present?

duplicate, sorry

If Iran gets the bomb (and I say "the" bomb because they will only be able to create one, if it ever works) who are they gonna bomb? Israel? Yeah, right. Talk about a nation being wiped off the map, that's what Israel will do to them. Saudi Arabia? See answer above. The U.S.? The bomb will be blown to bits before it even reaches the Atlantic Ocean, then America will turn the entire region into a glass farm. Let 'em get the bomb if they want it. All it will be used for is deterrence.

/TOA

Originally posted by popsmayhem

The report gives detailed information - some new - suggesting that Iran conducted computer modelling of a kind that would only be relevant to a nuclear weapon.

Many experts believe Iran's rulers want to be in a position to know how to build a bomb, to have all the parts ready - but not necessarily to take the final step.

www.bbc.co.uk...

From your same BBC source. There is no proof of anything. There are suggestions of possibilities. Even the possibility that they are doing the research, but not the construction. Are people seriously considering that we should ignite World War 3 over the possibility that they might eventually hve something, maybe?

reply to post by Praetorius

Dear Praetorius,

Thanks very much for your response. I think I see a little better what your thinking is. But I have to admit, portions of my understanding are still fuzzy.

Absolutely everyone agrees with

cutting departmental bloat, eliminating redundant departments and consolidating/streamlining our intelligence agencies so we actually use intelligence instead of losing so much of it in jurisdictional crossovers,

Of course, being government, we've never done very well in trimming it, but we can try again. And I also agree completely with you when you say:

We have no intention to ignore the world or not consider threats, friend - we want to stop antagonizing it

But I still have a couple of problem areas. One, is the idea of presenting information to Congress to review and declare war, without doing much until that happens. Congress can't decide things quickly, and they put politics and re-election ahead of everything else. What would a Congress say to a President of a different party? Further, what does Rep. Paul do if the vote is 51-49? Unite the country behind a war?

Congress approved the war in Iraq. If Paul had been the President then, what swift and overwhelming strategy would result in a quick ending there?

The other problem area involves military threats short of war. What do we do if North Korea builds up along the border? Or if Iran moves ships to block the Straits? Sometimes, it's helpful, almost essential, to have force near by.

We may be able to come to total agreement, Praetorius, but these are still unresolved problems for me.

With respect,
Charles1952

He's not going to be the nominee, he's not going to be elected for the Presidency of the United States of America, so it's a non-issue.

I even have my doubts about Iowa at this point.

Originally posted by TheOneElectric
He's not going to be the nominee, he's not going to be elected for the Presidency of the United States of America, so it's a non-issue.

I even have my doubts about Iowa at this point.

Are you from the future?

he's right. there is no proof. are they building one. probably 100%.

they have to, since israel and the u.s. keep saying they are going bomb the crap out of them. and they're the last middle east nation not to be invaded or under american control.

why is america in a constant state of war. can't america go 4 years without a military conflict.

Originally posted by charles1952
Congress approved the war in Iraq. If Paul had been the President then, what swift and overwhelming strategy would result in a quick ending there?

Anything would have been better than what they did do. No game plan past "shock and awe" (also known as "boys playing with their toys"). Arrogance to the extreme thinking that Iraqi citizens would just greet us with flowers and parades after we invaded their land and killed innocent people.

IRAN is partners with Russia and China, i'm sure if they need a nuclear retaliatory strike, they can get one for a lil oil

reply to post by charles1952
Thanks Charles, sorry for coming off brusquely earlier, I'm tired and burnt out from putting out Paul-fires all day:

But I still have a couple of problem areas. One, is the idea of presenting information to Congress to review and declare war, without doing much until that happens. Congress can't decide things quickly, and they put politics and re-election ahead of everything else. What would a Congress say to a President of a different party? Further, what does Rep. Paul do if the vote is 51-49? Unite the country behind a war?

Congress approved the war in Iraq. If Paul had been the President then, what swift and overwhelming strategy would result in a quick ending there?

That's actually a good question I'll have to look further into - I'm not too sure about the actual procedural requirements for Congress to officially declare war, but as far as a close vote (or whatever the equivalent for the actual procedure may be), I'd imagine Paul would respect the will of the people through their representatives and sit on hands while building the case for a proper declaration so he could unleash the dogs.

That said, the War Powers Resolution IS still in place, and with my understanding of Paul, he would use it accordingly (if no other options are in place for proper dealing) for immediate response without a formal declaration by Congress in light of an immediate threat of clear & present danger.

The other problem area involves military threats short of war. What do we do if North Korea builds up along the border? Or if Iran moves ships to block the Straits? Sometimes, it's helpful, almost essential, to have force near by.

We may be able to come to total agreement, Praetorius, but these are still unresolved problems for me.

With respect,
Charles1952

That's another I'll have to look into to be sure, but I'll assume I can guess the right answer offhand - with Paul's adherence to the non-interventionist advice of the founders, I would say the answer is nothing unless Congress felt strongly enough about such things to declare it enough of a threat to us to call for war.

That said...and I'm of mixed feelings about this - you're probably familiar with all the fun new toys DARPA and our military have been designing recently to respond to threats anywhere on earth within an hour. I would assume we would leverage that, or the like, accordingly if we felt the need to get involved.

As far as your specific examples, though, with Paul's policies in place, such an event with Iran I would consider unlikely - they tend to use such threats along these lines as a DEFENSIVE measure to scare off outside hostility, and an analysis I read...yesterday?...suggested that their ability to do so effectively is suspect, at best, relying on outdated and ineffective mines and other fairly weak options (sinking ships there likely the best bet, and that works equally against them).

North Korea - they like to bluff and bluster, but tend to really only get wound up when the South eggs them on by wargaming on the disputed island and firing weapons towards (not at) the North.

Let me know your thoughts or if I can try to provide anything more on this.