User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 8/12/2011 6:35:13 PM EDT
[#1]
Quoted:
Quoted:
I think Iran will get nukes and we won't do anything substantial about it, no matter who wins or is President. I think the Hitler comparison was stupid though. In the end worse people got the bomb (the Soviets). We didn't do anything about that but counter with more nukes. The soviets weren't religious psychotics. If Iran sets of a nuclear bomb, it will be world war 3 which is exactlly what they think needs to happen to usher in the end times. I agree with 90% of what Ron Paul says, but that 10% is so full of fuck that I just can't get behind him. What we need, is to put him in some position where he could do some good(fiscally). The WH is not that position. agreed. And all your page 2 are belong to me. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/12/2011 6:36:07 PM EDT
[#2]
Quoted:
Who wouldn't do anything either. By the time the court process would be over and a new leader in position you would have full riots in the streets demanding our surrender. Led by Ron Paul and his supporters.
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Fact is, there are plenty of nations that have nukes...some friendly...and some not. The fact that they have them is hardly a justification to sit back and allow a country that has vowed to exterminate another as well as support suicide bombers. That position seems a bit juvenile You do realize that if Iran used a nuke or gave it to Hezbollah Iran would be a glass parking lot right? They know this, ever hear of MAD? Iran would cease to exist, they are saber rattling to appeal to the masses, only way they would use a nuke is in defense and we have noooo business in Iran, let them eat dust. Obama wouldn't do jack shit if Iran nuked a US city or Israel. Get a clue. 
Presidents don't have as much freedom as you think they do, especially when it comes to foreign affairs. Here's a perfect example: Obama stated many times in his campaign that he wanted us out of Afghanistan quickly. It was part of his "I'm doing things differently from Bush" platform. We're still there, 2.5 years later. Heck, we've still got a presence in Iraq. The idea that we will retaliate against a nuclear attack is so strong, that he would literally have no choice in the matter. His refusal would quickly result in Biden taking over. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/12/2011 6:38:20 PM EDT
[#3]
Quoted:
Nazi Germany was more threatening to us than modern day Iran.. Iran wants the bomb to have MAD with Israel and a little pull in the region. Yes, because radical terrorists are logical enough to worry about MAD. You know. The people who strap suicide bombs onto their children.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/12/2011 6:39:28 PM EDT
[#4]
Quoted: What he fails to mention is they will have them.Levin says there is no groundswell of support for Ron Paul even though his activists try to create the illusion of support in these straw polls. And he’s not the founder of the Tea Party, as most of the Tea Party wouldn’t even vote for him due to his ideas on foreign policy. But Levin hones in on the same point that most others have focused on today, and that is his stance against Iran. Levin asks why should we care if it’s natural that Iran would want nukes. He says Adolf Hitler would likely have wanted nukes too. I wonder, would Paul have been OK with that? Levin continues to say that the reason it’s important that Iran wants nukes is because it’s a threat to us and our allies. Would we like China, Russia and Pakistan to not have nukes? Sure, but what can we do about it at this point? But that doesn’t mean we should allow Iran to have nukes just because Paul thinks it’s reasonable. They are a threat and should be dealt with like a threat. http://www.therightscoop.com/levin-to-ron-paul-hitler-would-have-wanted-nukes-too/ So I guess we should go to war with Iran to stop them. It's a stupid argument . The question the moderator SHOULD have asked the entire panel is how will you as POTUS DEAL with a nuclear armed Iran. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/12/2011 6:44:21 PM EDT
[#5]
Quoted:
Quoted:
What he fails to mention is they will have them.
Levin says there is no groundswell of support for Ron Paul even though his activists try to create the illusion of support in these straw polls. And he’s not the founder of the Tea Party, as most of the Tea Party wouldn’t even vote for him due to his ideas on foreign policy. But Levin hones in on the same point that most others have focused on today, and that is his stance against Iran. Levin asks why should we care if it’s natural that Iran would want nukes. He says Adolf Hitler would likely have wanted nukes too. I wonder, would Paul have been OK with that? Levin continues to say that the reason it’s important that Iran wants nukes is because it’s a threat to us and our allies. Would we like China, Russia and Pakistan to not have nukes? Sure, but what can we do about it at this point? But that doesn’t mean we should allow Iran to have nukes just because Paul thinks it’s reasonable. They are a threat and should be dealt with like a threat. http://www.therightscoop.com/levin-to-ron-paul-hitler-would-have-wanted-nukes-too/ So I guess we should go to war with Iran to stop them. It's a stupid argument . The question the moderator SHOULD have asked the entire panel is how will you as POTUS DEAL with a nuclear armed Iran. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/12/2011 6:44:53 PM EDT
[#6]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Nazi Germany was more threatening to us than modern day Iran.. Iran wants the bomb to have MAD with Israel and a little pull in the region. Yes, because radical terrorists are logical enough to worry about MAD. You know. The people who strap suicide bombs onto their children. They are smart enough not to use it. Its posturing. I don't want them to have one either for the simple fact of a potential coup. They know if they launch it, Iran will be decimated. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/12/2011 7:18:49 PM EDT
[#7]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Nazi Germany was more threatening to us than modern day Iran.. Iran wants the bomb to have MAD with Israel and a little pull in the region. Yes, because radical terrorists are logical enough to worry about MAD. You know. The people who strap suicide bombs onto their children. They are smart enough not to use it. Its posturing. I don't want them to have one either for the simple fact of a potential coup. They know if they launch it, Iran will be decimated. They don't have to launch it. Just hand it over to one of their little shit heads. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
