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.
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 NimmoNeither 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
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