Content on the Daily Paul is the opinion of the original poster, not necessarily of the Daily Paul, its owner, moderators or Ron Paul.

Some points to bring up next time you find yourself defending RP's stance on Iran

Submitted by sb44 on Sat, 01/07/2012 - 09:56

Ron Paul 2012

Ok, so I've been on this Earth long enough to know that the average American's "research" begins and ends with what they see on that magical box at night. This is not good.

What would be better is researching things on our own and having a healthy discussion about it. So I have compiled a list here of why it would not be in Iran's best interest (tactical or political) to nuke Israel.

1.) The vast majority of deaths from a nuclear blast come from the radioactive material that is blown up and spread across the land depending on which way the wind blows. Which way does the wind usually blow in the middle-east you ask? From west to east. So would Iran want all of that nuclear/radioactive material blowing right back on them within days? I don't think so. Here is a link to the prevailing wind patterns of the Earth: http://maps.howstuffworks.com/world-prevailing-winds-map.htm

2.) The Palestinians and Israelis live in such close proximity that to nuke Israel would mean the certain death of a HUGE number of Palestinians. Does the government of Iran want to stir up that pot of trouble? I don't think so.

3.) As has been pointed out in DP before, if Iran hates Jews so much why don't they kill the 10,000+ Jews that live in Iran? Here is a link to share with your war-mongering buddies regarding that little "overlooked" fact:

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/jewpop.html

In further research I have seen about an even amount of articles saying the Jews living there are repressed or they live freely. I don't pretend to know the answer to this, but I do know they haven't been "wiped off the face of the Earth" or "exterminated".

The best point in my opinion..

Submitted by truefictions on Tue, 02/07/2012 - 20:23. Permalink

The best point in my opinion would be to ask a question:

"What would war with Iran do to the price of gas at the pump and how would that affect prices, the economy and jobs?

—

www.youtube.com/truefictions

Yes--hammer the price at the pump issue.

Submitted by Kevin Tuma on Tue, 02/07/2012 - 21:10. Permalink

These Christian Right modern-day Pharisees are money-driven. War with Iran is attractive to them because they don't anticipate having to make any sacrifices for it.

—

SUPPORT OUR FOUNDERS' AMERICA
Support the Constitution of the United States

There is a documentary

Submitted by David Robertson on Tue, 02/07/2012 - 09:37. Permalink

made by the Iranian government that describes what they believe will be the contours of the final battle between the forces of darkness and light with Iran of course in the vanguard of the forces of light and the Zionists cast as the forces of darkness.

What I found interesting is that they portray themselves as the defensive army even though they do win in the end. This means they see the Zionists as the aggressors and that seems to be the way it is shaping up.

Given this expectation is it likely that Iran would become the aggressor? They haven't attacked anyone in the past 200 years and their Constitution, contrary to what Michelle Bachmann said, defines Iran as a sovereign state with no interest in invading any other and respecting the rights of all other sovereign states...including, by inference, Israel.

The phrase about "wiping Israel off the map" needs to be mentioned as well. It came up during the inauguration speech of Ahmadinejad when he quoted the former leader of the Iranian Islamic Revolution, Ayatollah Khomeini, who said that like the Soviet Union and other similar anomalies the Zionist regime would eventually disappear from the pages of history. In other words this is an academic observation requiring only the agency of time to be accomplished not the military intervention of Iran.

—

"Where the Welfare State is on the march the Police State is not far behind."

Melchior Palyi Hungarian Economist

It's good to take from previous conflicts the nature of a

Submitted by JordanAL on Tue, 02/07/2012 - 14:03. Permalink

country. http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/war/iran-iraq.htm

Like, our involvements with both sides. Our hidden support of Chemical weapons to Saddam. Iran issued a fatwa to not use chemical weapons. Iraq had much more involvemnet on destroying non-aggressor vessels from other countries, although Iran had to retaliate concerning they had to prevent their supplies since they were attacking theirs. Failed attack from iraq missile hit a U.S. vessel. We blamed Iran. We are just too much involved. We build up Saddam to destabilize Iran after the regime overthrow, we tear down saddam after he can be independent from the U.S. and tells us to go F- ourselves,. We find an excuse to go fight (kuwait bilaterally drilling one reason of starting gulf conflict after Saddam invades) Iran just wants to be left alone, and when they make threatening statements, some taken out of context though not all, everyone starts beating a drum they don't take the time to understand. It's a shame. Leave them to their own demise, or production, is what we should do. That link is a good description of the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq war. Any thoughts?

The constitution.

Submitted by Kevro on Tue, 02/07/2012 - 09:24. Permalink

Why do we need ALL these points? Listen, ever since i have paid any attention to politics ( thanks ron paul& youtube )I have come to realize when "Debating", or "Arguing", it does not matter how many points you come up with, but keep reminding the people that the CONSTITUTION backs your candidate, not theirs. Keep going back to THE CONSTITUTION because that is law, and they are breaking it.

I agree, however

Submitted by sb44 on Tue, 02/07/2012 - 10:30. Permalink

the actual voting that has gone on so far clearly indicates that the American people are far from comprehending the Constitution. We need to fight through the cloud of ignorance that the average American has before we breach the subject of constitutionality.

They aren't exclusive of one another, both arguments can be made at the same time, but it is clear that Americans respond to talking points (Newt). If that's what they want that's what we will give them. Planting seeds of knowledge and logic will naturally open one's mind to a better understanding of the Constitution.

—

"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing". - Sir Edmund Burke

Bump, most excellent post!

Submitted by Steadfast on Tue, 02/07/2012 - 09:24. Permalink

I shall add your insight to my arsenal of NeoCon blasters, thanks!
* Iranian nuclear factoid !!*
America started the Iranian nuclear program in 1950 with the " atoms for peace" program and continued to fund ( along with Westren European nations ) Irans nuclear program up until the fall of the Sha of Iran in 1979.
No good data goes unused!

—

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

Ive used this to baffle them myself

Submitted by JordanAL on Tue, 02/07/2012 - 14:17. Permalink

I start back from 1950's on up discussing involvements, coo's, precedents, more involvements, interests behind it. I listed timelines before, and descriptive annotations... but some, for some reason, just continue to turn a blind eye. Common answer is "that was just the Iran then not now".

It's hard to argue with Irrationality.

Indeed it is!

Submitted by Steadfast on Tue, 02/07/2012 - 15:16. Permalink

Or to argue against caustic adhominym or hyperbolic intransigence.but as I look at the vast amount of disinformation coming out of DC over Iran of late, it looks like we get WWIII wether we like it or not, sooner rather than later. To me it sounds almost exactly like the rhetoric about Iraq, which alwys puzzled me because unless I've entered premature dementia wasn't it 19 Saudis in those planes?
Call me a skeptic but I'm starting to think America ain't what she's supposed to be, silly me.

—

Fortunately

Submitted by JordanAL on Tue, 02/07/2012 - 18:23. Permalink

More and more are coming to realize the incongruities. Hopefully it will pick up the pace because it's still a trickle. I got 1 to realize it today. I feel accomplished lol. Plus 1 vote for Paul.

Well DONE !

Submitted by Steadfast on Tue, 02/07/2012 - 19:31. Permalink

I look at like this: how many people have you, educated in the last year? Now look back to the person who educated you, ok. Whomever that was has a exponential return of you and every one you've added, plus every other of his and all theirs. And your return is exponential, as is mine, and every one else is to.
It's a Ron Paul Freedom pyramid scheme, and it's not only legal, it's constitutional to boot !
In other words don't get discouraged, you just might be the constitutional "root" of the 57th. president of these united states.

—

Great Great Great

Submitted by HuskerSkier on Tue, 02/07/2012 - 09:15. Permalink

Great Great Great Stuff!!!

Thanks for posting!

Caucus speakers

Submitted by sb44 on Tue, 02/07/2012 - 09:00. Permalink

feel free to bring these points up and let us know if they are helpful.

—

"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing". - Sir Edmund Burke

Some great, valid points

Submitted by RonPaulHemp on Tue, 01/24/2012 - 12:44. Permalink

Some great, valid points here. One thing I've noticed though is that a lot of people in favor of war with Iran don't seem to really value logic and reasoning too much.

—

http://RonPaulHemp.com - Quality Ron Paul shirts and apparel made from hemp for the Ron Paul Revolution. Original articles and news on Ron Paul, marijuana, hemp, the 2012 GOP race, and liberty!

Logic is a seed

Submitted by sb44 on Tue, 01/24/2012 - 12:53. Permalink

it takes time to grow, we just have to plant them.

It's like in a court setting when a lawyer says something knowing it will be struck from the record. They do it because they understand the real damage is done in the jury's mind. You can't unhear logic just because a judge tells you to not let it affect your decision.

It takes time. Keep fighting!

—

"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing". - Sir Edmund Burke

new day

Submitted by sb44 on Tue, 01/24/2012 - 12:42. Permalink

new bump

—

"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing". - Sir Edmund Burke

4. Israel has hundreds of nuclear weapons.

Submitted by spacehabitats on Fri, 01/13/2012 - 17:44. Permalink

5. Israel has a vastly superior Air Force for delivering nuclear weapons.
6. Israel could probably take out every significant military target and population center in Iran and still have plenty of nukes left over to take out Syria and Egypt if they get uppity.
7. Nobody questions Israel's willingness to use nuclear weapons (or anything else) to defend itself.
8. Iran could never be sure (even if Ron Paul were president) that the United States would not enter into a nuclear war initiated by Iran.
9. Iran COULD be sure that the United States WOULD intervene eventually on the side of Israel. (Don't think so? How easy would it be for a non-interventionist candidate to win if Iran were ALREADY throwing nukes around? I rest my case.)
10. The fallout pattern in Iran is especially bad when ground zero is downtown Tehran.

—

******************************
Keep the Iowa Caucuses "First in the Nation"!

Oddly enough

Submitted by David Robertson on Tue, 02/07/2012 - 10:10. Permalink

Point number 10. is exactly the conclusion reached by an Israeli dissident with whom I am in contact. He has survived two attacks by the Mossad and presently lives in Bolivia as a refugee and political prisoner.

He believes that Israel cannot take out all of Iran's nuclear facilities because they are too widely scattered and well protected. They also cannot easily overfly other countries in the region since they are not inclined to give Israel permission to do so. He is perhaps more informed of Israeli capabilities since he served in secret units of the IDF as a captain.

His view is that Israel are attempting to "wag the dog" as they did with Iraq. This means they are trying to manipulate the US into attacking Iran on their behalf. Failing this he believes their only option is to nuke Teheran where all the leadership lives thus cutting off the head and preventing a retaliatory strike from the 200,000 missiles that Iran possesses.

Iran does have electronic capabilities however that can disable the entire US fleet leaving them floating helplessly in the Persian Gulf and open to the many types of water borne attacks that Iran has developed over the past two decades. This is also known to the US so it acts as a deterrent at the moment.

In the event that Israel does decide to go for broke and nuke Teheran then I believe that China or Russia will nuke Israel and of course Palestine. This outcome, the destruction of Jerusalem, has been predicted in one interpretation of Isaiah 29 and a particular vision given to a Christian teacher in 1986 that there would be two Gulf Wars and that the objective of the second war (which began on 9/11) would be the destruction of Jerusalem. (Ariel is a symbolic name for Jerusalem)

—

"Where the Welfare State is on the march the Police State is not far behind."

Melchior Palyi Hungarian Economist

Of COURSE Israel wants to "wag the dog"...

Submitted by spacehabitats on Wed, 02/08/2012 - 13:19. Permalink

Of COURSE it is risky for Israel to use nuclear weapons to defend their own country.

Of COURSE they would rather have the citizens of the United States take all of the risks, bear all of the expense, and suffer all of the casualties in a conflict with Iran.

Of COURSE they are using their money, lobbyists, media, and influence to promote the careers of corrupt U.S. politicians who will convince the American people that it is in their own national interest to bankrupt their country, kill and maim their own children, and destroy the last vestiges of America's international reputation defending Israel.

And your point is?

—

******************************
Keep the Iowa Caucuses "First in the Nation"!

The point was

Submitted by David Robertson on Wed, 02/08/2012 - 17:21. Permalink

to agree with you about Teheran potentially being nuked by Israel since that was their only viable option given their limitations. It was an interesting observation that I could connect with the statements made by my Israeli friend.

You had also said that "Israel could probably take out every significant military target and population center in Iran and still have plenty of nukes left over to take out Syria and Egypt if they get uppity."

My information was that they did not have the capability to target these military installations since they were so scattered, so well hidden and so well protected. This is why they might decide to nuke Teheran as a last resort.

The Israeli friend I mentioned has a less confident view of Israel's capabilities than most of us. He knows they were actually defeated by the Hezbollah and that that force is now much stronger. Hezbollah also have many more and more powerful and accurate missiles and they would use them if Israel attacked Iran. Israel is a deeply divided country that is only kept together by a common paranoia and is much more vulnerable than people imagine.

I didn't mention Israel using nuclear weapons to defend themselves so I'm not quite sure why you mention that. I also didn't say anything about their money or their lobbyists although I agree they have both in abundance.

I believe the sentence that may have annoyed you was this one: "He is perhaps more informed of Israeli capabilities since he served in secret units of the IDF as a captain."

I didn't mean that as a put down, not at all. I was simply saying that he is better informed about these things than most of us given his background. Perhaps I should have been more clear about that. There was no offence intended.

The rest of the comment was just general information that I thought any reader might find interesting not specifically to make any point with regard to your post.

—

"Where the Welfare State is on the march the Police State is not far behind."

Melchior Palyi Hungarian Economist