Why I can't vote for Ron Paul

[Oldemandaltoncaptain of 1,000]

Misinfowarrior;
Ok, I retract my previous awarding "The most ignorant post of the month" award and now award it to you with this post.

Misinforwarrior you should be getting the “Most Myths in One Post Award”.

Actually you probably deserve an Olympic Gold Medal. Do you do a lot of stretching? Must be very strenuous to twist in so many lies in a single post. I guess it isn’t hard when you use InfoWars, Russia and Iranian news sources along with their paid lobbyists.

[dausercaptain of 100]

A Ron Paul Constitutional Republic would be insufficient to control a wicked and an immoral people.

The people cannot be allowed to own themselves or their labors...at this point.

The majority of voters believe with secret combinations and public education that the government is supposed to provide lunch, education, insurance, and a safety net.

Only a big opprressive police state could possibly transfer sufficient funds and freedoms from the independents to all the dependees.

We have been stupid...we have allowed our enemies to cease control the creation of money...We have used government to bail out the weak...we have sold out ourselves... and only big government can take it all and hand it to our creditors.

Stupidity cannnot stay free...a publically educated population does not deserve Ron Paul/freedom.

[truefreedomcaptain of 50]

I like most everything that I read about Ron Paul. I LOVE his financial conservatism and belief in the Gold Standard. I like that he wants to shutdown the Federal Reserve. I like most of his views regarding International relations and his libertarian views on limited gov't.

The thing that troubles me greatly about Ron Paul is his anti-semetic and racist views. His writings have been endorse by the US Nazi party. I heard an interview on Hannity regarding many racist articles publicized in the Ron Paul Newsletter over several years in the 1990's. He "claims" that he doesn't even know who wrote those pieces and doesn't agree with them. I find that unbelievable since is wasn't one article but numerous articles. If one could actually believe that he had no knowledge about these many articles over many years then I would question his competence to lead a country when he can't even run a small newsletter.

I don't have an issue with people who repent of these types of views and change their lives. I would support a person who came out and said "look i have made mistakes in the past but have changed for the good". If Ron Paul would have taken this path I would give my full support.

ktf you have been HANITIZED!

[AGStackercaptain of 100]

GOD SET UP THE CONSTITUTION. WE SHOULD THEREFORE VOTE FOR THE CANDIDATE THAT FOLLOWS THE CONSTITUTION THE MOST. ANYTHING OTHER THAN THIS IS EVIL.

IF YOU ARE A MEMBER OF THE CHURCH AND STILL DON'T UNDERSTAND THIS THEN I FEEL GREATLY SORRY FOR YOU.

THIS WAR PROPAGANDA THAT OMD SPREADS IS SICKENING. "LET'S GO MURDER MILLIONS MORE! SURELY IT WILL ALLOW MISSIONARIES TO BAPTIZE THESE MURDEROUS HEATHENS."

makes me sick how the devil has created millions of war mongers on the one soil that should lead by example through peaceable means.

IF YOU WANT TO FIGHT IRAN THEN GO FIGHT IRAN!

[Oldemandaltoncaptain of 1,000]

AGStacker

GOD SET UP THE CONSTITUTION. WE SHOULD THEREFORE VOTE FOR THE CANDIDATE THAT FOLLOWS THE CONSTITUTION THE MOST. ANYTHING OTHER THAN THIS IS EVIL.

IF YOU ARE A MEMBER OF THE CHURCH AND STILL DON'T UNDERSTAND THIS THEN I FEEL GREATLY SORRY FOR YOU.

THIS WAR PROPAGANDA THAT OMD SPREADS IS SICKENING. "LET'S GO MURDER MILLIONS MORE! SURELY IT WILL ALLOW MISSIONARIES TO BAPTIZE THESE MURDEROUS HEATHENS."

Never said this or anything like it.

makes me sick how the devil has created millions of war mongers on the one soil that should lead by example through peaceable means.

IF YOU WANT TO FIGHT IRAN THENGO FIGHT IRAN!

Never said I wanted to fight Iran have I. Look at every single one of my posts and show me where I have said we should attack Iran.

"A MEMBER OF THE CHURCH " would not use this language either.

I have clearly shown where Ron Paul and his followers are naïve about foreign policy. When your paradigm is questioned it is the common man that will react this way. It comes hard when you realize that what you have believed is false. Lash out, deny all the facts, put your fingers in your ears and close your eyes and say LA LA LA real loud, AGStacker.

[ktgcaptain of 100]

I have clearly shown where Ron Paul and his followers are naïve about foreign policy. When your paradigm is questioned it is the common man that will react this way. It comes hard when you realize that what you have believed is false. Lash out, deny all the facts, put your fingers in your ears and close your eyes and say LA LA LA real loud, AGStacker.

I don't believe anyone on this forum who supports RP believes you have proven them or RP naive. However, those LDS who support the warmongers (all the other candidates) have been proven to be going down a path contrary to the prophets and the scriptures.

[JasonI am a nobody!]

I have clearly shown where Ron Paul and his followers are naïve about foreign policy.

You have shown squat. A very preposterous assumption...and you know what happens when you assume. And unfortunately that happened to both of you.

Please refrain from copying someone else's bad language....it does you no more service than it did them....

[Oldemandaltoncaptain of 1,000]

Jason;
You have shown squat. A very preposterous assumption...and you know what happens when you ass'u'me. And unfortunately that happened to both of you.

I did not assume anything Jason, just stating facts.

In my above posts I have:

Shown that Iran IS building nuclear weapons.

That Iran HAS intercontinental missile technology.

That terrorists HAVE declared war on America and that there IS a "war on terror".

Ron Paul and his followers seem to ignore these facts when considering foreign policy. That’s why he would be dangerous as a President unless he got up to speed real quick when he gets his first debriefings on the true state of affairs in the world. I won’t take that chance unless he wins the Republican nomination. Then I would vote for Paul over Obama. That's an easy choice.

Please refrain from copying someone else's bad language....it does you no more service than it did them....

Sorry. I should have took the time to edit it myself.

[patriotsaintcaptain of 1,000]

OMD

The issue is simple if you are willing to agree on two points:

1. Any government derives its just authority from the consent of the governed
2. If number one is true, then the government has no authority to do something that an individual couldn't do, because government authority is nothing more than the delegated authority of a multitude of individuals.

It should be easy to agree on these two points. If you don't agree with these two points then you must denounce the theories of Locke along with the Declaration of Independence.....and by extension the war of independence and establishment of this nation. Our whole justification for war with the crown was based on the idea that we were being governed without representation (consent)

If the above assumptions are correct then we don't have a leg to stand on when it comes to Iran. Here's a scenario for you. Let's say I am your neighbor and have a whole hoard of guns and explosives. As my neighbor you begin to worry that when AHBL you will be outgunned and so you decide to arm yourself with one handgun. I hear of your intentions and decide that I don't want to see you armed (because I don't want any competition when AHBL) so I come to your house and forcibly disarm you. If you resist I take your life.

Is my treatment of you just, or have I overstepped the bounds of my authority and violated your God-given rights? How is it any different when it comes to Iran? Remember before you answer that our government has no authority beyond that delegated to it by individuals. If I can't do it as an individual, neither can my government without usurping authority. It is funny how often people in this country are willing to violate the God-given rights of others at the point of a gun, as long as the government (acting as their agent) does it.

[patriotsaintcaptain of 1,000]

Never said I wanted to fight Iran have I. Look at every single one of my posts and show me where I have said we should attack Iran.

1. Ron Paul does not believe we should preemptively strike nations (particularly Iran at this time)
2. You disagree with Ron Paul's foreign policy (calling him naive)

Is it such a stretch to deduce that you are in favor of preventing Iran from developing nuclear technology....by violent preemptive means if necessary? Which is it, do you agree with Ron Paul or are you in favor of preemptively striking Iran?

[moonwhimcaptain of 1,000]

I have clearly shown where Ron Paul and his followers are naïve about foreign policy. When your paradigm is questioned it is the common man that will react this way. It comes hard when you realize that what you have believed is false. Lash out, deny all the facts, put your fingers in your ears and close your eyes and say LA LA LA real loud, AGStacker.

All you've shown is that you know how to find "sources" that tout your point of view.

[moonwhimcaptain of 1,000]

Never said I wanted to fight Iran have I. Look at every single one of my posts and show me where I have said we should attack Iran.

1. Ron Paul does not believe we should preemptively strike nations (particularly Iran at this time)
2. You disagree with Ron Paul's foreign policy (calling him naive)

Is it such a stretch to deduce that you are in favor of preventing Iran from developing nuclear technology....by violent preemptive means if necessary? Which is it, do you agree with Ron Paul or are you in favor of preemptively striking Iran?

Good question patriotsaint, I look forward to OMD's reply.

[give_me_libertycaptain of 50]

Orignal Intent here - after a few re-reads, I decided I needed to rework what I wanted to say.

[Original_Intentcaptain of 1,000]

The above post is mine. I was on my son's computer and did not realize that I was logged in under his user.

[InfoWarrior82captain of 1,000]

Misinforwarrior you should be getting the “Most Myths in One Post Award”.

Actually you probably deserve an Olympic Gold Medal. Do you do a lot of stretching? Must be very strenuous to twist in so many lies in a single post. I guess it isn’t hard when you use InfoWars, Russia and Iranian news sources along with their paid lobbyists.

Wow, I really hope that you weren't trying to defend blondie's ignorant rant. But, I would really like for you to bring to the table the specific lies I'm accused of posting. Thanks.

And like I posted earlier:

So, what makes Ron Paul stand out among all other Republican candidates with regards to Iran?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but everyone else supports the idea of pre-emptively striking Iran. So, if you personally DO NOT want to pre-emptively strike Iran, why would you vote for anyone who does?

If any of the front runners DO NOT support a pre-emptive strike on Iran, then doesn't it really all come down to just "talkin' tough" on Iran? Do you just want someone who "talks tough"?

Might want to marinate on that one for a bit.

[Thomascaptain of 1,000]

I like most everything that I read about Ron Paul. I LOVE his financial conservatism and belief in the Gold Standard. I like that he wants to shutdown the Federal Reserve. I like most of his views regarding International relations and his libertarian views on limited gov't.

The thing that troubles me greatly about Ron Paul is his anti-semetic and racist views. His writings have been endorse by the US Nazi party. I heard an interview on Hannity regarding many racist articles publicized in the Ron Paul Newsletter over several years in the 1990's. He "claims" that he doesn't even know who wrote those pieces and doesn't agree with them. I find that unbelievable since is wasn't one article but numerous articles. If one could actually believe that he had no knowledge about these many articles over many years then I would question his competence to lead a country when he can't even run a small newsletter.

I don't have an issue with people who repent of these types of views and change their lives. I would support a person who came out and said "look i have made mistakes in the past but have changed for the good". If Ron Paul would have taken this path I would give my full support.

Add to the fact Ron Paul wants to legalize dangerous drugs like marijana, cocaine, and heroine and he appears more like the Woodstock hippies. RP is too radical
for my taste. And NO I don't believe the 9/11 conspiracy theories but RP does.

For all the Ron Paul supporters I have a question for you? If Ron Paul was your friend
and accompanied you somewhere WHAT would he do if you were attacked by thugs? Newsflash and the answer....Leave your sorry butt to fend for yourself! "Don't involve me, it isn't any of my business . " This what he would say. Now that is exactly why me, my family, and most everyone I know will NOT be voting for Ron Paul.
He's an isolationist. NO tomatoes please. This is the LDS Freedom Forum NOT Ron Paul campaign headquarters last time I checked.

What if Newt Gringrich and Obama were your friends and everytime you went out, they beat on anyone that crossed their path. I would rather have friends who were willing to be more level headed and avoid violence unless attacked. My understanding of Ron Paul's policy is to avoid violence unless attacked.It also happens to be the advice given to us in the scriptures.

[Chipcaptain of 100]

I haven't read all the posts up to this point, but this issue of Ron Paul being painted as 'unelectable' has gotten me thinking about things over the last few days.

It seems to me that there are TWO main reasons nobody in the establishment likes him. The first, and most obvious one, is that he threatens the status-quo of the establishment. The federal government would be reduced by perhaps 90% if it were to return to its Constitutional limits. That would certainly be a good thing for The People, though it threatens the financial outlook of a large class of parasites that can't envision a future without Uncle Sugar.

The DEEPER thing, it seems to me, that has the talking heads up in arms is that Ron Paul's 'non-existent foreign policy', as they like to call it, would leave Israel to fend for itself, since the Constitution only grants the Federal Government the responsibility of defending America, not foreign nations.

About Israel, do the scriptures not warn that whatever nation burdens itself with Israel will find it to be stumbling block? Bruce R. McConkie stated explicitly that the modern nation of Israel is not 'Israel' as we read of in the scriptures. 'Israel' will be gathered in a single day upon the Savior's return. What about the people God warns in the scriptures who claim to be Jews, but are not? Is the modern nation of Israel not a creation of the United Nations? I've been thinking lately that maybe we've all been brainwashed by the media and our government about what Israel is really all about. I'm not feeling 'against' Israel, but I'm getting the idea that it's not our job, according to our divinely-inspired Constitution, to support other nations, be they called 'Israel', or not.

So, Ron Paul threatens the viability of Israel in the Middle East, by likely ending our financial support of that nation. It seems to me that this is what has the media really bothered, though they won't talk about it directly. That Ron Paul would return America to its Constitutional basis ends Uncle Sugar's largess for a lot of dependents all over the world. Is that bad? We know the current path is not sustainable. Remember that the adversary will often set up something phony, that has been prophesied, to confuse and mislead people. God never needed the U.N. to fulfill prophecy about the gathering of Israel.

I think a lot of the deep-rooted Ron Paul hate centers on the uncertainty of Israel's future without American financial support. It seems to me that this meme is coming out of the woodwork through the media. It really makes me wonder just how beholden our government and media are to foreign masters. Were we a nation acting upon our Constitution, we would not have any foreign masters.

[Shimdidlycaptain of 100]

Incredibly insightful post, chip.

[ktgcaptain of 100]

The DEEPER thing, it seems to me, that has the talking heads up in arms is that Ron Paul's 'non-existent foreign policy', as they like to call it, would leave Israel to fend for itself, since the Constitution only grants the Federal Government the responsibility of defending America, not foreign nations.

About Israel, do the scriptures not warn that whatever nation burdens itself with Israel will find it to be stumbling block? Bruce R. McConkie stated explicitly that the modern nation of Israel is not 'Israel' as we read of in the scriptures. 'Israel' will be gathered in a single day upon the Savior's return. What about the people God warns in the scriptures who claim to be Jews, but are not? Is the modern nation of Israel not a creation of the United Nations? I've been thinking lately that maybe we've all been brainwashed by the media and our government about what Israel is really all about. I'm not feeling 'against' Israel, but I'm getting the idea that it's not our job, according to our divinely-inspired Constitution, to support other nations, be they called 'Israel', or not.

"There is one and only one legitimate goal of United States foreign policy. It is a narrow goal, a nationalistic goal: the preservation of our national independence. Nothing in the Constitution grants that the president shall have the privilege of offering himself as a world leader. He is our executive; he is on our payroll; he is supposed to put our best interests in front of those of other nations. Nothing in the Constitution nor in logic grants to the president of the United States or to Congress the power to influence the political life of other countries, to ‘uplift’ their cultures, to bolster their economies, to feed their people, or even to defend them against their enemies." - Ezra Taft Benson

[Oldemandaltoncaptain of 1,000]

Patriotsaint
The issue is simple if you are willing to agree on two points:

1. Any government derives its just authority from the consent of the governed
2. If number one is true, then the government has no authority to do something that an individual couldn't do, because government authority is nothing more than the delegated authority of a multitude of individuals.

It should be easy to agree on these two points. If you don't agree with these two points then you must denounce the theories of Locke along with the Declaration of Independence.....and by extension the war of independence and establishment of this nation. Our whole justification for war with the crown was based on the idea that we were being governed without representation (consent)

If the above assumptions are correct then we don't have a leg to stand on when it comes to Iran. Here's a scenario for you. Let's say I am your neighbor and have a whole hoard of guns and explosives. As my neighbor you begin to worry that when AHBL you will be outgunned and so you decide to arm yourself with one handgun. I hear of your intentions and decide that I don't want to see you armed (because I don't want any competition when AHBL) so I come to your house and forcibly disarm you. If you resist I take your life.

Is my treatment of you just, or have I overstepped the bounds of my authority and violated your God-given rights? How is it any different when it comes to Iran? Remember before you answer that our government has no authority beyond that delegated to it by individuals. If I can't do it as an individual, neither can my government without usurping authority. It is funny how often people in this country are willing to violate the rights of others at the point of a gun, as long as the government (acting as their agent) does it.

Here is how I would see the scenario Patriotsaint:

Israel, a friend of yours, lives in the ‘bad neighbourhood’ across town, while you, of course, live safely in a gated community with relatively good neighbours (you have one who jumps over the fence every once in a while to steel out of your yard). Your friend, Israel, has neighbours who continually fire shots into his house and have killed several of his kids. His neighbour down the road, Iran, has been supplying Israel’s neighbours with guns and training to attack him and his family and has repeatedly said he wants to burn Israel’s house down and give the land to his neighbours. Iran and his family belong to this religion that believes that killing your friend and his family is God’s bidding. Iran, the dad, even has said he spoke with their “deliverer” who is soon to come and wants to hasten that return by starting city wide war and chaos. You find out that Iran, the mentally unstable neighbour of your friend Israel, is assembling a mortar with high explosive shells in order to kill Israel, his wife and kids which he has promised to do on several occasions. He has not been able to reach Israel on his own because he lives too far down the street and around the corner. That’s why he has been using Israel’s neighbour as surrogates in his evil plans to kill Israel and his family but now, with a fully functional mortar with HE shells, he can do it on his own very easily.


Iran denies that he is assembling HE shells but you have seen the mortar barrel itself and the empty mortar rounds with binoculars through his garage window. He also denies making plastic explosives to place in his shells but that he is making black powder instead. You know this is a lie because “inspectors” have been in his house, no one is allowed in the garage, who report back seeing all of the chemicals necessary for “plastic”, the lab equipment, neighbour technicians who are experts in making it, plans and instructions on the dining room table, and that some of the chemicals have already been processed for making ‘plastic’. Iran made an agreement with the whole city that he would never make mortar bombs with HE that’s why the ‘inspectors’ were there.

You and your neighbours have tried to prevent Iran from making the HE mortar shell as he agreed in the past. Every type of persuasion has been tried to get Iran to stop making them has failed. Iran insists in breaking his signed agreement even against the persuasion of the rest of the town. The folks in the ‘bad part of town’ is all for it of course, they too want Israel and his whole family killed.

You worry about the safety of your friend, Israel and his family, and the rest of the town that Iran can launch his mortar rounds at. So since Iran has broken his signed promise to not make HE mortar shell can you sneak into his garage and break his lab equipment and neutralize his chemicals to stop him from making high explosive mortar rounds?

Under our Constitution are there laws against felons, the insane, and the mentally handicapped from owning guns? Yes.

If they illegally own guns don’t we take them away from them for our and their safety? Yes.

[Original_Intentcaptain of 1,000]

OMD,

You forgot the part of the story where your friend Israel spies on you and your friend Israel fired on the USS Liberty, killing members of your family.

You forgot the part of the story where we took out a democratically elected leader of the bad guy, Iran, and installed a leader of our chosing, whom we kept in power for decades.

The fact is, we have done to Iran things that we would NEVER stand for another country doing to us. If we are not willing to honestly appraise history and instead make up these stories that make us out to always be noble and pure, and we lap up the propaganda against those who our leaders chose to be our enemies, we cannot be lead to a good resolution in the Middle East.

Oh, it should also be pointed out that our friend in the bad neighborhood, Israel, has the equivalent of 200 .50 caliber rifles, while the "bad neighborhood kids" are running around with BB guns by comparison.

Honest history and a bit of objectivity and thinking of how WE would react if another country did to us what we have been doing over there are critical to having a discussion of foreign policy.

[patriotsaintcaptain of 1,000]

You worry about the safety of your friend, Israel and his family, and the rest of the town that Iran can launch his mortar rounds at. So since Iran has broken his signed promise to not make HE mortar shell can you sneak into his garage and break his lab equipment and neutralize his chemicals to stop him from making high explosive mortar rounds?

Your story is nice, even if it ignores the principles I outlined in the post you quoted. We are talking of individual rights that are delegated collectively to governments correct?

In your scenario, Israel has a right to defend himself and his family (if actually attacked), but why would I have the authority to defend Israel and his family? Has Israel delegated that that authority to me formally? Am I a member of local law enforcement in your story? The answer to these questions is of course, no.

Now when we apply those same principles to governments, why would the USA have the authority or responsibility to meddle in affairs between Israel and Iran? Has Israel ever delegated such authority to us? Are they a state of ours having adopted our constitution and become part of the union? As long as the answer to these questions is no, then the following quotes apply:

The great rule of conduct for us, in regard to foreign nations, is in extending our commercial relations to have as little political connection as possible...It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world.--George Washington

I deem [one of] the essential principles of our government, and consequently [one] which ought to shape its administration,…peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none." Thomas Jefferson-First Inaugural Address.

America has abstained from interference in the concerns of others, even when the conflict has been for principles to which she clings....She goes not abroad in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own. (John Quincy Adams, Speech Delivered in Washington DC 04 July 1821)

In addition to the fabulous quote ktg provided above I thought I would include a great one from J Reuben Clark as well. It is lengthy, but important:

Nor may we overlook that great doctrine of neutrality set up under Washington himself and Jefferson and Hamilton, which was aimed at and brought about the localizing of international armed conflicts, and the preservation , under prescribed rules, of peacetime intercourse between belligerents and nonbelligerents. War was to curse as few people as possible. This has been jettisoned for the concept that every war should involve all nations, making all suffer the ravages of a global war.

Until the last quarter of a century, this gospel of the Fathers was the polar star by which we set our international course. In the first hundred thirty years of our constitutional existence, we had three foreign wars, the first merely the final effort of our Revolution, which made good our independence. During the century that followed we had two foreign wars, neither of considerable magnitude. During the next twenty-three years, we had two global wars. While the gospel of the Fathers guided us we has peace. When we forsook it, two great wars engulfed us.

It is not clear when we began our wandering, nor is it necessary to determine the time. President Theodore Roosevelt was hinting our straying when he uttered the dictum “Speak softly and carry a big stick.” We were to force others to do our bidding. President Wilson had the full departure in mind when he declared: “Everybody’s business is our business.” Since then we have leaped ahead along the anciently forbidden path.

You can read the whole Clark article here

[Oldemandaltoncaptain of 1,000]

Patriotsaint
1. Ron Paul does not believe we should preemptively strike nations (particularly Iran at this time)
2. You disagree with Ron Paul's foreign policy (calling him naive)

Is it such a stretch to deduce that you are in favor of preventing Iran from developing nuclear technology....by violent preemptive means if necessary? Which is it, do you agree with Ron Paul or are you in favor of preemptively striking Iran?

Here is my post in response to Fairminded on the subject:

I disagree with the USA’s past meddling in the ME and wish we were oil independent so we could let someone else take care of the mess there. I do not want to start a war with Iran. I do not know what I would do if I was President of the USA. I would use as many black ops, sanctions, and ‘carrots’ as I could to keep the Iranians from getting nuclear weapons. We have been doing this for years and they still persist in build ‘the bomb’. Neither Bush nor Obama have wanted to attack Iran. I don’t blame them. Israel is even worse off. They have been fighting their enemies who want to destroy them for over 60 years and now their most vocal enemy, Iran, and the one who has been the greatest supporter of the terrorists against Israel, is about to get nuclear weapons.

I believe that Israel is being set up with a no win situation to start WW III. Don’t attack Iranian Nuke sites and have Israeli cities targeted with nuclear strikes or do a pre-emptive attack and save their cities but start a regional war which could easily go global. No easy decision. IMO this is the plan of the LDGs.

From what I know right now, if I was President, I would back Israel if they decided to attack the nuke sites OR if they decided to NOT to attack the sites. They have more skin in the game and would lose more of a percentage of their populace than we would if a nuke went off here. If we had a reliable anti-missile shield up over Israel it would make a no-go decision easier. They have Iron Dome which was designed against slower missiles but they aren’t sure it would take out a big ballistic missile. If the Israelis had a defense against Iranian missile then that would be one scenario off the table.

Free and fair elections in Iran would be the best possible solution. The people of Iran are just like you and me and just want to live in peace to raise their families. Unfortunately they have extremists running the show.

As for Ron Paul being naïve;

Naïve= having or showing a lack of experience, judgment, or information.

Being naïve is not a major defect for a politician if he receives the corrective information, internalizes it and uses it in his decision making otherwise it is very dangerous.

Here are some examples of where I and many others believe that Dr. Paul is naïve or “shows a lack of experience, judgment, or information”.

Ron Paul believes that ‘Flawed’ US Policies Led To 9/11.

Bin Laden, who organized and financed al Qaeda in the beginning, planned to go after the USA soon after their victory over Russia in Afghanistan in 1989. This was years before any flawed policies of Bush. Ron Paul does not understand that there are evil men in the world today who want to destroy and kill for a cause greater than just one country. Thus he is naïve about the intentions of Jihadists.

Here are the stated goals of al Qaeda:

■Establishing the rule of God on earth
■Attaining martyrdom in the cause of God
■Purification of the ranks of Islam from the elements of depravity (apostate moderate ‘Westernized’ Muslims)

The ‘Flawed’ US Policies have nothing to do with what Al Qaeda or Jihadists do. They just provide ‘justification’ for their heinous acts on the innocent.

Paul opposed the war in Afghanistan and the ‘Authorization for Military Force’ but voted for the resolution anyway because he was afraid of the backlash from his constituents.

Al Qaeda attacked the US from Afghanistan and was being protected by the Taliban. As Thomas Jefferson and James Madison did in the Barbary Wars we were within our constitution rights to go into Afghanistan after the terrorists (we should have left soon after though). Paul was naïve to believe we could use mercenaries (Letters of Marque and Reprisal) to go after the thousands of al Qaeda fighters in Afghanistan instead of our own military as Jefferson and Madison did.

Argued that we shouldn’t have fought Hitler in WWII.

Germany declared war on the US. Japan attacked us at Pearl Harbor. Even with the couple of days advanced warning, the Japanese would have still launched their attack. On the same day, Japanese forces attacked the British colony of Hong Kong, invaded the Philippines, invaded Thailand from bases in French Indochina, and invaded Malaya. We could not have avoided WW II. This is a naïve belief of Dr. Paul and his supporters.


Ron Paul rejects a U.N. agency report that indicates Iran is within months of developing nuclear weaponry, calling it “war propaganda.”

This is where Ron Paul’s naivite is dangerous to America, Israel and every other country in the Middle East. The evidence is overwhelming that Iran is building nuclear weapons and intercontinental ballistic missiles to put them on, as I have shown in the many sources in my above posts. Paul and his supporters can keep their heads in the sand and refuse to believe these facts. Calling them “war propaganda” does not make them false, it only shows his ignorance and naiveté on the subject which is dangerous in a Commander in Chief.

Ron Paul says he would remove the U.S. sanctions on Iran.

So Dr Paul wants to stop one of the only non-military deterrents against Iran’s building Nuclear weapons? How about the charge that we supported and built up Hitler before WW II by giving him loans, technology, and trading with Germany? This is a hypocritical stance I have noticed among many Ron Paul supporters. IMO I don’t think we should give loans and trade to ANY of our enemies including Iran.

Dr. Paul blames America for Iran’s efforts to go nuclear.

First off I thought Iran had no intentions of building nuclear weapons!?

Why do they want one?
1.Ever since the Iranian Islamic Revolution they have become the largest state sponsor of terrorism in the world and has been exporting their radical form of Islam to Lebanon, the Palestinian Territories, Iraq, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Algeria, Egypt, and Turkey beside the terrorists groups they fund in Europe and elsewhere. With a nuclear umbrella Iran can realize its goal without fear of interference to” defeat the West, achieve leadership of the Arab world, and assert control across the Middle East”. See IRAN'S “SECOND” ISLAMIC REVOLUTION.

2.Rid the world of the “Little Satan”, Israel, and gain the praise and accolades of all Muslims worldwide and thus become the world leader of the Islamic world.

3.Take out the “great Satan”? I am sure if they could figure a way to get nuclear weapons into one or more of our cities without it being traced back to them they would do it.


“Yeah, there are some radicals, but they don’t come here to kill us because we’re free and prosperous. … They come here and want to do us harm because we’re bombing them.”

This shows Dr. Paul’s penchant for ‘blame America first’. If he bothered to study the history of the terrorists and of the Jihadi’s movement he will realize that there goals have nothing to do with our “bombing them”. The Fanatical Islamists just use that as a red herring for the gullible and naïve. If you want to find out the real reason for the terrorism we face today and the Jihadi Movement follow this path; Ottoman Empire, Wahhabism, Muslim Brotherhood, and New Caliphate.
Hint, go to sources which quote the Jihadis themselves.

Infowarrior:
Wow, I really hope that you weren't trying to defend blondie's ignorant rant. But, I would really like for you to bring to the table the specific lies I'm accused of posting. Thanks.

I said myths not lies Infowarrrior. When I say myths I mean things that are not true which is believed by the poster. Lies are intentionally posted falsehoods known to be false by the poster. I don’t know of anyone who has spread lies on this thread. I believe that everyone believes what they say here.

Romney and Perry Cite Lies About Iran in Effort to Discredit Ron Paul
By Kurt Nimmo

Neither the IAEA or U.S. intelligence agencies have produced information indicating that Iran has a nuclear weapon or is working on one. Iran has not called for wiping “Israel off the face of the earth,” as Perry claimed.

One myth here.

Nuclear Standoff
by American Foreign Policy Project

This article by an Iranian lobbyist group had the most myths I think I have ever read. I counted 11 myths which I debunked in the answering post. I would say eleven would get you an Olympic Gold Medal,Infowarrior.


Here is an excellent article on the subject by Daniel Greenfield:

Between Responsible & Irresponsible Isolationism

Daniel Greenfield
December 27, 2011

There is one fundamental element that is absolutely necessary for an isolationist foreign policy. Isolation. Isolationism without physical isolation is as much good as belligerence without an army to back it up.

American isolationism might have been feasible during WW1 when its neighbors were either friendly or no threat, there was no danger from the Pacific and a fleet crossing the Atlantic seemed unlikely. Though it wasn't so unlikely even then.

As far back as 1897 and long before any American involvement in Europe, Operational Plan Three called for shelling New York and seizing parts of Virginia, as a staging base for attacks on Washington and Baltimore. Plans were drawn up in Germany for the occupation of Boston and Philadelphia.

Vice-Admiral August Thomsen wrote, "At the moment every thinking German officer is occupied with the consequences of a belligerent conflict between Germany and the United States of America."

No American politician was thinking the same thing. America had not intervened in any European wars and had no interest in Germany. But that didn't matter. The Kasier wanted to seize parts of the hemisphere and that meant breaking the dominant power in the region. America's weak fleet made it seem like an easy target.

That is the most important part of the equation that isolationists fail to include in their calculations. Regardless of our foreign policy, we are still a target. Whatever our calculations are, potential enemies may have calculations entirely different from our own. They don't just react to what we do, they have their own plans and agendas. Passivity isn't a defense for the ostrich or for a nation.

In 1900 while America slept, German diplomats were scouting Cape Cod and Provincetown as support bases for an attack on Boston. And the Germans weren't alone. In the early 20th century there were British plans for an assault on New England. But Germany's failure to formulate an alliance with other European powers against the United States led to the abandonment of Operational Plan Three.

When Charles Lindbergh ridiculed the idea of a foreign attack on America, such an attack was less than a year away, but variations of it had been planned by European powers for a good deal longer than that. Terrorist attacks by foreign agents were a now forgotten reality during WW1, including the Black Tom explosion which severely damaged the Statue of Liberty, the Vanceboro bridge bombing, and in an early form of biological warfare a laboratory in Chevy Chase was working on anthrax and glanders cultures to be used on horses.

With the jet plane and the intercontinental ballistic missile, isolationism became completely unworkable without strong deterrence. Even if the United States had chosen to abandon Europe, it would still have needed massive nuclear missile stockpiles, a sizable fleet and military, and a policy of Mutually Assured Destruction just to pursue a policy of isolationism. And had the USSR managed to make even deeper inroads in South America, the United States would have been forced to either push it out or increase the size of its forces to compensate for the loss of a buffer zone against preemptive attacks.

It's not impossible to have an isolationist foreign policy today, to cut any alliances with the rest of the world. But there's a fundamental difference between a responsible and an irresponsible isolationist policy. A responsible isolationist policy recognizes that we have enemies who will act regardless of what we do and prepares against the possibility of war without actively seeking it out.

An irresponsible isolationist foreign policy however acts as if we have no enemies and that any talk that we have enemies is a conspiracy to bring us into a war. It accepts every bit of enemy propaganda as gospel and assumes that if we just "stop bothering them", they'll "stop bothering us". It assumes that the enemy is entirely motivated by our actions, that any conflict we are in is the result of our foreign policy and that isolationism will avert any such conflicts.

This is the version of isolationism that you hear in the Republican debates from Ron Paul. It's the version that Americans heard back in the 1930's from Lindbergh. Rather than recognizing that a military buildup is an important deterrent to war, it attacks military buildups as provocative. It assumes that the only possible reason why we might be attacked are foreign entanglements and if we just tuck our heads in then there will be no conflict.

The absurdity of this approach when it comes to the current clash of civilizations with Islam is obvious enough. This isn't a conflict that dates back from 1991 or 1948 or even the First Barbary War in 1805. It's a war that predates the United States and modern day Europe. It is a conflict that goes back over a thousand years to the decline and fall of the eastern remains of the Roman Empire and the rise of Islam as a militant unification ideology to fill that void.

American foreign policy can't turn back the clock on that history. It can affect events in the present day, but it can't undo the roots of a conflict that it has inherited. American foreign policy had a good deal to do with the rise of Islamic states built on petrodollars, but isolationism is certainly not going to make them go away. Certainly not Ron Paul's brand of isolationism which pretends that there is nothing wrong with Islam that can't be fixed with an American isolationist foreign policy.

During the last debate, Ron Paul asked why they're bombing us and not Sweden or Switzerland. The answer is very simple. You only bomb people who resist. Stockholm is 20 percent Muslim. Muslim terrorists operate out of Sweden, including a top Al-Qaeda leader, but they don't need to attack a territory that they're already on the way to ruling through natural demographics.

44 percent of Europe's population is over 45. Under 34 percent is under 30. Meanwhile half of European Muslims are under 30. The math isn't very hard to do. The only countries that need to be targeted by Muslim terrorists are those which have a high enough birth rate that demographics alone won't do the trick.

The First World country with the highest birth rate is Israel. It's also the country most targeted by Muslim terrorists. The First World country with the second highest birth rate is the United States. It is the country second most targeted by terrorists. The next major countries on the list are France and the UK. There's a term for this sort of thing. It's demographic suppression and political intimidation.

Back in the 19th century the Kasier hoped that shelling Manhattan and seizing a few cities would bring the United States to the negotiating table. Japan thought that bombing Pearl Harbor would accomplish the same thing. But while Tojo was wrong, the House of Saud was correct. September 11 brought the United States to the negotiating table with Islam. Muslims have been granted special privileges and their immigration rate has increased. That's one path to an eventual demographic domination.

Islamic attacks against the United States may emerge from various micro-events, but the macro-event from which they originate is the shared history of the Western world and the ongoing conflict between the Muslim world and the West. Some isolationists may act as if the United States can break with European history through assertion alone. It cannot. Like it or not it shares a common history and a common culture. America derives from Europe, and whether Americans recognize it or not, the rest of the world does. To Islam, America is not an island, it is another outpost of an enemy civilization that must be subdued so that the way of Mohammed will triumph around the world.

Ron Paul type isolationists fail to distinguish between the proximate causes of war and the ultimate causes of war. A proximate cause of war may be a ship that has wandered into the wrong area which may have been caused by a trade dispute which may have been caused by debts which may have been caused by growing militarism and greed for land. But none of those are truly the ultimate cause of war. The ultimate cause of war is the incompatibility of two systems and two civilizations within the same space.

Technological development means that the old boundaries are all but gone. Immigration means that the enemy population is already here. The rise of Islam means that war is inevitable, all that remains are the details, which battle, on what terms and in what form, and the larger detail of who will win.

Rationalism isolationism accepts that war may be inevitable but chooses to meet it on our terms. Irrational isolationism, which often carries with it defeatist and treasonous overtones, accepts the enemy's justifications for the conflicts and assumes that if we modify our behavior accordingly that there will be no need for war.

"Si vis pacem, para bellum," was a rule that the old Romans knew. If you would have peace, prepare for war. The emblem of the Strategic Air Command was an olive branch and thunderbolt held in a mailed fist. Its motto was "Peace is Our Profession". The SAC kept the peace through the threat of war. Only an isolationism that understands the meaning of that motto can be successful.

http://newmediajournal.us/indx.php/item/3976

[Oldemandaltoncaptain of 1,000]

Original Intent
You forgot the part of the story where your friend Israel spies on you and your friend Israel fired on the USS Liberty, killing members of your family.

Never had a fight with a friend OI?

You forgot the part of the story where we took out a democratically elected leader of the bad guy, Iran, and installed a leader of our chosing, whom we kept in power for decades.
The fact is, we have done to Iran things that we would NEVER stand for another country doing to us. If we are not willing to honestly appraise history and instead make up these stories that make us out to always be noble and pure, and we lap up the propaganda against those who our leaders chose to be our enemies, we cannot be lead to a good resolution in the Middle East.

Yes that was one of our many errors in meddling where we should not. I see American history as it is, warts and all. We are guilty of many wrong doings. I also agree with you that whatever we do or NOT do will not have a “good resolution in the Middle East”. There are no good choices here.

This does not have anything to do with the goals of the “2nd” Iranian Revolution and their state sponsorship of terror around the world. The Jihadists have their own agenda and it nothing to do about the past but has more to do with their view of the history of the Middle East and the rest of the world.

Oh, it should also be pointed out that our friend in the bad neighborhood, Israel, has the equivalent of 200 .50 caliber rifles, while the "bad neighborhood kids" are running around with BB guns by comparison.

Our friend Israel has mortars with HE rounds but has refused to use them while every single one of Israel’s neighbors has promised to kill Israel and his whole family. They fire rifle rounds into his home hoping to kill someone and throw grenades at times thru windows.

I have no doubt that if either Canada or Mexico were launching thousands of missiles at our cities, attacking school buses with RPGs, using homicide bombers to attack cafes/buses/markets, and sending terrorists to slit the throats of toddlers while sleeping in bed that they would be smoking ruins right now and you would be the first on that bandwagon OI.

Honest history and a bit of objectivity and thinking of how WE would react if another country did to us what (we) they have been doing over there are critical to having a discussion of foreign policy.

A big AMEN brother.

[InfoWarrior82captain of 1,000]

OMD, what does blowback mean?

[liberty_bellecaptain of 100]

Great thread...there have been some awesome points.

OMD---I actually enjoyed the one you posted on RP Advisor. As I was reading it, I thought..."Wow, now I know and understand why I was prompted to vote for Ron Paul in 2008 when I actually had issues with his stance on legalizing drugs."

Let me tell you why I enjoyed the article.

On the morning of 9/11 I watched from my television the Twin Towers fall into oblivian. I was just sick, thinking of all those people who had died. However, as I was weeping and praying for those families and hoping that they did not suffer, I had a very strange feeling come over me....this was not what is seems. So I have been suspicious of 9/11 accounts since that day, but none more than the day that they passed through the Patriot Act.

I was the in the Confernece Center and heard firsthand President Hinckley tell us that we had declared war. Again Pres Hinckley's talk was about preparations and supporting the Declaration of War...meaning the intent to get in get the bad guys and get out.... that did not happen.

I never had any other thoughts about why we should not be constantly in foriegn wars except that it was not within our Constitutional Rights to do so, nor scripturally founded. I did not think for one second that there could be any other reason.... So Ron Paul's policy on war So he got an "A" for a grade in my voting book.

A few months ago, I was on another site and the RP War Policy was always being scoffed at as lunatic... Me and a few others had debated this issue and then one guy told me that I was ignorant (reminds me of you OMD...always scoffing and doing the little laugh guys showing all their article that proves Israel was in danger...blah blah) of what was ggoing on in the middle east and so I took that as a personal challenge. I have stated this before but that took me into a whole new direction just simply by asking how did Israel become a State. the minute I saw that the Rothchilds were behind it, I could not rest until I had dug all the information I could about it....

That is why I enjoyed the article, you pasted. I have asked myself many times, if Ron Paul knew these things and if that is the reason he is against giving them the power they seek? If this article is true, then I understand why he is against Foriegn Aide, Wars, the FED, etc. He knows who is behind it all and he is doing exactly what a true hero would do...route them out! Isn't that what Andrew Jackson did and said? While I know you actually were trying to discredit him, it only caused me to know that God has truly
lead me all along and I can't deny that.

Ron Paul feels like I do, he is not against the Jews, but he is against their evil regime and he is wearing out his life to save this country and his people from destruction. All the more reason why Ron Paul will get my vote. So, OMD---thanks for being the agent in which God, gave me another witness today that He is the one who is directed my vote and the direction of my studies....

[InfoWarrior82captain of 1,000]

Infowarrior:
Wow, I really hope that you weren't trying to defend blondie's ignorant rant. But, I would really like for you to bring to the table the specific lies I'm accused of posting. Thanks.

I said myths not lies Infowarrrior. When I say myths I mean things that are not true which is believed by the poster. Lies are intentionally posted falsehoods known to be false by the poster. I don’t know of anyone who has spread lies on this thread. I believe that everyone believes what they say here.

Romney and Perry Cite Lies About Iran in Effort to Discredit Ron Paul
By Kurt Nimmo

Neither the IAEA or U.S. intelligence agencies have produced information indicating that Iran has a nuclear weapon or is working on one. Iran has not called for wiping “Israel off the face of the earth,” as Perry claimed.

One myth here.

Nuclear Standoff
by American Foreign Policy Project

This article by an Iranian lobbyist group had the most myths I think I have ever read. I counted 11 myths which I debunked in the answering post. I would say eleven would get you an Olympic Gold Medal,Infowarrior.

Actually you probably deserve an Olympic Gold Medal. Do you do a lot of stretching? Must be very strenuous to twist in so many lies in a single post.

REALLY!? Wow. I would love for you to point by point debunk the "myths"... or LIES I posted, then. Here's my post I believe you are referring to:

Neither the IAEA or U.S. intelligence agencies have produced information indicating that Iran has a nuclear weapon or is working on one. Iran has not called for wiping “Israel off the face of the earth,” as Perry claimed. In fact, the remark is attributed to a deliberate Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI) mistranslation of an Ahmadinejad speech in 2008. MEMRI is an Israel-centric propaganda tool run by a former colonel in Israeli intelligence.

And here's what the American Foreign Policy Project has put out on their site with regards to the Iranian "problem":

http://americanforeignpolicy.org/iran-k ... %A0%C2%A0/

Claim:
Iran is messianic, undeterrable and will bring about a nuclear holocaust if it ever gets nuclear weapons.

Response:

No one outside Iran wants to see Iran armed with a nuclear weapon, but this apocalyptic scenario is based on no behavioral evidence whatsoever. The recent history of Iran makes crystal clear that national self-preservation and regional influence - not some quest for martyrdom in the service of Islam - is Iran's main foreign policy goal. For example:

- In the 1990s, Iran chose a closer relationship with Russia over support for rebellious Chechen Muslims.
- Iran actively supported and helped to finance the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan.
- Iran has ceased its efforts to export the Islamic revolution to other Persian Gulf states, in favor of developing good relations with the governments of those states.
- During the Iran-Iraq War, Iran took the pragmatic step of developing secret ties and trading arms with Israel, even as Iran and Israel denounced each other in public.



Claim: Iran has declared its intention to develop nuclear weapons.1

Response:
In fact, Iran has consistently denied that it seeks nuclear weapons and its leaders have even declared such weapons to be "against Islam" (an unnecessary and curious thing for mullahs to say about a weapon they plan someday to unveil). Iran may or may not be seeking nuclear weapons in fact, but it is patently false to claim that they have declared an intention to do so.

Footnotes
1. This argument is heard almost exclusively from neo-con ideologues such as Liz Cheney who have shown little regard to the facts over the years: "I think that the only responsible position as a nation that we can take is, they actually want what they say they want, which is they want a nuclear weapon." CSIS, "Assessing U.S. Policy Towards Iran," Remarks by Elizabeth Cheney, June 26, 2008. [back]


Claim:

Iran is developing a ballistic missile capability, which makes no sense unless Iran plans to mount nuclear warheads on them.

Response:

Even though they are currently inaccurate, ballistic missiles are valued in Iran both as war-fighting tools and deterrents to attack even when armed with purely conventional warheads. The U.S. intelligence community judges that Iran is currently focusing on further developing ballistic missiles which can target other countries in the region, rather than outside of it. Such missiles make strategic sense for conventional warheads as well as non-conventional ones. As experts at the U.S. Air Force-funded Rand Corporation recently observed: "Based on their experience in the Iran-Iraq War—during which exchanges of ballistic missiles caused modest destruction yet had great impact on civilian morale—Iranian leaders appear convinced that ballistic missiles are the most reliable means for attacking deep targets, and that they would have psychological effects disproportionate to their destructive power."1

Footnotes
1. Rand Corp., Dangerous But Not Omnipotent: Exploring the Reach and Limitations of Iranian Power in the Middle East (Rand Corporation, 2009), p. 80 [back]


Claim:
Iran is insisting on enriching uranium, with no economic justification. That proves Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons.

Response:
No, it doesn’t. Iran is building nuclear reactors, which cost a fortune to build but are worthless without fuel. And there is no ironclad way to guarantee a fuel supply if the fuel in question is not located in Iran. Iran recalls that after the Revolution the chief enrichment consortium, Eurodif of France, refused to deliver one gram of fuel to Iran, even though Iran owned 10 percent of the company.1

More to the point, perhaps, all kinds of governments pursue programs for political purposes that lack clear, ex-ante, cost-benefit rationale. Conservatives have complained about this tendency in our own government for decades. In Iran, enrichment has become for Iranians a matter of national entitlement and a source of pride in technological advancement not unlike our own moon landing—supported by reformers and hardliners alike. Five years of Bush Administration ultimatums and Western pressure have made enrichment an ongoing emblem of Iran’s independence and refusal to be cowed. Commercial unprofitability is beside the point.

Many of the people who “just know” that Iran is pursuing a nuclear weapon are the same people who “just knew” that Saddam Hussein had a nuclear weapons program in 2003. They were wrong. The U.S. intelligence community, which has looked at this issue closely, finds Iran’s intentions on nuclear weapons to be unclear, and possibly not yet determined.

Footnotes
1. Slavin, Bitter Friends, Bosom Enemies (2007), p. 36. [back]



Claim:
Iran pursued covert R&D project on uranium conversion and enrichment that went on for years and was exposed only by an Iranian dissident group in August 2002. Iran then concealed and lied about its nuclear work to the IAEA.


Response:

It is certainly true that Iran initially concealed its program and later lied about it, suggesting that Iran was at least considering pursuing nuclear weapons at one point. It appears to be keeping that option open still. However, since the program was revealed in 2002, Iran is operating in a different environment of very close international scrutiny, making the risks of making a definitive move towards nuclear weapons far more difficult and risky for Iran.

Still, there are significant measures that could be put in place to make international scrutiny tighter and deterrence greater. The task now is to get in place a system of safeguards and surveillance that is so searching and comprehensive that Iran itself detemines that it will not be able to complete a weapons program without being detected early and stopped, thereby persuading Iran that it should satisfy itself with a peaceful nuclear program.

It bears mention that Iran has offered to accept very searching safeguards and surveillance in the context of a comprehensive agreement that respects its basic right to enrich for peaceful use. In fact, it suspended enrichment, accepted enhanced safeguards, and cooperated with the IAEA much more fully during the time (Oct. 2003-May 2005) that it thought there might be the prospect of such an agreement coming to fruition.

The IAEA Director General explains that the Annex is not a secret but rather a working draft not yet sufficiently vetted for publication. Its conclusions are drawn mainly from documents the agency has had in its possession since 2005 , but they serve as a reminder that knowledge of how to make at least a crude nuclear device is widely available . . .

Claim:
IAEA has repeatedly declared that it cannot conclude that "there are no undeclared nuclear materials or activities in Iran."

Response:
Making this finding requires proving a negative and the IAEA has set a very high bar for doing so. The Lawyer’s Committee on Nuclear Policy reported in 2006 that the IAEA applies the same “unable to conclude” status to every country that had not accepted the Additional Protocol at that time, and to 40 nations that have accepted it.

This does not mean that Iran's conduct is no more worrisome than the conduct of other countries. It clearly is much more worrisome. The point is simply that lack of proof of innocence is not the same thing as proof of guilt, and a lack of an IAEA declaration of "no undeclared nuclear materials or activities" is not terribly probative in an of itself. The IAEA has declared, repeatedly, that it has found no evidence of Iranian diversion of nuclear material for illicit purposes.

Claim:
Iran has forfeited its right to enrich uranium for any purpose.

Response:
This is a popular misconception.1 Like other countries, Iran is entitled under the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty (NPT) to use nuclear energy for peaceful purposes, and that right has long been understood to encompass enrichment under safeguards.1 Nothing in the NPT or Iran's Safeguards Agreement supports the notion that a country is barred from enriching uranium if it has ever pursued a weapons program, even one halted years ago.

If Iran is willing to honor its legal responsibilities under its Safeguards Agreement and the NPT, there is no principled basis for denying Iran right’s to enrich or demanding that Iran permanently cede that right.

Footnotes
1. See, e.g., Remarks by Sec. of State Hilary Clinton on Meet the Press, July 26, 2009 ("You [Iran] have a right to pursue the peaceful use of civil nuclear power. You do not have a right to obtain a nuclear weapon. You do not have the right to have the full enrichment and reprocessing cycle under your control.") [back]

Claim:
Allowing Iran to enrich uranium will set off a nuclear enrichment and arms race in the Middle East.

Response:
Iran’s nuclear program predates the Iranian Revolution. Over decades of history, enrichment has become a national industry in Iran and a symbol of independence. None of these circumstances apply to other nations in the region, and there is no commercial incentive to pursue enrichment. In fact, other states in the region have proposed enrichment via multinational consortium. This would both defuse the Iran crisis and set a new standard for a multilateral fuel cycle that would benefit the global nonproliferation regime. If the concern is that Iran’s enriching will cause other nations in the region to want a weapon, we fail to see how allowing Iran to enrich uranium under full safeguards will somehow spark a nuclear arms race when Israel’s bomb has not done so. Israel is far more hated and feared throughout the region than Iran.

Claim:
If Iran is allowed to accumulate a stockpile of enriched uranium at Natanz, they can seize it at any time and turn it into a bomb. Allowing Iran to enrich at Natanz will let Iran proliferate right under our nose.

Response:
Not true. All the material produced at Natanz is low-enriched uranium that is unsuitable for weapons use. It is under IAEA seal and surveillance. And it is all fully accounted for. Any effort to seize or divert this material would be quickly detected and would provoke an international outcry with a very high likelihood of a forceful response, from Israel if not others.

Moreover, converting this low-enriched uranium to weapons-grade form would takes weeks if not months of further enriching, so there would be plenty of time to organize that response. Under these circumstances, a completely clandestine route would seem far more attractive to Iran than any breakout involving safeguarded facilities. Stopping enrichment at Natanz will do nothing to address the clandestine risk, and may well increase it by driving enrichment underground. Iran itself seems to realize the risk of using Natanz for a weaons program. That is likely why it constructed the Qom facility.

Claim:
Diplomacy has been tried. Iran won't negotiate in good faith on its nuclear program, unless we either impose or credibly threaten it with really tough econonomic sanctions.

Response:

Actually, diplomacy with the United States has not been tried. It is sanctions that have been tried and failed. For five years until nearly the end of its term, the Bush Administration refused to talk to Iran at all about nuclear issues -- because Iran would not comply with U.S. demands that it first suspend all enrichment. This strategy merely squandered time: while the U.S. sat silent, Iran continued to enrich.

It is true that the Europeans talked to Iran, and they didn’t make much progress. But this is hardly surprising. Without the United States – the world’s sole superpower and Iran’s chief nemesis – at the table, why should Iran give its best offer to Britain, France and Germany? They would just pocket Iran’s concession, which would become the starting point for later talks with the United States. more

Real diplomacy on this issue has not been tried, not by the United States, until Fall 2009. What has been tried is sanctions, and everyone agrees they have failed to achieve our objectives. They may well have set us back by galvanizing Iranian resistance. More of the same is not going to produce different results, and escalating the confrontation with a campaign for "crippling sanctions" will not only fail but backfire.

Footnotes
1. Following is the relevant text of the P5+1 offer to Iran as conveyed on June 16, 2008, largely reiterating a 2006 offer: “. . . the elements below [including support for light-water reactors, fuel supply guarantees and other incentives] are proposed as topics for negotiations between [the P5+1 countries and Iran], as long as Iran verifiably suspends its enrichment related and reprocessing activities . . .” (emphasis supplied). On any fair reading, this is not a specific offer so much as an outline for a negotiated settlement, discussion of which could not start until Iran had first met the Bush Administration’s precondition for talks: Iran must first suspend all enrichment immediately. This for Iran was a poison pill, whether intended as such or not. [back]

[JerLcaptain of 100]

I am far from being an eloquent advocate for Ron Paul, but I am going to give it a shot. I like him because I am tired of senseless war. War that never ends. I am tired of the government that is supposed to represent us, telling me that there are enemies everywhere. Lets put ourselves in their shoes. How would we react if a much larger country was interfering in our business? Telling us what we could and couldn't do? Flying drones into our airspace? If Iran did that to us we would be calling it an act of war. To be an aggressor in war is a sure way to lose the support of a just God. We may defend ourselves if attacked but to strike preemptively is to sin. I used to listen to Sean Hannity religiously, and believed him for awhile when he said we should never have negotiations with Iran. That is utter stupidity. Why not try to work things out. Maybe if we promised stop meddling in the affairs of every middle eastern country and followed though they would calm down. They might not, but it is worth a try. I have already seen where the other path gets us. Right now the U.S. and Israeli governments are over there rattling Iran's cage just trying to get them to strike so they have a reason to go to war. Call me naive if you want but I am willing to try something else than constant warfare and meddling.

[Oldemandaltoncaptain of 1,000]

Infowarrior;
REALLY!? Wow. I would love for you to point by point debunk the "myths"... or LIES I posted, then.

Calm down dude. The award you get is the “Most Myths in One Post Award”. (Its a joke BTW, don't get all out of joint)

I don’t think YOU lie, Infowarrior, but the Iranian lobbyists from the American Foreign Policy Project are the ones lying. You just happen to swallow their lies and perpetuate the myths that Ron Paul and his followers believe. If you had read my two posts following the Iranian Lobbyists’ article you posted, “Nuclear Standoff”, you will understand the abundance of myths found there.

So calm down, take a breath and relax, OK.

[Oldemandaltoncaptain of 1,000]

JerL
I am far from being an eloquent advocate for Ron Paul, but I am going to give it a shot. I like him because I am tired of senseless war. War that never ends. I am tired of the government that is supposed to represent us, telling me that there are enemies everywhere. Lets put ourselves in their shoes. How would we react if a much larger country was interfering in our business? Telling us what we could and couldn't do? Flying drones into our airspace? If Iran did that to us we would be calling it an act of war. To be an aggressor in war is a sure way to lose the support of a just God. We may defend ourselves if attacked but to strike preemptively is to sin. I used to listen to Sean Hannity religiously, and believed him for awhile when he said we should never have negotiations with Iran. That is utter stupidity. Why not try to work things out. Maybe if we promised stop meddling in the affairs of every middle eastern country and followed though they would calm down. They might not, but it is worth a try. I have already seen where the other path gets us. Right now the U.S. and Israeli governments are over there rattling Iran's cage just trying to get them to strike so they have a reason to go to war. Call me naive if you want but I am willing to try something else than constant warfare and meddling.Speak the truth, even if your voice shakes.

I don’t blame you JerL, I think we stick our noses in too many place too. We should have followed Jefferson’s and Madison’s approach in Afghanistan and gotten out long ago and stayed out of Iraq. I don’t favor taking out Iran’s nuke unless it is absolutely the last thing we can do. I would much rather Iran keep its promise to not build the darn things in the first place. If diplomacy and sanctions work, Great, go for it! If Israel can build a missile shield in time then I don’t think that we or Israel would take the risk to take out their nukes. Even better, free and fair election in Iran.

Iran’s goal, as stated in previous posts is to dominate the Middle East and spread their ‘Islamic Revolution’ which frightens the other Arab countries and the rest of the world who depend on the oil moving thru the Gulf of Hormuz. We are stuck with the ugly reality that has been planned for us by the LDGs. Why do you think we aren’t oil dependent ourselves after the oil embargo of the 1970s? This has been a set up for decades. Now we have two bad decisions, the Ron Paul naïve one, leave Iran alone and they will play nice (like expecting a tiger to change his stripes) and have them use it against a city in Israel/USA or try and stop Iranian building nuclear weapons which could set off a ME war or WW III. I like neither choice! But that is the hand dealt to us by the LDGs. They want war and will get it either way.