Levin to Ron Paul: Hitler would have wanted nukes too

Site Notices

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Levin to Ron Paul: Hitler would have wanted nukes too (Page 1 of 2)

Posted: 8/12/2011 4:16:07 PM EDT

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/

Posted: 8/12/2011 4:23:16 PM EDT

[#1]

If we're actually capable of stopping such countries from aquiring nukes, explain NK to me.

Posted: 8/12/2011 4:25:59 PM EDT

[#2]

Yep. Keep waisting money policing the world. My god the united states is in trouble lmao.

Posted: 8/12/2011 4:26:04 PM EDT

[#3]

Quoted:
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.

Posted: 8/12/2011 4:28:48 PM EDT

[#4]

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.

Posted: 8/12/2011 4:29:42 PM EDT

[#5]

Godwins law.

Posted: 8/12/2011 4:30:16 PM EDT

[#6]

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.

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.

Posted: 8/12/2011 4:34:00 PM EDT

[#7]

No one is going to be anything substantive about Iran anyway. They'll all just squawk and flail as politicians do.

Posted: 8/12/2011 4:34:09 PM EDT

[#8]

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.

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.

Posted: 8/12/2011 4:36:29 PM EDT

[#9]

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.

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

Posted: 8/12/2011 4:37:56 PM EDT

[#10]

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

Posted: 8/12/2011 4:38:04 PM EDT

[#11]

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.

Posted: 8/12/2011 4:38:17 PM EDT

[#12]

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.

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.

Posted: 8/12/2011 4:40:24 PM EDT

[#13]

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.

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.

Posted: 8/12/2011 4:42:02 PM EDT

[#14]

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.

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.

Posted: 8/12/2011 4:43:26 PM EDT

[#15]

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.

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

Posted: 8/12/2011 4:45:04 PM EDT

[#16]

"Neocons and liberal interventionists—have overtaken American foreign policy " - James Joyner

Posted: 8/12/2011 4:49:02 PM EDT

[#17]

While I agree with some of what Ron Paul says, he is about as electable as my dog.

Posted: 8/12/2011 4:49:12 PM EDT

[#18]

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.

Posted: 8/12/2011 4:49:48 PM EDT

[#19]

Do as I say, not as I do. Its the American way ;)

Posted: 8/12/2011 4:56:39 PM EDT

[#20]

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.

Posted: 8/12/2011 5:05:49 PM EDT

[#21]

Quoted:

Quoted:
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.

Posted: 8/12/2011 5:07:08 PM EDT

[#22]

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.

Posted: 8/12/2011 5:10:29 PM EDT

[#23]

Does Levin still sound like a little bicth?

Posted: 8/12/2011 5:12:10 PM EDT

[#24]

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.

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

Posted: 8/12/2011 5:12:55 PM EDT

[#25]

cancel

Posted: 8/12/2011 5:13:48 PM EDT

[#26]

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 5:17:26 PM EDT

[#27]

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.

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

Posted: 8/12/2011 5:19:06 PM EDT

[#28]

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.

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.

Posted: 8/12/2011 5:25:23 PM EDT

[#29]

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

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

Posted: 8/12/2011 5:26:52 PM EDT

[#30]

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.

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?

Posted: 8/12/2011 5:29:39 PM EDT

[#31]

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.

Plus, the Japanese have lived for decades with a nuclear armed China. Ruled by Mao Tse-Tung for a big portion of the time.

Posted: 8/12/2011 5:32:30 PM EDT

[#32]

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.

Posted: 8/12/2011 5:32:32 PM EDT

[#33]

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.

Posted: 8/12/2011 5:32:50 PM EDT

[#34]

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.

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"

Posted: 8/12/2011 5:33:48 PM EDT

[#35]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZwguHyXgbgM&feature=feedu

Posted: 8/12/2011 5:36:40 PM EDT

[#36]

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.

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.

Posted: 8/12/2011 5:38:06 PM EDT

[#37]

Quoted:
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.

Posted: 8/12/2011 5:38:44 PM EDT

[#38]

Quoted:

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.

Posted: 8/12/2011 5:40:23 PM EDT

[#39]

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

Posted: 8/12/2011 6:23:41 PM EDT

[#40]

Quoted:
"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?

Posted: 8/12/2011 6:25:08 PM EDT

[#41]

Either you lead or you follow in this world.

I'd rather America lead.

Posted: 8/12/2011 6:27:40 PM EDT

[#42]

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.

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.

Posted: 8/12/2011 6:27:59 PM EDT

[#43]

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.

Posted: 8/12/2011 6:28:26 PM EDT

[#44]

ronbots....

Posted: 8/12/2011 6:29:19 PM EDT

[#45]

Quoted:

Quoted:
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

Posted: 8/12/2011 6:29:49 PM EDT

[#46]

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.

Posted: 8/12/2011 6:32:17 PM EDT

[#47]

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?

Posted: 8/12/2011 6:33:48 PM EDT

[#48]

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.

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........

Posted: 8/12/2011 6:34:51 PM EDT

[#49]

Quoted:
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.

Posted: 8/12/2011 6:35:12 PM EDT

[#50]

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.

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Levin to Ron Paul: Hitler would have wanted nukes too (Page 1 of 2)

General » General Discussion

Warning

Confirm Action

About AR15.COM

Stay Connected

Newsletter

Contact Us