Is Ron Paul correct on Iran?

Iran to be present in int'l waters: navy commander

2011-10-10 00:29:23

TEHRAN, Oct. 9 (Xinhua) -- Iranian Navy Commander Rear Admiral Habibollah Sayyari said Sunday that Iran has the undeniable right to be actively present in international waters, the local satellite Press TV repor

Editor: Mu Xuequan


http://news.xinhuanet.com/english201..._131181598.htm Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Oh now ik get it. We are scared of Iran's Navy! Great excuse to blow trillions on defense while our schools go to shit here in this country. What about Mexico army? We scared of them to? Isn't that why Holder is arming the drug lords! You guys are of your rocker. Either we can afford this shit or not. Quit bitching about a tax hike if you want all this shit. You right wingers are fuc'd in the head. You want a bunch of military toys but you do not want to pay for them.

BwahahaHA!

Oh now ik get it. We are scared of Iran's Navy! Great excuse to blow trillions on defense while our schools go to shit here in this country. What about Mexico army? We scared of them to? Isn't that why Holder is arming the drug lords! You guys are of your rocker. Either we can afford this shit or not. Quit bitching about a tax hike if you want all this shit. You right wingers are fuc'd in the head. You want a bunch of military toys but you do not want to pay for them. Originally Posted by WTF

As long as we can sink Irans entire navy within a few minutes I am not even slightly worried about it. If they want to waste money building a navy let them. As for being in international waters they are right as long as the don't interfere with anyone else.

I think Ron Paul is right about them getting nuclear weapons and no one realistically being able to stop them. I don't trust them but as long as they know the consequences of using them would be terminal for their government and possibly nation I doubt they would cross that final line.

with regards to Israeli nuclear weapons, Mordecai Vanunu is the source material for the claim.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mordechai_Vanunu

waco kid,

you're prolly right that sanction hasn't worked with regards to cuba.

do you understand why sanctions were imposed on Cuba under Castro regime?

It wasn't because of the failure of the Bay of Pigs incident.

It was because Castro confiscated and nationalized many properties owned by Americans.

What makes anyone think the U.S. can stop Iran from getting nuke weapons?

the precedent has already been set.

United States - 1945
USSR (Russia) - 1949 - did U.S stop them - NO
Britain - 1952 - did U.S stop them - NO
France - 1960 - did U.S stop them - NO
China - 1964 - did U.S stop them - NO
India - 1974 - did U.S stop them - NO
Israel - 1979 - did U.S stop them - NO
Pakistan - 1998 - did U.S stop them - NO
North Korea - 2006 - did U.S stop them - NO
Iran - ???? - Will the U.S. stop them? NO

sorry for the poor formatting, guess the msg board doesn't like spaces.

The US doesn't have to stop/fail-to-stop Iran from getting nukes. Israel is more than capable and motivated to do that for us, well for themselves, but same end result.

........As long as we can sink Irans entire navy within a few minutes I am not even slightly worried about it. Originally Posted by Laz

No one can ever guaranty that. You can almost bet our first battle plan would be thrown out the window in such event.

I think Ron Paul is right about them getting nuclear weapons and no one realistically being able to stop them. Originally Posted by Laz

We could stop them if we had the will. Everyday that goes by makes it that much harder for us . That's why in the end Isreal will do it while we look away.

Unless something happens from within, Iran has a date with destiny.

I don't trust them but as long as they know the consequences of using them would be terminal for their government and possibly nation I doubt they would cross that final line. Originally Posted by Laz

If you were the President would you bet 20 - 40 million of American lives on it?

Don't think it couldn't happen.

Ron Paul is not anti-war and anti-military. He is against wasting American lives and money on nation building and wars in which we have no national security interest. He is also opposed to government waste in spending. There is plenty of waste in the defense department.

Ron Paul is not anti-war and anti-military. He is against wasting American lives and money on nation building and wars in which we have no national security interest. He is also opposed to government waste in spending. There is plenty of waste in the defense department. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

It does not matter what spin one puts on it, when he says "bring home our troops" and he says stop funding it is "anti-war and anti-military" and for him to say otherwise is pure bullshit....and "playing for votes" just like Obaminable.

For over 200 years this country has had as its strategic international policy to engage our enemies off our shores and on theirs. Changing that policy to one in which we engage our enemies at our borders is unacceptable, particularly with today's technology. The toll on our civilian population and infrastructure would be "wasting lives and money on national bulding" .... our own!

A weak U.S. military and a weak military response invites conflicts. Unfortunately since WWII the U.S. has gotten the reputation internationally of lacking the stomach for casualties in military conflicts and of avoiding military conflicts that risk U.S. lives. Each time we have engaged in military conflict or suffered U.S. losses that has been our "final response." So we have earned that reputation and our current band of wimpy policitians running the show are confirming it daily.

Why did you think that weak, rogue, gangster dictators around the world thumb their noses at any verbal threats from a U.S. President? Why do you think our former allies "make nice" with them?



To demonstrate our superior technological ability and commitment to the world, here is the sum total of our once proud space program, which was the envy of any technically oriented nation. They went to space and returned with the U.S. Now we are "out sourcing" those jobs.

At least the Russians had the decency to cover up the wicker wheel chairs.

Oh now ik get it. We are scared of Iran's Navy! Originally Posted by WTF

"Wary" is the correct term. For over four centuries naval sea power has been recognized as the primary means of force projection (read Mahan's book), except by morons like you. An Iranian navy with nuclear capability is not a joke.

Great excuse to blow trillions on defense while our schools go to shit here in this country. Originally Posted by WTF

What is wrong with American schools has very little to do with money or facilities. It's not the schools, it's not the teachers, it's the stupid parents who fail to inculcate in their children the respect for education that it deserves.

What about Mexico army? We scared of them to? Isn't that why Holder is arming the drug lords! Originally Posted by WTF

If you say so.

You guys are of your rocker. Either we can afford this shit or not. Quit bitching about a tax hike if you want all this shit. You right wingers are fuc'd in the head. You want a bunch of military toys but you do not want to pay for them. Originally Posted by WTF

Says you!

As long as we can sink Irans entire navy within a few minutes I am not even slightly worried about it. If they want to waste money building a navy let them. As for being in international waters they are right as long as the don't interfere with anyone else.

I think Ron Paul is right about them getting nuclear weapons and no one realistically being able to stop them. I don't trust them but as long as they know the consequences of using them would be terminal for their government and possibly nation I doubt they would cross that final line. Originally Posted by Laz

You are correct. Or Ron Paul is correct. Or maybe all three of us are correct.

TheDaliLama and his bunch should just pay extra taxes if he is so scared of Iran's navy!


They are scared but not that scared! You try and raise their taxes and they scream bloody murder. Seriously, I think we have became a nation that wants something for nothing. The biggest problem is the Tea Terrorist, they think they are paying their way and they are not. They do not understand basic math. Addition and Subtraction.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RXKYN...eature=related

Do you mean: Ron Neville Chamberlain Paul?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cdnA7...eature=related Originally Posted by LexusLover

No, I mean Ron Paul the 12 term Texas Congressmen who has been the staunchest defender of the Constitution in Congress since Thomas Jefferson. I mean the Ron Paul that has forgotten more about economics then you will ever know. I mean the Ron Paul that predicted the housing bubble crash before any other politician. I mean the Ron Paul that understands why the founders didn't even want us to have a standing army because they knew what it would lead to. I mean the Ron Paul that knows we are bankrupt and that the troops will be brought home one way or another, whether it be by our Government or as a result of an economic collapse. As for your rediculous comparison of Ron Paul and Neville Chamberlain, it is completely ignorant and doesn't deserve a response.

"A 2003 unclassified CIA report made the following judgments about Iran’s ballistic missile

program. While these comments do not take account of the developments in 2004 and 2005, they still seem to broadly reflect current US intelligence assessments:

"Ballistic missile-related cooperation from entities in the former Soviet Union, North Korea, and China over the years has helped Iran move toward its goal of becoming self-sufficient in the production of ballistic missiles. Such assistance during 2003 continued to include equipment, technology, and expertise. Iran's ballistic missile inventory is among the largest in the Middle East and includes some 1,300-km-range Shahab-3 medium-range ballistic missiles (MRBMs) and a few hundred short-range ballistic missiles (SRBMs)-including the Shahab-1 (Scud-B), Shahab-2 (Scud C), and Tondar-69 (CSS-8)-as well as a variety of large unguided rockets. Already producing Scud SRBMs, Iran announced that it had begun production of the Shahab-3 MRBM and a new solid-propellant SRBM, the Fateh-110. In addition, Iran
publicly acknowledged the development of follow-on versions of the Shahab-3. It originally said that another version, the Shahab-4, was a more capable ballistic missile than its predecessor but later characterized it as solely a space launch vehicle with no military applications. Iran is also pursuing longerrange ballistic missiles.

"John R. Bolton presented a similar assessment in a testimony to the House International

Relations Committee in June 2004"

http://csis.org/files/media/csis/pub...elivsystem.pdf

2003?

Apparently Neville Paul wasn't attending the House presentation back in 2004. Originally Posted by LexusLover

LMAO, this is coming from the same CIA that has been shipping in drugs since the 80's and the same CIA that reported there were WMD's in Iraq. And as for John Bolton, you bringing him up just proves my point that this whole thing has nothing to do with terrorism and everything to do with the Military Industrial Complex. Bolton is one of the biggest puppets to the (MIC) that there is. He is a huge neocon who has played prominent roles in groups like PNAC, JINCA, and the CPSG. Not to mention his direct involvment with the Councel on Foriegn Relations (CFR), which is one of the biggest sources of Globalization and the Military Industrial Complex there is. In 2001, Bolton derailed the biological weapons conference in Geneva when U.S. officials, led by Bolton, argued that the plan would have put U.S. "National Security"at risk by allowing spot inspections of suspected U.S. weapons sites, despite the fact that the U.S. claims not to have carried out any research for offensive purposes since 1969.

Bolton also pushed to defund the Nunn-Lugar Cooperative Threat Reduction program to halt the proliferation of nuclear materials. At the same time, he was involved in the implementation of the Proliferation Security Initiative, working with a number of countries to intercept the trafficking in WMD's and in materials for use in building nuclear weapons. In 2002, Bolton accused Cuba of transfers of biological weapons technology to rogue states and called on it "to fully comply with all of its obligations under the Biological Weapons Convention." According to a Scripps Howard News Service article, Bolton "wanted to say that Cuba had a biological weapons capacity and that it was exporting it to other nations. The intelligence analysts seemed to want to limit the assessment to a declaration that Cuba 'could' develop such weapons." According to AlterNet, Bolton attempted to have the chief bioweapons analyst in the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research and the CIA's national intelligence officer for Latin America reassigned. Under oath at his Senate hearings for confirmation as ambassador, he denied trying to have the men fired, but seven intelligence officials contradicted him. Ultimately, "intelligence officials refused to allow Bolton to make the harsh criticism of Cuba he sought to deliver," and were able to keep their positions.

Bolton is also the same guy that in 2003, pushed the lie that Brittish Intelligence had determined Iraq attempted to procure yellowcake uranium from Niger. This "intel" was later proven to be a fraud. Bolton stated in June 2004 congressional testimony Iran was lying about enriched uranium contamination: "Another unmistakable indicator of Iran's intentions is the pattern of repeatedly lying to ... the IAEA, ... when evidence of uranium enriched to 36 percent was found, it attributed this to contamination from imported centrifuge parts." However, later isotope analysis supported Iran’s explanation of foreign contamination for most of the observed enriched uranium. At their August 2005 meeting the IAEA's Board of Governors concluded: "Based on the information currently available to the Agency, the results of that analysis tend, on balance, to support Iran’s statement about the foreign origin of most of the observed HEU contamination." I could go on but there is no need as John Bolton has been caught lying numerous times to push his agenda and the agenda of the Military Industrial Complex. Next time, find some more credible sources of info before presenting them as facts.

+1
The isolationism and appeasement of the 1930s proved to be a catastrophe for the Western democracies - including the U.S. It didn't work then, and with the subsequent increased intertwining of world economies, it won't work now. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

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. That is why Ron Paul would bring the troops home as quickly as possible, and then station some of them on the Mexican Border to actually do something about the Illegal Immigration problem. Bottom line, we need to talk to Countries and trade with them, but we need to mind our own damn business, stop sending money we don't have to all these countries and then fix all the things that are wrong here.

Apparently, some on here were not around for the Cuban missile crisis, or they were still trying to figure out how to stand up and piss at the same time.

The Cuban-Iranian relationship has been developing for years, and will continue to do so. The distinction was, and is, that the Soviets were willing to trade and possessed a reasonable amount of sanity in a confrontation.

I think Ron Paul must have been, but I suspect he was among the

"I'd-rather-be-Red-than-dead" crowd. Originally Posted by LexusLover

Do you actutally believe the bs that you spew on here? You should try to get a job on Fox News or any of the MSM for that matter. They are always looking for people who will push the propaganda of the Military Industrial Complex.

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. Originally Posted by Texaspride74

How many papers have you written on the subject? I have researched and written about ten college level papers on WWII and the interwar period, so my opinions are not based on TV.

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. Originally Posted by Texaspride74

The key words are "Free Trade"! How many jet airliners must be hijacked and destroyed before you or Ron Paul realize that the U.S. is not so insular as it was in the 18th and 19th centuries. The U.S. didn't enter WWI because it was militarily attacked in 1917. It entered the war because Germany "threatened" to interdict "Free Trade" with U-boats. Like WWI Germany, Japan attacked Pearl Harbor so it could create a Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere which excluded Western powers from "Free Trade" in Asia.

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. Originally Posted by Texaspride74

The nature of post-WWI Germany compared with the nature of post-WWII Germany and Japan reflect the efficacy of post war "nation building".

That is why Ron Paul would bring the troops home as quickly as possible, and then station some of them on the Mexican Border to actually do something about the Illegal Immigration problem. Bottom line, we need to talk to Countries and trade with them, but we need to mind our own damn business, stop sending money we don't have to all these countries and then fix all the things that are wrong here. Originally Posted by Texaspride74

Anyone who thinks soldiers, sailors and marines are "policemen" are ignorant and have no appreciation of what soldiers, sailors and marines are trained to do.

[quote=LexusLover;1737126]It does not matter what spin one puts on it, when he says "bring home our troops" and he says stop funding it is "anti-war and anti-military" and for him to say otherwise is pure bullshit....and "playing for votes" just like Obaminable.

For over 200 years this country has had as its strategic international policy to engage our enemies off our shores and on theirs. Changing that policy to one in which we engage our enemies at our borders is unacceptable, particularly with today's technology. The toll on our civilian population and infrastructure would be "wasting lives and money on national bulding" .... our own!

A weak U.S. military and a weak military response invites conflicts. Unfortunately since WWII the U.S. has gotten the reputation internationally of lacking the stomach for casualties in military conflicts and of avoiding military conflicts that risk U.S. lives. Each time we have engaged in military conflict or suffered U.S. losses that has been our "final response." So we have earned that reputation and our current band of wimpy policitians running the show are confirming it daily.

Why did you think that weak, rogue, gangster dictators around the world thumb their noses at any verbal threats from a U.S. President? Why do you think our former allies "make nice" with them?
[quote]

You are very ignorant. Ron Paul is in no way anti-Military. He is the only person running for President who actually served in the Military except for Perry. Obama didn't. Cain didn't. Romney didn't. Santorim didn't. Paul is however against the Military Industrial Complex, which you see to be in full support of. Furthermore, we CAN"T AFFORD these rediculous wars which were aggressive invations based on lies. The troops will come home one way or the other. Either we will bring them home in the very near future or they will have to leave when we collapse. As for him "playing for votes", Ron Paul said the same thing 30 years ago that he says today. He has never changed the things he stands for like every other politician.

As for you selling the idea that this is the way it has always been and it can't be changed is bullshit. The Founding Fathers never wanted this. They knew what happens when Empires try to Nation Build and fight wars in far off lands. Hell, they didn't even want a standing Army, it was the job of the Militias to take care of national defense. They would all be rolling in their graves if they could see what America has become. The Main reason so many people hate us around the world is because of our invations, Nation Building, and protection of Israel regardless of whether they are in the right or the wrong. Even our own Military knows it these are bs wars and want to come home. This is made very clear by Ron Paul getting more donations from active Military men and women then Obama and more then the rest of the GOP field combined. This is not a disputable fact, go look it up. Take a look at what the veterans have to say about Ron Paul. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yP8q7fc7TR4