Iran is not the Soviet Union, it is a bunch of fanatics who hate Western Civilization, and especially America --- they have a damn good reason to hate the US
treating them any differently from other muslim nations and attempting to stop them from developing nukes is folly RP's foreign policy is pro-American, not pro-Israel choose sides carefully On Aug 17, 1:41 pm, Keith In Tampa <[email protected]> wrote: > Hello PlainOl! > > How about from the horse's mouth, on August 12th, at the Ames Iowa debate, > with regard to Iran, and a question from Chris Wallace, who asked: > > *"Congressman Paul -- Congressman Paul, you say that President Obama is not > too soft on Iran, you say that he is too tough on Iran. I want to put up > some of your statements. "Sanctions are not diplomacy," you say. "They are a > precursor to war and an embarrassment to a country that pays lip service to > free trade." As for Iran's nuclear ambitions, you wrote this: "One can > understand why they might want to become nuclear capable, if only to defend > themselves and to be treated more respectfull"* > > *"Is that your policy towards Iran?"* > > ** > ** > Congressman Paul responded in part: > * * > ** > > *"....Just think of the agitation and the worrying of a country that might > get a nuclear weapon some day. And just think of how many nuclear weapons > surround Iran. The Chinese are there. The Indians are there. The Pakistanis > are there. The Israelis are there. The United States is there. All these > countries -- China has nuclear weapons. "* > * > > "Why wouldn't it be natural that they might want a weapon? There'd be -- > internationally, they'd be given more respect. Why should we write people > off? There was -- you know, in the '50s, we at least talked to them. At > least our leaders and Reagan talked to the Soviets. > * > > *What's so terribly bad about this?"* > > Wallace followed up: > > *"Congressman Paul -- Congressman Paul, I want to just give you 15 seconds. > I want to just make sure I understand. So your policy towards Iran is, if > they want to develop a nuclear weapon, that's their right, no sanctions, no > effort to stop them?"* > > *PAUL: "No, I think that -- I think that thing -- that makes it much worse. > Why would that be so strange, if the Soviets and the Chinese have nuclear > weapons? We tolerated the Soviets; we didn't attack them. > And they were a much greater danger -- they were the greatest danger to us > in -- our whole history. You don't go to war against them."* > ** > *======== > * > ** > As stated, I have the utmost respect for Dr. Paul, and I think he is a > brilliant individual, who has sound economic and fiscal polices that the > Republican Party are now adopting. Kudos to Paul, and the Tea Party for > finally seeing the light! > > I do not agree with Dr. Paul's foreign policy, and I find it just outright > naive! Iran is not the Soviet Union, it is a bunch of fanatics who hate > Western Civilization, and especially America. Dr. Paul doesn't see this or > realize this. > > On Wed, Aug 17, 2011 at 1:34 PM, plainolamerican > <[email protected]>wrote: > > > > > > > > > For Dr. Paul to advocate > > Iran's nuclear capabilities is just flat out scary > > > --- > > cite source > > > On Aug 17, 9:11 am, Keith In Tampa <[email protected]> wrote: > > > I would agree that our foreign policy of, "Nation Building" was > > misguided > > > and not in the best interests of the United States. I would also call > > > "Nation Building" a form of "Intervention". > > > > There is a distinction however, between "Intervention" and "Isolation". > > > Dr. Paul espouses the latter, and that is just as misplaced as Nation > > > Building. In fact, It's far more dangerous. For Dr. Paul to advocate > > > Iran's nuclear capabilities is just flat out scary. A clear indication > > that > > > Paul denies the reality of the world today. Dr. Paul is a brilliant guy, > > > he is just flat out misplaced on what constitutes a danger to our Nation. > > > > On Wed, Aug 17, 2011 at 4:22 AM, raymorphic <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > "It didn't make Dr. Paul any more correct with regard to history, or > > > > his > > > > foreign policy." > > > > > I'm not sure about the history part; what I refer to as sensible was > > > > the foreign policy solution. > > > > > America do not like interventionists foreign policies. > > > > > We couldn't run our country well, let alone running other people's > > > > countries. > > > > > In addition, we're in no financial position to intervene. > > > > > -- > > > > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. > > > > > For options & help seehttp://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum > > > > > * Visit our other community athttp://www.PoliticalForum.com/ > > > > > * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. > > > > * Read the latest breaking news, and more. > > > -- > > > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. > > For options & help seehttp://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum > > > * Visit our other community athttp://www.PoliticalForum.com/ > > * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. > > * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -- Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
