Is Ron Paul correct on Iran?

Whether Americans want to believe it or not- but I believe Paul is right about Iran- the media or in this case Santorum tried to pain the picture that Iran is this hostile nation that harbors terrorist and is a threat to Isreal- well let's do a little history.
The U.S sponsored a coup that put the Shah of Iran in power- the Shah was a very corrupt leader that the U.S knew of and continued to support- the Shah was today's Khadaffi- he ruled for decades- stole money from his people and used the money to live a lavish lifestyle and imprisoned anyone who spoke out against his regime- his secret police committed various human rights acts and again the U.S did nothing because at that time- we had satellites and listening devices in Iran that was spying on the USSR.
The people of Iran revolted- then came the Ayatollah and the rest is history. Now in terms of Iran gaining a nuke- let's put ourselves in Iran's shoes- they(Iran) border Russia which has plenty of nukes- their enemy(USA) has troops in both border nations of afghanistan and Iraq. They have other nations in the area that have nukes: Pakistan and India- and Isreal. Also, let's keep in mind before the U.S decided to overthrow the Taliban- do you know what nation was supporting the Northern Alliance- yes it was Iran who was supporting the Northern Alliance in hopes of defeating the Taliban.
So why would it be hard to grasp that Iran is going after a nuke for their safety????
Also, I do buy this propaganda BS that Iran harbors Al-Queada- in fact al-Queada is a sunni sect group- Iran is predominately Shiite. The Al-Queada sunni sect don't even consider Shiites true muslims so those two working together is a lie. Same lie about Al-queada working with Saddam Hussein- saddam was a moderate muslim- Al-Queada and people like OBL were the extremist who believed women must not be educated and must wear the chador or burka- so no way would they have worked together wake up people and stop believing the media fed crap.
Ron Paul was correct: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IhxwJnPbzt4

Poor misunderstood Iran.

Do you believe Irans claim that they are only interested in nuclear energy?

Have you ever listened to one of Ahmadinejad's speeches?

Have you ever heard of Hezbollah?

Ron Paul's libertarian views on less government and Liberty are very interesting and make great sound bites...He's good for about 5 minutes.

But the more he talks the more off the reservation he goes. His foreign policies would be a disaster.

He's a senile old kook.

Poor misunderstood Iran.

Do you believe Irans claim that they are only interested in nuclear energy?

Have you ever listened to one of Ahmadinejad's speeches?

Have you ever heard of Hezbollah?

Ron Paul's libertarian views on less government and Liberty are very interesting and make great sound bites...He's good for about 5 minutes.

But the more he talks the more off the reservation he goes. His foreign policies would be a disaster.

He's a senile old kook. Originally Posted by TheDaliLama

so is Ahmadinejad the only leader who makes "crazy" speeches?
So tell me who decides what country gets nukes and which ones don't? Are countries that are not our allies barred from having nukes?
What if back in the cold war days that hypothetically the soviets had troops in Mexico and Canada- I think the U.S would have gotten really paranoid. We know what happened when the soviets put missiles in cuba right?
Iran has enemies- no doubt it that and they have the right to protect themselves just as Isreal and anyone else- Iran was invaded by Iraq in 1980 they are surrounded by Afghanistan and Russia- afghan has U.S troops- Soviets have nukes- hell if I were Iran I would be trying to protect my butt as well.
In terms of Hezballah- remember- what is a terrorist group to one set of eyes is not a terrorist group to another set of eyes. We label the taliban as terrorist but who is in whose land?

DaliLama you need to stop thinking that America has done nothing wrong and everything we do is for the goodness of the world.
Let's take Saddam Hussein- Bush characterized him pretty much as the devil- but did he ever mentioned that we were allies with Saddam during his war against Iran? Did Bush ever mentioned that we were STILL allies with Iraq even after he gassed his own people? Did Bush or really anyone in general mention who broke whose trust? The way I remember it and correct me if I am wrong- but Iran was a problem with the U.S- they took our hostages- and pretty much kicked us out Iran- we than went to war with Iran(without arms) applied sanctions and froze their assets- we supported Iraq in that war- but wait a minute- what did the good ole USA govt do- we secretly was arming the enemy(Iran) with sophisticated weapons(Iran-Contra Scandal) in hopes of stopping communism in Nicraragua- now who was in the wrong in that situation- we pretty much double crossed Iraq. It would be the equivalent today if we were arming the Taliban to fight against the Al-Queada govt or if we were arming Al-queada to fight against the Iraqi govt- so once again Ron Paul was right!

WE, here is an alternate theory that you and others too often ignore:

In 2004, Middle East political scientist Mark Gasiorowski edited a book on the coup arguing that "the climate of intense cold war rivalry between the superpowers, together with Iran's strategic vital location between the Soviet Union and the Persian Gulf oil fields, led U.S. officials to believe that they had to take whatever steps were necessary to prevent Iran from falling into Soviet hands." While "these concerns seem vastly overblown today" the pattern of "the 1945–46 Azerbaijan crisis, the consolidation of Soviet control in Eastern Europe, the communist triumph in China, and the Korean War—and with the Red Scare at its height in the United States" would not allow U.S. officials to risk allowing the Tudeh Party to gain power in Iran. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Ir...d%27%C3%A9tat]

This sentiment is also expressed in Dr. Donald Wilber’s book:

Wilber, Donald N., Dr. Regime Change in Iran: Overthrow of Premier Mossadeq November 1952 – August 1953. Nottingham: Spokesman. 2006, pp. 111.

You might want to read it. BTW, the question(s) you should be asking yourself is(are): "Is it in the best interest of the U.S. - or your children's best interests - to allow Iran to develop a nuclear weapon?"

Let me see if I got this right..


Ahmadinejad and his cronies, who vow to destroy Israel, who finance terrorists ( I mean freedom fighters ) who walk into crowded places and bomb killing scores of innocent people who's only crime was trying to make a living, who oppress free speech in his own country and mows down their own people are Freedom Fighters .........and The Tea Party are a bunch of terrorists.

I think I know what the difference is between a freedom fighter and a terrorist.

Who's freedom fighter are you?

I'll have more for you later WE. I'm off to the Greek Festival

Have a great day!

I think Ron Paul is correct on Iran. He schooled Rick Santorum's ass on the Iran issue during the Iowa debate. Mr. Santorum undoubtedly wants to attack Iran, however they don't have the means to come over and attack America. The don't have an air force that can come over here. Iran knows that if they attack America, they're fucked! Iran is more likely to attack Israel than America.

Our country can bully small nations and bomb them back into the stone age but you have to ask yourselves this, why haven't we attacked Russia because their a greater threat to us than Iran is? Oh yeah their a much, much, stronger nation and have more weapons to use.

I'm off to the Greek Festival

Have a great day! Originally Posted by TheDaliLama

You Pitch'n or catching?



Hell yes Ron Paul is correct btw!

There are some straight out unamerican bastards here.
They may have been born here, they may have even
served in it's military; but the flame in their hearts
is not of Liberty. It is the flame of Eris: dischord
and chaos with it's attendent in tow Orcus: death.

The US is a unique nation. We are above the others.
It's an American flag on the moon not a UN.
We have a responsibilty to ourselves as well as
the world to ensure the success and spread of
Liberty it is worth the cost, price, effort, and sacrifice.
Would you want to live in cold war russia or iran?
It makes a difference how you answer in essence
do you want the inmates to run the asylum?

Commie russia while many things suicidal wasn't
one of them. Being atheist this was the only world
they believed they got; hence try to find a way
to live. The precaliphates on the otherhand got
an entirely different gameplan. They are willing
to take the civilized world to a nuclear stoneage.
They already live in caves by candlelight or
have relatives who do. It's no big deal to them.
But it does swing many aspects of the modern
battlefield to their advantage.....they hope.

Abu Musab al-Zarkhawi commander of
Al Queda Iraq was given haven and medical
treatment for injuries suffered in Tora Bora
in Tehran. Many AQ fighters were evacuated
to the Sudan through Iran. The enemy of
my enemy is my friend- taken very literal
by the sand rats.

Our denial of the soviets a warm water port
for military capabilities is well know- so what?
Our encirclement of those opposed to our
National interests..yeah that's a good thing
if you can pull it off- not easy: the great have
a way of making the difficult look easy.

You would rather the US be encircled?
This is the weakness of your 3rd party revealed.
An inability to realize there are only 2 options.
Either we encircle our enemies
or they will surround us. There is no other
outcome in this reality that is the truth.

Allowing Iran to get nukes would only
complicate matters. My sons are being
conditioned to accept nuclear combat.
If you check out the video games
tactical nukes are being used for various effects.
Post strategic strike combat units to drop
into hot zones for mop up.
The future is unfolding.

Ron Pauls mindset only adds to
the conflagration.

Everything will burn.

The US didn't sell sophisticated weapons to Iran in Iran-Contra. We sold out of date, obsolete weapons.

Yes, Ron Paul is right about Iran.

Hell yes Ron Paul is correct btw!
Originally Posted by WTF

"Iran should be allowed to have a nuclear bomb, ...

The maverick Texas Congressman also said it was time to stop the half-century old embargo on Cuba and all troops should be brought home."

I agree with Ron Paul, let's look further on the results of "American Imperialism", name me one example where this has actually worked? nowhere i know of, we tried it in South America, we tried it in Cuba. We tried it in Iran. All failed. Who says the US should go around forcing our beliefs on other countries? What gives us the right? 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. Last i heard the Cold War ended about 20 years ago, when the Soviet Union collapsed under the weight of their failed socialist model, and helped along by Ronald Reagan when he stuck a fork in them. I'd don't like the prospect of Iran having nuclear weapons, but like Ron Paul said, India, China, Pakistan and Israel have them. We certainly didn't stop Israel nor did we stop the others either. So why stop Iran now? Is Iran really crazy enough to use a nuclear weapon? I don't think so. They can talk all the smack they want, that's a far cry from actually launching a preemptive strike on Israel or Iraq or any other country in that region. Certainly Iran knows that the World community would retaliate if they did. I think invading Iraq was a mistake by Bush, there were no WMD's and Bush knew that but he basically lied to the country and the world about it. This by the way has contributed to our current huge deficits, because wars cost huge sums of money, along with bad fiscal policy of course. Afghanistan is somewhat different, due to 9/11 where we actually were attacked. That action certainly could not go unpunished, but we've long overstayed our welcome. We could have gotten Bin Laden when we had him cornered at Tora Bora but Rummy blew that. Doesn't mean we should have given up but we shouldn't have continued a large scale invasion either. I recall that didn't work too well for the Soviets by the way. We had more covert options and in the end it was covert tactics that succeeded. Topple the Taliban? I don't think we had the absolute right to do that but Bush did it anyway. So why stay after that was done? We should have pulled out then while continuing covert missions to get Bin Laden. Sanctions against Cuba? hasn't worked. Fidel Castro has outlasted how many US Presidents? Again, this isn't the Cold War era anymore. Kennedy was correct to challenge the Soviets putting missiles on Cuban soil that directly threatened the US but the Bay of Pigs was a disaster. Another example of Imperialism that failed, in part because we went about it half-assed and hung them out to dry during the critical phase of the operation when we did not provide air support to the landing and Castro then wiped out the invasion force. I agree with Paul, it's time to end these sanctions and begin building a relationship with Cuba. And let them decide what kind of government they want, its their right as a nation after all.

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

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.

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. Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

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.

Is Iran really crazy enough to use a nuclear weapon? I don't think so. Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

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.

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.

there were no WMD's and Bush knew that but he basically lied to the country and the world about it. Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

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?”

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. 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. 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.

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. 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?” Originally Posted by I B Hankering

I.B name one nation in the last 50 years that has invaded a country that has nukes- sorry not going to happen- what country would be foolish enough to invade someone who can blow them back to the stone age? Iran is a lot of things but for you to believe that they would actually use nukes is a bit of stretch. Again I ask you to look at things from the Iranian perspective- Iran has Russia on it's border(nation full of nukes and also a nation that in 1979 invaded it's neighbor Afghanistan for no good reason at all) Afghanistan(has thousands of U.S troops stationed there-that must make Iran feel uneasy) Iraq(A nation that has invaded them before and also had has U.S troops)Pakistan-(a pro Sunni nation that has nukes) Turkey(U.S troops in that nation and nukes stores/deployed in that nation) and you say Iran shouldn't be worried about it's security??????
Funny we give Israel a pass on having nukes because they are surrounded by enemies- but Iran is surrounded by it's own enemies as well and we go ape shit over the idea that Iran is trying to get a nuke?????

I.B name one nation in the last 50 years that has invaded a country that has nukes- sorry not going to happen- what country would be foolish enough to invade someone who can blow them back to the stone age? Originally Posted by wellendowed1911

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.

Funny we give Isreal a pass on having nukes because they are surrounded by enemies- but Iran is surrounded by it's own enemies as well and we go ape shit over the idea that Iran is trying to get a nuke????? Originally Posted by wellendowed1911

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.