Is Ron Paul correct on Iran?

[CuteOldGuy]

Ah yes, the good old Domino theory. Worked well to keep us in VietNam without any reason, nice to see it is still alive and kicking, unlike many of our military.

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by Texaspride74

Ron Paul is absolutely right about Iran. First of all, they are years away from being anywhere close to having nukes. Second, even if they had a nuke, there military is in no shape to shoot a damn thing at us.

"A 2003 unclassified CIA report made the following judgments about Iran’s ballistic missile
program. While these comments do not take account of the developments in 2004 and 2005, they still seem to broadly reflect current US intelligence assessments:

"Ballistic missile-related cooperation from entities in the former Soviet Union, North Korea, and China over the years has helped Iran move toward its goal of becoming self-sufficient in the production of ballistic missiles. Such assistance during 2003 continued to include equipment, technology, and expertise. Iran's ballistic missile inventory is among the largest in the Middle East and includes some 1,300-km-range Shahab-3 medium-range ballistic missiles (MRBMs) and a few hundred short-range ballistic missiles (SRBMs)-including the Shahab-1 (Scud-B), Shahab-2 (Scud C), and Tondar-69 (CSS-8)-as well as a variety of large unguided rockets. Already producing Scud SRBMs, Iran announced that it had begun production of the Shahab-3 MRBM and a new solid-propellant SRBM, the Fateh-110. In addition, Iran
publicly acknowledged the development of follow-on versions of the Shahab-3. It originally said that another version, the Shahab-4, was a more capable ballistic missile than its predecessor but later characterized it as solely a space launch vehicle with no military applications. Iran is also pursuing longerrange ballistic missiles.

"John R. Bolton presented a similar assessment in a testimony to the House International

Relations Committee in June 2004"

http://csis.org/files/media/csis/pub...elivsystem.pdf

2003?

Apparently Neville Paul wasn't attending the House presentation back in 2004.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

"A 2003 unclassified CIA report made the following judgments about Iran’s ballistic missile
program. While these comments do not take account of the developments in 2004 and 2005, they still seem to broadly reflect current US intelligence assessments:

"Ballistic missile-related cooperation from entities in the former Soviet Union, North Korea, and China over the years has helped Iran move toward its goal of becoming self-sufficient in the production of ballistic missiles. Such assistance during 2003 continued to include equipment, technology, and expertise. Iran's ballistic missile inventory is among the largest in the Middle East and includes some 1,300-km-range Shahab-3 medium-range ballistic missiles (MRBMs) and a few hundred short-range ballistic missiles (SRBMs)-including the Shahab-1 (Scud-B), Shahab-2 (Scud C), and Tondar-69 (CSS-8)-as well as a variety of large unguided rockets. Already producing Scud SRBMs, Iran announced that it had begun production of the Shahab-3 MRBM and a new solid-propellant SRBM, the Fateh-110. In addition, Iran
publicly acknowledged the development of follow-on versions of the Shahab-3. It originally said that another version, the Shahab-4, was a more capable ballistic missile than its predecessor but later characterized it as solely a space launch vehicle with no military applications. Iran is also pursuing longerrange ballistic missiles.

"John R. Bolton presented a similar assessment in a testimony to the House International

Relations Committee in June 2004"

http://csis.org/files/media/csis/pub...elivsystem.pdf

2003?

Apparently Neville Paul wasn't attending the House presentation back in 2004.

+1
The isolationism and appeasement of the 1930s proved to be a catastrophe for the Western democracies - including the U.S. It didn't work then, and with the subsequent increased intertwining of world economies, it won't work now.

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

+1
The isolationism and appeasement of the 1930s proved to be a catastrophe for the Western democracies - ....

Apparently, some on here were not around for the Cuban missile crisis, or they were still trying to figure out how to stand up and piss at the same time.

The Cuban-Iranian relationship has been developing for years, and will continue to do so. The distinction was, and is, that the Soviets were willing to trade and possessed a reasonable amount of sanity in a confrontation.

I think Ron Paul must have been, but I suspect he was among the

"I'd-rather-be-Red-than-dead" crowd.

[WTF]

Great you guys want to police the world and cut taxes and services to our own to do so! Gotcha

[TheDaliLama]

Originally Posted by WTF

Great you guys want to police the world and cut taxes and services to our own to do so! Gotcha

You don't quite get it yet but you're getting warmer.


http://revolutionarypolitics.tv/vide...video_id=15915

Sniff, sniff

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by WTF

Great you guys want to police the world and cut taxes and services to our own to do so! Gotcha

WTF trouble yourself to consider what the commercial consequences would be if air transportation was completely shut down and the importation of foreign oil stopped. 9/11 dealt the air transport industry a severe blow, and it had a ripple effect on associated businesses for months thereafter.

Many oil fields, refineries and major pipelines are in foreign countries, but that does not mean they are of no import to U.S. citizens. Left unhindered, there are forces active in this world which seek to deny the U.S. access to those assets and resources. Tally what it would cost the U.S. to lose those assets and resources, and you'll find it surpasses what is spent on defense.

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by WTF

Great you guys want to police the world ....

#1, I'd rather police the world than have the world police us.
#2, Having said that, I didn't say, nor did I see any one else, talking about "policing" the world ... unless you have already bought into the idea that Iran IS THE WORLD!

There is a reason why "we" have created a laundry list of persons we prefer not to obtain a "carry permit" here in this country .... and in some instance prohibit them from having any kind of firearm ...

.. there are some folks who simply have no business with a nuke!

As for Israel having them, so what? If Iran doesn't try to wipe Israel off the map then they should have nothing to worry about. Just before the 67 war I was living among some Iraqis and I told them the same thing. Don't screw with them and you won't get your assed kicked. They did, and they did. That was an educational opportunity quickly forgotten.

The only reason Israel has been able to survive this long, and will continue to do so in the future, is because (we help them), but they are a 100 pound gorilla with an 800 pound attitude ... and ability. Just like us, when they start letting the politicians run the military strategy they'll get their asses kicked ... just like we have.

The world is not a nice place, and the vast majority of her inhabitants respect strength and the willingness to use it. The reverse is they do not respect weakness or the unwillingness to use strength. Since WWII this country has been on the path of weakness and lack of intestinal fortitude. We are turning into a bunch of overweight, addicted, fast food wimps.

[gnadfly]

Not to divert the thread but what's Ron Paul's stand on N. Korea having nuclear weapons?

Libertarianism and Mutually Assured Destruction only work if the entities involved are sane and act in their best self-interests.

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by gnadfly

Not to divert the thread but what's Ron Paul's stand on N. Korea having nuclear weapons?

http://www.ronpaul.com/2009-04-06/ro...eat-to-the-us/

I suppose, just pure speculation, that the only "threat" to this country for Ron Paul is the "tea party" .... Thanksgiving must be blast around the "Paul House" ..... Except for the dead harmless Turkey issue.

[CuteOldGuy]

North Korea is China's pain in the ass. And WTF, don't count me among those who want to police the world. And I oppose blood for oil as well, that isn't Arabian oil over there, it's Shell Oil, Standard Oil, etc. We don't need to keep spilling our blood so the corporations can keep us tied to a 19th century fuel well into the 21st century. We should have been off oil years ago. We sent men to the moon and back on less computer power than is in my phone, we can develop safe, clean and abundant energy if the oil companies didn't have the influence they have over the government.

[I B Hankering]

Iran to be present in int'l waters: navy commander

2011-10-10 00:29:23

TEHRAN, Oct. 9 (Xinhua) -- Iranian Navy Commander Rear Admiral Habibollah Sayyari said Sunday that Iran has the undeniable right to be actively present in international waters, the local satellite Press TV reported.
"Based on international law, presence in international waters is the indisputable right of Iran and no country can deprive it of this right," Sayyari was quoted as saying at a ceremony held to mark the first international mission of Iran's domestically-built Jamaran destroyer on Sunday.
Iran's 16th fleet of warships, which include domestically-built Jamaran destroyer and the Bandar Abbas frigate, left for the Gulf of Aden on Sunday in line with efforts to provide security for Iranian trade vessels, said Press TV.
The 1,420-ton destroyer is equipped with modern radars and electronic warfare capabilities. It has a top speed of up to 30 knots and has a helipad. It also features highly advanced anti- aircraft, anti-surface and anti-subsurface systems and is equipped with torpedoes and naval cannons.
The Iranian commander emphasized that the Islamic republic will not carry out an act of aggression against any country but vowed to resist the enemies.
On Sunday, he said that "presence in the Mediterranean Sea, the Suez Canal, south of the Indian Ocean and in international waters is at the top of the Navy's agenda," and that Iranian warships would be equipped with long-range anti-ship cruise missiles, according to Press TV.

Editor: Mu Xuequan


http://news.xinhuanet.com/english201..._131181598.htm

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Iran to be present in int'l waters: navy commander; 2011-10-10 00:29:23

And where are the "proclaimed" beginnings of "International waters" as per the United States?

[The_Waco_Kid]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

+1
The isolationism and appeasement of the 1930s proved to be a catastrophe for the Western democracies - including the U.S. It didn't work then, and with the subsequent increased intertwining of world economies, it won't work now.

Interesting. so can i conclude that you, like me don't always agree with American Imperialism? Regardless of how you interpreted those posts, i never said i was completely against American Imperialist actions. Only that in the case of invading Iraq it was wrong and that it was a disaster. At times such action has been correct and in others it has been wrong, as in Iraq. And you misconstrued the purpose of the cartoon i posted from that Wiki article. It was merely to illustrate that American Imperialism has been a long standing controversial subject. Yet you inferred i did not approve of Imperialist actions regarding the Philippines, Cuba, Hawaii and Puerto Rico. Never said that nor implied it by posting the cartoon. I cited Neville Chamberlain in the first place. Ron Paul is not Neville Chamberlain. Just because he thinks that Iran as a sovereign nation has the right to develop nuclear arms doesn't mean he is "appeasing" Iran or that he's not capable of taking action, including the use of military force if he felt the situation required it. I think he'd certainly be a stronger leader than Obama.

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

Ron Paul is not Neville Chamberlain.

Not yet anyway, and hopefully he will never have the chance.

You seem to be "assigning" motivation to his statements and giving him credit where credit is not necessarily due. "We" have little basis to believe he would or would not respond in a particular way in a particular situation, because like Obaminable when he learns what is really happening it may change his mindset.

Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

Just because he thinks that Iran as a sovereign nation has the right to develop nuclear arms doesn't mean he is "appeasing" Iran or that he's not capable of taking action, including the use of military force if he felt the situation required it. I think he'd certainly be a stronger leader than Obama.

He is not talking about a "sovereign nation" any more than he would be talking about the "rights" and "privileges" of a paranoid schizophrenic. He is just anti-war and anti-military, and is using economic considerations to justify changing the current state of affairs. Some people adjust their "awareness" and "concern" for the seriousness of a situation to fit their agenda ... being able to say that Iran is no big deal is a strategy to avoid doing something about the growing threat of Iran.

Remember? The King who wore no clothes.

He's not "appeasing" Iran, just avoiding any decision by marginalizing the significance of the current circumstance.