Ron Paul on MSNBC's Tucker 12-27-07 Video

thanx you mirc mirc yukle mirc indir mırc chat sohbet muhabbet sohpet muhabet
mirc
mirc yukle
radyo
sohbet
mirc mirclen

couldn't htey have muted the sirons? You have people crying in pain in the background...

just a thought.

What about 'loose nukes' of Russia in Central Asia? There were concerns about that in the early 1990, but as far as I understand it, Ukraina and Kazakstan have handed over all nukes stationed in their countries to Russia after their independence.

What serious concerns are there about there being any "loose nukes" around after the democratization of the Soviet empire? Does anyone have references to reports or organization or other sources of information about this?

I'm just surprised that this issue, which has been a non-issue for more than a decade, is repeated by Ron Paul every time the subject of 'nuclear terrorists' comes up. And what is his point? What does he want to do about that problem?

Btw, the comparison between terrorists and Soviet is great. And the suggestion earlier in this thread to sort of ask: "Why should the US be responsible for 'taking action', why not Switzerland or X?" is great too! Most viewers will have a first ever 'actually think about it' experience when they hear Ron Paul adress the terrorist issue.

I think RP needs to show a little more toughness when talking to the media. Not for me/us, because I/we understand his stance and philosophy and agree with him, but for mainstream America because they don't. I think he needs to make it clear that he is willing to use strong force if necessary. He needs to reinforce that while we should leave Pakistan alone to sort out their own problems, most of America is uncomfortable with that. He should make it clear that we would still be employing the intelligence community so we know what is going on and would be ready to use whatever force was necessary should nuclear weapons get into the hands of the wrong people.
He doesn't need to do this for me because I believe he would be doing the above, but I fear that most of America sees it as a weak position that leaves us vulnerable in their eyes.
Perhaps he should turn the question around and ask 'What are China, Russia, Germany, Italy, Sweden...... preparing to do with regards to Pakistan. The answer is the same as his, but it would point out that his position is the same as the rest of the world.

We support Musharraf's dictatorship, and HELP him develop nuclear weapons. We support Musharraf's dictatorship, and help alienate the peoples of Pakistan and the middle east, which gives rise to anti western support. We continue to support dictatorships all around the world, and extremism continues to gain ground.

Extremism is a bit like our monetary system, being ignorant to the our faillings, we will continue to feed it until the bubble bursts, then we pick up the pieces...

who is bonkers enough to think that the extremists will get there hands on the weapons(nukes)....for once why don't you do some reading and find out more on these weapons....and how do you believe you shall be threatened by these nukes?....to get them is one thing ( they are freaking protected by the highest security available) remember they need to safeguard it from India their enemy.....to bring them all the way around the world and enter our borders?( what do you think its a shoe bomb?).....and then detonate them here?( you have been watching too much 24) for they have a series of codes to stop this exact problem....

imagine if by mistake a nuke warhead was dropped in its own country accidentally....what would happen? nothing because it isn't a normal freaking bomb....it requires activation for the required process to detonate to occur....besides why would Pakistan make the technology available for the terrorists....they have a nuclear program to safe guard and this would jeopardize it and make them a target....now why would they want that....

I don't know what bologne you are getting from the OM to buy into this belief ?.....Look every country has a right to its nuclear weapons....why do we think we have the arrogance and moral authority to make people do what we want....we have more nuclear material than any other country and bush's and cheney's hands on the trigger....even with their antics we know they will never use that option....hell we are the only country to use the weapon (japan)....and have politicians "not taking the option off the table"....the world should be scared of our weapons.......but what about Indias weapons and Israel's weapons?.....just read about the geopolitics of the world maybe travel if you have the opportunity....you will find the world is very different and tolerant than we have been made to believe......

Lastly ....be empathetic rather than arrogant.....every country has had turmoil in their country....Imagine if the British Empire thought of an excuse when Lincoln was assassinated to come back and recolonize America.....Why doesnt any other country like Sweden or Greece or Switzerland or any country closer to that region get all excited about the situation... b/c for one they are less arrogant and more knowledgeable about the world and have a less warmongering attitude towards the world....hell just look at the past 50 yrs and see which country has had a major part in every conflict in the world....once you answer that you will realize why we are in the trouble that we are in.....

I agree with Nofreedom's post:

"Let's see, we can bomb Pakistan? Nope Maybe we could remove the leader (the same one the US put into control)? No on that one. Maybe we could go into Pakistan and take their nuclear weapons? Not a good idea. Or maybe we could do what Dr Paul said and stop giving them billions of dollars, talk to them and let the country work out its own problems. Any other option is NOT an option and at least Dr Paul would handle it like a real President instead of crying terror! terror! or 9/11! 9/11! like McCain and Guiliani. AND I think Dr Paul's position will show voters that he knows exactly how to handle very sensitive situations like Pakistan."

I don't understand all this "concern" about nukes getting in the hands of "Muslim extremists". I mean, what's the difference between them and the "communist extremists" (Russia, China, whomever) and the current administration in Pakistan (remember Musharif's attacks on his constitution recently?).

I'm glad Dr. Paul has had a chance to point out that we resolved nuclear issues (tThe Cuban missile crisis, cold war) with DIPLOMACY.

What exactly would we accomplish by going into Pakistan except to create more enemies?

Think of all the suicide and other bombs that have rocked Pakistan in recent months.

Do we really want that to come over here?

Edit: this was meant to go below with the discussion of how Ron Paul looks like he is avoiding the issue by saying the US should "do nothing" re Pakistan....

That the 2 shows Dr. Paul interviewed on today... had a replacement for both reporters. Tucker & Joe were also known supporters of Paul.

They had this DOUCHE making a mockery of the interviews.

Paul handled him well though ;)

...today. I bet that Christmas with his wonderful family and a few days off from all of this was a real blessing to him. I felt I could see that rest and confidence in his face today.

I know he wants to get the message out, but I hope he doesn't overwork himself. How can we support him without overwhelming him?

This is precisely Ron Paul's genius...When everyone else is ready to rush into intervening only to gravely regret it years later, Dr Paul stands on principle which in due time is always proven to be the right response. I am reading his book on foreign policy right now and his speeches given in history seem almost clairvoyant because there are laws in this universe. We need to live by them and not emotionally rush into foolish intervention...It is almost absurd...someone stubbed their toe today in afghanistan....what is the usa going to do about it???

For God's sake, Absolutely nothing....maybe some kind support and moral example on how not to stub one's toes....but no troops for toes.....of course i am being a little silly here...but my point stands....on healthy independent toes! tee hee

We have to look at the big picture of non-intervention. Those that would use nuclear weapons on us are motivated in getting us out of their country. If we go in with our military, it will cost soldiers lives and money that we cannot afford. Sure we may stop militants from gaining a nuclear weapon for the short term ( we don't know for sure that would happen) but as long as the motivation is there for them, than we will have this problem forever and it will only get worse. If Dr. Paul becomes president, which is beginning to look very promising, than he will take our troops out of their countries and stop giving Israel weapons and money. What reason would they have to attack us?
The great thing is he's not giving into Al-quaida's demands, he's using our founders logic and following the constitution. In doing so we just happen to stop pissing the world off, ruining our finances, losing our soldiers, and motivating terrorists. Sounds good to me:)

For Liberty... Ron Paul!

That was a great moment when RP called out the CIA’s involvement in causing national discord and separatism. No one else is touching that point. By blatantly calling out the two faced strategies implemented by our own Intellegence departments RP puts into question the motives of the groups who push interventionism policy. I feel of all the candidates he most respects the citizenry. He challenges us to question the establishment and know where we stand in relation to the federal government.

He needs to come off more willing to fight, even if we (his supporters) know it would not be necessary. He needs to make clear he would use strong action if there was clear evidence of an imminent i America, or react strongly if terrorists actually (against the odds) got hold of a nuke and detonated it in our country. Up to and including nuclear retaliation if it was a nation state that had clear complicity in the event. He also needs to make clearer the fact that pakistans neighbors India, china, etc need to take the initiative in the region not the US.

about Pakistan. Oh, we need to do this and we need to do that. Then comes Ron Paul and says we need to do nothing! Let them resolve their issues. It's their country. We messed things up for too long. We have no more money. Either we steal from the people through inflation or we borrow from the Chinese! Enough is enough!!! Perfect response!!! That's my president!!! He will lead the world by example, not by force or entanglements.

JB

All of a sudden this Shuster guy is EVERYWHERE! Is he the MSNBC Pit chihuahua?

I think he's doing an important service, and that is dispelling the notion, or at least challenging the notion, that it's somehow our job to keep track of all the nukes in the world and "make sure" they're in the "right" hands. The weapons of another nation, regardless of how powerful they are, are THEIRS. If we're worried they might get into the hands of people we don't like, all the more reason to step up our OWN border security so we can catch weapons being smuggled into the country. It's not as if Pakistan has the capability to launch nuclear weapons to here from Pakistan. They don't have any ICBMs. When MSM interviewers ask him what he would do about Pakistan's nuclear weapons, or Iran's potential nuclear weapons, they're insinuating that it's the job of whoever's elected to be responsible for every nuclear weapon in the world. It's a false premise that's used to plant that idea in the minds of the general public, and I for one am glad Ron Paul has the stones to say, "What would I do? I'd quit pissing off people who have nukes. Other than that, not shit."

THAT...... is a GREAT answer.....BRAVO!

I agree with Ron Paul that it's not our place to do anything and interfere with another country. But doing nothing just seems so weak.

Pakistan has nuclear weapons. Can we really say that we will sit by and watch some extremist group take over the government and take over those nuclear weapons? Will we just let that happen without a fight?

That position just won't sell to most voters.