FC Posted December 30, 2011 Report Share Posted December 30, 2011 http://cnsnews.com/news/article/ron-paul-iran-would-be-justified-closing-strategic-waterway-response-sanctions Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr.Hess Posted December 30, 2011 Report Share Posted December 30, 2011 On Iran’s threat to close Hormuz, the Texan congressman said that as president he would not respond with military action to any such move, as he would not consider it an act of war against the United States. Instead, he would refer the matter to the U.S. Congress. I think referring it to Congress is what's supposed to happen. Also, note that most of the oil flowing through that strait goes to Europa and the Far East, not the US. What would be wrong with, say, France and China worrying about the Strait closing instead of the US always fixing other people's problems? Just playing Devil's Advocate, sort of. Or at least looking at it from a bit further away. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brokengun Posted December 30, 2011 Report Share Posted December 30, 2011 Referring the matter to congress is the proper course of action! Ron Paul believes in the constitution and he believes his oath is taken before God; his actions will be tempered with reason. If there is a real threat to this nation Ron Paul will refer the matter to congress to decide on a declaration of war. If Iran were to shut down the strait without a legitimate provocation the worlds reaction would be devastating to Iran. They would lose ALL credibility within a matter of days. A true statesman wouldn’t even have to fire a shot to bring down Iran’s government. Iran is dependant on other nations for their food, fuel and medicines. Shutting down the strait actually hurts them more than it hurts the US. Iran would collapse within days from within! Right now Iran is a first tier satellite state of Russia and in some respects China Ron Paul is only saying what a real STATESMAN would do if he were president! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FC Posted December 30, 2011 Author Report Share Posted December 30, 2011 Nope, he is so isolationist that he said exactly what he thought- that Iran, a puke of a country, has the right to shut down the strait if sanctioned. This is not an isolated quote on his unwillingness to engage in foreign affairs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
karlunity Posted December 31, 2011 Report Share Posted December 31, 2011 If what Iran does is or can be seen as an "Act of War" against the USA, than Congress has to agree that it is and declare war.Mr. Obama does not, under our Constitution have that power. Should that happen, we drop the PC roes..forget nation building and wage war. Kick their azz and win for once. I do not see that in the near future. karl Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FC Posted December 31, 2011 Author Report Share Posted December 31, 2011 True, but I'm focusing on the Paulite view of the world. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ken98k Posted December 31, 2011 Report Share Posted December 31, 2011 It's high time we had some isolationism. The world used to love America for what we were; now they hate us for what we have become. It's a matter of FACT that we desperately need some of our own country building and leave the rest of the world to do what they want for a while. The infrastructure of this country is falling apart, the economy is a shambles, and the moral stature is in the toilet. Let's get our own house in order so we can once again set a shining example to the rest of the world. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FC Posted December 31, 2011 Author Report Share Posted December 31, 2011 And ignore Iran's development of nuclear weapons, and cutting off our oil supply? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
karlunity Posted December 31, 2011 Report Share Posted December 31, 2011 Worse case, we are forced to use our own coal and reopen our own oil fields and perhaps build a few atomic power plants..as ti Iran with atomic weapons, China under Mao had them and the Reds under Stalin had hundreds. As long as Iran KNOWS that they WILL glow if they pop one at us..I don't see a problem worth for more years of Mr, Obama or a Rino. Karl Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ken98k Posted December 31, 2011 Report Share Posted December 31, 2011 And ignore Iran's development of nuclear weapons, and cutting off our oil supply? The US is one of the largest Exporters of oil. After 20 years of on again, off again war with Iraq, do you really think declaring war on Iran would be an intelligent move? We are now facing exactly what did in the soviets. Let the middle east blow them selves to crap. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brokengun Posted December 31, 2011 Report Share Posted December 31, 2011 Ron Paul is far more Hawkish than any one wants to admit. He gave a speech in Texas back in either late 2007 or 2008 in front of about 5000 at a Tea Party event in which he called for a strong US military and a view that he would not tolerate an attack on US interest. Just because Paul doesn’t go around looking for a fight doesn’t mean he won’t go toe to toe with an opponent. Has far as Iran is concerned the atomic fuel they have can not be refined into weapons grade, because they didn’t remove the fluorides at the beginning of the refinement process. This information was published in a magazine for the US nuclear power industry about 1-2 years ago the original link was at whatreallyhappened .com Now that doesn’t mean Iran wouldn’t like to have a bomb but their still years away unless someone gives them one. I think we can agree that if Iran ever used a bomb it would be the last bomb they would ever use before they became a cinder block. Ron Paul wouldn’t put up with that crap either, he said so in the above mentioned speech. Has far as isolationism goes our first president warned us to stay out of foreign conflicts and Ron Paul shares the same view as the first commander and chief. Plus we need to understand the Muslim world they are always shooting their mouths off for internal consumption. Iran is ran by hardliners that have to talk tough now and then to make themselves feel important. My personal opinion is that if Iran or anyone posed a real threat to the USA and Ron Paul was president he’d burn their country down around them. These quite guys that seem slow to react sometimes are the meanest fighters and Ron Paul makes me think he is that kind of man. My son and I had this very conversation over Christmas FC and we came to this opinion based on Ron Paul’s history. Remember all of the GOP that stands around pounding their chest never served in the US military but Ron Paul did. I believe he was an air force officer, I think captain for 6 years during Vietnam. In my opinion a man that served in the Air Force for 6 years maybe quite but he’s NO sissy! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ken98k Posted January 1, 2012 Report Share Posted January 1, 2012 My personal opinion is that if Iran or anyone posed a real threat to the USA and Ron Paul was president he’d burn their country down around them. I believe he was an air force officer, I think captain for 6 years during Vietnam. In my opinion a man that served in the Air Force for 6 years maybe quite but he’s NO sissy! +1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PRegner Posted January 1, 2012 Report Share Posted January 1, 2012 Meh. This is history repeating itself. Back in 1988 the Iranians were pissed-off at something or another and began laying mines in the Straights of Hormuz. I was part of the MAGTF (Marine Air Ground Task Force) that was deployed to the area to discourage them. Things quickly escalated, and the whole thing came to a head when Iran attempted to kamakazi the Aegis cruiser USS Vincennes with an A300 (airliner). I doubt this round of idiocy on behalf of Iran will get as far as things did in 1988. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FC Posted January 1, 2012 Author Report Share Posted January 1, 2012 Ron Paul is just too out there to be president. He'd be great on financial matters, but not foreign policy. I also heard he used to accuse the Jews of 9-11. That's a nut-ball opinion. We're back to wanting to repeat history. Pre-WW2 we were isolationist. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brokengun Posted January 1, 2012 Report Share Posted January 1, 2012 Ok I think we have identified the problem. A lot of people are claiming that Ron Paul is racist, bigot, conspiracy theorist and weak on foreign policy but those claims are based on what other people are saying about Ron Paul and NOT what Ron Paul is actually saying or his congressional voting record. Ron Paul says that there is NO evidence suggesting 9-11 was an inside job or that the official story is not true. Ron Paul supported/voted for the war in Afghanistan. The only unconstitutional vote that Ron Paul ever voted for was to create a National Holiday for Martin Luther King. Has a medical doctor Ron Paul has a record of donating his time to hospitals in poor neighborhoods that care for minorities. Ron Paul is very big on personal liberty and responsibility; the Elite of both parties hate his guts because he is a threat to their power base. Is Ron Paul perfect; Hell NO but neither is anyone else in my opinion. Personally I would like to see the borders closed down. I also want our jobs to be returned, which means dump NAFT and GAT! I don’t know if Ron Paul could achieve that, I do know NO other candidate will even try. In the final analysis Ron Paul as President would represent only one branch of government, congress defines the budget and declares wars. As president Ron Paul would serve his constitutional role as the administrator to the states. Given the choice between Ron Paul and Obama, I take Paul. Given the choice between Ron Paul and the rest of the current GOP field I still take Paul. One final note Obama had absolutely NO foreign Policy experience, never ran a business, had very little to NO accomplishments has a member of the Illinois general assembly, never served in America’s armed forces. In fact we don’t really know a whole lot about the man… But he’s now considered one of the greatest men of our time! Ron Paul severed 6 years in the Air Force during Vietnam, ran several businesses, has a strong pro-constitutional voting record, has a documented history of helping the poor needy and indigent and he’s considered to be crazy. Can someone explain this to me? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ken98k Posted January 1, 2012 Report Share Posted January 1, 2012 Ron Paul is very big on personal liberty and responsibility; the Elite of both parties hate his guts because he is a threat to their power base. Ron Paul is different, that is why we need him. Given the choice between Obama and the anti gunner from Massechucettes, I'll take Obama. I had previously thought I would write in Ron Paul if he wasn't on the ballot. But after more consideration I'll use my ballot as a weapon against Romney if it comes down to it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PRegner Posted January 2, 2012 Report Share Posted January 2, 2012 Given the choice between Obama and the anti gunner from Massechucettes, I'll take Obama. I'm no fan of the RINO Romney either, but our nation can't take another four years of Obama. He'll continue to bankrupt our nation; continuing his march to dismantle our Constitutional Republic, replacing it with a Socialist oligarchy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ken98k Posted January 2, 2012 Report Share Posted January 2, 2012 I'm no fan of the RINO Romney either, but our nation can't take another four years of Obama. He'll continue to bankrupt our nation; continuing his march to dismantle our Constitutional Republic, replacing it with a Socialist oligarchy. This nation has been in decline for quite some time. GW Scumbag Bush was the straw that broke the camels back, Obama is just another straw. I am certainly no Obama fan but he is controllable if we just get rid of the rinos in the legislative branch. Everything he's done has been with the support of the legislators. Without the help of rinos like Lisa Murkoski from AK, or the faggot generals in the modern military, he would be fairly impotent. Also don't forget, he was elected by republican voters. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FC Posted January 2, 2012 Author Report Share Posted January 2, 2012 First off, "W" is not a scumbag. I met him and his family Easter, 2004, as he was quietly visiting wounded troops on my floor, and handed out purple hearts. He gave a private phone number for them to call if they needed anything. He is a decent man, but lacked leadership in his second term. It's PC to bash him, and it is not wholly deserved. Paul was in the military- fine, so was McCain, under worse circumstances, and Kerry too. He'd be great on financial matters, but he's off the reservation. http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2011/12/27/395391/fact-check-ron-paul-personally-defended-racist-newsletters/ http://www.startribune.com/opinion/otherviews/136327348.html "IS RON PAUL GUILTY OF MORE THAN NEGLIGENCE? Do I think that Paul wrote the offending newsletters? I do not... For that reason, I cannot agree with Kirchick when he concludes that "Ron Paul is not the plain-speaking antiwar activist his supporters believe they are backing -- but rather a member in good standing of some of the oldest and ugliest traditions in American politics." On the other hand, it doesn't seem credible that Paul was unaware of who wrote the execrable newsletters, and although almost a million dollars per year in revenue is a substantial incentive to look away from despicable content, having done so was at minimum an act of gross negligence and at worst an act of deep corruption. Indeed, Paul himself has acknowledged that he "bears moral responsibility" for the content. Given its odiousness that is no small thing. People who traffic in ideas have a responsibility to monitor what goes out under their names. Had someone published such offensive drivel under mine, I'd be furious, and I'd damn well identify and repudiate the author. Why has Paul failed to do so? In the hope that the story would disappear more quickly if he avoided it? Out of misplaced loyalty to a longtime supporter? Out of fear that if he turns on the author of the newsletters he's vulnerable to retaliation, or the revelation that he was in fact complicit in the content? Another reason? It's impossible to know. And for that reason, I can't blame Kirchick for reaching a different, darker conclusion than mine. He writes: Paul's campaign wants to depict its candidate as a naïve, absentee overseer, with minimal knowledge of what his underlings were doing on his behalf. This portrayal might be more believable if extremist views had cropped up in the newsletters only sporadically--or if the newsletters had just been published for a short time. But it is difficult to imagine how Paul could allow material consistently saturated in racism, homophobia, anti-Semitism, and conspiracy-mongering to be printed under his name for so long if he did not share these views. In that respect, whether or not Paul personally wrote the most offensive passages is almost beside the point. If he disagreed with what was being written under his name, you would think that at some point--over the course of decades--he would have done something about it." http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/12/grappling-with-ron-pauls-racist-newsletters/250206/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
karlunity Posted January 2, 2012 Report Share Posted January 2, 2012 I agree with you that Mr. Bush was and is a good man...I don't agree with every thing he did, the Patriot Act and the bailouts come to mind but I do trust him. As to Ron Paul...granted no one is perfect and I do not like all of his policies, as to the News latters..some of the stuff I have posted here and on AW would have the ACLU after me. Of those from the GOP running now, I think that he is the only one who seems to understand the Constitution. During the debates for example: All of the speakers were swearing to repeal Obamacare if elected,except Ron Paul, who said that he would ask for it's repeal. Which was the proper answer as a President Cannot repeal a law. So either the other folks running don't understand the Constitution or are talking down to us in the belief that we do not. I don't think RP will win, I think that Mittins will, but I hope the the support RP gets will force the GOP platform more to the right. Karl Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spiris Posted January 2, 2012 Report Share Posted January 2, 2012 I agree with you that Mr. Bush was and is a good man.. Absolutely! IMO, Ron Paul is not electable, for things that he's said and the way that he said them. He has some good ideas, but we mustn't lose sight of the big picture, and that is to elect "anybody but obama", and to purge the Congress of as many liberal socialists as possible in 2012. We can agree to disagree here, but the focus needs to be getting rid of the socialist obama. Let the caucus votes fall where they may. Spiris Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
8uck5nort Posted January 2, 2012 Report Share Posted January 2, 2012 Absolutely! to elect "anybody but obama", and to purge the Congress of as many liberal socialists as possible in 2012. We can agree to disagree here, but the focus needs to be getting rid of the socialist obama. Not really sure what to think about Ron Paul. He inspires strong emotions both ways, but as Spiris eloquently points out that should be our one and only goal. Obama must be a one term president. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
karlunity Posted January 2, 2012 Report Share Posted January 2, 2012 "anybody but obama"... I cannot agree with that. The problem is not Mr. Obama the man, for all I know he may well be a good fellow to have a beer or go shooting with. No. It is the policies of Mr. Obama that I object to and I fail to see how electing a Rino with almost the same policies is going to change things. In fact, it may may matters worse. A GOP Congress may well go along with a Progressive GOP president in matters where they would oppose a Dem in the name of party loyalty. If the "tea party" types can get Congress, both houses, we can hold Mr. Obama in check. If Ron Paul can influence the GOP to move to the a Constitutional view and KEEP to it once in power that would be as fine a thing as I think we can hope for. Even if the sky opened and Ron Paul won the WH, a progressive Congress could override his veto. Without a power base, a majority in Congress the power of a President is limited...I know he could appoint judges, for example, but would the Senate Confirm them? Karl Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
8uck5nort Posted January 2, 2012 Report Share Posted January 2, 2012 "anybody but obama"... I cannot agree with that. The problem is not Mr. Obama the man, for all I know he may well be a good fellow to have a beer or go shooting with. No. It is the policies of Mr. Obama that I object to and I fail to see how electing a Rino with almost the same policies is going to change things. Without a power base, a majority in Congress the power of a President is limited...I know he could appoint judges, for example, but would the Senate Confirm them? Karl Agreed, I do not hate President Obama. Just like Bush he probably is a likeable guy to do stuff with. Agreed, I am against most if not all of his policies on Health Care, Gun Control, Bailouts, etc... We as a nation do not need anymore socialist programs sucking the economic life out or country. My point is a RINO is still better than a lame duck, dyed in the wool socialist authoring a long list of Executive Orders. JMHO Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PRegner Posted January 2, 2012 Report Share Posted January 2, 2012 "anybody but obama"... I cannot agree with that. The problem is not Mr. Obama the man, for all I know he may well be a good fellow to have a beer or go shooting with. Acyually, the problem for me IS Mr. Obama, the man. I would not drink, nor shoot with him. Obama has publically expressed his admiration for Che Guevara while campaigning prior to the 2008 election (for those not up on their history, Che Guevara helped orchistrate and participated in Fidel Castro's Communist revolution in Cuba; rising in prominence to the position of Castro's second in command. After the revolution, Guevara was in charge of ferretting-out and executing anyone thought to have still been loyal to Batista. He was a thug and a killer). Obama also publically embraces the writings/teachings of Cloward and Piven: two Socialist activists from the sixties that out-lined a strategy for over-throwing United States Capitalism through first overloading the welfare system and bankrupting the country. He has demonstrated that he is a liar (I know, what politician isn't), and that he will say anything to promote the himself, and the spread of global socialism. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.