Professor from Theran endorse Ron Paul's ideology

In this interview with a Iranian professor who say he lost a companion he's university to US drones mimic's Ron Paul's Iran polecy very closly. The professor even mention Ron Paul and endorse he's view's and insight in the middle eastern situation. He also talk's about the distortet view that the western countries got on Iran and the concequences of this distortion.

Last but not least the interview shows that the IAEA got ongoing expections in Iran and so far nothing has indicated construction of nuclear weapons. This is largely ignored in the msm who is buisy promoting the fearmongering about Iran.



(Thumbs up to RT for this interview.)

No offense but a teacher from Iran is the last person an American would trust an endorsement for president from?

this isn't helping ron paul..



Also how does he know it was drone? I really am curious he could just be blowing up smoke up our asses.

reply to post by truthinfact


Agreed, I also doubt it would help if he got an endorsement or donations from Ahmed Ahmedinijad (no matter how large an amount it wouldnt be good for he's campaign).

The issue is to show that Ron Paul is spot on when he talk about the middle east.

This cant be used to win sceptic voters to the Revolution, but it should strenghten the support among the current supporters with another "proff" that RP is right. It also would be great if it could educate a few Americans even if it doesn't give Paul more support.


- It never hurt's to get both side's of a story.

reply to post by Mimir

You mention that "so far nothing has indicated onstruction of nuclear weapons." I'm not sure that it is being ignored, but the existence of such weapons is not the point.

Iran signed an agreement stating that they would allow inspectors to have full access. They have not done so. Many are wondering "Why not?" Iran hasn't offered an explanation. There doesn't have to be fear-mongering to be afraid in this situation.

reply to post by truthinfact


True, this scientist could be lying to us.

Let me just say that I think it would be best to listen to people that are not only educated, but also live within that specific area.

It is easy for people to make judgments from afar, but people inside know what is really going on. Considering that there is no evidence, so far, that Iran is making nuclear weapons, it makes this man's statements even more believable.

reply to post by charles1952


I wont deny that as a fact.

There's two things to concider now.

1. Is it our job to police Iran (and possible provoke a war, that might cost a million+ lives like in Iraq and potentially grow a lot worse)

2. or Should we we try to convince Iran to turn in another direction using diplomacy and by accepting them as a respectable population like "every" other on Earth?

Even if Iran has the capability to build a few nuclear weapons, its unlikely they would be used to anything but selfpreservation. If they did a terror-act on Israel, Europe or America using a nuke the retaliation would be catastrophic for the Iranian government and their reign (and a lot of civilians). Why die as a martyr if you can live as a god on Earth?

They say Ron Paul is a kook because he attracts the crazies, but some of the crazies are just portrayed that way. What I think it shows is that he can bridge different people together.

reply to post by Mimir

Dear Mimir,

Thank you for your thoughtful response. I will, in turn open my heart to you in honesty and frankness.

Concerning policing. I think our world does need policing. There are times when a government does horrible things to large numbers of its own people, or its neighbors'. I don't think the UN can handle the job. And no one else seems to be able to either.

Perhaps we police too often, that's a different question, but I think the US is the global police force. And if police action is needed anywhere in the world, I would hope it would be conducted quickly and with overwhelming force against the "criminal."

Concerning diplomacy. Do you think that hasn't been tried, and is not still being tried? The sanctions were imposed by many countries because of the belief that "talk" diplomacy wasn't working, and that Iran was becoming more militant.

I think Iran's position in the world would be much stronger if they said "OK, come in and inspect everything. See that there are no nukes or large stores of chemical or biological weapons. Our only enemy is Israel, so if the countries of the world give us enough defensive weapons to turn back any Israeli attack, we'll get rid of all the other stuff." Iran would be King of the Hill, loved, admired, and respected all over the world.

"its unlikely they would be used to anything but selfpreservation." You might be right, but "unlikely" isn't very soothing. Do we know that the US or Europe would nuke back? Or would everyone call for restraint and try to contain it to just one launch? After all, there are civilians in the area.

Why die as a martyr if you can live as a god on Earth?

That question is the whole problem. A rational person would choose life over death. But some in Islam are very happy as suicide bombers. Is Ahmadinejad rational, or is he a suicide bomber just waiting for the proper time? Nobody knows. That is frightening to me.

But I wish you peace and blessings.

With respect,
Charles1952

reply to post by charles1952

Concerning policing. I think our world does need policing. There are times when a government does horrible things to large numbers of its own people, or its neighbors'. I don't think the UN can handle the job

It is estimated that Saddam Hussein killed 5-600.000 of he's own people during he's 24 year reign. In this case were talking genocide and may have a justified case to intervene. Casualties of the conflict in Iraq since 2003 is estimated to be between 103.500-1.033.000 people depending on which statistics you use. Most of the studies point at a number around 6-650.000 casualties in a much shorter period of time than Saddam used to reach the same count.

But Iran is not Iraq and even thou they got a tough government it's nowhere near as bad as it was in Iraq.

The scope of this report does not extend to other violations of the right to life, in particular, in particular
extrajudicial killings and deaths in custody. The Islamic Republic has a long history of extrajudicial
executions, carried out both at home and abroad. The number of such executions
estimated to have taken place within Iran in the few years leading up to autumn of 1998 ranges
from 80 to 140. The figure would probably rise to a minimum of 400 if the cases abroad were
to be included. Many of those cases have not been and could not be documented.

During the last 15 years the average death toll per year is somewhere between 150-200 a year and the total death toll caused by the regime behind the Islamic revolution is estimated around 15-20.000 people.
Source

Does 15.000-20.000 executions during a period of 30 (1979-2009) years justify our killing of hundred of thousands of Iranians? (USA executed 1279 people from 1976-2010 as comparison)
Building on these numbers we could ask if European countries should liberate the American people from their government?

Again we agree that the Iranian government could be more humane, but I'm not convinced they are as bad as it is potrayed in the media.

Concerning diplomacy. Do you think that hasn't been tried, and is not still being tried? The sanctions were imposed by many countries because of the belief that "talk" diplomacy wasn't working, and that Iran was becoming more militant.

There has been a number of sanctions on Iran for a long period of time, the European oil sactions is just the latest invention. I believe that these sanctions hurt the population more than they hurt the Iranian government. The sanctions might actually have a reversed effect making the populations support to the government stronger.

The sanctions have also had a strong impact on the Iranian economy. As well as reduced access to products needed for the oil and energy sectors, the sanctions have prompted many oil companies to withdraw from Iran, and have also caused a decline in oil production due to reduced access to technologies needed to improve their efficiency. According to U.S. officials, Iran may lose up to $60 billion in energy investments annually. Many international companies have also been reluctant to do business with Iran for fear of losing access to larger Western markets. The effects of U.S. sanctions include expensive basic goods for Iranian citizens, and an aging and increasingly unsafe civil aircraft fleet. Sanctions on Iran

I think Iran's position in the world would be much stronger if they said "OK, come in and inspect everything. See that there are no nukes or large stores of chemical or biological weapons. Our only enemy is Israel, so if the countries of the world give us enough defensive weapons to turn back any Israeli attack, we'll get rid of all the other stuff." Iran would be King of the Hill, loved, admired, and respected all over the world.

Agreed.

Ahmadinejad rational, or is he a suicide bomber just waiting for the proper time? Nobody knows. That is frightening to me.

Remember that all/most suicide murders is done by poor civilians who's families was payed for their sacrifice. Done by people who dont have anything, it's not done by leading figures of society....But your right we dont know for certain.

Question: What is more importent to Iran, Killing a few western "infidels" and risk the existence of the Isamic republic of Iran. Or is it more importent to spread Islam and slowly devour the western countries from within?


Iraq: Deaths under Sadam Hussein
Casualties of the Iraq war
Study: War in Iraq blamed for 655.000 deaths
Death penalty info

Well he is not alone. Sanity has that about it.

"Foreign Policy Experts Agree With Ron Paul’s Controversial Foreign Policy"

By Jason M. Volack
Nov 6, 2011 7:00pm

Ron Paul is often chided by his Republican opponents for his extreme views on American foreign policy. His calls for ending all foreign wars and shutting hundreds of military bases across the globe have drawn howls from his GOP rivals, who have labeled the moves irresponsible and naïve.

His campaign pledge of cutting all foreign aid and withdrawing U.S. participation in the World Trade Organization and the United Nations has been at odds with even the most conservative members of his own party.

Yet as voting day in Iowa and New Hampshire draws near, Paul, the Congressman from Texas, is finding support for his non-interventionist positions from a growing number of foreign policy experts.

“He’s attacking our rich lazy friends, why is that not more popular,” said Harvey Sapolsky, emeritus professor of public policy and organization at MIT. He backs Paul’s calls for reducing America’s military budget, arguing that much of it is used to defend wealthy nations’ security.

A huge, Cold War-era global presence — with hundreds of overseas military bases — isn’t necessary, now that the Soviet threat is over and the collapse of communism, Sapolsky said.

“It’s not in America’s interest,” said Sapolsky, who added that despite the drumbeat in the media over the fear of terrorism, America is the safest it has ever been in its history.

Christopher Preble, vice president for defense and foreign policy studies at the Cato Institute, is also another foreign policy expert who agrees that the United States is extraordinarily secure due to its geography and nuclear weapons, and doesn’t need a huge global presence.

He also argued that the United States’ military is being used in overseas conflicts with little or no national interest, specifically pointing to the U.S. invasion of Iraq.

abcnews.go.com...