Anyone watch the debate last night?

[MicroBalrog]

(Why the heck isn't there a bomber variant of the C5 anyway?)

A variety of legitimate reasons. OTOH, it is possible to use C5 Galaxies to launch Minuteman ICBMs.  Air Force testing was conducted on this topic in 1974.

[grey54956]

Ron Paul, like the rest of the world, doesn't really want Iran to have nukes.  Nobody really wants anybody to have nukes.  However, Iran has a right to pursue its own interests, just as we do.  When the UN gets itself in a tizzy and wants to put controls on our small arms industry and private ownership of weaponry, we start waving the 'sovereign nation' banner.  Well, unfortunately, Iran is also a sovereign nation. 

We have no legal right to decide what they can or cannot do within their own borders.  Now, if we wish to declare war on Iran out of fear of what they might do, some sort of preventative war rather than a punitive war, let's just say so and drop any pretense of defense, moral high ground, or respect for sovereignty. 

Or, we can go back to the way things are supposed to be: the threat of punitive nuclear annihilation.  If Iran developes nukes, and uses them to attack us or our allies, we smoke or glass them all the way to Gehenna.  Twice.

[seeker_two]

Absolutely.  I vote we send them some of our spares.  We can even arm them first.

Well, we do have quite a few Minuteman missles that are coming to the end of their operational life....they even have their own transport capabilities....let's send them over.... 

[Balog]

Ron Paul, like the rest of the world, doesn't really want Iran to have nukes.  Nobody really wants anybody to have nukes.  However, Iran has a right to pursue its own interests, just as we do.  When the UN gets itself in a tizzy and wants to put controls on our small arms industry and private ownership of weaponry, we start waving the 'sovereign nation' banner.  Well, unfortunately, Iran is also a sovereign nation. 

We have no legal right to decide what they can or cannot do within their own borders.  Now, if we wish to declare war on Iran out of fear of what they might do, some sort of preventative war rather than a punitive war, let's just say so and drop any pretense of defense, moral high ground, or respect for sovereignty. 

Or, we can go back to the way things are supposed to be: the threat of punitive nuclear annihilation.  If Iran developes nukes, and uses them to attack us or our allies, we smoke or glass them all the way to Gehenna.  Twice.

 

1. Iran is a terrorist state, that is actively providing arms, funding, and training to people who are killing Americans. Comparisons between the US possibly preventing Iran from acquiring nukes and the UN wanting to ban guns in the US showcase how far off in your own little libertarian fantasy world you are.

2. This showcases his political ineptitude. "I don't want Iran to have nukes, but I don't support starting a war to prevent it." Boom, done. Instead, it's /ramble ramble utopian crap they can do what they want

And yes, I realize Ron Paul keeps getting elected. So does Sheila Jackson Lee. Your point?

I swear to God, I have an intellectual agreement with most libertarian policy but the actual people who represent make me ashamed to admit that.

[Doggy Daddy]

And yes, I realize Ron Paul keeps getting elected. So does Sheila Jackson Lee. Your point?

Sigworthy!

DD

[grey54956]

1. Iran is a terrorist state, that is actively providing arms, funding, and training to people who are killing Americans. Comparisons between the US possibly preventing Iran from acquiring nukes and the UN wanting to ban guns in the US showcase how far off in your own little libertarian fantasy world you are.

2. This showcases his political ineptitude. "I don't want Iran to have nukes, but I don't support starting a war to prevent it." Boom, done. Instead, it's /ramble ramble utopian crap they can do what they want

We consider Iran a terrorist state.  I am sure that they, as well as a few other countries, consider the U.S. a terrorist state.  We provide arms, funding, and training to people to overthrow thier governments. 

We engage in wars and kinetic, dynamic, military actions that drop bombs on people in other lands where we have no real vested interest.  We might try to persuade another country to stop developing nuclear weapons, but preventative strikes border on imperialism.  Are we ready to declare ourselves the rulers of the world?


I don't want the Iranians to have nukes, either.  However, I'm happy to remind them that if they choose to take hostile action against our interests, we stand ready to rock their world a thousand times over.  And if anything should happen, I should hope that our leaders are ready to retaliate with ridiculously overwhelming force.

I always find it interesting that a good many people feel that a pre-emptive strike is justifiable, while complaining about gov't gun control efforts. The classic argument is always that personal arms must be eliminated so that they can't be attained by criminals - a preventative measure.

[seeker_two]

I always find it interesting that a good many people feel that a pre-emptive strike is justifiable, while complaining about gov't gun control efforts. The classic argument is always that personal arms must be eliminated so that they can't be attained by criminals - a preventative measure.

Bad analogy....using it, you'd say that the US and Israel shouldn't have nuclear weapons in order to prevent Iran from having them....and that doesn't work....better to give the analogy that it's OK to shoot a criminal who is stealing a gun from a home or car before he commits another crime....

....and I'm OK with that....

[grey54956]

US and Israel should have nuclear weapons, so when Iran gets them it knows that its butt is going to get smoked the second it decides to roll the dice.  That way, the U.S., Israel, and Iran get to act like three little Fonzies.

Just like law-abiding citizens should have arms, that way the thug down the street knows his butt is going to get smoked if and when he decides to thug it up. 

This is how we maintain peace.  The threat of mutually assured destruction.

[Perd Hapley]

US and Israel should have nuclear weapons, so when Iran gets them it knows that its butt is going to get smoked the second it decides to roll the dice.  That way, the U.S., Israel, and Iran get to act like three little Fonzies.

Just like law-abiding citizens should have arms, that way the thug down the street knows his butt is going to get smoked if and when he decides to thug it up. 

This is how we maintain peace.  The threat of mutually assured destruction.

That sounds like a very solid analogy by which to understand foreign relations and national defense.  Or not.

If we're comparing governments to street thugs, then how about this? If we can't put the bad actors in jail, we can at least strip them of nuclear weapons.

[Balog]

Thanks for proving my point about the utopian fantasy world doctrinaire libertarian enslaved to a rigid reading of their dogma inhabit.

[MicroBalrog]

Remember how well it worked last time when Republicans picked a guy based on electability and a foreign policy stance?

[Balog]

I don't see anyone here saying that Ron Paul wouldn't be one of if not the best choice. I do see many saying that his stances and the way he presents them turns off the sort of people who vote R and hurt his chances of getting elected. Given that you yourself have said he won't win the primary I wonder why you object to that so strenuously.

[MicroBalrog]

I don't see anyone here saying that Ron Paul wouldn't be one of if not the best choice. I do see many saying that his stances and the way he presents them turns off the sort of people who vote R and hurt his chances of getting elected. Given that you yourself have said he won't win the primary I wonder why you object to that so strenuously.

This is true. I however would like to argue this teaches us a lot about these people as much as it does about Ron Paul himself.

What I predict will happen is - as the primary rolls on - that people will elect a 'moderate' candidate. Eventually even those peple who claimed they would vote for Obama is a 'moderate' is nominated would line up behind him as the threat of a second Obama Presidency looms closer.

[Balog]

This is true. I however would like to argue this teaches us a lot about these people as much as it does about Ron Paul himself.
What I predict will happen is - as the primary rolls on - that people will elect a 'moderate' candidate. Eventually even those peple who claimed they would vote for Obama is a 'moderate' is nominated would line up behind him as the threat of a second Obama Presidency looms closer.

And I'm sure we'll give them all a good scolding for it. But it doesn't exactly help us...

[AZRedhawk44]

This is true. I however would like to argue this teaches us a lot about these people as much as it does about Ron Paul himself.

What I predict will happen is - as the primary rolls on - that people will elect a 'moderate' candidate. Eventually even those peple who claimed they would vote for Obama is a 'moderate' is nominated would line up behind him as the threat of a second Obama Presidency looms closer.

Disagree.

Paul isn't going to win the general election, and he isn't even going to win the primary.

But, a strong early showing in the GOP runoffs will have a significant influence in the policy debate, and the support of RP via endorsement could be the turning point for a hot contest between GoodHair and RomneyCare.  While unlikely as a running-mate, RP could end up with a cabinet position as a result.

[MicroBalrog]

And I'm sure we'll give them all a good scolding for it. But it doesn't exactly help us...

Did you expect I can somehow resolve America's deep-rooted political programs from Givat-Shmuel?

No, I merely seek to identify precisely the moral nature of what is about to occur.

[makattak]

This is true. I however would like to argue this teaches us a lot about these people as much as it does about Ron Paul himself.

What I predict will happen is - as the primary rolls on - that people will elect a 'moderate' candidate. Eventually even those peple who claimed they would vote for Obama is a 'moderate' is nominated would line up behind him as the threat of a second Obama Presidency looms closer.

I plan not to vote for Ron Paul not because I don't think he can be elected.

I plan not to vote for Ron Pual because he has a naive world-view. Just as liberal (progressive, or whatever name they wish to next use) policies will fail because they view the world through their incorrect idealogical prism, so will many of Ron Paul's.

Now, he is obviously FAR better than Obama, (just as libertarians are FAR better than liberals in their idealogical blinders), and I'd vote for him over Obama (and, if you recall, I will not say the same about Romney), but I'd prefer someone with fewer blinders. (Or at least sharing my own idealogical prism.)