I'm pretty sure "I'm cool with Iran having nukes" is a deal killer for everyone but the hardest hardline libertarians.
I am flattered that you think of me as a hardline libertarian.
I am flattered that you think of me as a hardline libertarian.
Are you in favor of Iran having nukes? If so, I will defer to your position as they will be pointed at you, not us...
This has never been an issue.
There exists a certain chance Iran will develop nukes within the next Presidential term (a very small chance given the fail that is Iran). Were I an American voter, I would certainly prefer to vote for a President who would do his level best to gut the welfare-police state, even if that meant a certain risk of a nuclear-armed Iran. My freedom is exponentially more important to me than the risk of a nuclear-armed Iran.
Hell, if a politician existed in Israel that wanted to destroy the welfare-police state at the cost of not caring about Iran I would vote for him in an eyeblink.
This has never been an issue.
There exists a certain chance Iran will develop nukes within the next Presidential term (a very small chance given the fail that is Iran). Were I an American voter, I would certainly prefer to vote for a President who would do his level best to gut the welfare-police state, even if that meant a certain risk of a nuclear-armed Iran. My freedom is exponentially more important to me than the risk of a nuclear-armed Iran.
Hell, if a politician existed in Israel that wanted to destroy the welfare-police state at the cost of not caring about Iran I would vote for him in an eyeblink.
Even if you agree with the "It's not our business if the rogue terrorist state has nukes" surely you recognize that espousing that view is political suicide right?
You prefer liars?
No, I'd prefer he was against Iran having nukes. But if he does hold to that, I want him to be very circumspect in his answer. "I certainly prefer Iran did not have that capability, as they have proven themselves a violent and evil nation. But we cannot continue to waste American lives and treasure policing every rogue nation in the world. I would not approve military force against Iran unless there was very strong evidence that they both possessed nuclear weapons and planned to use them aggressively." In stead of "Yeehaw, I'm a Libertarian and I don't give a damn what evil terrorist state has nukes."
Not saying that was the actual gist of his answer, but that is the impression that many people took away from it.
Even if you agree with the "It's not our business if the rogue terrorist state has nukes" surely you recognize that espousing that view is political suicide right?
Wow....
i think i agree with most of that
i'm gonna have dinner and check again. then i don't know what to do
Wow....
i think i agree with most of that
i'm gonna have dinner and check again. then i don't know what to do
Are you in favor of Iran having nukes?
(Why the heck isn't there a bomber variant of the C5 anyway?)
Absolutely. I vote we send them some of our spares. We can even arm them first.
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.
And yes, I realize Ron Paul keeps getting elected. So does Sheila Jackson Lee. Your point?
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
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.
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.
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.
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...
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.