Meet the Press: How to Black Out Ron Paul While Giving Him "Air Time"

reply to post by RSF77


Honestly it's a free country vote the way you want that is what it's all about.

Originally posted by demented
reply to post by Wookiep

 

To begin with his idea of non-intervention is not realistic. We can't allow countries like Iran and N. Korea to obtain nukes or other weapons of mass destruction. Pulling out of the U.N. is again not realistic, what do you want Russia and China to run the show? Should I continue?

There you go, at least dialogue can be established now without the trolling. Also, thank you for using "non-intervention" instead of "isolation" like the media likes to do. Now, on to your points...

Here's the deal, many Americans are waking up to reality that we are beyond broke. Ron Paul understands this reality very well. We do not have the funds to get into yet another war. We can't even afford to keep our own country a float. Israel is the reason Iran continues it's rhetoric and Israel (if so threatened) can by all means take care of this "threat", they have proven this time and time again. They took care of the potential nuclear site in Syria, there is no reason they can't take care of Iran's. Israel has a very good military that equals the U.S. military. Paul isn't against Israel's right to defend themselves, in fact, the Israeli govt is quoted saying they do *not* require our help, nor are they asking for it. (there is a recent video of this right here on ATS)

Iran is not a threat to the U.S. like the media would like us to think. If they are a threat to anyone it's Israel, and THAT is questionable as well. Israel has 300+ nukes. Iran MIGHT have 1 nuke, while multiple countries surrounding Iran have nukes too and LOTS of them. While Iran might have 1 nuke, they would be idiots to use their one and only nuke they MIGHT have to bomb Israel as they would be blown off the face of this Earth by Israel within hours. Not only that, but Iran is most definitely NOT capable of sending a missile to our shores. They do not have long range missile technology required to fire a nuclear warhead anywhere even remotely near the U.S. In fact, we aren't even sure they could realistically do this to Israel even IF indeed they do have a nuke.

Now, why should Americans spend our tax dollars (that we don't have yet the FED keeps printing it like it's candy or something) and get our men and women killed over something we have no clear evidence of (the IAEA report is NOT evidence of a nuke regardless of what the MSM wants to say), AND something we are not directly threatened by in any capacity on our shores. It's ludicrous! The real "nuts" are the ones calling for this action over and over on Fox news etc, getting Christian support because somehow killing people, without evidence and without public support and without a clear threat to the U.S. is somehow the new Christian fad! I've said this many times, but I'm repeating it since you are new. Christians are being very mis-represented by this trap the MSM seems to have put them in.

If you look back at the Iraq war and try to keep a level head, you will see the warning signs that are happening right now in the media, just as it happened with Iraq. There were no WMD's but they promised us for years we would would find them, we never did. The only thing we got out of the Iraq war (Bush Jrs) was 150k+ dead Iraqis, 5k dead U.S. men and women and some oil. Our country was not protected, but if anything we are even more hated because of it. This is what Ron Paul is saying, and it's called blow-back, and it's very real. If there is anything to be scared of at all, it's blow-back and we cause it every time we go running mindlessly into wars that we have no business fighting in.

Edit: Oh yeah, Russia, China? Neither one supports us going to war with Iran. So...chances of WWIII exist even more if we do decide to bomb Iran because neither of those countries would want to allow it, especially Russia.

reply to post by Wookiep


I understand why after the war in Iraq so many Americans are a little 'gun shy', but I do think Iran is a threat to the U.S. Not by direct attack but by the aftermath of an attack against one of our allies.

What if Iran had a nuclear device and lauched it at England, Spain, or France? What would that do to the global economy?

It is unlikely to happen but I don't think it's a risk we can afford to take.

reply to post by demented


Well, what if Pakistan did that? (hell their nukes are shuffled around by God knows who anymore) India? What if any nation with nukes could do that? Anything is possible, it's not our job either way to police the situation. We are broke, the global economy is going to crash no matter what. We are not financially able to do these wars anymore. If the U.N. wants to police it, let them if they feel threatened. We are broke, and that's reality man.

Originally posted by demented
reply to post by Wookiep

 

To begin with his idea of non-intervention is not realistic. We can't allow countries like Iran and N. Korea to obtain nukes or other weapons of mass destruction. Pulling out of the U.N. is again not realistic, what do you want Russia and China to run the show? Should I continue?

Can't allow N. Korea to obtain nukes now, can we?

I think people here want you to educate yourself a bit before posting.
If you know history, we've been effing with Iran since 1953 when we overthrew an elected Prime Minister and installed a ruthless leader like we've done all to often for the gains of the wealthy elite. Iran wants a nuke as a deterrent...nothing else.

Non-intervention means exactly what it means...stay out of other countriues' disputes. It doesn't mean he will let the world walk all over us. He will try diplomacy, lifting sanctions and free trade to stimulate the economy.
I feel safer with RP in the WH more than any other candidate, including Obama

reply to post by Wookiep


Agree with you as far as being broke.
I also agree more countries should learn to defend themselves.
The thing is the U.S. has established itself as the global police force and some countries depend on us, how do you just turn your back when a friend needs help?

I think we got a little bit off topic.

Peace, take care and happy holidays.

reply to post by maddog99


Okay N. Korea may have nuclear technology but if they don't have a delivery system it's worthless. Educate youself, bud.

reply to post by demented


Ron Paul would not sit back if WWIII was on the brink, he's stated over and over again that he would allow us to go to war only with congressional approval. In other words, if our buddies are attacked like they were in WWII and if we went to war legally under the constitution, we would be there to help them. However, this really isn't about all of Europe being attacked with a dirty bomb or nuke etc. IF Iran has a nuke it's so-called sole purpose is for Israel as the Iranian rhetoric (as the media tells us at least) has told us time and time again. The thing is, Israel isn't even asking for our help. Take a look at this video. You can ignore the Ron Paul stuff and just listen to Netanyahu:

Originally posted by demented
reply to post by maddog99

 

Okay N. Korea may have nuclear technology but if they don't have a delivery system it's worthless. Educate youself, bud.

Reliable details about North Korea's nuclear weapons are also hard to come by, but North Korea is believed to hold between four and 10 nuclear bombs. All are made from plutonium, which the North has manufactured since the early 1990s. There is currently no plutonium left in the stockpile — it's all been turned into bombs.

source

SEOUL, South Korea -- North Korea conducted at least one short-range missile test Monday, the same day it announced the death of leader Kim Jong Il, South Korea's Yonhap news agency reported.

source

Anything else?

Sorry if I sounded condescending but your first post was what I was refering to.

reply to post by maddog99


What is your point?

I know N. Korea has missles. I know they have nuclear technology.

Follow your own advise and educate yourself.

reply to post by demented
Good points, though it sounds like Bachmann's stance on these issues... You don't think Iran knows that if they were to launch a weapon at Israel, or us, they'd be done for? We'd respond harshly... They know this. Other nations seeking to build a Nuke when our allies and us have so many to respond with isn't as big an issue as is made out to be.

Acting preemptively, attacking/invading another country over what ifs and not facts is a surefire way to invite more American casualties at home and abroad. Ron Paul knows this, and this is why the Meet the Press derps won't even talk about his stances on these issues. Got to keep the Americans scared and distracted.

Iran isn't stupid, they aren't the ones that have been involving themselves in unjust wars since Vietnam like we have been.

Define delivery system. If you see a nuke successfully go off in the US it won't be from conventional deployment/launch.

reply to post by maddog99


The missle they launched today went about 72 miles.

Even you wouldn't launch a nuke only 72 miles........or would you?!?

reply to post by demented
Obviously you do care about the "troll" comment or you wouldn't of responded?

Other than that, your "old man" and "woman" comments are very out of line.

reply to post by demented


Listen, you've already contradicted yourself enough.

But, maybe we can end this with...If N. Korea doesn't have the capabilities to nuke us, why are you worried?

Originally posted by maddog99
reply to post by demented

 

Listen, you've already contradicted yourself enough.

But, maybe we can end this with...If N. Korea doesn't have the capabilities to nuke us, why are you worried?

It's also important we not leave out the fact that the country mostly "threatened" being Israel is on record saying they don't even need our help, which is true. (see video a few posts above)

reply to post by maddog99


Wow it takes what three of four R. Paul supporters against one.

Good luck in the elections

reply to post by demented


" What if Iran had a nuclear device and lauched it at England, Spain, or France? What would that do to the global economy? "


In order for Iran to "Launch" a Nuclear Payload at Any Country in Europe , they would need to deliver it with a ICBM unless they somehow Smuggle it into a Country Manually which is nearly Impossible with the Present Detection Technology most modern Nations have nowadays . The ONLY Countries that have ICBM capability at the Moment are the U.S. , Russia, China, England, France, and Israel . North Korea, Pakistan and India have Nuclear Weapons but do not have ICBM's . Israel by the way , is the Country in the Middle East that so Many People are presently worried about being Attacked , but Why is that ? Israel also Has Battlefield Tactical Nuclear Weapons and a First Strike Capability that NO Nation Hostile to them has . So to say that Iran is a REAL Threat to Any other Nuclear Capable Nation is just plain Propaganda and NOT TRUE .

reply to post by demented

Originally posted by demented
Ron Paul wouldn't have ordered troops to kill Bin Laden.

You're right. He also wouldn't have wasted ten years and tons of money looking for him. Bin Laden succeeded in attacking the U.S. economy for that reason alone. OBL's motive was not to directly attack our people.

The MSM feeds on pushing nation-invading politicians for whom people like you support for the simple comfort of 'national security'.

Is it so hard to ask that we as a country take of our people? We wouldn't be in threat if we wouldn't threaten others...it is that simple.

I can't take it anymore, i turned on CNN 4 times today, each time they were talking about Mitt, the last time i almost broke my TV by throwing the remote at it.

It frustrates me to no end. You would think just 1 of the reporters.."journalists" would inject him into some conversation, but nope, nothing.

biggest group of idiots in the nation, spreading propaganda and distracting Americans from the real issues.