11 votes

So you say its ok to let Iran have a nuke?

What is your best answer? lets help Ron reach those people he needs to reach.

Comment viewing options

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

US is now #146 in per capita GDP growth...no economic superpower

(1) We are bankrupt. Which part of bankrupt isn't understood?

(2) There are PLENTY of military major powers in the neighborhood of Iran, including many with nuclear capability other hardware. France, England, Israel, and -- yeah -- Pakistan all come immediately to mind. Why don't we let them police their own neighborhood and pay their own way? You mean THEY don't feel particularly threatened but WE should?

(3) A nuclear weapon is not an ICBM -- not even close to being a viable threat to the US even if Iran did get a weapon. But, once again, are we to presume Israel, France, England, Germany, Switzerland, Denmark, Italy, etc. etc. etc. are (a) stupid (b) incompetent (c) helpless (d) even more economically bankrupt than we are?

(4) Iran is approximately the same threat level as Pakistan. Pakistan is filled with fundamentalists, including Taliban. Pakistan HAS nukes and is a fundamentalist revolution waiting to happen. Just using common sense wouldn't it be smarter to be focusing all our attention on them, first?

(5) Why did we allow Pakistan to develop nuclear weapons? Once they got one, why didn't we take them out? Even now, why don't we take them out -- they don't have an ICBM which would make them, really, a threat ... is that the reason? Iran with one bomb still wouldn't have an ICBM and that would be much much harder for them to develop and without it they wouldn't have delivery capability -- certainly not to the US. Why did we allow N. Korea to get as far as its gotten without launching an attack? Why did we allow Israel? Why S. Africa (I've heard good conjecture that they have the capability, also). For that matter, shouldn't we have also denied the French, the English, the Chinese, etc? Once a country gets nuclear weapons they have nuclear weapons. Any country can and probably will become unstable given enough time. What gives us the right to pick and choose which countries we allow this capability?

(6) As Dr. Paul says, we were able to negotiate with the USSR which had *thousands* of nuclear weapons, some in Cuba, and definitely delivery capability. Why are we unable to negotiate with Iran which doesn't even have a weapon -- much less many and much less any delivery capability?

(7) Why do we seem to only meddle in countries which have OIL or something else we want and largely ignore dictators, even brutal dictators, in other countries?

(8) We can blacktop the whole world with our nuclear weapons many times over. Woe unto any nation which initiates nuclear force against us.

(9) Nuclear weapons aren't the big danger going forward. Bioengineered weapons far more deadly than a nuclear weapon are now within reach of probably a hundred nations already and probably even the poorest nation in another thirty years. Are we going to fight them all -- or is it maybe past time for us to get a bright bulb moment and realize war is a dead end?

(10) Anyone who knows history knows that military superpowers usually destroy themselves through military overreach -- fighting continual and costly wars abroad instead of minding their own legitimate self-defense interest at home. Have you ever heard of the USSR? The USSR had a military force comparable to ours -- it was ALSO a military "superpower". What happened to it? The USSR also had thousands of nuclear weapons, ICBMs, submarines, battleships, aircraft carriers, tanks, warplanes, a huge standing army, and military bases around the world. In the end NONE of that mattered. In the end it was a victim of overreach and the BANKRUPTCY that produces. Bankrupt, the USSR still had all its weapons and its army and its foreign bases but it didn't have enough ECONOMIC strength left to even maintain what it had -- it couldn't pay its soldiers and it couldn't maintain its weapons. Wouldn't it be smarter for us to stop our LOOKING FOR NEW WARS NOW and consolidate our money on self defense and securing our own borders -- which remain unsecured to foreign invasion -- while we still can? Or should we keep doing what the USSR did until we end up how they ended?

(11) According to our own CIA we have ALREADY been economically eclipsed in terms of per capita GDP. We are no longer an economic superpower. Countries are surpassing us on this metric at an alarmingly fast rate.


Our military does not create wealth -- it consumes it at an enormous rate. Our military puts us at an enormous economic disadvantage. We are being surpassed by countries which don't waste their wealth on military and, indeed, which substantially get the US to defend them at no cost to them but enormous cost to us. It needs to be understood that our incredibly expensive military actually DRAINS our wealth -- wars and weapons of war do not contribute to growing our economy, only in consuming our wealth. It might be argued that our military provided some advantage in the years immediately after WW2 but, if so, that advantage has long since become a competitive economic disadvantage. We spend trillions of dollars subsidizing our economic competitors around the world -- with foreign aid and free military defense -- as these competitors surpass us economically.

We have fallen to #116 in terms of overall GDP growth

Even more shockingly, as of 2010 we had fallen to #146 in terms of national per capita GDP growth on a five year basis. What is going to stop this collapse? More war?


This is the most accurate measure of our economic collapse since it shows wealth growth per citizen. By this standard we are close to trailing the world and, the way math works, it won't be all that long before we reach 3rd world status versus other countries which aren't competing with the economic albatross of a bloated military around their neck. Indeed, we are providing free defense to countries which are now eating our lunch economically speaking. Why? Shouldn't these countries, instead, be PAYING us -- if they wanted our "services"??

We are clearly a nation in rapid economic decline -- and we are supposed to continue destroying our remaining wealth and resources and liberties ... for what?

Bill of Rights /Amendment X: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Do you need a politician or judge to "interpret" those 28

The real reason the war drums are beating

... is because Iran is engaging in the same sin Iraq did 10 years ago - selling oil for other than US dollars.


If a "rouge" nation with a nuke was the issue then why are Pakistan and N. Korea tolerated?

The right to own weapons is the right to be free!
ABATE Wisconsin

Say to them, that's a great question!

Then ask them, " do you know what nation financed the start of Irans nuclear program, man what were they thinking?"
Likely they'll guess Russia, or say they have no idea.
Then tell them this " The nuclear program of Iran was launched in the 1950s with the help of the United States as part of the Atoms for Peace program.[1] The participation of the United States and Western European governments in Iran's nuclear program continued until the 1979 Iranian Revolution that toppled the Shah of Iran.[2]" Wikipedia ( source )
Then ask them " why was it okay then, but not today, will America change it's mind tomorrow?"
Likely they'll babble a bit, with a few but-but's, then say " but Ron.........!"
Finish them off by saying" Pakistan has had nuclear bombs for decades, how many have they lobbed at us?, There is this thing that's called assured destruction, and Under a congressional declaration of war President Paul would wage a fierce war against any nation stupid enough to nuke us. The difference between Ron Paul and every one else is he will only fight it when congress tells him too, just like the constitution says he's supposed to do."

Drew, by the very grace of GOD through the blood of Christ Jesus.
"there shall come after us men whom shall garner great wealth using our system, and having done so shall seek to slam the door of prosperity behind them." George Washington

Very neat factoid! The US started Iran toward nuclear power?

wow. I'll have to remember that! thanks for the post.

Bill of Rights /Amendment X: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Do you need a politician or judge to "interpret" those 28

2nd amendment(.)

They should have a right to defend themselves just like everyone should.

Who the Fk are we to tell them otherwise?

People have no idea how stupid they sound when they parrot the establishment lie, same as the Iraq lie:

"We can't let them get the bomb".

This has nothing to do with "the bomb".
That is a weak and pathetic argument made by weak and pathetic war pigs.

RON2012PAUL...The r3VOLution continues...
"I always win"
+GOLD and SILVER are money+

How do we stop them from

How do we stop them from eventually getting one? It's not as if we have unlimited resources. Eventually they'll get one and use it the more we attack them attempting to keep them from getting and using one. It's just common sense.

Consider the most unique aspect of human beings

and their basis of cooperation.

Can you think of the one physical ability that only a human being can perform?

Only a human being can throw an object and kill. Elite long range coercion, if you will, which does not involve either person to risk getting too close. From the ball of our foot to the dexterity of our hands, we are designed to do this effectively. Since each human being is under the same threat from another human being, we cooperate. Language, culture, exchange of goods/services all follow.

Today, our ability to throw and kill is just as lethal but more refined by way of guns, and to speak to the point of this article, nuclear weapons. It is why I value our 2nd Amendment and why, ironically, if everyone had a nuke we would have achieved world peace over night.

Amazon" Dr. Paul Bingham's "Death from afar and the Birth of a Humane Universe"

Hello, my name is Andrew Ryan and I'm here to ask you a question: is a man not entitled to the sweat of his brow?

Ignore the question--talk about spending? And higher gasoline?

There is no logical answer that will impress "the political party that booed the Golden Rule."

Instead of searching for the most diplomatic answer, tell them that if we provoke a war with Iran, the price of gasoline will go up to $8 a gallon or higher.

Support the Constitution of the United States

Cyril's picture

Of course it's not "okay"

Of course it's not "okay", in the principle, to let them do whatever it pleases them to do without any attempt to some DIPLOMATIC relationship to have them at least not enter the "undeclared" category below, as Israel supposedly did around 1979.

But how come people just can't apply Ron Paul's simple common sense after due research and homework on historical facts and/or former press releases?

We, in the Ron Paul camp, sure did get the spirit and the idea, but I believe we still have some effort to do to not only better educate people, but also to start with ourselves to speak with the minimal required structure and accuracy.


The first five nations to have acquired the nuclear power, from supposedly independent research and test programs, without even asking each others' permissions, were, in chronological order:

The US, in 1945 w/ 1950 warheads active today;
Russia, former USSR, in 1949 w/ 2430 warheads active today;
The UK, in 1952 w/ 160 warheads active today;
France, in 1960 w/ 290 warheads active today;
China, in 1964 w/ 180 warheads active today.

All five are also today either signatories or ratifiers of the Non Proliferation Treaty (NPT)

4 other countries are known to have the nuclear power without any doubt :

the first three are non-NPT signatories, though have acknowledged the power : India, since 1974, no more than 100 warheads; Pakistan, since 1998, no more than 110 warheads; North Korea, since 2006, no more than 10 warheads

the fourth is Israel who not only is non-NPT, but didn't even acknowledge having the power, with anywhere from 80 to 200 warheads assumed today, and since circa 1979.

So, question : what does Ron Paul EXACTLY mean when he says it is non-sensical to think or claim deceptively, like the warmongers among GOP do, that Iran entering a nuclear program would pose ANY immediate threat to the USA?

He means this:

anyway, it takes 15 to 20 years for a country to build up a nuclear weapons program of any significance to its IMMEDIATE neighbors.

Oh, yes... Sources? This is really not difficult to find; this WP page has no current reserves about issues or disputes, for instance:


He also certainly means this:

even in the event of a major crisis or recurrent/repeated tensions between two or more close countries (e.g., USSR and Cuba vs. the US, in the 1960s or France+UK+Germany vs. USSR, repeatedly as well though to a lesser extent, between the 1970s and the 1990s) EVEN the country with the LARGER power think twice if not more times before raising the argument towards threats of higher levels (nuclear ones).

France and UK have REPEATEDLY been firm and applying both economical and diplomatic (embargos, U.N. blames, vetoes) sanctions against USSR never fearing the crisis to go so bad that the threat of the use of nuclear power would be the implied or most likely retaliation to prepare themselves against.

Someone : please just read the newspapers from the 1970s to the 1990s about the many tensions and crises the European western block had to cope with w.r.t. an often arrogant USSR lead. Again, I challenge anyone to find in the press archives that at any single point in time it went so bad that the nuclear threat catch phrase would be mentioned seriously by either sides' officials. I would remember : I was a kid, a teen, or young adult!

Let's use our own memory of what strikes our minds in our daily lives in each period for our reality check; we don't need the MSM to teach a biased history : we can read books or use our own brain memory cells, too!


So, the thought that Iran, by MAYBE entering, ONLY today, the dawn of its WOULD-BE nuclear weapon program, COULD pose any sort of IMMEDIATE threat if only to Israel itself ALONE, its closest ennemy, is pure SCARE TACTIC aimed at convincing American citizens they think politically NUMB and/or DUMB enough to fall into.

But this is NOT just that : by appealing to go for a "PREEMPTIVE" RETALIATION and AGGRESSION BY ANTICIPATION over Iran is TOTALLY IRRESPONSIBLE -- as this is ALSO setting an ADVERTISED precedent for other unfriendly countries like North Korea to prepare themselves even better as they sure know they would be next on the list.

Am I making sense or did I miss something REALLY BIG ?

Just say'n.

"Cyril" pronounced "see real". I code stuff.


"To study and not think is a waste. To think and not study is dangerous." -- Confucius

If Iran having a nuke implies

If Iran having a nuke implies a war, would you be willing to pay for the war directly? Not just you, but every tax payer? Would you be willing to pay, say, 20% more in your taxes to the government? Not to mention the possibility of gas prices to shoot up. Forget borrowing, forget inflation, you want war, you pay out of pocket, and quit passing off the cost to others.

malo periculosam libertatem quam quietum servitium

I am an aristocrat. I love liberty; I hate equality. - John Randolph of Roanoke

Suggest we

are following the Bush/N Korea blueprint for rogue state nuclear proliferation !!!


folks understand the "Nuclear timeline".

Scott Horton debated that Iran is nowhere near the point of even having material capable of making it into a nuclear device.
Well? Let's see the Nuclear material processing process/timeline with an indicator for where Iran is in this.

I know that a nuclear weapon isnt the REAL reason we'd attack Iran, but most people are oblivious to that fact.
so lets discuss the fact that they are WAAAAAY far away from having a weapon, so establishing relations with them might just work.

Jackson County Georgia

War is an instrument entirely inefficient toward redressing wrong; and multiplies, instead of indemnifying losses.
Thomas Jefferson

deacon's picture

we were helping

them planning,building ect ect
so if anyone has to take the blame
it is the fed gov
the meaning of nuke has been skewed
to mean weapons,with no mention of

If we deny truth before your very eyes,then the rest of what we have to say,is of little consequence

Iran has not started a war in over 100 years

And then there is the "let" Iran do what? SOVEREIGN nations don't ask permission, and lawful nations don't try to run other sovereign nations. I know, that bird won't fly.

Love or fear? Chose again with every breath.

Iran's sin: It has not submitted to Western hegemonic rule

They're surrounded by countries that have nukes, so what's wrong with them having them too?

But the main issue is that they are NOT manufacturing nukes. They want to have nuclear power, just like other countries have opted for. Kissinger, during the Shah's rule, had himself strongly recommended that Iran start generating its own nuclear power so as to preserve its oil reserves for export.

The neo-con mind-frame is so conned it borders on the ridiculous.

They don't have a nuke, they

They don't have a nuke, they just want one real bad but they can't get it.

You'll know when they have one, because they'll all shave off their beards. It's a secret code, don't tell anybody.

even the female ayatollahs

will shave off their beards

I'd say...

The only relevant question is this: "does the threat posed by a nuclear Iran exceed the cost of preventing a nuclear Iran?"

The answer is no. A nuclear Iran poses no threat to any other nuclear nation, including the U.S. and Israel, because of MAD. The major effect of a nuclear Iran would be a change in the balance of power in the region, as opponents of the Iranian regime would no longer be able to pressure Iran to the extent they now do. Those nations would be compelled to develop their own nuclear weapons, and a regional balance of power would develop. There is no reason to suppose that a nuclear Iran would lead to a general war in the Middle East. Whereas, our current policy of intervention through the Middle East almost certainly will lead to a general war, or at least a continual succession of minor wars like Iraq and Afghanistan.

India and Pakistan, which despise one another as much as any two Middle Eastern nations, both developed nuclear weapons. There has yet to be a nuclear war, or any major war. One could argue that nuclear proliferation actually reduces the risk of war because it raises its cost for all parties concerned: again, MAD.

If the nuclear bomb had not been invented at the end of the WWII, I would argue that the Cold War would have been hot: a third world war fought with massive conventional forces between the Soviets and NATO. Nuclear weapons and MAD prevented that.

Our policy should be to withdraw from the M.E., and sell weapons (including nuclear weapons) to stable, friendly nations in order to allow a regional balance of power to emerge. That is, if our goal is peace: as opposed to domination. The same policy should apply to East Asia: withdrawal coordinated with arms-sales to stable friends such as Japan, S. Korea, and Taiwan.

Our general goal should be to withdraw in such a way that we leave behind us a stable, multi-polar, regional balance of power which can maintain itself without U.S. intervention.

"Alas! I believe in the virtue of birds. And it only takes a feather for me to die laughing."

Very well put

Indeed, +1

"If we lose freedom here there's no place to escape to. This is the last stand on earth." -Ronald Reagan

When they took us off the Gold Standard they took away our money... in order to make it theirs. -OneTinSoldier

I say

that our Government, which means the people that make it up, should neither be a proponent of, nor a victim of, the dictator fallacy.

"If we lose freedom here there's no place to escape to. This is the last stand on earth." -Ronald Reagan

When they took us off the Gold Standard they took away our money... in order to make it theirs. -OneTinSoldier

If the United States can

If the United States can spend $600 billion per year on defense and not defend itself from Iran then no amount of money will be able to save you. It makes perfect sense to cut the military budget then.

ALL lies about Iran

If any of you know 5 Irani people will realize that 4 of them are very decent people if not all 5

Im in india and they are the most decent foriegners settled in India from a long time ago, they are always welcome in our country

Even if Iran had a "nuke"

It has no way of delivering it.

Iran Nuclear Threat Debunked In 6 Minutes

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3dXyD8rHmq4 I have this video posted already with no hits.

This is a pretty funny video, if it were not for all the people who died as a result of our previous Iraq WMD intelligence SNAFU: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qpLl05qk-7slt o

The Answer:

1. It's not okay for any nation to have Nuclear weapons. Negotiated Nuclear disarmament among all nations should be a goal for our Country.

2. Possession of a weapon is not by itself an Act of War. Even if Iran develops a Nuclear weapon (which they have not) this would still not be an Act of War. The Act of War is starting bloodshed against another Nation.

3. Iran is not a military threat to The United States in any way, shape, or form. Even if they had a "nuclear device", that would be like bringing a knife to a gunfight in comparison to the Nuclear capabilities of other Nations.

4. Iran represents no Military threat to Israel. Israel has had Nuclear weapons for decades, and its military establishment easily surpasses the feeble capacity of Iran.

5. Iran has no track record at all of starting Wars. Only The United States has a very consistent record of starting Wars, and it remains the very largest threat to World peace.

6. Only The United States has ever actually used Nuclear weapons on live human beings, and only The United States is the one Nation whose politicians consistently threaten to attack other Countries aggressively with "all options on the table". This madness must stop.

What are you afraid of?

When the US is the only country to have ever used one.


Rand Paul 2016 for Peace

Is it "ok" for any country to have a nuke?

Who is the judge and jury that determines who can and cannot have a nuke? Why does Pakistan have nukes? They are currently a much bigger threat than Iran.

"I support the Declaration of Independence and I interpret the Constitution."

Its simply that ultimately

Its simply that ultimately our actions are what is driving Iran to seek a nuclear weapon (assuming it is) and that our efforts to stop them from doing so only increase the fervor at which they pursue it.

Our message to the world:

If you have nukes, we give you money and are a friend. (Pakistan)
If you Are trying to develop nukes we will harass you and possibly invade to stop you. (Iraq)
If you are trying to develop nukes and stop, then you will be overthrown all the easier (Libya)

So given those three options:

1: Money & Friendship
2: Invasion
3: Invasion

What would you choose? The only way to #1 is through #2