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

page: 2
3
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 30 2011 @ 11:45 PM
link   
reply to post by rogerstigers
 

Dear rogerstigers,

Honestly, I am not trying to get too personal here, but I can hear the anger and frustration in your voice. I share that. But it may be that I didn't communicate my question properly. May I try again?

Congress approved the Iraq war, so even under a Ron Paul administration we would be going in. There was no way we would nuke the place, or use major, blockbuster weapons. With the "enemy" hiding among the civilians, there was no quick and easy solution available, although getting rid of Saddam solved one problem, there were others.

Would a President Paul be willing to fight a slug fest like Iraq, Afghanistan, etc.? And how would it be fought differently?

My own opinion, and I know very little, is that he would not have gone to war even if Congress authorized it. Whether that's a strength or weakness is yet to be determined.

With respect,
charles1952




posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 12:01 AM
link   
reply to post by Praetorius
 

Dear Praetorius,

You've been a model poster, I'm certainly not offended. But, "Paul-fires?" That makes you sound like you're on the staff. What a privelege it would be for me if that were true.

I am greatly reassured that Rep. Paul would feel able to use War Powers if necessary. I would hate for him to take that option completely off the table, regardless of the circumstances. I think Paul opponents are afraid that his isolationism is almost an article of faith. This is an area I'm still to be reassured in, since his image is that he is strongly opposed to an American presence of any kind in the rest of the world. The idea of "an immediate threat of clear and present danger" is necessarily vague, but important. I wonder if he could provide some hypotheticals?

As a physician he is probably an enthusiastic supporter of preventive medicine, and treating a problem as quickly as possible. I don't see why that would not apply to foreign affairs.

We have had a Pax Americana for almost 70 years. It is difficult for me to predict what the problems and benefits would be from backing away from that stance. It may be all benefits and no problems, but it looks like a big gamble.

With respect,
Charles1952
edit on 31-12-2011 by charles1952 because: Sorry, some unnecesary material removed



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 12:23 AM
link   
reply to post by popsmayhem
 


What evidence? Where?

This is Iraq all over again.

If you support a war in Iran, you are a FOOL and I could care less if you wish to go crying to a moderator about it.



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 12:32 AM
link   
reply to post by charles1952
 
No, not a staffer (it WOULD be neat, but just with the way I can feel, I can imagine how wound up they must be)...just trying to address the various concerns or allegations about Paul as best I can and being wearied of it.

Thanks for the kind words, and I know the foreign policy is a concern - and this is why I feel it's important for people to be aware of the intelligence and terrorism experts (CIA alumni) who are openly lending their support to Paul as the only one actually serious about our security and with any idea how to keep us afloat otherwise. It really is high praise, from those who - as far as I can tell - should know best.

Anyhow, I think I'm near needing to sever the connection tonight. You take care, Charles.



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 01:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by charles1952
reply to post by rogerstigers
 

Dear rogerstigers,

Honestly, I am not trying to get too personal here, but I can hear the anger and frustration in your voice. I share that. But it may be that I didn't communicate my question properly. May I try again?

Congress approved the Iraq war, so even under a Ron Paul administration we would be going in. There was no way we would nuke the place, or use major, blockbuster weapons. With the "enemy" hiding among the civilians, there was no quick and easy solution available, although getting rid of Saddam solved one problem, there were others.

Would a President Paul be willing to fight a slug fest like Iraq, Afghanistan, etc.? And how would it be fought differently?

My own opinion, and I know very little, is that he would not have gone to war even if Congress authorized it. Whether that's a strength or weakness is yet to be determined.

With respect,
charles1952


You are always so flipping polite! lol It's a good thing to see.

Anger? no. That's not in my nature. Frustration? Absolutely, but not at you.

I am, obviously, not 100% in the know on wht happened with the Iraq war insofar as planning and strategies go. I do know that a great number of people died needlessly. What would Ron Paul have done differantly? Who knows? That is actually almost impossible for anyone except Mr Paul to answer.He voted against the Iraq War resolution. However, no matter how much I disagree with a war, I would not accept a president NOT acting on a declaration of war from congress. Intentional hypocricy is the greatest crime, in my view.

So in a hypothetical where he was president when the drums were beating for Iraq, I would hope that he would have employeed the full force of the state department to try to avoid the war. I cannot answer further, because I don't have enough information to offer a sane proposal. I still don't see what rational reason there was for the Iraq war. To me, I still see nothing but cod swinging power plays.

People are too quick to forget families and loved ones when egos are bruised. War should always be the last option and should never be taken lightly.

I still agree with "Speak softly, but carry a big stick"



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 01:27 AM
link   
reply to post by rogerstigers
 

Dear rogerstigers,

I really like your response. Rep. Paul is fortunate to have people like you as supporters.

With respect,
Charles1952

Oh, being polite? I'm getting very close to losing it in the three threads posted right after each other by Samsamm9 dealing with Christian honor killings. Once, or maybe twice, I've been this angry on ATS



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 01:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by The Sword
reply to post by popsmayhem
 


What evidence? Where?

This is Iraq all over again.

If you support a war in Iran, you are a FOOL and I could care less if you wish to go crying to a moderator about it.



You're right. No need for moderators. Paul is telling the truth and those foaming at the mouth who want a war with Iran, just like the war in Iraq are not right in the head.

Look back at Iraq people. The media and "establishment" said the same things then as they are saying now about Iran. No WMD's were found, nadda. It's exactly the same thing here. IF it was confirmed that *a* nuke MIGHT be made from Iran, then they would have to be suicidal to use it. Up to 300 nukes straight from Israel would be heading their way. Don't buy the hype! Let's not do this again!
edit on 31-12-2011 by Wookiep because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 01:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by popsmayhem
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.


Can I suggest you Paulers stop trying to use that line of thinking right now before it backfires on you like it did on McCain?
See, so many ran around saying that they were just attacking because he was a threat. Then they attacked the opposition themselves.
Well, you see how that worked out.

Just some friendly advice.



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 02:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by Algernonsmouse

Originally posted by popsmayhem
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.


Can I suggest you Paulers stop trying to use that line of thinking right now before it backfires on you like it did on McCain?
See, so many ran around saying that they were just attacking because he was a threat. Then they attacked the opposition themselves.
Well, you see how that worked out.

Just some friendly advice.


I agree. It is a moot point anyway. But playing the victim is indeed a sucker's game.



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 03:35 AM
link   
When did we prevent Russia, China, North Korea and Pakistan from getting nukes?

Oh yeah, we didn't, and we're all still here today.

It's simply war mongering for profit, none of which we'll ever see. Only the Washington criminals would get in on the profit. You'd have to be an idiot to think Iran will nuke us. That's suicide. We'd wipe them out 10 times over. Iranians aren't stupid, as much as people would like to believe.

But guess what, every country with nuclear capabilities we respect more on an international level. Why wouldn't Iran want more international respect? Again, they aren't dumb, and aren't some third world country as the MSM portrays them as.


edit on 31-12-2011 by MysticPearl because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 10:30 AM
link   
reply to post by popsmayhem
 


Okay, let's say they are trying to get a nuclear weapon. Why wouldn't they want one, just for a little protection?? They are surrounded by them. To actually think they'd PRE-EMPTIVELY use it makes no sense to me--it'd be suicide for them!!!

Here's a new article citing "Mossad chief Tamir Pardo:

"...The head of Israel’s intelligence agency says that a nuclear-armed Iran does not necessarily pose an existential threat to the Jewish state, according to Israeli ambassadors..."

(SNIP)

“...What is the significance of the term ‘existential?’” Mr. Pardo was quoted as saying by several ambassadors. “If you said a nuclear bomb in Iranian hands was an ‘existential’ threat, that would mean that we would have to close up shop. That’s not the situation. The term is used too freely...”

www.washingtontimes.com...



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 10:52 AM
link   
reply to post by popsmayhem
 
I'd like to go ahead and add this to the thread - Israeli spy chief downplays Iranian nuke threat

JERUSALEM — The head of Israel’s intelligence agency says that a nuclear-armed Iran does not necessarily pose an existential threat to the Jewish state, according to Israeli ambassadors.

Mossad chief Tamir Pardo addressed a conclave of Israeli ambassadors in Jerusalem on Thursday, saying that Israel’s existence is not inevitably endangered by Iran acquiring an atomic weapon, even as Israel has tried to disrupt Iran’s nuclear program.

“What is the significance of the term ‘existential?’” Mr. Pardo was quoted as saying by several ambassadors. “If you said a nuclear bomb in Iranian hands was an ‘existential’ threat, that would mean that we would have to close up shop. That’s not the situation. The term is used too freely.”


Mr. Pardo is not alone in his assessment:

However, Mr. Pardo’s comments echo those of his predecessor at Mossad, Meir Dagan, and of other former and current Israeli security officials.

Mr. Dagan had vigorously opposed an attack and expressed his position publicly after retiring earlier this year. Gabi Ashkenazi, former armed forces chief of staff, also reportedly opposed an attack.

Opponents to an attack plan say that Iran, as a rational state, would not launch a nuclear assault that would ensure a retaliatory Israeli strike on its cities, including holy sites.


And for the big common-sense kicker I always try to get people to understand:

Zeevi Farkash, Israel’s former military intelligence chief, has said that Iran’s main drive for acquiring atomic weapons is not for use against Israel but as a deterrent against U.S. intervention, in much the same way that nuclear-armed North Korea feels secure against a U.S. attack.


Can we PLEASE put the war drums down now? Iran's trying to survive with us breathing down their neck, and this is being pimped for political or other reasons - reinforcing Steele's claim that Paul is the only one serious about national defense, as us attacking yet another muslim nation that has done us no wrong WILL eventually have repercussions.



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 10:53 AM
link   
reply to post by Habit4ming
 
Ah, you beat me to this. Much thanks!



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 11:37 AM
link   
reply to post by Praetorius
 





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.


You're confusing cause with effect.

They're a signee to the nuclear-non-proliferation treaty. That's international law. They're breaking the law, and it doesn't help that they're led by a fanatically religious regime which has stated on numerous occasions their desire to see the "zionist regime" destroyed.

If Iran wants the US off their back, simply end the program and prove by allowing (which they haven't up till now) international inspectors into the country.

It amazes me that people here bend over backwards to defend Iran, as if Iran were beyond political machinations or an agenda against Israel..



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 11:47 AM
link   
reply to post by dontreally
 

It amazes me that people here bend over backwards to defend Iran, as if Iran were beyond political machinations or an agenda against Israel..

And it equally always amazes me that people will bend over backwards to defend the US and Israel, as if we were beyond political machinations or an agenda against Iran..

You like to appeal to Iran wanting the Israel regime occupying Jerusalem to vanish from history (more accurate translation), but look at the mountain of hostile statements we've made against them, and how long we have been directly interfering with them, both internally and externally.

And if you think I'm mistaking cause and effect - you might want to look into our history with Iran going back to Mosaddegh, the Shah, and our efforts via the CIA over the last decade to cause regime change from within. We bring these problems on ourselves.

Let's take a look at the history of countries we've bombed, invaded, or internally-manipulated over the last 60 years, how many we're currently engaged in hostilities with, and the location and number of our deployments.

Now let's apply those same scrutinies to Iran. Are you kidding me? And *I* misunderstand cause and effect...North Korea's GOT the nuke, and...we don't give them crap like we used to before they developed it.

And prove to me that Iran's violating international law or the NPT - they just invited the inspectors in the other week because we're breathing down their neck.

I know you've got your opinion, and I can respect that - but you aren't just arguing against my opinion or those of some activists here - you're arguing against Israeli Mossad chiefs, intelligence analysts, and former members of our own CIA & terrorism experts.

It's Iraq all over again.



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 12:37 PM
link   
reply to post by Praetorius
 





And it equally always amazes me that people will bend over backwards to defend the US and Israel, as if we were beyond political machinations or an agenda against Iran..


Who are these people who bend over backwards for Israel? 85% + of the posters here revile Israel and support Iran. Additionally, did I say that America doesn't engage in political games? Theres not a country on earth who doesn't do that! And THATS my point with regard to Iran. Even if America is taking advantage of Iran's nuclear ambitions, Iran has an interest in building a bomb, and this happens to be a threat to Israel.




You like to appeal to Iran wanting the Israel regime occupying Jerusalem to vanish from history (more accurate translation)
As if that changes the spirit of the threat. Wanting Israel 'wiped off the map' verses wanting Israel, or the "zionist regime" 'erased from the annuls of time', is the SAME Thing. ITS A THREAT TO ISRAELS EXISTENCE.




but look at the mountain of hostile statements we've made against them, and how long we have been directly interfering with them,


Most of these threats are made in response to Iran's original threat against Israel, and its brazen pursuit of nuclear weapons despite signing the non-proliferation treaty.

Additionally, would you say Iran is better off today, as a theocracy, or under the Shah? Ron Paul likes to say this, but it doesn't make very much sense. Iranians were more free under the shah - Jews living in Iran had more freedoms, woman had more freedoms, Iran back then also maintained a good relationship with Israel (which is where they got most of their oil before the '79 revolution)....




and if you think I'm mistaking cause and effect


You have been confusing cause with effect. The cause - Irans pursuit of nuclear energy, is the cause of America's supposed interest in toppling the Iranian government. If Iran wants America off their back, all Iran needs to do is end their nuclear program, and thus put to rest conspiracy theories of American imperialistic motives for pursuing Iran.




North Korea's GOT the nuke, and...we don't give them crap like we used to before they developed it.


North Korea is an altogether different issue.

With Iran, were dealing with a RELIGIOUS regime, not an atheistic one. This makes their threats against Israel, the 'regime occupying Jerusalem', all the more serious. The only thing keeping Israels enemies from attacking Israel, from bombing its nuclear reactor in Dimona, is the fact that Israel has a nuclear bomb. If they were to get a bomb, Israels leverage would be lost.

It seems to me that supporters of Iran also, tacitly at least, support the demise of Israel.




they just invited the inspectors in the other week because we're breathing down their neck.


They play cat and mouse games. Even the recent IAEA report was based on second hand inside information, and not on direct evidence, because Iran has hitherto refused IAEA inspectors from observing their nuclear program.. Why? Because they most likely have something to hide.

It's also thought that Iran has multiple facilities where they conduct research, and the ones of interest are underground, which IAEA inspectors are not allowed to inspect because Iran denies their existence.



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 01:14 PM
link   
reply to post by charles1952
 


" I think Paul opponents are afraid that his isolationism "


These "Opponents" are either Misinformed about the Right Honorable Dr. Ron Paul's Stance on Iran when they utter the Words " Isolationism" and " Ron Paul " in the same Sentence or Out and Out Liars . His Libertarian Philosophy would Define him as being a Noninterventionalists when it comes to Foreign Policy . I wish People would just do a bit of Research BEFORE Labeling Someone Something Based on Hearsay.............Sigh.



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 01:45 PM
link   
reply to post by dontreally
 

Who are these people who bend over backwards for Israel? 85% + of the posters here revile Israel and support Iran. Additionally, did I say that America doesn't engage in political games? Theres not a country on earth who doesn't do that! And THATS my point with regard to Iran. Even if America is taking advantage of Iran's nuclear ambitions, Iran has an interest in building a bomb, and this happens to be a threat to Israel.

To the first question - pretty much every evangelical christian in the US and about everyone in the US government. And I don't remember you saying that, but it appeared to be the implication. And back to the cause & effect issue, it's our policies and threats that prompt Iran's desire for the bomb - if it even truly exists.


As if that changes the spirit of the threat. Wanting Israel 'wiped off the map' verses wanting Israel, or the "zionist regime" 'erased from the annuls of time', is the SAME Thing. ITS A THREAT TO ISRAELS EXISTENCE.

Not a significant or valid one, according to Israel's intelligence experts.


Most of these threats are made in response to Iran's original threat against Israel, and its brazen pursuit of nuclear weapons despite signing the non-proliferation treaty.

Additionally, would you say Iran is better off today, as a theocracy, or under the Shah? Ron Paul likes to say this, but it doesn't make very much sense. Iranians were more free under the shah - Jews living in Iran had more freedoms, woman had more freedoms, Iran back then also maintained a good relationship with Israel (which is where they got most of their oil before the '79 revolution)....

They were better before both under Mosaddegh, before we installed the Shah's oppressive regime which then enabled their country to fall under the rule of religious zealots.

And again, their alleged "brazen pursuit" of nuclear weapons stems from a desire for self-preservation, according to intelligence experts both here at home and in Israel - the latter stating that they're not really all that worried about it anyway.


You have been confusing cause with effect. The cause - Irans pursuit of nuclear energy, is the cause of America's supposed interest in toppling the Iranian government. If Iran wants America off their back, all Iran needs to do is end their nuclear program, and thus put to rest conspiracy theories of American imperialistic motives for pursuing Iran.

You can claim it if you want, but we made the same claims about Iraq - and they were just as wrong then.


North Korea is an altogether different issue.

With Iran, were dealing with a RELIGIOUS regime, not an atheistic one. This makes their threats against Israel, the 'regime occupying Jerusalem', all the more serious. The only thing keeping Israels enemies from attacking Israel, from bombing its nuclear reactor in Dimona, is the fact that Israel has a nuclear bomb. If they were to get a bomb, Israels leverage would be lost.

It seems to me that supporters of Iran also, tacitly at least, support the demise of Israel.

A religious regime with the second-largest jewish population in the middle east outside Israel, who reserves a seat for them in their government, and is only interested in self-preservation despite all the inflated and fallacious claims to the contrary, which we also saw in 2002-2003.

And no, we don't support the demise of Israel - we recognize Israel is more than capable of protecting itself, that Iran is not suicidal, Iran does not want to also kill palestinians who would be indirectly targeted by any attacks on Israel, etc.


They play cat and mouse games. Even the recent IAEA report was based on second hand inside information, and not on direct evidence, because Iran has hitherto refused IAEA inspectors from observing their nuclear program.. Why? Because they most likely have something to hide.

It's also thought that Iran has multiple facilities where they conduct research, and the ones of interest are underground, which IAEA inspectors are not allowed to inspect because Iran denies their existence.

Yes, yes...further unsubstantiated claims and allegations that are going to lead us into yet another trumped-up and unnecessary loss of life and liberty on all sides, with who knows how many more unforeseen consequences down the road.

It appears we certainly are fated to repeat the past.



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 03:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by dontreally
reply to post by Praetorius
 





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.


You're confusing cause with effect.

They're a signee to the nuclear-non-proliferation treaty. That's international law. They're breaking the law, and it doesn't help that they're led by a fanatically religious regime which has stated on numerous occasions their desire to see the "zionist regime" destroyed.

If Iran wants the US off their back, simply end the program and prove by allowing (which they haven't up till now) international inspectors into the country.

It amazes me that people here bend over backwards to defend Iran, as if Iran were beyond political machinations or an agenda against Israel..


At least they signed the treaty. They have every right to develop nuclear power. If we are so worried about nukes then why didn't we move to disarm Israel a nation that didn't sign the treaty?



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 04:05 PM
link   
RP is spot on with his diagnosis of Iran and Nukes. Whats more, I personally think that if Iran had a nuke and a delivery system then other countries would not be so keen to dictate to them what they can and cannot do. If Iran are trying to get a nuke, then I believe they have that right and should do so. We know all to well, Iran would never strike Isreal first in a nuclear exchange, but they would only use it for self defense of their country. Iran doing a preemptive strike in Isreal would indeed be suicide and Iran would no longer exist as a country.




top topics



 
3
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join