It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by kro32
Actually now that I think about it, we should let them have a nuke.
Originally posted by kro32
reply to post by BirdOfillOmen
Iran is conducting public hangings from cranes and stoning women to death and your calling them civilized. Sure let's let em have nukes too.
That's funny
Originally posted by TrueAmerican
Originally posted by robyn
Glenn Beck characterized Ron Paul as dangerous and an isolationist.
And I characterize Glenn Beck as an idiot. Isolationism may be necessary at critical times. Like when a country is in the midst of financial ruin and blindly continues with insane military expenditures overseas. Like now.
Originally posted by snowen20
reply to post by kro32
Internet tough guys have said they would kick my ass before, should I believe them?
Iran is the equivalent of an internet tough guy, arm chair warrior, big mouthed little guy, who wants to show the world it won't be pushed around by the neighborhood bully.
In the end if we have our ***** squared away here, we will not have to worry about their flimsy plan of attack.
Originally posted by kro32
reply to post by gimme_some_truth
Hmmm why would they attack us? Maybe because they said they would?
I don't think allowing a country who says they want to see your destruction have nuclear weapons is a wise idea do you?
Originally posted by robyn
Link
Scary thought, right? My initial reaction was one of fear. "They''ll seek to destroy us! That reaction is possibly the result of listening to a little to much media fearmongering or possible it's justified. If it is justified then what is the best approach to minimize the risk?
In the wake of last night's Iowa Republican debate, the consevative talk show hosts and other media are beginning to weigh in. Glenn Beck characterized Ron Paul as dangerous and an isolationist. He went into a diatribe concerning Isreal's security. Is the current situation in Israel vis a vis Iran analogous to WWII Nazi oppression and genocide? Is Ron Paul a Churchill or a Chamberland?
Rick Santorum said “Iran is not Iceland, Ron. “It’s been at war with us since 1979.
Paul said it is natural for Iran to want a bomb as it is surrounded by countries such as India, Pakistan and Israel which all have one and with China, the United States and Russia all involved in the region. He said the U.S. should not get involved in the country’s internal affairs.
He also said that during the Cold War we still spoke to the Soviet Union, and we should have dialogue with the mullahs too. “This is likely to lead to a sixth war,” said Paul. “Yes they have some militants in Iran, but they are all around the world. Iran can’t reach America, they don’t even have an air force. Iran can’t even make enough gasoline for itself.”
He accused the other candidates of warmongering. “They are building this case just like they did in Iraq, with war propaganda. There was no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, I bet you supported that too,” he said, as Santorum nodded, agreeing he had.
There's a big difference between being an isolationist and a non-interventionist. Dr. Paul's recognizes the ill will that many of America's policies have engendered through out the world and that have made us more likely to be targeted by terrorists..
edit on 12-8-2011 by robyn because: premature post
Originally posted by KINGOFPAIN
We (US) electrocute,gas and inject poison.... whats the difference?
Originally posted by Bramble Iceshimmer
Statements like this from Ron Paul is why he won't be the nominee or be elected. If we let Iran dominate the Middle East because they are allowed to have the bomb we will just have to go to war to free the other Arab countries or to protect Israel. Add in the world addiction to oil and you have all the makings of WW3.
“Israel is our close friend. While President Obama’s demand that Israel make hard concessions in her border conflicts may very well be in her long-term interest, only Israel can make that determination on her own,without pressure from the United States or coercion by the United Nations.
The question of foreign aid is one that has pitted economists against politicians, special interest groups, and foreign policy demagogues for decades. No stranger to this controversy is Kentucky Senator Rand Paul, who like his father, Texas Representative Ron Paul (both Republicans), has proposed ending U.S.foreign aid to all countries, including Israel, a decision that has earned the scorn of numerous groups on both the Left and the Right. However, one critical aspect of the debate that has been neglected from public discourse on the topic — and that Sen. Paul may be unaware of — is the opposition of numerous Jewish and Israeli economists and religious Zionist groups to Israeli foreign aid. Like Sen. Paul, these figures believe that foreign aid is an affront against Israeli liberty and sovereignty, as well as a drain on the development of numerous sectors of the Israeli economy, such as the weapons and biotechnology industries.
Originally posted by kro32
Originally posted by snowen20
reply to post by kro32
Internet tough guys have said they would kick my ass before, should I believe them?
Iran is the equivalent of an internet tough guy, arm chair warrior, big mouthed little guy, who wants to show the world it won't be pushed around by the neighborhood bully.
In the end if we have our ***** squared away here, we will not have to worry about their flimsy plan of attack.
I believe the hostages that were held for a very long time would disagree with you that they are just internet tough guys.