Is Ron Paul correct on Iran?

Yeah, what code? oh that code. Not interested either. Please don't be stupid and go all 9/11 conspiracy postal. News flash there was no NWO staged demo, no missiles and nothing else but 'bout 19 fuckheads on a Jihad. And Oswald was the lone shooter and there's no little green men either. And Santa. Bet that one hurts.

-snip snip- Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

if you didn't care about it, then why respond to it. it really had nothing to do with 911 conspiracy. Its really not a conspiracy in the truest sense of the word.

E Howard Hunt confessed to being a part of the Kennedy assassination team.

And if being correct meant being popular, Ron Paul would have been President long ago, and we would never had heard the names Reagan, Bush, Clinton or Obama.

it really had nothing to do with 911 conspiracy. Its really not a conspiracy in the truest sense of the word. Originally Posted by dilbert firestorm

it's not a conspiracy in any sense of the word.

E Howard Hunt confessed to being a part of the Kennedy assassination team.
Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Howard Hunt? Nixon's dirty trickster for WaterGate? Please. All you get is bunch of nonsense on that. Conflicting that, conflicting this. LBJ had JFK killed? Not buying that.

I bet both of you have copies of "None dare call it treason" on your nightstands too.

We as a nation don't have any divine or otherwise right to invade Iran under the current status, to simply keep Iran from developing nuclear weapons. That was Ron Paul's main point, and he's right. The current status meaning last i knew we aren't at war with Iran are we? Unless that changes or there's a major incident in that area we as a nation don't have the right to invade Iran for any reason, nuclear weapons or not.

E Howard Hunt confessed to being a part of the Kennedy assassination team. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Have you seen ....

The Men who shot Liberty Valance?

John Wayne didn't act alone either.

Originally Posted by Texaspride74
No, I mean Ron Paul the 12 term Texas Congressmen who has been the staunchest defender of the Constitution in Congress since Thomas Jefferson . . . . First of all, there is a huge difference between Isolationism and non-interventionism, and if you didn't believe everything your TV told you then you might know this. What Ron Paul stands for and what the Founding Fathers George Washington and Thomas Jefferson stood for is non-interventionism. It is a foriegn policy which includes diplomacy and free trade with other Nations. It also includes avoiding all wars not related to direct self-defense. That means no Nation building, no policing the world, and no preemptive attacks or invations of other Nations based on what some boogeyman might hypothetically do.


Ron Paul is right, and the founding fathers would agree that we as a sovereign nation should respect the sovereign rights of other nations. Barring any tangible and credible threats to the US, we have no right to invade Iran simply to prevent them from getting nukes.

Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

Ron Paul is right.

Quote:
Originally Posted by WTF
I in fact was a proponent of dropping a nuke on Bin Liden's ass right after 9/11 when the stupid ass Taliban would not turn his murdering ass over. We have nuke's. I say use'em or lose'em.

Dude what an asinine, stupid thing to blab out in a post. You can't be serious. Don't sit there and post something that banal and crude. Obama has about as much leadership as a turnip but at least he's smart enough not to toss nukes around. Good thing you aren't in charge.



Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

Yea, cause if I'd a been in charge, Bin Laden would have been dead 9 years ago and we would not have all these troops killed occupying other countries and we would have a shit pile less debt.

Oh and Bush was President back then, not Obama.

We nuked Japan twice to save American Troop lives, why the fuc would it have been so 'banal and crude' to do so in that shit hole of a country?
Do you know how many innocent citizen we have already killed in those two countries. Nuking him would have been much cheaper and cost way fewer lives in the long run for all three countries.

Barring any tangible and credible threats to the US, we have no right to invade Iran simply to prevent them from getting nukes.



He kind of leaves the door wide open doesn't he?

Some times you Ron Paul guys are nuttier than the Liberals.

I simply stated what E Howard Hunt said. You will have to argue with him.

Barring any tangible and credible threats to the US, we have no right to invade Iran simply to prevent them from getting nukes.



He kind of leaves the door wide open doesn't he?

Some times you Ron Paul guys are nuttier than the Liberals. Originally Posted by TheDaliLama

You wouldn't know the difference between a liberal and a conservative if they butt fuc'd each other at your sex change coming out party.

#1... Bin Laden would have been dead 9 years ago ...

#2 Nuking him would have been much cheaper and cost way fewer lives in the long run for all three countries. Originally Posted by WTF

#1: If you knew where he was 9 years ago why didn't you tell the U.S. government.

#2: I thought you are opposed to "nation building." Doesn't sound like it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_...omic_Radiation

Before you make "political" decisions you might want to brush up on your scientific data regarding the effects of nuclear explosions .. by reviewing the consequences of a "little" plant explosion in the Soviet Union.

The Box lyrics
Songwriters: Lascelles;

Once upon a time in the land of Hushabye
Around about the wondrous days of yore
They came across a sort of box
Bound up with chains and locked with locks
And labeled, "Kindly do not touch, it's war"

Decree was issued round about all with a flourish and a shout
And a gaily colored mascot tripping lightly on the fore
"Don't fiddle with this deadly box
Or break the chains, or pick the locks
And please, don't ever play about with war"

Well, the children understood, children happen to be good
They were just as good around the time of yore
They didn't try to pick the locks
Or break into that deadly box
They never tried to play about with war

Mommies didn't either, sisters, aunts, grannies neither
'Cause they were quiet and sweet and pretty
In those wondrous days of yore
Well, very much the same as now, not the ones to blame somehow
For opening up that deadly box of war

But someone did, someone battered in the lid
And spilled the insides out across the floor
A sort of bouncy bumpy ball made up of guns and flags
[. From: http://www.elyrics.net/read/j/john-d...ox-lyrics.html .]
And all the tears and horror and the death that goes with war

It bounced right out and went bashing all about
And bumping into everything in store
And what was sad and most unfair
Is that it didn't really seem to care
Much who it bumped, or why, or what, or for

It bumped the children mainly, and I'll tell you this quite plainly
It bumps them everyday and more and more
And leaves them dead and burned and dying
Thousands of them sick and crying
'Cause when it bumps, it's really very sore

Now there's a way to stop the ball, it isn't difficult at all
All it takes is wisdom
I'm absolutely sure that we could get it back into the box
And bind the chains and lock the locks
No one seems to want to save the children anymore

Well, that's the way it all appears
'Cause it's been bouncing 'round for years and years
In spite of all the wisdom whizzed since those wondrous days of yore
And the time they came across the box
Bound up with chains and locked with locks
And labeled, "Kindly do not touch, it's war"

In your case .... Nuclear War.

Now is that in the interest of the United States to assure that some crazy bastard that doesn't have enough sense to realize that the Germans killed millions of Jews, and who wants to eliminate a whole country of them, and who supplies terrorist organizations with weapons and money to buy more ... should not have a device that can destroy millions of lives and cost trillions of dollars to rebuild other countries he decides to use it on?

Ron Paul is a danger to others, and disregards his own safety...

...... to make political points.

Yea, cause if I'd a been in charge, Bin Laden would have been dead 9 years ago and we would not have all these troops killed occupying other countries and we would have a shit pile less debt.

Oh and Bush was President back then, not Obama.

We nuked Japan twice to save American Troop lives, why the fuc would it have been so 'banal and crude' to do so in that shit hole of a country?
Do you know how many innocent citizen we have already killed in those two countries. Nuking him would have been much cheaper and cost way fewer lives in the long run for all three countries. Originally Posted by WTF

Hmmmm- so you think nuking a country that really was a pawn to kill one man? Hmmm, if you dropped a nuke(Remember the nukes we have now are about 100 times more powerful than the A-bombs dropped on Japan)do you think it's going to kill just one man? at least 100,000 would be killed right away and let's not forget the countless thousands who will be killed due to radiation- also add into the birth defects and possible radiation fall out that could travel to the neighboring nations- so at the end of the day you are looking at potentially the death of 500,000 to 1 million people with the overwhelming number of them being innocent- this has to be the dumbest suggestion I have heard to date.

Do any of you fucers actually read? Number one OBL was not holed up in some city. He was holed up in some sparsely populated region. Next read up on how many people the russian accident actually killed lexuslover and you will not keep making such idiotic statements on thbat subject matter. Listen pussies war is hell. I say make is as short and swet as possible. Yes I would have nuked tha= region of the world then and with hindsight I sure the fuc would. I guess u guys prefer the invasion of iraq.

Barring any tangible and credible threats to the US, we have no right to invade Iran simply to prevent them from getting nukes.



He kind of leaves the door wide open doesn't he?

Some times you Ron Paul guys are nuttier than the Liberals. Originally Posted by TheDaliLama

And what part of the statement we're currently not at war with Iran don't you get? Tangible and credible threat means we'd have to be at war already. And as it stands today only a major incident would trigger the type of situation where action like that could even be considered in real terms.

I simply stated what E Howard Hunt said. You will have to argue with him. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Then you know it was a death bed he-said only story that other now also dead parties have refuted. You showed implied belief just by bringing it up without any qualifiers.

Yea, cause if I'd a been in charge, Bin Laden would have been dead 9 years ago and we would not have all these troops killed occupying other countries and we would have a shit pile less debt.

Oh and Bush was President back then, not Obama.

We nuked Japan twice to save American Troop lives, why the fuc would it have been so 'banal and crude' to do so in that shit hole of a country?
Do you know how many innocent citizen we have already killed in those two countries. Nuking him would have been much cheaper and cost way fewer lives in the long run for all three countries. Originally Posted by WTF

Obama is President today. Other than a strict Emergency chain of command in action during wartime meaning Obama is dead or unable to order a strike then Obama, today, is the only person who could authorize a strike using nuclear weapons.

Bush to his credit did not under his watch, and i was concerned he might. Twice. first in the initial shock of 9/11 and later when both wars were floundering.

Don't try to draw any parallels to World War II. The scale just doesn't fit to begin with. World War II. Remember that part about tangible threats? I'd say World War II is about as tangible as it gets. Truman's decision even on the scale of millions possibly lost on both sides during a World War was no easy decision. And that's my real point isn't it?

Don't try to draw any parallels to World War II. The scale just doesn't fit to begin with. World War II. Remember that part about tangible threats? I'd say World War II is about as tangible as it gets. Truman's decision even on the scale of millions possibly lost on both sides during a World War was no easy decision. And that's my real point isn't it?
Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

Point of fact - it was estimated there would be 1,000,000 U.S. casualties including 100,000 killed. Based on experience, Japanese casualties were projected to be two or three times that number.