0 votes

Ron Paul and Iran

The past few days after the debate I have read a few online forums, reactions and also listened to radio conversations: it is clear to me that Chris Wallace just like in the first SC debate (with regard to heroin) has very intentionally sought out an issue which he could isolate, take out of context to try to hit Paul. Politics is dirty and Dr. Paul is absolute clean and honest. It was just as the Giuliani-debate, which had a double-ended sword/effect to it: attracted Independents to Paul, also also lead to some "conservatives" trashing Paul, either via misunderstanding (e.g. differentiation between Americans and the US govt. is most important) or outright hatred.

Dr. Paul is excellent in turning a complicated (controversial) issue where he it attacked on its head. It is difficult to really explain in a few minutes (he he has less time than a few minutes).

I have read some even say Paul is insane about Iran. Some even misunderstand him as saying he wants Iran to get a nuclear weapon: nothing could be further form the truth of course. Some say they agree with Paul 90%, but the 10% disagreement on foreign policy is apparently to decisive... bla bla bla.

First calm then and explain that Dr. Paul is most definitely NOT naive, highly informed and he does also - like everyone not want Iran to get nukes, or encourage it in any way, shape or form.
OK, we also all know about the CIA reports about Iran not having the technology, and Iran itself not expressing it intention to make bombs, more for nuclear energy.

The best defense is an offense:
Tell them, in case Iran indeed makes a nuke, what do you then really suggest the US do, apart from condemning it.
They will probably say not a war or invasion, but only a surgical strike. Tell them that will be seen as war already and may lead Iran (they keep saying Iran is such an irrational and unpredictable regime, unlike the USSR/ Communists) to attack Israel (e.g ironically something they want to avoid), with rockets etc.
Moreover, it will lead to much higher costs for the US than simply a few missiles: Iran will retaliate (they may attack the US embassy) and moreover, they will - as they said - destroy a lot or even all of their oil, which would immediately mean a worldwide depression and chaos and anarchy, as the oil price will skyrocket to 200 USD and more, gas prices all around the world will absolutely skyrocket and thus effect all logistics and trade and may absolutely cripple also the fragile US economy.
Also, the war will cost much more than planned.

The US debt limit will have to be raised (tell that to all those supporters of candidates who are against raising the debt ceiling and so called fiscal conservatives) and the debt will skyrocket and US plunge. Also, Iran will be much more difficult than Iraq to invade and hostilities will lead to blowback. The consequences will just be too insane to mention.

Ask them now who is really insane!!!

And when they ask about Israel, say apart form their own nukes, Israel has hi tech radar also that will alert them immediately of any nuke from Iran, in this unlikely case.

In short: it is important to point out the connection between fiscal sanity/conservatism and non-interventionism.

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Seriously I think Paul's Iran stance is freaking ironclad...but

what I'm thinking is FAR more vulnerable is Ron's (but just like the others) downsizing govt...

I brought out a very likely debate question about how many millions of jobs that would be to the economy if we got rid of the Dept of Eductation, and the Dept of Energy, as Paul suggests. THAT has (and HAS had) debate question written all over it.

Iran is pathetic. If the American people understood how stone age that country is, they would wonder if they have had a psychological disorder actually considering it such a "almost the end of the world" issue.