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

reply to post by dontreally
First, proof that Ron Paul said this please? Don't want to see hearsay offered up as fact.

Second, how many Nuclear weapons does Israel own?


This video might be relevant to your question.

Originally posted by charles1952
reply to post by rogerstigers

 

Dear rogerstigers,

Nice to see you again. I like your post, but one part in particular stood out.

I do have to ask. What gives us the right to say who is right or wrong? I mean, if the entire thing is based on subjectivism and opinion, why get mad when someone has a differing opinion?

May I take an extreme example? We believe killing innocents is wrong and we punish it. Some Americans think killing innocents is OK. What gives us the right to say they are wrong? Our laws? But what if our laws are wrong?

Why do we stop to help people in trouble? Because it is the "right" thing to do? But that's just an opinion. Why do we send help to the suffering in Haiti? Because it's "right?" Why do we try to stop the killing of innocents in other countries through UN peacekeepers? If the UN can do it, why can't we?

I'm sorry to sound so confused, but I'm trying to say right and wrong are not always matters of opinion, and we should not do absolutely nothing in the face of evil. "All that is necessary for evil to triumph....."

With respect,
Charles1952

Well, I think with all things, it is the overall culture and consensus. Me personally, I only help those that sincerely ask me for help. I don't interfere when help is not requested. Why? Because I HAVE tried to help before and it turns out help was not only not needed, but not WANTED.

I personally and not very good at seeing when someone is genuinely in distress in every circumstance.

I admit, this is a difficult issue to cover. Maybe it is time for us to grow up as a culture and learn to address this sort of thing.

reply to post by Sek82

Forgive me, but I don't understand why the number of Israeli nukes supports the idea that the US need not be involved in geopolitics. Is Ron Paul saying, then, that we will leave it up to Israel to defend our interests in that part of the world?

Or, is he saying that we don't have any interests in that part of the world, so defense there isn't required? Or, is there a third choice? I'd like to know.

reply to post by charles1952
Hiya Good question... I don't normally respond to a question with a question, but - What are our interests in that region, and how does having to support Israel help us in regards to our interests in those areas? Shouldn't our interests remain within our own borders, and not extend out to the rest of the world?

But that is better suited for a different thread and I probably shouldn't have posted a video not directly relevant to the sanctions on Iran. Like an earlier poster explained, this move really is a precursor to war. And my thought is, why are we so concerned that Iran is seeking to develop a weapon when they know that if they were to use it, they would be the ones wiped off the map. They know this. Israel has plenty potential to defend itself, as do we, so why are we getting involved?

reply to post by beezzer


All very good questions...

His foreign policy is simply unrealistic in the world we live in, and would leave America vulnerable.

reply to post by Sek82

Dear Sek82,

Thank you for your thoughtful and kind response. My ignorance is boundless, but maybe I can hint toward a useful direction.

That part of the world seems to be largely Islamic. Currently, regardless of whose fault it is, that region is hostile to us. It is very useful to have a non-hostile country in the area for diplomatic, military, and intelligence gathering purposes. I think Israel also gives the Middle-East a glimpse of what a modern democracy can look like. It may provide a goal for some area citizens.

Further, just knowing that the US might defend Israel is a factor in preventing war. If it was Israel alone against everybody, I can see the possibility of sacrificing an Islamic country or two to ensure Israel's destruction. Also, the US provides Arabs someone to talk to if talking to Israel is politically inexpedient.

You describe the principle of Mutually Assured Destruction as a reason to believe that Iran will not use a bomb. Perhaps, but they are certain to threaten to use it, else why build it? How do we deal with such a threat, ignore it? Besides, MAD only works if both sides are rational. If being a suicide bomber is a good and holy thing, how much more so is a suicide country? Islam would survive an Israel-Iran war. I'm not sure Israel would.

Anyway, those are some beginning thoughts. One or two of them might be worth something.

With respect,
Charles1952

7+ billion people and most of them think they will go to something like heaven when they die. Perhaps we should let it happen and decrease the surplus population?

- Ebenezer Scrooge

reply to post by rogerstigers

Kill off 6 billion and the remaining billion will fight. Who could be killed off to ensure peace? And what earth would then be left for the meek to inherit?

Originally posted by dontreally
Ron Paul keeps losing points with me...his isolationism is almost akin to communist isolationism...First, he says, he wouldn't interfere if Nazis were trying to take over the world, an entirely impractical course to take, and now he says economic sanctions on Iran is "economic warfare"?? SOOO? What is this goof on?

If Iran is left alone, they will reach the point where they will have their nuclear bomb, and then, Israel would no longer have their strategic leverage against Muslim countries - and this is what Iran and the Islamic group of countries want. If Iran gets that, not only is Israel in trouble, but American interests are jeopardized as well.

He doesn't make speeches about isolationism he makes speeches about nonintervention there's a difference. What a surprise someone that always backs Israel brings up the Nazis. Directly interfering with a nations economy through sanctions is hardly an act of peace. The question people should be asking is why is the US helping a nuclear armed nation that didn't sign the NPT shouldn't sanctions be placed against this rouge nation?

Originally posted by charles1952
reply to post by Sek82

 

Forgive me, but I don't understand why the number of Israeli nukes supports the idea that the US need not be involved in geopolitics. Is Ron Paul saying, then, that we will leave it up to Israel to defend our interests in that part of the world?

Or, is he saying that we don't have any interests in that part of the world, so defense there isn't required? Or, is there a third choice? I'd like to know.

What interests does the US have in the middle east besides the oil we get from the Saudis and the opium we get from the Afghanistan? None. And the Saudis and Afghanistan are Islamic nations so Israel isn't needed there. So the best thing for the states to do is pull our people out of that mess. Israel wanted this war with the Arabs now let them fight it.

reply to post by beezzer


You have to ask yourself, do you want to remain the worlds police force and more importantly, can you afford to be the worlds police force?

I think if relationships with other nations were built with mutual respect and as trading partners rather than as threats then maybe we wouldn't be in the situation we are in today.

Is it really America and the Wests place to topple regimes and install new ones or support certain sides in a Civil wars? Should America provide such huge military and financial support to Israel, while threatening Iran with destruction should they attain a nuke? Should America have so many bases in Europe and the Middle East?

RP's foreign policy may sound a little naive, but, it is change from the failed policies that have preceded.

Originally posted by woodwardjnr
reply to post by beezzer

 

You have to ask yourself, do you want to remain the worlds police force and more importantly, can you afford to be the worlds police force?

I think if relationships with other nations were built with mutual respect and as trading partners rather than as threats then maybe we wouldn't be in the situation we are in today.

Is it really America and the Wests place to topple regimes and install new ones or support certain sides in a Civil wars? Should America provide such huge military and financial support to Israel, while threatening Iran with destruction should they attain a nuke? Should America have so many bases in Europe and the Middle East?

RP's foreign policy may sound a little naive, but, it is change from the failed policies that have preceded.

Better yet, does S. Korea, Georgia, Taiwan (et al) want us to stop being the world police?

reply to post by charles1952


I think he means we just need to leave our 'interests' in the Middle East because the Middle East is the reason we have to spend trillions of dollars fighting some oil war in a desert. We don't need to be involved let it happen "we don't need to be the policemen of the world."

Originally posted by metalshredmetal
It's a real straight forward analogy, He should use it more often. It's so true...Americans aren't at all used to reflecting their own megalomania back at themselves, it's a dose of their own medicine.

It is not megalomania if you can think of someone else doing to one what one does to others. Americans know they won't like it if they were at the receiving end of what they do to others. No analogies needed. But they don't see any realistic chance of that happening. Hence they support the actions they do. No one is that stupid as to be unable to understand how someone feels in those situations that US puts many countries in.

What is different about Ron Paul is that he is openly saying to Americans that they shouldn't treat themselves as special people with special rights over the rest of the world.

reply to post by dontreally

Israel would no longer have their strategic leverage against Muslim countries

You mean Israel doesn't have 'nukes'???

Dr. Ron Paul for President! Finally a voice of reasons!

peace

Originally posted by silo13
reply to post by dontreally

 

Israel would no longer have their strategic leverage against Muslim countries

You mean Israel doesn't have 'nukes'???

I think it means they cannot use their nukes with impunity removing their "strategic advantage".

I came to the conclusion that there are 3 arguments being made.

1) You are for International-world government and anyone that does not have the same ideologies as Israel or the United States-elites should be annilihated.

2) You have a sense of nationalism, and hate to watch the United States get tangled up in a never ending foreign policy occupation and wars, and would prefer to have America take care of it's own first and worry about other governments when and if they have the kahuma's to step on American soil.

3) You are undecided, center-line fence huggers who have no sense of nationalism and care not if your children are living on the streets.


I fall into category 2, and hate to watch as this great country is being gutted, and nothing but a shell of it's former self.

Did i sum up the argument

Flying a sentinal drone through another country airspace could be looked at as an act of war as well. Our elected officals show the same disrespect to the rest of the world they show to us. It's one of those do as I say not as I do situations. Our elected officals don't represent the people anymore... Most of the country doesn't want a war with iran but sadly our words are falling on def ears. If any other country ever flew a drone over the united states we would be at war with them so fast, and I would support that. Thats an act of agression/war. I will not blame iran one bit if they close the straight because of the actions of the American government.

Don't even like the term "American government" anymore it implys we the people are still in control. Should be called the "elitist government" or "world police". Can anyone blame iran for wanting to get there hands on a nuke when the world if full of bigger stronger bully's ie the western world. I say let them have one, they should be smart enough to know if they ever fired it there country would be dust and glass before the day was over...

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.

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.