Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Site Notices
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 8/12/2011 4:16:07 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/12/2011 4:16:25 PM EDT by South_Side_Shooter]
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/
Link Posted: 8/12/2011 4:23:16 PM EDT
If we're actually capable of stopping such countries from aquiring nukes, explain NK to me.
Link Posted: 8/12/2011 4:25:59 PM EDT
Yep. Keep waisting money policing the world. My god the united states is in trouble lmao.
Link Posted: 8/12/2011 4:26:04 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Leanangle:
If we're actually capable of stopping such countries from aquiring nukes, explain NK to me.


We ARE capable of stopping them. We, as usual, do not have the national willpower, or concern, to do so.
Link Posted: 8/12/2011 4:28:48 PM EDT
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.
Link Posted: 8/12/2011 4:29:42 PM EDT
Godwins law.
Link Posted: 8/12/2011 4:30:16 PM EDT
Originally Posted By bigstick61:
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.


In the Soviet's case, there wasn't anything we could do to prevent them from obtaining nukes, though I don't doubt that our intelligence services tried.
Link Posted: 8/12/2011 4:34:00 PM EDT
No one is going to be anything substantive about Iran anyway. They'll all just squawk and flail as politicians do.
Link Posted: 8/12/2011 4:34:09 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Snips:
Originally Posted By bigstick61:
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.


In the Soviet's case, there wasn't anything we could do to prevent them from obtaining nukes, though I don't doubt that our intelligence services tried.


Same would have been true for Hitler, not until the war was over, provided we won.

Invoking Hitler or National Socialism has its places but in this case it seems to run afoul of Godwin's Law rather than provide anything useful.
Link Posted: 8/12/2011 4:36:29 PM EDT

Originally Posted By bigstick61:
Originally Posted By Snips:
Originally Posted By bigstick61:
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.


In the Soviet's case, there wasn't anything we could do to prevent them from obtaining nukes, though I don't doubt that our intelligence services tried.


Same would have been true for Hitler, not until the war was over, provided we won.

Invoking Hitler or National Socialism has its places but in this case it seems to run afoul of Godwin's Law rather than provide anything useful.

hitler was actually trying to get the bomb
Link Posted: 8/12/2011 4:37:56 PM EDT
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
Link Posted: 8/12/2011 4:38:04 PM EDT
Originally Posted By bigstick61:
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.

Link Posted: 8/12/2011 4:38:17 PM EDT
Originally Posted By bigstick61:
Originally Posted By Snips:
Originally Posted By bigstick61:
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.


In the Soviet's case, there wasn't anything we could do to prevent them from obtaining nukes, though I don't doubt that our intelligence services tried.


Same would have been true for Hitler, not until the war was over, provided we won.

Invoking Hitler or National Socialism has its places but in this case it seems to run afoul of Godwin's Law rather than provide anything useful.


Depends on when in the war the Germans started building nuclear facilities to produce the material for their device, but I understand your point. What I was attempting to show was that if we could stop a hostile or potentially hostile country from obtaining nukes, we would. Personally, I hope we find some way to prevent Iran from going nuclear without invasion or an overt attack. There's some tradeoffs between immediate destabilization of the MidEast due to our attack and long-term destabilization due to a nuclear Iran, and I'm not smart enough to know how far we can go without going too far.
Link Posted: 8/12/2011 4:40:24 PM EDT
Originally Posted By FlashHole:
Originally Posted By bigstick61:
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.



Iran is not truly run by religious fanatics. It is run by powerful men who want to remain in power. As someone pointed out in an earlier thread, Iran has had chemical weapons for quite a while now. They could cause mass destruction if that was their end goal. Obtaining one or two nuclear devices isn't going to give a kill count much bigger than they can currently achieve. If they wanted to kill a bunch of folks and become martyrs, they could have done so already.
Link Posted: 8/12/2011 4:42:02 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Snips:
Originally Posted By bigstick61:
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.


In the Soviet's case, there wasn't anything we could do to prevent them from obtaining nukes, though I don't doubt that our intelligence services tried.


There wasn't any political will to try. Not until they actually detonated one.

Too late by then.
Link Posted: 8/12/2011 4:43:26 PM EDT
Originally Posted By FlashHole:
Originally Posted By bigstick61:
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.



Fanatical devotion to Marxism and faith in the historical dialectic of the ultimate triumph of international socialism is practically a religion.
Link Posted: 8/12/2011 4:45:04 PM EDT
"Neocons and liberal interventionists—have overtaken American foreign policy " - James Joyner

Link Posted: 8/12/2011 4:49:02 PM EDT
While I agree with some of what Ron Paul says, he is about as electable as my dog.

Link Posted: 8/12/2011 4:49:12 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/12/2011 4:57:50 PM EDT by Cottonbaler]
While it is accurate that Ron Paul himself did not actually "found" the Tea Party, on Dec. 16th 2007 (234th Anniversary of the Boston Tea Party) Ron Paul supporters held Tea Party rallies in conjunction with the $6.4 million Tea Party Moneybomb fundraiser for his 2008 Presidential campaign. The largest of these was held at Faneuil Hall in Boston and his son Rand Paul was the keynote speaker. There are plenty of web links and YouTube videos to back up these 2007 Tea Party claims.

Google Ron Paul Tea Party 2007

Admittedly the Tea Party movement didn't really take off until 2009 but this is something that Mark Levin doesn't portray as accurately as he could. He can't stand Ron Paul but he endorsed Rand during his run for Senator and has him on his show frequently.
Link Posted: 8/12/2011 4:49:48 PM EDT
Do as I say, not as I do. Its the American way ;)
Link Posted: 8/12/2011 4:56:39 PM EDT
Originally Posted By sydney7629:
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.
Link Posted: 8/12/2011 5:05:49 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Guntoter:
Originally Posted By Leanangle:
If we're actually capable of stopping such countries from aquiring nukes, explain NK to me.


We ARE capable of stopping them. We, as usual, do not have the national willpower, or concern, to do so.


Apparently we aren't capable then. National willpower is as important as the technology.
Link Posted: 8/12/2011 5:07:08 PM EDT
Originally Posted By rabidus:
Originally Posted By sydney7629:
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.
Link Posted: 8/12/2011 5:10:29 PM EDT
Does Levin still sound like a little bicth?
Link Posted: 8/12/2011 5:12:10 PM EDT
Originally Posted By DigDug:
Originally Posted By rabidus:
Originally Posted By sydney7629:
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.


Not only that but I dont think mutually assured destruction means the same to radical islam as it did to communists

Link Posted: 8/12/2011 5:12:55 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/12/2011 5:34:25 PM EDT by junkxp]
cancel
Link Posted: 8/12/2011 5:13:48 PM EDT
Originally Posted By DigDug:
Originally Posted By rabidus:
Originally Posted By sydney7629:
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.
Link Posted: 8/12/2011 5:17:26 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Snips:
Originally Posted By DigDug:
Originally Posted By rabidus:
Originally Posted By sydney7629:
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.




Read the constitution. With the exception of entering into treaties, the Executive Branch is almost entirely responsible for foreign affairs. Thats why the Department of State reports directly to the President.

Although the will of the people would demand a response, this President doesnt seem to care too much about the will of the people

Link Posted: 8/12/2011 5:19:06 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Snips:
Originally Posted By DigDug:
Originally Posted By rabidus:
Originally Posted By sydney7629:
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.


The Obama administration changed US doctrine that said if we or an ally is attacked with chemical or biological weapons we would respond with nukes. We no longer hold that doctrine because of Obama.

He wouldn't do jack shit.
Link Posted: 8/12/2011 5:25:23 PM EDT
Originally Posted By sydney7629:
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


Not to mention that iran's nuclear program has been all but transparent and they've violated every nuclear regulation under the sun.



Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile
Link Posted: 8/12/2011 5:26:52 PM EDT
Originally Posted By DigDug:
Originally Posted By Snips:
Originally Posted By DigDug:
Originally Posted By rabidus:
Originally Posted By sydney7629:
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.


The Obama administration changed US doctrine that said if we or an ally is attacked with chemical or biological weapons we would respond with nukes. We no longer hold that doctrine because of Obama.

He wouldn't do jack shit.


He would have to or the democrats would be removed from Washington. Remember the democrats+republicans orgy after 9/11? We went to Iraq, Afghanistan no problem and that was over 2,000+ dead. Remember democrats being pissed in the streets? Some said "nuke 'em" then. What do you think would happen if 100,000+ Americans were dead? Obama would do nothing? c'mon, he'd be assassinated within hours.

Since when has Obama ever stuck to what he said? You're going to believe this flip flopper now in his "new" policy?

Where is the critical thinking and who took it?
Link Posted: 8/12/2011 5:29:39 PM EDT
Originally Posted By bigstick61:
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.


Plus, the Japanese have lived for decades with a nuclear armed China. Ruled by Mao Tse-Tung for a big portion of the time.
Link Posted: 8/12/2011 5:32:30 PM EDT
We should totally invade Pakistan and North Korea to get rid of their nukes. totally a good move on our part. the world will be safer after we fix it some more.
Link Posted: 8/12/2011 5:32:32 PM EDT
If hitler never made it to power, we would have fought the communists instead and the outcome might not have been to our benefit.

Hitler helped the US become a super power. Hitler got us out of the great depression.
Link Posted: 8/12/2011 5:32:50 PM EDT
Originally Posted By rabidus:
Originally Posted By DigDug:
Originally Posted By Snips:
Originally Posted By DigDug:
Originally Posted By rabidus:
Originally Posted By sydney7629:
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.


The Obama administration changed US doctrine that said if we or an ally is attacked with chemical or biological weapons we would respond with nukes. We no longer hold that doctrine because of Obama.

He wouldn't do jack shit.


He would have to or the democrats would be removed from Washington. Remember the democrats+republicans orgy after 9/11? We went to Iraq, Afghanistan no problem and that was over 2,000+ dead. Remember democrats being pissed in the streets? Some said "nuke 'em" then. What do you think would happen if 100,000+ Americans were dead? Obama would do nothing? c'mon, he'd be assassinated within hours.

Since when has Obama ever stuck to what he said? You're going to believe this flip flopper now in his "new" policy?

Where is the critical thinking and who took it?


The Republicans had control of the White House and Congress. The Democrats had no choice but to come along for the "orgy"


Link Posted: 8/12/2011 5:33:48 PM EDT
Link Posted: 8/12/2011 5:36:40 PM EDT
Originally Posted By sydney7629:
Originally Posted By rabidus:
Originally Posted By DigDug:
Originally Posted By Snips:
Originally Posted By DigDug:
Originally Posted By rabidus:
Originally Posted By sydney7629:
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.


The Obama administration changed US doctrine that said if we or an ally is attacked with chemical or biological weapons we would respond with nukes. We no longer hold that doctrine because of Obama.

He wouldn't do jack shit.


He would have to or the democrats would be removed from Washington. Remember the democrats+republicans orgy after 9/11? We went to Iraq, Afghanistan no problem and that was over 2,000+ dead. Remember democrats being pissed in the streets? Some said "nuke 'em" then. What do you think would happen if 100,000+ Americans were dead? Obama would do nothing? c'mon, he'd be assassinated within hours.

Since when has Obama ever stuck to what he said? You're going to believe this flip flopper now in his "new" policy?

Where is the critical thinking and who took it?


The Republicans had control of the White House and Congress. The Democrats had no choice but to come along for the "orgy"




No they didn't, they could have been the party of "no" instead they pushed through whatever bush/republicans wanted. Being directly attacked tends to bring a country together.

Thanks for making my point, a nuclear attack on US soil would force Obama to do something in return, he would not want to look weak as doing so would result in him being assassinated long before the elections.
Link Posted: 8/12/2011 5:38:06 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Lougotzz:
Yep. Keep waisting money policing the world. My god the united states is in trouble lmao.


The good news is that more and more Americans are tuning out the neo-chatter.

Link Posted: 8/12/2011 5:38:44 PM EDT
Originally Posted By rabidus:

No they didn't, they could have been the party of "no" instead they pushed through whatever bush/republicans wanted. Being directly attacked tends to bring a country together.

Thanks for making my point, a nuclear attack on US soil would force Obama to do something in return, he would not want to look weak as doing so would result in him being assassinated long before the elections.


You need to stop posting that on this board. That type of shit is frowned upon around here so shut it.
Link Posted: 8/12/2011 5:40:23 PM EDT


Let Iran do what it wants. I have faith that Isreal will do what it needs to do.

Link Posted: 8/12/2011 6:23:41 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Turnkey:
"Neocons and liberal interventionists—have overtaken American foreign policy " - James Joyner



Because anything other than isolat...er...I mean, non-interventionism makes one a neocon or a liberal, right?
Link Posted: 8/12/2011 6:25:08 PM EDT
Either you lead or you follow in this world.

I'd rather America lead.
Link Posted: 8/12/2011 6:27:40 PM EDT
Originally Posted By 1Andy2:
Originally Posted By FlashHole:
Originally Posted By bigstick61:
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.



Fanatical devotion to Marxism and faith in the historical dialectic of the ultimate triumph of international socialism is practically a religion.


Exactly. The radical ideologies of the Left have killed in just a century (or two if you want to go all the way back to 1789) scores of millions of people (more than has been killed in the name of religion by a longshot in the last couple millenia), many of those in just a decade's time, and they are characterized by being anti-clerical, anti-ecclesiastic, and most of the time, atheistic. People like the Communists are just as nuts and just as willing to kill tons of people in the name of their ideology, which has replaced religion for them. But we didn't do anything about it, and probably couldn't. Under today's circumstances that is largely true of North Korea and Iran.
Link Posted: 8/12/2011 6:27:59 PM EDT
Ron Paul is crashing and burning. His performance during the Iowa debates was dismal and appeared to be lost and in over his head. He could not answer the questions and could not come up with a plan that he could actually pass; he was forced to admit so.
Link Posted: 8/12/2011 6:28:26 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/12/2011 6:28:42 PM EDT by Super_Duty_John]
ronbots....
Link Posted: 8/12/2011 6:29:19 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Guntoter:
Originally Posted By Leanangle:
If we're actually capable of stopping such countries from aquiring nukes, explain NK to me.


We ARE capable of stopping them. We, as usual, do not have the national willpower, or concern, to do so.


In otherwords, incapable
Link Posted: 8/12/2011 6:29:49 PM EDT
We were at war with Germany; we're not at war with Iran. When asked a question, Ron Paul responds based on Constitutional knowledge. This seems to go right over the heads of many here. The Constitution, some of you need to read it for the first time.
Link Posted: 8/12/2011 6:32:17 PM EDT
If Iran is trying to get nukes, but we definitely don't want them to have nukes, why don't we declare war and stop them?

...

Because it's... complicated?
Link Posted: 8/12/2011 6:33:48 PM EDT
Originally Posted By sydney7629:
Originally Posted By DigDug:
Originally Posted By rabidus:
Originally Posted By sydney7629:
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.


Not only that but I dont think mutually assured destruction means the same to radical islam as it did to communists

From what I'm seeing lately here on ARFCOM most of these vote from the rooftops guys would surrender as soon as a nuke blew on American soil.



Shit raise what's left of the flag........

Link Posted: 8/12/2011 6:34:51 PM EDT
Originally Posted By CyberSEAL:
We were at war with Germany; we're not at war with Iran. When asked a question, Ron Paul responds based on Constitutional knowledge. This seems to go right over the heads of many here. The Constitution, some of you need to read it for the first time.


His foreign policy ideas have nothing to do with the constitution. I have little to no issue with the preponderance of his domestic policy ideas, but his military and foreign policies are idiotic and are not based on constitutional principles, as the constitution minimally addresses the issues, as it should be.
Link Posted: 8/12/2011 6:35:12 PM EDT
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.
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top