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.

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

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

I just don't see

how we can tell anyone else what to do.

My goodness...we have nukes and are the only ones to have used them thus far...and we most likely DID NOT have to.

What kind of thinking is this? And why does Iran keep coming up as a debate subject...aren't there more important things for these people to discuss?

PLUS...how do we know they have nukes? This is Iraq all over again.


"...the Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing."

- Ike on Ike, Newsweek, 11/11/63


"I submit that it was the wrong decision. It was wrong on strategic grounds. And it was wrong on humanitarian grounds."

- Ellis Zacharias (Deputy Director of the Office of Naval Intelligence), How We Bungled the Japanese Surrender, Look, 6/6/50, pg. 19-21.

The law cannot make a wicked person virtuous…God’s grace alone can accomplish such a thing.
Ron Paul - The Revolution

Setting a good example is a far better way to spread ideals than through force of arms. Ron Paul

Classic "Straw Man"

This question presupposes that if Iran has a nuclear weapon, America is in danger AND that the US has a right to decide their ability to have one. While other countries might have reason to fear a nuclear Iran, (limited at best) we don't. In addition, we have no constitutional or moral authority to tell another sovereign nation what they can acquire unless what they acquire infringes on our sovereignty.

The fairer questions would be... Does a nuclear Iran pose a threat to the US? If Iran acquires nuclear capability and we uncover credible information they plan to use them against the US, what would you (Ron Paul) do?

1. They don't have the missile capability to reach us.

2. Any bomb they might build would not possibly be tactical. (small enough to transport)

3. We would annihilate them and that would not bode well for their so-called plan to "rid the world of non-Muslims".

4. If they gave it to a terrorist group what good would it do? (see points one and two)

5. They might make a "dirty bomb" and give it to terrorists but we could say the same thing about those evil Pakistanis and No. Koreans. Hmmm why hasn't that happened? (see point three)

Or maybe this has nothing to do with fear of a nuclear Iran and much to do with using fear to persuade, justify, and gain acceptance from us for another war. Why another war? Why Iran? Maybe to stop their attempts at breaking the petro-dollar and to stop their sales of oil in non-US currencies. Isn't it strange that the "axis-of-evil" just happens to only consist of countries that allow sales of oil in non-us dollars? Of course the fact that Iran is building a natural gas pipeline to India and Pakistan in direct competition to the US backed TAPI pipeline through Afghanistan doesn't help. (Why did we go to war in Afghanistan again?) Why did Osama escape from Tora Bora? Not because we wanted to stay, Nawwww that can't be it.

This idea that Iran is a threat is just propaganda, manipulation through fear creation. Iran poses about as much threat as a baby holding a rock. It's just once again finding a new place for the Halliburton's of the world to create revenue and control resources. If you haven't yet read "Confessions Of An Economic Hitman" go get it. It's eye opening, disappointing, and further proof that many men in positions of power are literally sociopaths.

Syria is our first stop. We will be in there before the election. Iran is the endgame.

But how will we stop the Iran pipeline?



and why is Pakistan suddenly such a bad partner?





Lastly, you can't stop technology. Eventually every country will have a nuke. It's just a matter of time, at which time we will have something far better.

(Assuming of course we are first saved from the dollar bubble, which is far more frightening than a country that has limited toilet facilities.)

HopeRenewed - 6/13/2011
Neither should we sacrifice Liberty for Safety nor Integrity for Concessions. True Liberty can not exist in the absence of integrity. Liberty gained through compromise is but a temporary illusion.

This works almost every time

This is not a logical issue but an emotional one. Confidence matters more then anything else in this conversation. If they sense your doubt - then they'll have reason to doubt.

I always joke about it if not right off the bat then pretty short into the conversation, it disarms them a bit and lets them know that I am not deeply concerned about the issue like Fox News is.

I say "Well, if you're watching Fox or CNN and take to heart what they tell you as gospel...you don't do you?" Wait for the response, "then Ahmadinejad, whose really like 3rd or 4th in command over there in Iran (they aren't structured similar to our government) will apparently fly out to DC tomorrow with a suitcase nuke."

So that leads into a brief conversation about media propaganda, hyperbole, Iran government structure, and the 2 types of nuclear development. Electricity & weaponry.

Learn this about the 2 types http://original.antiwar.com/pena/2010/03/11/the-nuclear-doub...

Then remind them that Iran doesn't have a weapon, aren't working on one, and in 2,000 years have never attacked anyone. Let them know that the real concern in the middle east is Pakistan since they have nukes and light them off every once in while as a show of force against India. And that if Pakistan collapses from our subversion - and one of those weapons falls into the wrong hands, then we could be in real trouble.

It turns the whole conversation around.

"It does not take a majority to prevail but rather an irate, tireless minority keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men."

--Samuel Adams

NO! It is Not OK

if Iran gets a nuke. But we nor anyone else can stop them. Sanctions will not work because China, Russia and others will not adhere to the sanctions.

An attack on Iran's alleged nuke facilities will not gurantee that you get all of their facilities..if they do exist. Not only that, but Russian and Chinese nationals work in Iran's nuclear ficilities...if you attack these facilities you will kill Russians and Chinese.

An attack on Iran will surely cause disruptions in oil shipments because Iran will litter the Straits of Hormuz with mines...this would lead to 30% to 50% increase in fuel prices for months....maybe years. In a worst case scenario we could even have gas shortages and rationing and this would be catastrophic to the U.S. economy and elsewhere abroad.

An attack on Iran would also likely trigger a massive increase in anti-Israeli protest and violence in Palestine, lebanon, Egypt and other Muslim countries throughout the region....a problem Israel doesn't need right now.

Iran has 1.2 million troops including Republican Guard. Iran is not Iraq. Iranians will fiercely defend themselves if attacked and will actually end up getting the Iranian public behind their government reversing the trend that has been taking place over the last fifteen to twenty years.

Iran may choose to send 400,000 troops into Iraq where they will find many friends...namely Mutada Al Sadr. Al Sadr is the most popular politician/religious leader in Iraq. Al Sadr is a good friend of Iran and spent the first few years of the Iraq war in Iran as a special guest of the Iranian goernment. If 400,000 Iranian troops enter Iraq, U.S. troops will be in a very difficult position. Can you imagine an Iranian superstate after Iran collects Iraq?

Diplomacy is the only option that is reasonable and that has any chance of success. if Iran gets a nuke, what are they going to do with it? They will not detonate it or give it to somebody else. To detonate would be suicide and when you give away a nuke you lose control of it...and that would not be in Iran or anyones else's interest that has nukes.

We were told that if Kim jung il got nukes that the world would come to an end. We were told that Kim jung il was a crazy man....a lunatic. Well, while we were looking for WMD in Iraq, North Korea tested their first underground nuke. Not a peep about nukes and Kim jung il since then...and the world is still here.

I could give you more reasons why Ron Paul is right on Iran but I am tired of typing.

First off, you must go back to the source from

which this propaganda started. This all seminated from the neoCon lie of extreme propaganda, that Ahmadinejad said he wanted to 'wipe Israel off the map'. Of course the Zionist
controlled media jump on the same misnomer. However, what he really said was "The Iman (Ayatolah Khomeini) said this regime, occupying Jerusalem, must vanish from the pages of time" Source http://www.richardsilverstein.com/tikun_olam/2010/12/14/well...
It is imperative to pass this on to all your Israel worshipping friends, so they can be informed by empirical facts. Also, the Iranian's has complied with the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, while Israel, India, Pakistan and N. Korea, who have nukes, have not. Furthermore, there are over 25,000 Jews who live peacefully in Iran, and rejected invitation by Israel to emigrate there. How could this be, if the 'Hitler' of Iran, wants to wipe out the Jews? The creation of the Zionist state of Israel, is just a tool created by the House of Rothschild, to be used against the Islamic states, for profits through conflicts, resulting in their agents aquiring the vast resources.
The negativity directed towards the US, by the Iranians is due to 'Operation Ajax', where the CIA backed coup overthrough the democratically elected Mossadegh, and installed the brutal dictator, the Shah.
We need a President, who will make friends through trade with the Iranian's, and not get involved with their internal affairs. If these Islamic nations were to see a 'true' Constitutional run government of the US, they would desire to progress from their more fundemental ways of governance. As, histroy has proven, they definitely aren't going to change by the sufferages of military conflict.

"All Wars are Follies, very expensive, and very mischievous ones. When will Mankind be convinced of this, and agree to settle their Differences by Arbitration? Were they to do it, even by the Cast of a Dye, it would be better than by Fighting and destroying each other." Benjamin Franklin

Double Post Sorry

Double Post Sorry

HopeRenewed - 6/13/2011
Neither should we sacrifice Liberty for Safety nor Integrity for Concessions. True Liberty can not exist in the absence of integrity. Liberty gained through compromise is but a temporary illusion.

I'm much more worried...

...about Pakistan getting nukes and giving them to terrorists since Osama was living in their country and they are becoming much more hostile to the US. But oh, wait... they already have nukes!

This is great!

South Carolina is a very important state, who wins there usually wins it all! I have several Republican friends in South Carolina and the ONLY stumbling block preventing them from getting behind Paul is this issue! If the information here was put in letter form and/or the campaign hired Michael Scheurer or some other expert to write a letter and that letter was inserted into the Super Brochure, and this package was mailed all over South Carolina right after Ron wins Iowa, this could be THE GAME CHANGER! If Ron wins Iowa, and Nevada, comes in second or third in NH, and wins South Carolina, it's all over but the crying for the NeoCons! What does everyone think about this idea?

I would also point out that GWB declared North Korea a member of the "Axis of Evil" in 2002, and he let them get nukes in 2006, but since it was never made an issue in the media no one ever thinks about that!


Let's do it.

Double Post Sorry

Double Post Sorry

HopeRenewed - 6/13/2011
Neither should we sacrifice Liberty for Safety nor Integrity for Concessions. True Liberty can not exist in the absence of integrity. Liberty gained through compromise is but a temporary illusion.

These responses are

These responses are excellent.
I could write one of the best articles yet just with segments found here.


Say Ron Paul gets elected and doesn't want to intervene if they do. The neocons would like fearful Americans to believe that not only means they will get one, but they will use it against us.

They are very pleased with the dumbed down public who conveniently forget what would happen LONG before that! "Unless WE do something, WE'RE ALL GONNA TO DIE!" Are we the only military force on Earth?

1. Europe has MANY standing armies. They would intervene the minute any concrete intel came in confirming Iran had a nuclear weapon facility (probably before solid intel came in). They are MUCH closer, and that puts them at risk before us.

2. Israel has a very good military, and would likely send a fighter to drop another bunker buster into the facility if Europe didn't step in (which would require devine intervention to prevent it).

Also, NORTH KOREA has been nuclear for years, and they thumb their noses at us while our leaders just shrug it off. After all, they don't have oil to pillage, so I guess that means they aren't a threat.

I think Ron does a superb job

I think Ron does a superb job already by talking about cold war, fretting about little nations, etc.

Maybe This as an addition :

I would be ok with Iran having nuclear energy. Though I'm not keen on them owning a nuclear weapon, I do wonder whether we would stop going to war so carelessly if they did.

The slogan press on has solved and always will solve the problems of the human race. No person was ever honored for what he received. Honor has been the reward for what he gave.

- Calvin Coolidge

Nuclear weapons have been around for 66 years.

And only two have been used. And we were the guys who used those two.

Think about the numbers of looneys over the years who have had the opportunity to drop the bomb and yet they never have done it.

Follow Ron Paul's suggestion: open up trade barriers and watch your foes become your friends. Give sanity a chance. We're much smarter and more evolved than we used to be. Now's the time to prove it!

As Roseanne Roseannadanna might have said,

"It just goes to show you, it's always something--if it ain't one thing, it's another. If it's not ICBMs from godless Commies, it Muslim theocracies trying to nuke us.".

Nukes only kill people

when President Harry Truman gives the orders.

If other sovereign nations tried to tell us we couldn't have nukes, what would be our response?

My response

I don't want Iran to have a nuke. I wish no countries had nukes. The question is "What are you going to do about Iran if it tries to get a nuke?"


Economic sanctions (isn't that an act of war which causes them to want a nuke even more, plus uniting the people against you)

Blockade (see above)

Invade them (are you totally insane, what if we would have done that with Russa to keep them from getting their first nuke in the 40's, plus see above)

Develop trade with them, cultural exchange, friendship and open diplomacy (wow, nobody dies, we become friends, fighting would cost us money and then who cares if they have a bomb or not, they might even eventually become an ally)

Also nations change, look at Russia, China, Vietnam, and others. Just because it has an unfriendly government now does not mean it will be that way in five years. Chill out, contain them and develop ties. Why are we not worried about China? We trade with them!

Courtesy of Michael Rivero

Based on the following, I would seriously recommend that Iran gets a nuke ASAP for a strategic defense!!

Since the 1979 Iranian revolution and the downfall of the US Puppet Ruler the Shah, Iran has been an Islamic state. In that interval of time, 1979 to the present, Iran has not invaded anyone. Not once. People of all religions live in peace in Iran, even Jews, who find life so comfortable in Iran they refused an offer by the government of Israel to emigrate!
In the same period of time, Israel, a self-declared Jewish state, attacked Iraq in 1981, bombing the power station at Osirik, claiming it was a clandestine weapons factory. Subsequent examination of the ruins following the 2003 invasion proved Israel had lied. In 1982, Israel invaded Lebanon. This led to the Massacres at Sabra and Shatilla. In February 2003 Israel staged incursions into Gaza and Nablus. In September 2007 Israel bombed Syria, again insisting they were destroying a clandestine weapons laboratory. Again there was no evidence to support Israel's claims. In 2006, Israel attacked Lebanon, killing 1200, mostly civilians, several UN observers, and littering the landscape with land mines on their way out. In February 2008 Israel again raided Gaza, killing over 100. HAMAS agreed to a cease fire and kept it for 6 months until November 4, when Israel again attacked without warning, killing 6 HAMAS members, and launching operation CAST LEAD. 1300 Gazans, mostly civilians, were killed. Israel lost 13 soldiers. Violations of international law included the use of White Phosphorus incendiary bombs against civilians and non-military targets. The United Nations investigated, but Israel refused to cooperate. In May 2010, Israel attacked an international aid flotilla bringing food and medical supplies to Gaza in international waters. 9 people were murdered including an American from New York.

In the same period of time, the United States, officially a secular nation but predominantly Christian, attacked El Salvador (1980), Libya (1981), Sinai (1982), Lebanon (1982 1983), Egypt (1983), Grenada (1983), Honduras (1983), Chad (1983), Persian Gulf (1984), Libya (1986) , Bolivia (1986), Iran (1987), Persian Gulf (1987), Kuwait (1987), Iran (1988), Honduras (1988), Panama (1988), Libya (1989), Panama (1989), Colombia, Bolivia, and Peru (1989), Philippines (1989), Panama (1989-1990), Liberia (1990), Saudi Arabia (1990), Iraq (1991), Zaire (1991), Sierra Leone (1992), Somalia (1992), Bosnia-Herzegovina (1993 to present), Macedonia (1993), Haiti (1994), Macedonia (1994), Bosnia (1995), Liberia (1996), Central African Republic (1996), Albania (1997), Congo/Gabon (1997), Sierra Leon (1997), Cambodia (1997), Iraq (1998), Guinea/Bissau (1998), Kenya/Tanzania (1998 to 1999), Afghanistan/Sudan (1998), Liberia (1998), East Timor (1999), Serbia (1999), Sierra Leon (2000), Yemen (2000), East Timor (2000), Afghanistan (2001 to present), Yemen (2002), Philippines (2002) , Cote d'Ivoire (2002), Iraq (2003 to present), Liberia (2003), Georgia/Djibouti (2003), Haiti (2004), Georgia/Djibouti/Kenya/Ethiopia/Yemen/Eritrea War on Terror (2004), Pakistan drone attacks (2004 to present), Somalia (2007), South Ossetia/Georgia (2008), Syria (2008), Yemen (2009), Haiti (2010), etc. etc. etc. etc.

So, who is the danger to world peace?


I didnt know they were building a weapon??

Can you site the source that Iran is attempting to make a "nuke"?

So far as nuclear energy I think everyone needs to read and understand this timeline.


Always remember:
"It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds." ~ Samuel Adams
If they hate us for our freedom, they must LOVE us now....

Stay IRATE, remain TIRELESS, an

"Who cares? Mind your effin'

"Who cares? Mind your effin' business. Hey guess what?! It's all a giant red herring (a pretty big fish in a pretty small pond) to cover up the real problems: our unpayable debt, our addiction to spending, and our inevitable downfall."

my diy adventure blog: dickdoesit.blogpsot.com

RP should always refer to it as a "weapon of mass destruction."

This phrase will subconsciously remind the people how the government lies to the people to go to war.

"Well it's been confirmed that Iran is not building a weapon of mass destruction. Why do YOU think it is okay to let Americans continue dying for the expansion of the foreign state of Israel, and to redistribute trillions of the people's hard-earned tax dollars into the hands of a few MIC special interests? It would be a lot easier buying into the war propaganda if the sources selling it weren't the very beneficiaries of it. (e.g. NBC (GE), CBS(Westinghouse...), ABC (Stanley P. Gold...), News Corp (Murdoch Associate Haim Saban...))"

I wonder which country in

I wonder which country in history is the only one that ever used a nuclear weapon on a civilian population? Hmmm.....

I couldn't care less whether

I couldn't care less whether Iran obtains a nuclear weapon. They have a nuclear "neighbor" who is known for pre-emptive war. I say Iran has every reason to want nuclear weapons, and every reason to need them for defense

We must ask the question,

We must ask the question, "Why does Iran want nukes?" The answer is obvious. No, it's not to wipe Israel off the map. Israel has 300 nuclear warheads. Iran would be radioactive glass if it tried to nuke Israel. But the government of Iran sees that the global superpower, with thousands of nuclear warheads, is threatening to bomb and invade their country. And they see that the local superpower, with 300 nuclear warheads, is also threatening to bomb their country. It is readily understandable that under those circumstances the Iranians would want a few nukes of their own, to make it known to the U.S. and Israel that attacking Iran won't be cost free, and that if nuked they can nuke back.

I would prefer that the Iranians do not develop nuclear weapons of course. If we want to make that more likely we should take away the reasons they have for wanting nuclear weapons by ending our belligerent stance, stop calling them the "Axis of Evil", and stop threatening to invade.

There is a younger generation of Iranians that would like a more moderate government. If we are patient and leave Iran alone that younger generation will eventually get into power and relations with Iran will improve. If we attack Iran we will create a new generation of jihadists who fight against us for years to come.

The US should sell them some.

The US should sell them some. We are not using them.

Ĵīɣȩ Ɖåđşŏń

"Fully half the quotations found on the internet are either mis-attributed, or outright fabrications." - Abraham Lincoln

Not a bad idea

If the weapon was salted with a specific percentage of trace elements, registered with the "responsible (.?.)" countries, Iran wouldn't feel threatened and would be identified and destroyed if actually used.

I'll take my Liberty, it's not yours to give.

We do that to plenty of other

We do that to plenty of other places with other weapons. How do you think half the problems we have today came about?

my diy adventure blog: dickdoesit.blogpsot.com

My answer is, it's not up to

My answer is, it's not up to me to decide who may, or may not have nuclear weapons. I think we would all be better off if they didn't exist. But the fact is, they do. And when one nation has them, every other nation wants them.

My Answer

look at what we did with N. Korea; tough talk, sanctions, and calling them the "the axis of evil" and look at how that turned out.
No look at what we are doing with Iran; tough talk, sanctions, and calling them the "the axis of evil" and you say they are going to develop weapons anyway.
So if tough talk, sanctions, and calling them the "the axis of evil" did not work what else do you want to do? Go to war?
So our current policy is not working, let go to a policy more like what we did with N. Vietnam. Bitter enemies, but now we talk to them, trade with them, and don't threaten them.