Ron Paul and Iran

[Butterbean]

I am nowhere as knowledgeable re: Politics as the rest of you so could you please help me w/this:

I like Ron Paul but his stance on Iran is a thing that really worries me about him.

1)  If he became President, how much power does he have realistically to force passivity re: Iran?   

2)  I've heard him say he doesn't really believe they are a threat because of their physical position etc. and that he also believes they are not close to having nukes but I've heard many others say they are close to having nukes.  I believe I've heard him say that the only reason they want nukes is because we're scaring them into thinking they need them and they should have them if they want.  Is this correct?

3)  Do you believe he believes that the leadership in Iran can be reasoned with?

4)  Do you think that if he became President and was exposed to classified intel he may not have access to presently, that it is in him to change his stance on passivity toward Iraq?

[Hugo Chavez]

I am nowhere as knowledgeable re: Politics as the rest of you so could you please help me w/this:
I like Ron Paul but his stance on Iran is a thing that really worries me about him.
1)  If he became President, how much power does he have realistically to force passivity re: Iran?  
2)  I've heard him say he doesn't really believe they are a threat because of their physical position etc. and that he also believes they are not close to having nukes but I've heard many others say they are close to having nukes.  I believe I've heard him say that the only reason they want nukes is because we're scaring them into thinking they need them and they should have them if they want.  Is this correct?
3)  Do you believe he believes that the leadership in Iran can be reasoned with?
4)  Do you think that if he became President and was exposed to classified intel he may not have access to presently, that it is in him to change his stance on passivity toward Iraq?

1.  The president has a great deal of power in that area.  It is highly unlikely we would be going to war without presidential approval.  With that said, Paul is misunderstood or misrepresented by the media.  If a nation poses a clear danger to America his position has always been to respond.  Remember, Iran hasn't initiated hostile actions against another country in over 200 years.  In regards to Iran saying they want to wipe Israel off the map the translations are totally false.  The real translations of what exactly was said are online, just google it.
2. Iran isn't a threat.  Their military capabilities are a fraction of Israel's and and much smaller fraction of ours.  They pose no threat.  They're also not suicidal.  If they launched a nuke against Israel, they would be destroyed completely in short order.  They know that as well as we know that.  Plus there is no point for them to nuke Israel... The only reason they give a shit about Israel is for the Palestinians.  They wouldn't nuke the place and say, oh you're free, enjoy your homeland... good luck with your highly radioactive soil...  Nuking Israel is the last thing on Iran's agenda despite what the Evangelicals want you to believe.
3.  I believe he believes that talks should be given a chance first which we have been totally unwilling to do since Reagan.
4. This questions sounds like you've already made up your mind on the first 3 questions.

[loco]

2)  I've heard him say he doesn't really believe they are a threat because of their physical position etc. and that he also believes they are not close to having nukes but I've heard many others say they are close to having nukes.  I believe I've heard him say that the only reason they want nukes is because we're scaring them into thinking they need them and they should have them if they want.  Is this correct?

I don't know, but it seems to me you get no respect as a nation until you get a nuke.  Look at Pakistan, India, North Korea, etc.  I've never heard the US even speak about going to war with a nation armed with nukes.   Had Afghanistan and  Iraq been armed with nukes, would the US had invaded?  I doubt it.

[Hugo Chavez]

I don't know, but it seems to me you get no respect as a nation until you get a nuke.  Look at Pakistan, India, North Korea, etc.  I've never heard the US even speak about going to war with a nation armed with nukes.   Had Afghanistan and  Iraq been armed with nukes, would the US had invaded?  I doubt it.

yea, I forgot to mention this...  In how we have dealt with others, we have given the clear indication that you don't get any respect until you have nukes.

[Butterbean]

Thanks for the answers.

4. This questions sounds like you've already made up your mind on the first 3 questions.

Huh?  I don't know any of the answers other than seeking confirmation or rejection for my inferences in question 2...that's why I asked them.

[loco]

4)  Do you think that if he became President and was exposed to classified intel he may not have access to presently, that it is in him to change his stance on passivity toward Iraq?

Ron Paul has said many times that he believes in going to war in self defense if there is a real threat against the US.  So I believe the answer is yes, if he is presented with reliable and credible intel that Iran poses an immediate threat to the US, like already having a nuke and a sophisticated delivery system that is already targeting the US.  That of course is very unlikely.

[Hugo Chavez]

Thanks for the answers.

Huh?  I don't know any of the answers other than seeking confirmation or rejection for my inferences in question 2...that's why I asked them.

well look at your questions... You're asking if it's within Paul to change his mind after identifying him as passive in regards to Iran.  I didn't mean to make all that sound like an attack on you, perhaps I shouldn't have said it like that but your questions have a bit of a predetermined factor that isn't actually a good understanding of what Paul stands for..  no attack in that intended.

[Butterbean]

Ron Paul has said many times that he believes in going to war in self defense if there is a real threat against the US.  So I believe the answer is yes, if he is presented with reliable and credible intel that Iran poses an immediate threat to the US, like already having a nuke and a sophisticated delivery system that is already targeting the US.  That of course is very unlikely.

Thanks loco!

well look at your questions... You're asking if it's within Paul to change his mind after identifying him as passive in regards to Iran.  I didn't mean to make all that sound like an attack on you, perhaps I shouldn't have said it like that but your questions have a bit of a predetermined factor that isn't actually a good understanding of what Paul stands for..  no attack in that intended.

Thanks Hugo..I appreciate that!  Last night they were asked to describe themselves in one word and Ron said "Consistent."  That's where question #4 was coming from.

Newt said "cheerful"  

[Skip8282]

3)  Do you believe he believes that the leadership in Iran can be reasoned with?

I'd disagree with Hugo here.  Obama has offered to talk and they've flatly rejected it.  Now, RP may get sanctions lifted and that might bring the Iranians around to talking...but who knows.

4)  Do you think that if he became President and was exposed to classified intel he may not have access to presently, that it is in him to change his stance on passivity toward Iraq?

He sits on the Committee on Foreign Affairs and the Oversight subcommittee.  Both in part deal with national security and terrorism.  There's undoubtedly some intel that he doesn't get, but my guess would be that he and the others on this committee are well briefed and his opinions would remain the same.

[Butterbean]

I'd disagree with Hugo here.  Obama has offered to talk and they've flatly rejected it.  Now, RP may get sanctions lifted and that might bring the Iranians around to talking...but who knows.





He sits on the Committee on Foreign Affairs and the Oversight subcommittee.  Both in part deal with national security and terrorism.  There's undoubtedly some intel that he doesn't get, but my guess would be that he and the others on this committee are well briefed and his opinions would remain the same.

Interesting.  Thanks Skip!

[howardroark]

1)  If he became President, how much power does he have realistically to force passivity re: Iran?   

No President has any power to realistically force Iran to become passive. The Iranian regime stays in power by stirring up nationalism and anti-Americanism when the United States acts aggressively against Iran. Thus, anything short of an outright invasion followed by nation building will not "pacify" Iran.

2)  I've heard him say he doesn't really believe they are a threat because of their physical position etc. and that he also believes they are not close to having nukes but I've heard many others say they are close to having nukes.  I believe I've heard him say that the only reason they want nukes is because we're scaring them into thinking they need them and they should have them if they want.  Is this correct?

The US has military bases all around Iran - to the West in Iraq, to the East in Afghanistan, to the South in the UAE. Also, the Iran is surrounded by nuclear countries, some of them friendly to the US: Israel to the West, Russia to the North, and Pakistan and India to the East.

3)  Do you believe he believes that the leadership in Iran can be reasoned with?

I'm not sure what he believes, but if we can reason with the North Korean dictatorship and we managed to reason with the Soviets I think there's hope for Iran.

4)  Do you think that if he became President and was exposed to classified intel he may not have access to presently, that it is in him to change his stance on passivity toward Iraq?

If Iraq posed a clear and present danger to the United States, then yes, that would change his view. However, what do you think the probability of a third world country posing a clear and present danger to the United States is?