Ron Paul Thread

  • Thread starter Thread starter gilliam
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
gilliam said:
Reporting from Perry, Iowa— Defending himself against charges of isolationism, Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul told voters in Iowa on Thursday that western sanctions against Iran are “acts of war” that are likely to lead to an actual war in the Middle East.

latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-ron-paul-sanctions-act-of-war20111229,0,4395532.story
Click to expand...
The reporter says Ron Paul said sanctions are an act of war, in his title and in his article. However, when he specifies the context, the article says.
He compared the western sanctions to a hypothetical move by China to block the Gulf of Mexico, which Americans would consider an act of war.
Click to expand...
I would like to know the context better here, because these two statements are different. If the second statement is right, then Dr. Paul doesn’t say sanctions are an act of war, but that Americans would consider the same type of action an act of war. That is a statement of American hypocrisy, not saying sanctions are an act of war.

I note that the…ahem… journalist only put “act of war” in quotes. The skeptic in me always is suspicious of major media outlets that prefer their own words instead of reporting what was said.
 
This site has more extensive quotes, but I still haven’t found the “act or war” context.

presstv.com/detail/218416.html

FYI - I don’t consider this as any media attack against Ron Paul. I may simply be simply journalist sensationalism and exaggeration.
 
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._sanctions_against_Iran

Would be interesting to know the truth, I’m reading that sanctions in other countries have caused the death of innocent people. Whether directly or indirectly, I do not know.

If we had to pay higher prices and saw an increase in poverty and possibly starvation in this country due to sanctions from another…

would we consider that an act of war?
 
Let me see now, in the event that what Ron Paul is accused of does indeed turn out to be true, then the choices for POTUS are as follows:
  1. a “racist” candidate (A) who does not want to attack Iran and would work towards the easing of tensions and conflict in the region and thereby prevent the outbreak of WWIII
  2. a supposedly non-racist candidate (B) who oddly does not mind starting a World War involving Russia and China against the West and is indeed calling for a preemptive military strike on Iran.
  3. the incumbent (C) whose views and policies regarding a possible attack on Iran are frighteningly becoming virtually identical to that voiced by the “non-racist” candidate (B)
Hmmm… tough choice this… but considering that I do not want to see my home destroyed by a thermonuclear blast from an ICBM and my family members harmed by radiation fallout should WWIII happen, I think it is best that I take my chances with “racist” candidate (A) who at least will not try to pick a fight with Iran.
 
Metaphorically speaking, America appears to be standing outside Iran’s front door, and there back door and on the sides, and shouting out threats.
 
Take a look at the times when Iran made verbal declarations of war against the United States.

And the times that al Qaeda made verbal declarations of war against the United States.

And that inconvenient time when Iran seized the U.S. Embassy in Tehran. THAT was an act of war. [Yeah, yeah, it was a bunch of “students” … yeah, right. 444 days worth.]

A declaration of war is more than just rhetoric.

The number of times is legion.

Here is just one.

nysun.com/editorials/iran-declares-war/32594/

And November 1979:

pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/general-article/carter-hostage-crisis/

Perhaps we should take those declarations or war and acts of war seriously.

Perhaps other posters could continue making the list of actual declarations and acts of war.

[When Hitler and Hirohito and Noreiga declared war on the United States, we sure took it seriously.]
 
Monte_RCMS said:
Take a look at the times when Iran made verbal declarations of war against the United States.

And the times that al Qaeda made verbal declarations of war against the United States.

And that inconvenient time when Iran seized the U.S. Embassy in Tehran. THAT was an act of war. [Yeah, yeah, it was a bunch of “students” … yeah, right. 444 days worth.]

A declaration of war is more than just rhetoric.

The number of times is legion.

Here is just one.

nysun.com/editorials/iran-declares-war/32594/

And November 1979:

pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/general-article/carter-hostage-crisis/

Perhaps we should take those declarations or war and acts of war seriously.

Perhaps other posters could continue making the list of actual declarations and acts of war.

[When Hitler and Hirohito and Noreiga declared war on the United States, we sure took it seriously.]
Click to expand...
What was Hitlers power then like compared to Irans power today in proportion to our power?

Isn’t this a bit like a teacup poodle picking on a pit bull? I mean, they may scratch us, but in the end there really wouldn’t be much left would there?
 
When two countries go to war, before the first bullets are even fired, trade between the country is ceased. That is why sanctions are an act of war.
 
bbarrick8383 said:
What was Hitlers power then like compared to Irans power today in proportion to our power?

Isn’t this a bit like a teacup poodle picking on a pit bull? I mean, they may scratch us, but in the end there really wouldn’t be much left would there?
Click to expand...
Combined with Iran’s potential for nuclear weapons, I think there is a potential for more than a “scratch”.

I favor sanctions, but not any military action. Don’t we have sanctions on Iran, now? Hasn’t the US had sanctions on Iran since 1979?

Oh, the humanity!
 
scipio337 said:
Combined with Iran’s potential for nuclear weapons, I think there is a potential for more than a “scratch”.

I favor sanctions, but not any military action. Don’t we have sanctions on Iran, now? Hasn’t the US had sanctions on Iran since 1979?

Oh, the humanity!
Click to expand...
Yes, it is horrible. Our sanctions against Iraq were responsible for the deaths of 150,000 Iraqi children.
 
America has no moral high ground to tell Iran what they shouldn’t do in there own country. We’re the country that continues to commit genocide again it’s own unborn to the number of 30-50 million. We’re the country that sprayed Agent Orange on Vietnam for 9 years, and yet no one in the military or government was hanged for crimes against humanity. We need to see ourselves for who we really are. A nation who’s youth prefer Lady Gaga to Jesus.
 
scipio337 said:
Combined with Iran’s potential for nuclear weapons, I think there is a potential for more than a “scratch”.

I favor sanctions, but not any military action. Don’t we have sanctions on Iran, now? Hasn’t the US had sanctions on Iran since 1979?

Oh, the humanity!
Click to expand...
I haven’t seen any proof that they are even close to having the required materials/facilities for a nuke.

Military action might blow up the source of goods where sanctions cut off the source. Both have the potential to have devastating impacts on innocent people.

Whether we impose a sanction and that sanction has a direct impact on the people or the government uses the sanction as a tool against us by taking it out on their own people we should be as careful with them as we are with a laser guided missile.
 
bbarrick8383 said:
I haven’t seen any proof that they are even close to having the required materials/facilities for a nuke.

Military action might blow up the source of goods where sanctions cut off the source. Both have the potential to have devastating impacts on innocent people.

Whether we impose a sanction and that sanction has a direct impact on the people or the government uses the sanction as a tool against us by taking it out on their own people we should be as careful with them as we are with a laser guided missile.
Click to expand...
I would agree they should be carefully used, but I don’t buy the sanctions = war moral equivalence.

Again, if Iran complies with the IAEA (and it hasn’t) then there is less to worry about.
 
scipio337 said:
I would agree they should be carefully used, but I don’t buy the sanctions = war moral equivalence.

Again, if Iran complies with the IAEA (and it hasn’t) then there is less to worry about.
Click to expand...
Who equated the two?
 
smndtupidisaftr said:
Yes, it is horrible. Our sanctions against Iraq were responsible for the deaths of 150,000 Iraqi children.
Click to expand...
And that was the reason for 9/11. Or was it our support for Israel? Or our air force base on “the land of the two mosques”?

I have no idea why you parrot Islamist agitprop. You can’t use mortality rates, isolate the sanctions as the primary cause, and expect to have any reliability.

What are you going to move onto next, the “depleted uranium” argument??
 
COUNCIL BLUFFS, Iowa — Ron Paul accused President Barack Obama on Thursday of offering suspected terrorists fewer legal protections than Nazi war criminals were given.

The Republican presidential candidate laced into Obama for authorizing the CIA-led drone strike that killed Anwar al-Awlaki, an Al Qaeda leader, in Yemen this September. He reiterated his previously stated position that al-Awlaki’s American citizenship entitled him to due process.

“As bad as they were, you know even Adolf Eichmann finally when he was captured he was taken to Israel. Israel gave him a trial. What did we do with the Nazis — war criminals — after World War II? They got trials. Yeah, and they got what was deserving: they got hung,” Paul told more than 700 voters during a campaign speech at a convention center in western Iowa.

“This year has not been good for the cause of personal liberty because about a year ago the president announced there are so many bad people around that he has to really go after them to protect us.

Read more: politico.com/news/stories/1211/70958.html#ixzz1i39kOKHd
 
Amen, Ron Paul, amen.

I would love to see Obama forced to answer these kinds of things in the campaign, and Ron Paul is the only candidate who would challenge him on them.

Peace and God bless!
 
Seamus_L said:
America has no moral high ground to tell Iran what they shouldn’t do in there own country. …
Click to expand...
This argument is all wet for several reasons:

  1. *]Country A massing troops on its border with Country B is an act of war against B even though A acted within its own borders;

    *]Iran signed the NNPT, so it is breaking an agreement it signed, in pursuit of its declaration of war against the US;

    *]The Straits of Hormuz are not inside Iran. Unless I’m mistaken, it is international waters

    .
    “Everything would have worked fine if only Hitler hadn’t lied to me.” – Neville Chamberlain.
 
If Iran is going to actively pursue nuclear power regardless of what the UN or anyone else says it seems like the wiser decision might just be to send some delegates in to give them a hand and closely monitor the situation from the inside. Sanctions on Nuclear Power against all nations in an age where the flow of information regarding such technologies is almost impossible to restrict seems foolish at this point. Insisting on Nuclear secrets and restrictions may have worked great 40 years ago, but if the UN isn’t willing to launch attacks killing hundreds of thousands to stop nations from researching nuclear power openly then there isn’t much point in denying it to any nations.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top