2nd amendment ron paul email

[Jamisjockey]

Then be ready to shoot down anything they launch, then blow them off the map.  That's how defense works.

Or do you think it's appropriate to just beat the crap out of guys who might have the ability to harm you, and call it first-strike self defense?

Amen.  There is a substantial and real difference between defense and defense of the offense.

[Perd Hapley]

Then be ready to shoot down anything they launch, then blow them off the map.  That's how defense works.

Or do you think it's appropriate to just beat the crap out of guys who might have the ability to harm you, and call it first-strike self defense?

No one's calling for the latter, or we would be stripping Israel and everyone else of their nukes, not supplying our allies with weaponry. But some nations we do not trust with nukes, due to past behavior. When individuals act up, and lose their freedoms, we put them in prison. We can't put Iran in prison, but if they act up, we can keep them in check in other ways.

And again, does the Constitution charge our government with upholding the sovereignty of other nations, or with national defense?

[Fitz]

No one's calling for the latter, or we would be stripping Israel and everyone else of their nukes, not supplying our allies with weaponry. But some nations we do not trust with nukes, due to past behavior. When individuals act up, and lose their freedoms, we put them in prison. We can't put Iran in prison, but if they act up, we can keep them in check in other ways.

And again, does the Constitution charge our government with upholding the sovereignty of other nations, or with national defense?

No one's calling for the latter YET


you watch. It will happen.

[lupinus]

So in the future if some nation surpasses us economically and militarily and demands we get rid of our WMD's we should acquiesce? Might makes right, right?

With our conditional commitment to others national sovereignty we are setting the pattern for future powers in how they deal with us should we become weak enough.

Loss of moral authority in other words. 

and do you think for a second that if that ever  happens and we have some nutball at the helm threatening genocide of their allies and general regional mayhem and *expletive deleted*ing with a hefty percentage of the worlds energy supply they wouldn't be trying to sanction us?

 Sent from my LG using tapatalk

[agricola]

No one's calling for the latter, or we would be stripping Israel and everyone else of their nukes, not supplying our allies with weaponry. But some nations we do not trust with nukes, due to past behavior. When individuals act up, and lose their freedoms, we put them in prison. We can't put Iran in prison, but if they act up, we can keep them in check in other ways.

And again, does the Constitution charge our government with upholding the sovereignty of other nations, or with national defense?

As an aside, what "past behaviour" are you talking about that would justify the action that would be required to prevent them getting a nuke?  They have sponsored terrorist groups in the past, but then again so has every single one of the current nuclear powers, often to a far greater extent than the Iranians have.  They havent invaded a neighbour, nor have they released the other WMD they hold to terror groups, and for all the anti-Israeli chat they have neither declared war on Israel, nor gone after their own Jews (who are still safer in Iran than they are anywhere else in the region apart from Israel, which is probably why they have the third largest Jewish community in the world).

None of this is of course to say that Iran is lead by decent, honest people who you would like to go for a drink with, but invading them would be madness.

[Ron]

We applied the principle of freedom in Iraq .... look what THAT got us.

We owned the Iraq situation due to the first Gulf War. The one where Kuwait had their sovereignty violated and we with most of the planet in agreement restored their sovereignty. I wasn't hawkish on Desert Shield/Storm at the time at all. After 9/11 I drank the koolaid and supported the removal of Saddam. If we had left him in power would the region be any more messed up?

The only bright spot in the whole mess of the Arab Spring is that with democratically elected governments we can hold the ME countries responsible for their actions. With the despots and strongmen in power the people are always viewed as victims. 

We can now hold Iraq responsible for its actions, not just the government but the nation as a whole. 

[Perd Hapley]

As an aside, what "past behaviour" are you talking about that would justify the action that would be required to prevent them getting a nuke?  They have sponsored terrorist groups in the past, but then again so has every single one of the current nuclear powers, often to a far greater extent than the Iranians have.  They havent invaded a neighbour, nor have they released the other WMD they hold to terror groups, and for all the anti-Israeli chat they have neither declared war on Israel, nor gone after their own Jews (who are still safer in Iran than they are anywhere else in the region apart from Israel, which is probably why they have the third largest Jewish community in the world).

None of this is of course to say that Iran is lead by decent, honest people who you would like to go for a drink with, but invading them would be madness.

How many times do we have to tell you people that "we should preventing Iran from getting a nuke"  =/=  "we should go so far as to invade them"?  

If you don't think Iran has done anything to merit a nuke ban, that's fine with me. Just as long as you don't accept the insane principle that they have some inalienable right to nukes.

[Ron]

Who decides who has the right to "nucular" weapons and who doesn't?

[Jamisjockey]

It always starts with "sanctions".  Just sayin.

[agricola]

How many times do we have to tell you people that "we should preventing Iran from getting a nuke"  =/=  "we should go so far as to invade them"?  

If you don't think Iran has done anything to merit a nuke ban, that's fine with me. Just as long as you don't accept the insane principle that they have some inalienable right to nukes.

The problem with this being twofold - firstly, its that "you people" seems to include Romney, Santorum, Gingrich, Obama, and the rest of the people who actually get to make a decision as crazy as invading (since sanctions, "covert actions" of the kind beloved by Santorum, Bibi jumping up and down and having a fit, and even airstrikes wont definately get the job done); and secondly I dont think anyone thinks countries have "an inalienable right to nukes" - though heaven knows the past ten years of Western policy with regards to the Middle East has probably demonstrated to the top of the Iranian leadership that they had better get one PDQ.

[MicroBalrog]

Why would any military commander anywhere not want a nuclear weapon?

[seeker_two]

Who decides who has the right to "nucular" weapons and who doesn't?

The guys with ICBM's, of course..... 

[gunsmith]

I was to tired to watch the debate, but did get a little bit of it as I was falling asleep, Mitt was talking about hunting. Nothing angers me more then politicians blathering about hunting when they should be talking about my right to own any military rifle or sidearm and the right to carry them into maternity wards

[zxcvbob]

I was to tired to watch the debate, but did get a little bit of it as I was falling asleep, Mitt was talking about hunting. Nothing angers me more then politicians blathering about hunting when they should be talking about my right to own any military rifle or sidearm and the right to carry them into maternity wards

You just really want to shoot babies, don't you?  

[Perd Hapley]

Who decides who has the right to "nucular" weapons and who doesn't?

Hopefully, the U.S. Let's keep it that way.

[Jamisjockey]

Hopefully, the U.S. Let's keep it that way.

And what gives us the moral authority to dictate how other soverign nations conduct thier affairs?

[Perd Hapley]

And what gives us the moral authority to dictate how other soverign nations conduct thier affairs?

Our duty to protect ourselves.

Could you please provide an example of a non-sovereign nation?

[Jamisjockey]

Our duty to protect ourselves.

Could you please provide an example of a non-sovereign nation?

From what, harsh words?  We have the ability to protect ourselves.  We have the ability to retaliate and make Iran uninhabitable for the next million years. 

Dear Iran,
Nice nuke you have there. It's so cute!
Use it, and we will turn your cities into glass parking lots.

XOXO

U.S.

PS:  If you'd like to sell us some oil, ring back, yo!




Somalia...whens the last time they've had a functioning governemnt? Only thing that makes them a nation is the borders of the surrounding nations.

[Fitz]

Our duty to protect ourselves.

Could you please provide an example of a non-sovereign nation?

What is to say Iran doesn't have the same duty to protect itself?

Sorry, you cannot decry Iran pursuing nuclear weapons, and in the same breath defend our possession of them, without being a hypocrit.

[mtnbkr]

What is to say Iran doesn't have the same duty to protect itself?

Sorry, you cannot decry Iran pursuing nuclear weapons, and in the same breath defend our possession of them, without being a hypocrit.

It's ok, we're reasonable. 

Chris

[Perd Hapley]

It's ok, we're reasonable.  

Chris

Exactly. All nations are not created equal.

[Jamie B]

Exactly. All nations are not created equal.

Not exactly at all. Who decides who is reasonable, and who is not?
Your compass is not working at all.

[Perd Hapley]

Not exactly at all. Who decides who is reasonable, and who is not?
Your compass is not working at all.

Who decides that Poland doesn't belong to Germany? Who decides whether Israel has sufficient cause to mine Russia's harbors? Who decides whether Afghanistan has the right to harbor al Qaeda? Who decides on any such question?

Sorry, we're all alone out here. There's no one else to decide. Unless you want the U.N. deciding.

[makattak]

What is to say Iran doesn't have the same duty to protect itself?

Sorry, you cannot decry Iran pursuing nuclear weapons, and in the same breath defend our possession of them, without being a hypocrit.

I certainly can. A nation is not a person.

I think we should have nuclear weapons to protect our nation attack other nations that have attacked or are planning to attack us (a nuclear weapon is not a defensive arm.) I'm sure many Iranians think the same. However, I think the leaders of Iran are nuts and should not have those weapons, as do most of the people of this nation. (And most of Western Civilization, as well.)

We have the power to stop them from getting such weapons AND WE SHOULD DO SO. Nations don't have "rights".

As for your question about what happens if a stronger nation than the US decides we shouldn't have nuclear weapons. That's very simple. Should they be sufficiently stonger, they will take them from us or force us to give them up. If the US is no longer the dominant power in the world, we will return to the normal savage state of the world.

[Blakenzy]

(a nuclear weapon is not a defensive arm.)

Wrong. Dead wrong. Their function has been entirely defensive, as in "you invade our country, we nuke your capital". Using nuclear weapons to blackmail other countries or to initiate aggression is not the way they have been used and I don't think anyone would consider doing so a wise strategy. If they weren't primarily tools of defense we (and other nuclear nations) would be running around threatening nuclear annihilation to countries that didn't follow our policies. For some reason, that doesn't benefit anyone. Instead, we just threaten them with naval-borne aircraft and the Marine Corps.

Nations don't have "rights".

True. Only Nations with Nuclear Weapons have "rights". Maybe that's why everyone wants a few.