Catholics for Ron Paul Coalition

  • Thread starter Thread starter ChristopherV
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
gilliam said:
Your right, the mullahs in Iran hates us and want to destroy us. So we should allow them to have nukes?
Click to expand...
The mullahs know they are overpowered and know a strike against the US would be more than an end to their control.
 
pnewton said:
You know, I was just thinking that very same thing. It will be interesting as the months go on to see if the rhetoric remains consistent or contradictory.

Would everyone here be willing to give up military supremacy over the rest of the world to restrict or end abortion abortion? Or do suddenly those “proportional reasons” apply. There is little understanding for Democrats here who use this reasoning.
Click to expand...
Fortunately there are pro-life alternatives avaibale to Paul. Although he is very pro-life his foreign policy would put us all in danger. I prefer a pro-life canidate who also will keep the US safe. I believe both the Afghani and Iraq wars were necessary to protect the vital interests if the US.
 
estesbob said:
Fortunately there are pro-life alternatives avaibale to Paul. Although he is very pro-life his foreign policy would put us all in danger. I prefer a pro-life canidate who also will keep the US safe. I believe both the Afghani and Iraq wars were necessary to protect the vital interests if the US.
Click to expand...
Is the threat of war a proportionate reason?
 
Scott_Lafrance said:
We can argue from here to Kingdom Come about whether or not they SHOULD have them…which I don’t think they should considering the apparent mental instability of their leadership. What gives us the right to say they CANNOT have them? They are a sovereign nation, are they not? Imagine if Russia told Obama that we CANNOT develop a missile defense system…or else.
Click to expand...
So, by that logic, if Hitler had been close to developing an A-bomb in, say, 1940, we couldn’t do anything.

In the early '80’s, the Israelis reduced the Iraqi nuclear reactor to rubble. Good job Israel.

Ishii
 
estesbob said:
But iran would know that if they used them on Israel a President Paul would claim it was none of our business what they did to israel.
Click to expand...
And, he’d be right. Israel can retaliate very handily to anything Iran tossed at them. We don’t have any business in a fight between those two if it comes to a fight. The U.S. is not the world’s policeman, contrary to rightist opinion, IMO.
 
kubark said:
What motivation would Iran (armed with one nuke it does not yet possess) have for attacking Israel (a nation with hundreds of nukes and advanced delivery systems). If they actually did get a nuclear weapon, do you think they’d be stupid enough to use it? Where would they fire it? Jerusalem, and destroy Islam’s Dome of the Rock? Would they fire it at Tel-Aviv, killing thousands of Muslims? Anywhere that they fire a nuke against Israel, they kill Muslims as well. Ignoring Ahmadinejad’s politically-calculated raving involving “whiping Israel off the face of the map,” do you think the average Iranian let alone the Iranain generals (who really run Iran) wish to commit suicide? Also, you have misrepresented Ron Paul’s foreign policy. He puts America first rather than Israel first. He believes in free trade with all and entangling alliances with none. He believes in a Republic not an Empire. He has consistently defended the Constitution and has the voting record to prove it. And actually, he is the most pro-Israel candidate out there - Ron Paul would not stop Israel, the most powerful state in the Middle East, from defending her interests in any way she saw fit. When Israel attacked a nuclear reactor in Iraq in 1981, almost the entire U.S. Congress voted to condemn the act. Ron Paul was one of the few dissenters: he voted against the condemnation and in favor of Israel’s right to self-determination.
Click to expand...
Haven’t they proven that they don’t care about killing fellow muslims? I mean, they train 12 year old muslim girls to be suicide bombers.

Ishii
 
Rich_Olszewski said:
And, he’d be right. Israel can retaliate very handily to anything Iran tossed at them. We don’t have any business in a fight between those two if it comes to a fight. The U.S. is not the world’s policeman, contrary to rightist opinion, IMO.
Click to expand...
the oppostion to Iran having nuclear weapons and supporting Israel is a “rightist” position.?
 
ishii said:
So, by that logic, if Hitler had been close to developing an A-bomb in, say, 1940, we couldn’t do anything.
Click to expand...
Correct. What did we do about German and Japanese rearmament and weapoins development in 1940?
In the early '80’s, the Israelis reduced the Iraqi nuclear reactor to rubble. Good job Israel.
Click to expand...
Yes, and NONE of our business it was.
 
estesbob said:
the oppostion to Iran having nuclear weapons and supporting Israel is a “rightist” position.?
Click to expand...
The rightist position is being the world’s policeman.

We have no business supporting Israel, a country that can take very good care of itself militarily against its neighbors.

As to opposing Iran’s having nuclear weapons, we can oppose that. We oppose a lot of things that various countries do that we may perceive as contrary to our self-interests.
 
estesbob said:
Proportionality has nothing to do with it. A Catholics we are allowed to use our prudential judgement is deciding whether to suppot the waging of a war.
Click to expand...
So, if other Catholics don’t realize it the same way, and those who do have an opportunity to get them on the same side of anti-abortion, the latter doesn’t have to, or have any responsibility to act in a way that would by looking past their view of war? Sounds like other issues are preventing a unified front on abortion to me bob.
 
Rich_Olszewski said:
The rightist position is being the world’s policeman.
Click to expand...
Prior to the evolution of the neo-conservative ideology of Bush, Cheney, Rove and their buds, it never used to be!
gilliam said:
This sort of anti-American talk is why the Libertarian Party hasn’t gotten anywhere in this country (except to have a late night radio show hosted by Alex Jones and interviewing conspiracy theorists all night long.) In any case, it shows why Ron Paul is running in the wrong party. His views are Libertarian, not Republican.
Click to expand...
And just what is the “Republican” reality now? I honestly no longer know. Smaller government – nope, fiscal responsibility – nope , protection of civil liberties – nope, fair and balanced trade – nope. As the Reps move left I find the distinction between the two parties less clear - I wish someone could explain it to me.
 
gilliam said:
Your right, the mullahs in Iran hates us and want to destroy us. So we should allow them to have nukes?
Click to expand...
What if they ask us pretty please with a cherry on top? Please please please, Mister United States, can we please do what we want within the boundaries of our own country without you sticking you nose in our business? :rolleyes:
 
ishii said:
Haven’t they proven that they don’t care about killing fellow muslims? I mean, they train 12 year old muslim girls to be suicide bombers.

Ishii
Click to expand...
Who is the “they” you refer to? I am sure you do not mean the Iranian people who were recently seen demonstrating against their own government. I am sure you don’t mean the Iranian generals. Who is “they”?
 
Prodigal_Son1 said:
Okay, but you have very little time to try and convince, or educate, everyone that you say made a mistake last election. You’ll also have to educate them to believe the same as you do about Cardinal Ratzinger’s statement referencing that some could vote for a pro-abortion candidate, as long as they did not vote for him just to support abortion. It’s all in interpretation, and until the one voice makes a clarification, no one on either side of the argument can claim an infallible interpretation.

Or, you can put your money where your mouth is and support Ron Paul, overlooking the possibility of war for your view of abortion. It’s the same difference. If they wanted to avoid war and voted for Obama and were wrong, those who will not take an opportunity to nominate a candidate that is pro-life, yet anti-war, to drag those against the wars to the same base can share the blame if things remain the same.
Click to expand...
What statement would that be? Are you referencing this? If so, you are gravely misrepresenting what was written.
 
Rich_Olszewski said:
Correct. What did we do about German and Japanese rearmament and weapoins development in 1940?
Click to expand...
There is a big difference between nukes and conventional arms.
Rich_Olszewski said:
Yes, and NONE of our business it was.
Click to expand...
My point, which I apparently didn’t make clear enough, was that there are times when its wise to bomb another country’s nuclear reactor. Israel made that determination then with Iraq and they acted on it. That’s all.

Ishii
 
estesbob said:
Proportionality has nothing to do with it. A Catholics we are allowed to use our prudential judgement is deciding whether to suppot the waging of a war.
Click to expand...
Trying to get this straight bob. A Catholic against the war, must look past that reason and vote for a pro-war candidate, as long as that candidate says they are pro-life. On the other hand, a Catholic who is not against the war has no obligation to vote against that belief to unify the anti-war Catholics in the effort to try and abolish abortion. Is that about it?
 
kubark said:
Who is the “they” you refer to? I am sure you do not mean the Iranian people who were recently seen demonstrating against their own government. I am sure you don’t mean the Iranian generals. Who is “they”?
Click to expand...
The terrorists who have the support of Iran.

Ishii
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top