11 votes

Paul's Answer To Iran With Nuclear Bomb

Im sorry, but the iran Nuclear bomb issue is KILLING Paul....

REMEMBER! Even if he is right, and he is, saying that if Iran has a nuclear weapon and ready to bomb and he would do nothing just doesn't SOUND good to people.. and that is what most people hear...

You can give me thumbs down, but we are a small group ... and he needs to give a better answer.

For example: " If I find out Iran is about to attack the US I will stop it immediately."

We know what he means, but the message comes across to Republicans like this:

"Iran ready to bomb, Paul does nothing."

And if they keep hammering that, and he keeps answering like that, his support will remain small unfortunately....

Comment viewing options

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

I dunno

A year ago you could've said the same thing about the Fed. Now, the candidates all parrot RP's talking points. Or at least pay lip service to them. His 'kooky' ideas about the Fed are suddenly not so kooky.

No matter what RP says, he will always be attacked about Iran. Look at how Obama gets treated, and he's more of a hawk than Bush was. Huntsman gets labeled as soft on foreign policy as well, and he has said we will be at war in every corner of the world for the foreseeable future.

But the idea of Iran attacking the US is absurd. We might as well be talking about extraterrestrials attacking the US. The idea of Iran with a nuclear weapon is conceivable, but they've been "months away" for decades.

gold = money
war = health of the state
liberty = prosperity

Your comment just made me

Your comment just made me think of something. I wonder if there are news clips from years back that say something to that effect ( Iran is months away ). If so, a video montage could be made, with different clips back to back saying, months away, months away, months away. If something like this could be made, it could go a long way to showing people how they've been duped.

Here's another answer that someone posted

"If Iran ever tried attacking Israel, Israel would easily turn them into a glass parking lot."

I like it, it's simple, sounds tough, and shows that Paul would be hands-off and let Israel defend itself. It satiates all the bloodthirsty neocons AND gets your point across.

I like this answer

MSM: "Congressman Paul, this is a purely hypothetical question about Iran's nuclear program... It's hypothetical because everyone knows you have no chance of becoming President... When Iran gets their nuke and shoots it at Israel, what would you do as President to prevent that nuke from A) landing in Israel and/or B) hitting a giant trampoline in Israel and bouncing into the US?

RON PAUL: "Why do I continue getting asked about a nuclear program that even our CIA admits is nothing more than a neocon fantasy? Why dont you ask me what foreign policy move I would make, day one, as President? The answer: bring all of our troops home. Maybe you don't want to ask me that because it's actually popular with the American people because we're wasting trillions in Afghanistan, Iraq, etc, and even places like Germany, Japan and Korea and if we brought them home to defend our border with Mexico they'd spend their paychecks here giving our economy the immediate shot in the arm it needs, lemme tell ya."

I usually answer it with

I usually answer it with this: Israel has 300 nuclear warheads, Iran has none and even if they had one they couldn't use it without assuring their own destruction.

This has the advantage of introducing Israel's vastly superior aresenal into the discussion and kind of puts things in perspective.

i believe ron is getting better

he is improving his iran answers. he's starting to say "i don't want iran to get a weapon." but with the caveat that "i want less nukes around the world." he is starting to hit that point that he is against a nuclear iran, but is still trying to be reasonable about the assumptions people make about this issue. if he keeps refining this angle i think it will help draw people to his side.

Substitue the word "neocon" for "people" in your post

and you have a point. Thus:

REMEMBER! Even if he is right, and he is, saying that if Iran has a nuclear weapon and ready to bomb and he would do nothing just doesn't SOUND good to neocons.. and that is what most neocons hear...

Fox News like to give the impression that it controls the world. Don't do them the favor of playing along. Yes, some neocons read it like the Gospel. But they are the minority in America. Most people want the wars to end, not increase.

I don't agree

Israel has tons of nukes, everyone but the orthodox spends at least a term in the Israeli military, so these folks, are very capable of defending themselves.

Iran knows if it were to lob a nuke at Israel, they would become black glass.

The Neocons/Neoliberals are invested in war spoils, they don't give a damn about the planet or people unless it's CONTROLLING them.

Those who think Ron did ok

Those who think Ron did ok last night are victims of the curse of knowledge. If you don't know what that is, look it up.

The problem of the curse of knowledge is that we his supporters understand what Ron meant while the masses lack the in depth knowledge and probably and most likely misunderstood Ron's answers for pacifism. Especially after the MSM is done with smearing him.

Ron needs to realize that when he speaks to broader audiences he needs to step away from specific examples such as the nuclear Iran trap and approach it more broadly. I really hoped his answer to the Iran question would have been something like this:

"What would you do if you received info Iran has a nuke tomorrow?"

"Two things. First I'd follow the rule of law, the U.S. Constitution. So if the information was credible and there was a real threat I'd present it to the congress and if they thought it was a real threat I'd ask them to declare war and then I'd be all out, I'd fight it with all the military power we have, win it and get it over with fast.
Second I'd do my best to exhaust all the other diplomatic options first by talking to who ever would threaten us and try and resolve a conflict before it escalates into dragging us into another war that would cost us American lives and worsen our financial situation. As for your example of Iran, I'd make use of our 12000 diplomats and I'd try and talk to them and reason with them before anything else. Besides there's no evidence currently that suggest they are making a bomb or want to attack our country."

I guarantee you, an answer like that would go over much better than what he did last night specifically because people only heard the last part and lack the knowledge of what he would do facing an actual threat. That's the real question they asked anyway... "What would you do facing a real threat to national security?" It's just that they wrapped it into the Iran nuclear issue and Ron fell for it and went and argued whether or not Iran actually is a threat instead of clarify how he would deal with any potential threat.

I sincerely hope someone from the campaign reads this and relays this message to him because after last night I'm sure the soft votes will get scared and switch.

I disagree

Maybe in the moment, the audience was with Bachmann... but that doesn't matter.

Ron spoke the truth. It was all true.

Michelle lied about 4 very big facts, in general.

1. That the IAEA is not part of the UN. Not true. The IAEA directly reports to the UN. Michelle doesn't know what the fuck she is talking about. That just goes to show how much knowledge Ron has compared to people like Michelle. She just googled this report without even knowing where the hell it came from.

SERIOUSLY. Look at their logos! Even a 4th grader could make an educated guess that they are the same organization!

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/443421/iaea-united-nations.jpg

And she thinks she is qualified to be President?!?!?!

2. That Iran wants to wipe Israel off the map. Not true either. At best, Iran wanted to get rid of the Zionist movement, but it's very unclear because of the lack of quality translations. For something so very unclear and where there is no clear consensus on what the translation actually meant. Michelle Bachmann claimed that there was "beyond a shadow of a doubt." Really Michelle? That's totally stretching it. It's a lie.

3. That Iran is making a nuclear bomb.

4. That Iran wants to bomb America. Not at all true. They've never said this.

This is important, because the truth is going to bite her and the establishment in the ass if Ron starts making ads about this. This kind of ad would be absolutely devastating in the primary season. This is what Ron needs to do.

Instead of pandering, we have this debate on record now - Ron spoke the truth. And once people learn the truth, Ron Paul wins.

Ron Paul's answer was perfect

No one wants to fight Iran except maybe you and the neocons on the DailyPaul. You're not really Ron Paul followers. You're warhawks who get excited of the idea of some thing blowing up and killing people.

Also, stop giving advice. You sound like another arm chair quarterback who has no clue as to what he's saying. This thread should be negative 20 by now but it's not because there are pro-war people around here.

"I want to fight Iran"?? Are

"I want to fight Iran"?? Are you for real, or what? You calling me a neocon? If it was "perfect" why did he get booed? Why do a lot of people get turned off by his stance? Don't be ridiculous..

If you disagree with me on anything you are not a real libertarian...

Phone Bomb Time

But this bomb needs to go off in the ears of Americans. Start calling into every radio talk show you can.
Hell..call your local station and have them play a song for Ron Paul..Anything to get his name out there.
I was wondering if anyone has thought of a food bank, clothing & toy drive..start them up before, during, and after the debates. Ron Paul supporters could gather this stuff and take it in his name to the Red Cross. I think the Red Cross is the best place to go...to show that we dont need FEMA when something bad happens. If the Red Cross wants to send a thank you card for the donation..have the card go to Dr.Paul in Washington DC.
Get them to bring in the blood mobile to rallys too.Im sure we can all stand to give a pint of blood.
This would be great press and a great deed.
Just think about it..Say 500 people (adults) show up to a rally. The Red Cross is there. Each person is bringing something to help those who lost everything due to fire/flood..whatever. And each person rolling up a sleeve to donate blood.
Some could bring juice-cookies-whatever, for those who gave blood. Ron Paul info can be given out.
What would it look like..on even youtube..if say a Newt supporter refused to give blood because of all the Paul supporters? Or even if they give..then they show up on youtube...it might make it look like they switched sides.With all the great, wonderful people..this could be put together within a week or less in Iowa.
Would the media refuse to air information about this? They might..but..I dont think they will.

I believe in Hope & Change..I Hope the government will Change
Spindale-Rutherford County-North Carolina

Last night lost it!

It was a disaster. Ron Paul was not prepared and by the looks of the money bomb we are losing there too.

The sky is falling! That was

The sky is falling!

That was anything but a disaster. Stop panicking.

I agree...

I posted something similar after the last debate.

He should say something like this...

"Using our Constitution as a guide, if a CREDIBLE threat came to our nation, from Iran or any other country, I would present the intelligence to the American people and suggest that military action might be warranted. Then I would go to the Congress, after they've had a chance to hear from their constituents, and ask Congress to vote on a declaration of war. If Congress voted for it, I'd turn Iran into a sheet of glass if necessary.

But...

To think that a weak little country like Iran, who has one of the largest oil reserves on earth and can't even supply their own people with enough gasoline, is a threat to the most powerful military on earth IS ABSURD.

Besides, they might not hate us so badly if we hadn't overthrown their elected leader back in 1953. That's what got this whole thing started... overthrowing elected leaders and installing puppet dictators... we've done it over and over and every time it comes back to bite us in the ass."

Now THAT is a good answer. Of course, I'm not on tv with millions of people watching having to come up with a good answer to an obvious "gotcha" question within 60 secs.

Easy for me to say, huh?

Another arm chair quarterback

Exactly right. It is easy for you to say and your answer is not good.

Reassuring arguments first

He has lots of more reassuring comments he can make before he goes to, "overblown", "blowback", "can live with them".

1) We will go to war with Iran when Congress declares war, not on the whim of any President.

2) We should focus on an America First defense, where we defend our borders, not other foreign countries, because we are bankrupting our children paying for other countries defense

3) Our best defense is a strong economy and wealth, which we can turn into military might should we need it. We should be careful squandering our wealth into military might prematurely and unnecessarily.

4) We all agree that our government should stay out of our citizens' lives because we know that our government doesn't know how to run our lives better than we do. Why would we think that that same government knows the unintended consequences of saber rattling, or assisination or intervening in the internal affairs of other countries?

5) By threatening first strike on other countries, we motivate them into an arms race to prevent us from attacking them. By peace and trade and friendship, we motivate them into peace and trade and friendship, as we have done with NVietnam and China. Strong economy and connection is the best prevention of someone striking us.

6) I believe the hysteria about Iran's nuclear bomb plans is overblown.

Don't Vote For Ron Paul for anything less than
Re[love]ution & Renaissance
Dennis

I sincerely agree

I sincerely agree Brian.

He comes across docile and weak and instead he should come across as we all know he would be. Strong and resolute, not to mention presidential!

Many times he does not unfortunately.

We all get it that these unconstitutional undeclared wars are bankrupting our nation which could very well be worse than any terrorist attack.

But Ron Paul needs to, in a far more presidential response, assure the American people that he takes the task of defending our nation if the occasion arises dead seriously.

Our world has as a fact become, as Ron Paul has so clearly noted, a far more dangerous place much because of our misguided and many times dishonest foreign policy. There are indeed many dangers from entities and forces who wish great and total destruction of our nation.

Any president will be tested by these forces. I believe Ron Paul would stand strong with prudence if need be. But his answers, especially when he becomes shrill and flails his arms don't project the strength and confidence that many want to see IF indeed we do face grave danger or attack.

Look straight into the camera in a calm presidential manor instead and assure the American public that they can rest assured a President Ron Paul administration will not only strengthen and improve our defense capabilities they will most assuredly be vigilant and ready to unleash the full strength of our defense forces to defend this nation if that time ever arises.

Diplomacy first backed up by a strong defense if necessary to defend our nation. Project a much more presidential demeanor, the need for a far better foreign policy, the failed policy of intervention, the bankrupting policy of being the policeman of the world and irrational appetite to jump into undeclared war, but also assure the American people he'll be a strong Commander in Chief if the need should arise. And best of all he'll do it by honoring his oath!

Quote: He comes across docile

Quote: He comes across docile and weak and instead he should come across as we all know he would be. Strong and resolute, not to mention presidential!

Many times he does not unfortunately.

Had he been docile and weak, he would have stood there blathering warmongering nonsense like the rest of the bunch.

Strength doesn't define itself in chest-thumping loudness, it lies in principle and resolve. And first and foremost, it lies in the inside, not in looks and demeanour.
Ron Paul never has been a great speaker, he's a little old man with a squeaky voice that wears too big suits and always reminds me of Stan Laurel. That's probably what kept him from becoming the 'big gun' for the last 30 years but now, slowly, people begin to listen. And they probably begin to realize, even slowlier, that you shouldn't judge a book by its cover.

If you want a great speaker, go to Obama. He's a great one, I still remember his inauguration speech. People had tears in their eyes. Nevermind every word he said was a lie. If you want a strong one, what about the jackass that jumped around on an aircraft carrier, wearing a flight suit while blaring 'mission accomplished'. Which also was a lie. And look at the mess they created.

Ron Paul's strength is his honesty, his integrity, the mere fact that this little old cranky grandpa does NOT buckle when an audience boos or the press sneers at his views. He was right about Iran, he said it like it was. And while the debate looked depressing and FOX NEWS had a field day, the news of the next day showed that he was heard, that he had gained respect, that he had gained credibility.

And he shouldn't risk that credibility by pandering to the neocons. Someone else wrote that he should state clearly "that he doesn't want Iran to have a nuke" and lamented that Paul followed this by adding something like "there are too many already".
Yikes, if Ron Paul would just say he didn't want Iran to have a nuke, that would lead his view on liberty ad absurdum. And undermine his credibility that he has built over the course of 30+ years by NOT changing.

Besides, the USA is probably the biggest military power in the world and sits on the biggest pile of weaponry ever, so I don't think it is at much risk even if Iran gets a nuke; or if terrifying powers like Cuba or Grenada plan an invasion. And I think I heard something Paul said about pilots getting guns, so there likely won't be any box cutter attacks under his watch, either.

I understand that things look bleak at times, but it won't help to wish Ron Paul would turn into Bruce Willis or start jumping up and down the aisles like President Camacho. That wouldn't work. He is just what he is, and that is exactly what this country needs.

And yes, I'm trolling. I've just signed up ten minutes ago and don't know what I'm talking about, but I just have nothing better to do at the time. So relax, I'll be gone as quickly as I came as soon as the Bonanza reruns start.

What about the international

What about the international implications? No one, candidates, media or otherwise has mentioned how China and Russia figure into this scenario.

They've both said they'd retaliate in defense of Iran. Even if Iran had a nuke, at any time, I don't think either of Iran's Big Buddies would give them the go ahead to attack Israel, let alone the U.S. That would unite the world against them.

How can any of the candidates come across as successful foreign policy makers when the complex question is answered with a, "bomb, don't bomb answer". I think pointing out that a pre-emptive attack on Iran would be the catalyst for, at a minimum, a new cold war era.

"Keep your hands out of my pockets and stop telling me what to do!"

Ron Paul should meet with the Israeli Prime Minister

Who cares about Iran?

Didn't Israel bomb Iraq's nuclear reactor in the 80s?

Won't Israel attack Iran if they feel threatened?

Ron should say it's Israel's responsibility. Focus on defending Israel's right to protect itself. Of course, we fund their military so it's basically a lie but it's a good answer to the stupid question.

He did do well with explaining all the nukes in Pakistan, India, Israel and our warships but the Libyan thing probably not ready for prime time. Although damn you gotta respect how brave he is to say that. Reads as super honest and trustworthy, even if you disagree.

Check out http://ronpaulforums.com for activism and news.

i think the more he gets to

i think the more he gets to say it, the more people kind of shake off the neo-con fog and get it.

I'm glad he answered the same question 3x. thanx brett.

same with the bachmann exchange, he seemed like the sane one in the room.

people are waking up, and the more time they let him talk the better. I think this was a great debate.

oh, and BTW, he's been answering the same way for years and is about to win iowa. bite your tongue.

I agree with this. We have 12

I agree with this. We have 12 years+ of indoctrination to blast through. It was only 12 years ago Bush ran on the same policy. These Republicans did vote for this policy at one time. They were alive then you know - it was only 12 years ago. We have to get them to remember.

GWB got cheers for the

GWB got cheers for the no-nation building stuff. They're coming around - we've passed the tipping point. People besides diehards are coming to our side, in IOWA, and the rest of the world.

KEEP UP THE GOOD WORK! RP2012

Give people credit

Nuclear weapons, war and preemptive strikes are very important issues. In a free society governed by our Constitution the free people have a very serious burden. They can and do accept this and will more if they are allowed to think.
Ron Paul baits free people with little Ron bombs of truth that tickle the curiosity of the human mind. The free people then seek more truth and the truth they learn they never forget. People want to learn on their own and Ron knows this. If they are free and accept the burden they will seek truth. Ron leads them to it but NEVER makes them drink.

Why did you get involved...because Ron is your God or idol....or because through him you found truth, your way ?

NCMarc's picture

there's a lot of smart people

there's a lot of smart people on this site and come up with some very clever things. I wish the campaign would read up here and learn how to hone the message.

I completely AGREE with this post. He should talk about his record. He went AFTER Bin Laden. If we laid off Iran and they continued the rhetoric, then we could try to use diplomacy. The reason we don't now is they don't have the capability and there's nothing to negotiate.

The GOP makes their living on putting FEAR into the american public. Think about it. If Iran denoted a nuke in Israel, how many minutes until their demise.. They'd have about 1 hour to prepare to be a 50 year parking lot.

They aren't gonna do it.

-----
A great empire, like a great cake, is most easily diminished at the edges. - Ben Franklin

Sorry, to say, but this is all about

Zionism, that people failed to challenge in the last 10yrs. Since, 9/11 the Judas ministry has sold Christian's on believing they must defend Israel. This was accomplished by well trained trickery using the Rothschild agent creation of the Scofield Bible, which ties OT prophecy with Christian Gospel. You can try to discredit this fact, but how else could Christians go from worshiping the 'Prince of Peace' to backing offensive attacks on foreign countries. They have been made to believe it's their duty to protect Israel, when Christ called this present occupation of the Jerusalem is 'Sodom and Egypt' Rev 11:9
These Judas minister's talk about the need for the Jews to create the Temple, when as a Christian Christ is the Temple, and his followers carry the remnant of Israel into all lands. What has been stricken from the history books is, that when the Puritan's came to America, they created the 'New Jerusalem' of Christ's land.
To the point, this is all faux propaganda to gain control of all the states who don't have a Rothschild controlled 'central bank'. If you check all the so called 'axis of evil' states, all of them have/had independent 'central banks'. Once, they control the money, they control the country. "Permit me to issue and control the money of a nation and I care not who makes the laws." Mayer Amschel Rothschild
Dr Paul knows this, and the reason he has fought against the Fed for so many years. However, he can't dare come out and state this fact. He also, knows the real facts about Israel, but tries to 'walk the tightwire' politically, because our nation is so enfactuated by it. Iran may eventually make a nuclear bomb, but they aren't going to attack anybody, as they know it will mean their complete destruction. The people at the top may talk tough, but trust me, they don't want to die. Beck and the other propagandists talk about the 12 Iman BS, but Amadinejad doesn't want to die or he would have attacked Israel already. The Iranian's may desire to create a nuke, but as a defensive measure to stalemate attack. Recall the same threats were made about N Korea, but we didn't stop them. They aren't going to attack anybody either. The last time I checked, the only country who has used nukes on an enemy is us! It's all about propaganda, and for those at the top to get richer, while we get poorer.

Christians, European Union worse than Zionism

I don't doubt that Judaism aligned itself with Christianity for political reasons, but I'm not aware of any evidence of Nathan Rothschild's role in the Scofield Bible. The Oxford University Press is not owned by the Rothschilds, although they certainly have significant influence there.

There's a lot of powerful Jews that are atheists. Religion is a political tool.

It's a mistake to think the "Rothschilds" are all behind this. Sure they may have help start the propaganda, but it was Christian crusaders who first started an international bank and killed in the name of "Christ", and it was the non-profits of Ford, Rockefeller, Guggenheim and Carnegie that caused the wars. And it was Rockefeller, a Christian who is the most infamous American banker. Jews being affiliated with banking is a result of discrimination and the Catholic Church's ban on usury. Research it.

Idealism and "Christians" in the early 1900s started the philosophy of war for world change. People support Israel for strategic control of oil and the Middle East. No one cares about the Jewish religion.

Zionism is over, Israel exists. This is a wasted endeavor.

Check out http://ronpaulforums.com for activism and news.

Now thats packed with alot of truth

right there brother.