Is Ron Paul correct on Iran?

Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid
let's look further on the results of "American Imperialism", name me one example where this has actually worked?

Germany, Austria, Japan, S. Korea, France, and to some extent in Italy, Poland and Greece. Subsequently, the Soviet Union collapsed and several former eastern block nations are striving to emulate the American model. Probably missed a couple, but you only asked for one example.

All of those countries were liberated as a result of World War II. Are you saying by helping those countries rebuild, including Germany and Japan, the main aggressors of WWII, that we imposed our form of Government on them? What I said is that during the Cold War, we tried to prop up regimes that were favorable to the US and that it didn't work. So where's your one example?
Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid
Put this in proper context of course, a lot of this happened during the height of the Cold War, when to a large degree we had little choice due to the possibility that the Soviets could forcibly impose their ideology on other nations. So we countered by trying to impose ours.

Ensconced in the comfort of your home, or wherever you are, you've just cited why the U.S. did what it did between 1945 and 1989 to permit you that comfort. But then you go on to say it was all wrong.

And i said the Cold War ended 20 years ago yet we tried again in both Afghanistan and Iraq.
Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid
Is Iran really crazy enough to use a nuclear weapon? I don't think so.

Right. You don’t think they are crazy enough. No one thought the Japanese were crazy enough to bomb Pearl Harbor. No one thought Hitler was crazy enough to attack Poland, France or the U.S.S.R.

Plenty of people thought Hitler would invade all of those countries, the only one who either didn't or was too gutless to make a stand was some guy named Neville Chamberlain. What did he call it? Ah yes .. Appeasement. And look what that got him.

And you are talking about the people that climbed over the walls of the American embassy in Teheran and held and tortured U.S. embassy personnel for over one year. At the time, no one thought they were crazy enough to do that. Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid
there were no WMD's and Bush knew that but he basically lied to the country and the world about it.

You, among others, would rather just claim: “Bush lied.” Yet, that is being intellectually dishonest.

The WMD Commission and the Butler report both indicate that the intelligence community was correct in suggesting that Saddam was probably seeking to re-arm his military forces with WMD. That conclusion is, in part, based on these known facts: 1) Saddam had had WMD in the past. 2) Saddam had strong incentives to reconstitute his arsenal. 3) He had the money to refinance such a reconstitution. 4) He had trained, competent technicians who could reconstitute his stockpile of WMDs. 5) He had the necessary materiel on hand to proceed with such a reconstitution. 6) He repeatedly stalled and deceived the inspectors—which begged the question—“What is he hiding?”

Probably? and i'm "probably" Brad Pitt and Angie's giving me head while i type this. Consider Bush's "probable" evidence vs. Kennedy's "actual" evidence the Soviets had missiles in Cuba. So your argument is let's invade anyone we "think" might have or maybe will have anything we don't what them to have. Wonderful. I'd rather have something slightly more substantial before committing Billions on a war and the lives of thousands of US military.

I

BTW, Israel is not a party to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and has never officially confirmed or denied that it has a nuclear arsenal, or has developed nuclear weapons, or even has a nuclear weapons program. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

So, by the reasoning of I B Hankering let's invade Israel and find out!

I think that United States should always act in the best interest of the United State and by necessity, our allies as well. Who else is going to do it or care?

The_Waco_Kid All of those countries were liberated as a result of World War II. Are you saying by helping those countries rebuild, including Germany and Japan, the main aggressors of WWII, that we imposed our form of Government on them? What I said is that during the Cold War, we tried to prop up regimes that were favorable to the US and that it didn't work. So where's your one example? blah, blah blah Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

No. Your "American Imperialism" remark was generic with the qualifier that "most of it" occurred during the Cold War. The examples provided are still valid for they exemplify how the U.S. was pursuing self-serving diplomacy (as it should) before and during WWII and continued to follow self-serving diplomacy (as it should) after WWII. BTW, those sanctions placed against Cuba that you so despise are not unlike the sanctions the U.S. imposed against Italy, Germany and Japan before open warfare.

Furthermore, S. Korea was liberated and occupied by U.S. forces after WWII, but the U.S. had to fight an additional war to keep it free. The U.S. backed the Greek government against communist insurgents in a three years civil war following WWII. Poland secured its freedom from the U.S.S.R. in 1981. “The perestroika and glasnost policies of the Soviet Union's new leader, Mikhail Gorbachev, were another factor in stimulating political reform in Poland. In particular, Gorbachev essentially repudiated the Brezhnev Doctrine, which had stipulated that attempts by its Eastern European satellite states to abandon Communism would be countered by the Soviet Union with force. This change in Soviet policy, along with the hardline stance of US President Ronald Reagan against Soviet military incursions, removed the specter of a possible Soviet invasion in response to any wide-ranging reforms” [wiki]. So your assertion that all of these nations were freed during WWII is also wrong.

Probably? and i'm "probably" Brad Pitt and Angie's giving me head while i type this. Consider Bush's "probable" evidence vs. Kennedy's "actual" evidence the Soviets had missiles in Cuba. So your argument is let's invade anyone we "think" might have or maybe will have anything we don't what them to have. Wonderful. I'd rather have something slightly more substantial before committing Billions on a war and the lives of thousands of US military. Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

The WMD Commission and the Butler report both indicate that the intelligence community was correct in suggesting that Saddam was probably seeking to re-arm his military forces with WMD (not Bush). That conclusion is, in part, based on these known facts: 1) Saddam had had WMD in the past. 2) Saddam had strong incentives to reconstitute his arsenal. 3) He had the money to refinance such a reconstitution. 4) He had trained, competent technicians who could reconstitute his stockpile of WMDs. 5) He had the necessary materiel on hand to proceed with such a reconstitution. 6) He repeatedly stalled and deceived the inspectors—which begged the question—“What is he hiding?”

So, by the reasoning of I B Hankering let's invade Israel and find out! Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

So you can't read either can you. Only an undeveloped mind of a Kool-Aid addict could possibly reach that conclusion.

I don't think anyone really understands what would happen if Iran had a nuke. How incompetent do you think the US really is? That nuke would be tracked and it would be known where it was every minute. Do you really think they could fly a plane, or mount it on a missile? Look what Saddam did with his SCUDs, he couldn't even hit anything! Iran needs nukes, 100's of them to keep the US out of there. Ron Paul is right about everything, not just Iran

I don't think anyone really understands what would happen if Iran had a nuke. Originally Posted by Houston65

You should have stopped right here.

How incompetent do you think the US really is? That nuke would be tracked and it would be known where it was every minute. Do you really think they could fly a plane, or mount it on a missile? Originally Posted by Houston65

How incompetent do you think the Iranians are? "Never underestimate your enemy; never be too sure of yourself" (Sun Tzu,The Art of War ~ 6th Century BC).

Look what Saddam did with his SCUDs, he couldn't even hit anything! Iran needs nukes, 100's of them to keep the US out of there. Originally Posted by Houston65

You're being dismissive of those who were, in fact, killed by Saddam's missiles. On 25 February 1991 an Iraqi Scud missile destroyed the U.S. barracks in Dhahran, killing 28 U.S. soldiers.

“In 1988, the fighting along the border had reached a stalemate, and both belligerents began employing terror tactics, in order to break the deadlock. Lasting from 29 February to 20 April, this conflict became known as the war of the cities, and saw an intensive use of Scud missiles. The first rounds were fired by Iraq, when seven Al-Husseins landed in Tehran on February 29. In all, Iraq fired 189 missiles, mostly of the Al-Hussein type, of which 135 landed in Tehran, 23 in Qom, 22 in Isfahan, four in Tabriz, three in Shiraz and two in Karaj. During this episode, Iraq's missiles killed 2,000 Iranians, injured 6,000, and caused a quarter of Tehran's population of ten million to flee the city” [wiki].

Indo-Pakistani War of 1999: Commonly known as Kargil War, this conflict between the two countries was mostly limited. Pakistani troops along with Kashmiri insurgents infiltrated across the Line of Control (LoC) and occupied Indian territory mostly in the Kargil district. Pakistani government believed that its nuclear weapons would deter a full-scale escalation in conflict but India launched a major military campaign to flush out the infiltrators. Due to Indian military advances and increasing foreign diplomatic pressure, Pakistan was forced to withdraw its forces back across the LoC.
Explain again how it's in the best interest of the U.S. to permit Iran to develop nuclear weapons. You provided several Iranian reasons for developing those weapons, but you didn't list any U.S. reasons.

BTW, Israel is not a party to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and has never officially confirmed or denied that it has a nuclear arsenal, or has developed nuclear weapons, or even has a nuclear weapons program. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

lol you give an example of an Indo-Pakistan dispute as an example of a country invading another country with nukes- give me a break. those 2 have had very minor squirmishes over disputed pieces of land but nothing on a scale where the other sends huge amount of troops deep into the other countries mainland?
Also, why should every country have to give in to the U.S interest? Isn't that basically would Ron Paul is saying that we(USA) need to stop interfering in every countries business????
In terms of Israel- of course it did not sign the Nuclear Non- Proliferation Treaty but everyone knows they have a nuke- Israel has caught a lot of heat recently as of last month by not allowing inspectors to determine if they have nukes: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...cymideast.html

lol you give an example of an Indo-Pakistan dispute as an example of a country invading another country with nukes- give me a break. those 2 have had very minor squirmishes over disputed pieces of land but nothing on a scale where the other sends huge amount of troops deep into the other countries mainland? Originally Posted by wellendowed1911

Tell that to the estimated 6,000 killed and wounded. India sent in 30,000 troops. How do you call that a "skirmish"?

Also, why should every country have to give in to the U.S interest? Isn't that basically would Ron Paul is saying that we(USA) need to stop interfering in every countries business???? Originally Posted by wellendowed1911

What you and Ron Paul refer to as "interference" is actually the U.S. government keeping danger at a distance from the U.S. mainland and territories: which is exactly what it's constituted to do.

In terms of Israel- of course it did not sign the Nuclear Non- Proliferation Treaty but everyone knows they have a nuke- Israel has caught a lot of heat recently as of last month by not allowing inspectors to determine if they have nukes: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...cymideast.html Originally Posted by wellendowed1911

You do know, that this article proves nothing except that many Arab countries "suspect" Israel has nuclear capabilities?

Tell that to the estimated 6,000 killed and wounded. India sent in 30,000 troops. How do you call that a "skirmish"? What you and Ron Paul refer to as "interference" is actually the U.S. government keeping danger at a distance from the U.S. mainland and territories: which is exactly what it's constituted to do.
You do know, that this article proves nothing except that many Arab countries "suspect" Israel has nuclear capabilities? Originally Posted by I B Hankering

ok here's what I referenced:
India and Pakistan have fought in numerous armed conflicts since their independence. There are three major wars that have taken place between the two states, namely in 1947, 1965 and the Bangladesh Liberation War in 1971. In addition to this was the unofficial Kargil War and some border skirmishes.
Again as I mentioned these have been decades old border skirmish and the majority of the conflicts have occurred before either one of those Nations became a nuclear power- both of those nations have called each others bluff time after time- neither one has sent significant amount of troops into the other country in respective to toppling the other nation's regime.
What distance is the U.S preventing???? Even if Iran gets nuke- they wouldn't have the technology or the means to strike the U.S- are you telling me that if Iran gets a nuke- it's going to be a long range ballistic missile capable of striking the U.S?
The same way the article "suspects" Israel has nuclear weapons than why does the USA take an ape shit role when it "suspects" Iran of having a nuclear weapon????

...What distance is the U.S preventing???? Even if Iran gets nuke- they wouldn't have the technology or the means to strike the U.S- are you telling me that if Iran gets a nuke- it's going to be a long range ballistic missile capable of striking the U.S? Originally Posted by wellendowed1911

I'm not sure how many years away Iran might be from developing and deploying ICBMs -- that's a pretty difficult technical task.

But one thing I've often wondered is this:

What would stop the Iranians from putting a nuclear weapon aboard a ship disguised as a freighter and sailing it within close range of one of our coastal cities -- and then loading it onto one of those little "speedboats" they've used to harass Navy ships in the Persian Gulf, followed by rushing toward shore with nuke-equipped suicide bombers.

ok here's what I referenced:
India and Pakistan have fought in numerous armed conflicts since their independence. There are three major wars that have taken place between the two states, namely in 1947, 1965 and the Bangladesh Liberation War in 1971. In addition to this was the unofficial Kargil War and some border skirmishes.
Again as I mentioned these have been decades old border skirmish and the majority of the conflicts have occurred before either one of those Nations became a nuclear power- both of those nations have called each others bluff time after time- neither one has sent significant amount of troops into the other country in respective to toppling the other nation's regime. Originally Posted by wellendowed1911

You fallaciously believed that no nuclear nation had been invaded by another nuclear nation since the development of nuclear weapons. You have the example you demanded, and you were proved wrong. Now you want to quibble over the facts: it happened!

What distance is the U.S preventing???? Even if Iran gets nuke- they wouldn't have the technology or the means to strike the U.S- are you telling me that if Iran gets a nuke- it's going to be a long range ballistic missile capable of striking the U.S? Originally Posted by wellendowed1911

WE, you’re also wrong in supposing that the use of such a weapon has to be sanctioned by a “state” per se. A group of terrorists or a group of fanatics could commandeer a nuclear weapon and act on their own. The Second Sino-Japanese War, 1937 to 1945, was not started by government officials in Tokyo. It was wholly initiated by Japanese officers stationed in Manchukuo.

Another group, the 9/11 hijackers, were primarily Saudi Arabian, but they did not represent their “nation” of origin, but rather represented a non-state entity known as al Qaeda. Having already “invaded” the U.S. at some prior date, on 9-11, these nineteen individuals commandeered four commercial jet airliners as weapons and killed some 3,000 innocent people: most of whom were Americans.

Plus, you obviously haven’t been following Iranian missile and naval development have you. Why do you suppose Obama is continuing to endorse SDI (the Missile Defense Shield: aka “Star Wars”) in Europe? http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/wo...an/missile.htm

In February 2009, Iran elevated itself to an exclusive group of nations by launching its first satellite, the Omid, into low earth orbit. It did so by means of its own liquid-fuel, two-stage space rocket. U.S. officials admitted "grave concern" over the achievement and cautioned that the capabilities necessary for the space launch could be applied toward developing long-range ballistic missiles. http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/wo...an/missile.htm

More recently it was announced that Iranian missile cruisers will be patrolling in the Atlantic. They are already in the Red Sea. http://www.militaryfactory.com/ships...RIS-Jamaran-76

And submarines. http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2011\10\06\st ory_6-10-2011_pg14_5

Furthermore, it’s also wrong to imagine that U.S. interests do not transcend its international boundaries. The Iranians do not need ICBMs to impact the U.S. economy. There are already plenty of targets available to the Iranians well within the range of their missiles using capabilities and technologies they already possess. And yet you are all for letting them arm such missiles with nuclear warheads.

The same way the article "suspects" Israel has nuclear weapons than why does the USA take an ape shit role when it "suspects" Iran of having a nuclear weapon???? Originally Posted by wellendowed1911

WE, are you running for office in Iran? When's that election for Parliament?

Israel has nukes. If you think otherwise, you're delusional.

Israel has nukes. If you think otherwise, you're delusional. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

But WE cannot provide a site, er, that is, a cite for his information.

Yes, outta sight, outta mind. So please cite to a site, Munch, or if it is easier, site to a cite.

I'm not sure how many years away Iran might be from developing and deploying ICBMs -- that's a pretty difficult technical task.

But one thing I've often wondered is this:

What would stop the Iranians from putting a nuclear weapon aboard a ship disguised as a freighter and sailing it within close range of one of our coastal cities -- and then loading it onto one of those little "speedboats" they've used to harass Navy ships in the Persian Gulf, followed by rushing toward shore with nuke-equipped suicide bombers. Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight

Dude if you want to talk hypothetical hyperbole bullshit than when we can- but to answer your question what's stopping Iran from doing that is having fucking common sense and not wanting to be destroyed off the face of the earth. The CIA states by best estimate Iran is capable of producing at least 1 nuke in the next 5 years- do you know how many nukes the U.S has???? Even if that hypothetical bullshit scenario was to happen- we have enough nukes to respond in such a manner that we can nuke Iran until nothing is left but cockroaches.
Your scenario is as absurd as saying what if an Iranian diplomat has his stomach cut open and a bomb is placed in his intestines and he travels to the White House/ U.N or some crowded American market and detonates the bomb that was implanted in his stomach- you see how absurd that sounds. What in the hell would Iran gain from doing that??? A country that attacks another country has to be prepared for a retaliation hence why do you think all those arab countries don't attack Israel head on??? The reason being Israel response would greatly overshadown any countries first response.