Ron Paul: Iran wants to disrupt world oil supply because we are provoking them

[headhuntersix]

I think if many of you right wing guys who are in love with RP saw the plethora of people who supportr him and why, you'd drop him like a bad habit. Yeah, I fully get he wants to shrink the Gov but it won't happen like that. For the Lefties who love is wack job foreign policy..he can do some of it and maybe enough to severly endanger the country and the rest of the free world..but not enough for the likes of you. I'm sorry fella's but he's an idiot. He's another "blame America first" guy except on the Right, and the wack job lefties love him for it. Newt is nuts and unelectable....so I'm stuck with Mit.

How would I deal with the threat or the so-called threat of the Iranians, that they are going to disrupt the oil supply?

Well I’d be provoking them a lot less because they’re reacting to the provoking of the West saying “we’re gonna put on sanctions”. We have them surrounded with nuclear weapons and we’re claiming that they’re gonna build a nuclear weapon and there’s no evidence for this.

So we’re just looking for trouble. We’re building the war propaganda against Iran just as we did against Iraq.

And it’s the march on. You know it’s Libya and it’s in Egypt and now we’re involved in Syria, now we’re sending troops into Africa. And also, of course we’re still in Iraq, we’re into Pakistan and we’ve been in Afghanistan for a long time.

And people want to go to war against Iran. And I think they’re reacting to the provocations of so many other people saying that “we’re liable to bomb you because you are building a nuclear weapon.” But our CIA doesn’t confirm that nor does the UN confirm that.

So they’re acting actually in a rational manner because they’re saying “they’re gonna attack us and start bombing us”. They have to say “well, we don’t have any nuclear weapons, we can’t really defend ourselves. So we might sink a boat, sink a ship out there in the Persian Gulf”, hoping that we might back off.

I just think we’re treating the whole thing wrong. …

[howardroark]

Allow me to Socratically demonstrate that you don't have a clue what you're talking about.

Question: What would the consequences be of the US bombing Iran? What would the consequences be of the US overthrowing the Iranian government? What would the consequences be of the US installing a pro-US government in Iran? What would the consequences of the US nation building in Iran?

If you answer those questions correctly, then maybe you'll finally come to realize why Ron Paul advocates the only foreign policy that does not put the US at danger.

[Dos Equis]

This is the kind of thing that really hurts him. 

[headhuntersix]

Lets see idiot......who said we're going to do any "nation building" or active overthrow of  Iran. Iran has been killing our troops in Iraq, has killed our citizens around the world since 1980. RP wants to collapse into our own borders and stick our head in the sand. The guy thinks its 1938. He's as big a piece of shit as Obama. RP will sell out every last ally we have...

Beach...his foreign policy is untenable...impossible. So what happens is more gridlock. What would a RP cabinet look like. I can't imagine.

[Dos Equis]

Lets see idiot......who said we're going to do any "nation building" or active overthrow of  Iran. Iran has been killing our troops in Iraq, has killed our citizens around the world since 1980. RP wants to collapse into our own borders and stick our head in the sand. The guy thinks its 1938. He's as big a piece of shit as Obama. RP will sell out every last ally we have...

Beach...his foreign policy is untenable...impossible. So what happens is more gridlock. What would a RP cabinet look like. I can't imagine.

Hey you get no argument from he on his foreign policy.  It's pretty bad. 

[howardroark]

Lets see idiot......who said we're going to do any "nation building" or active overthrow of  Iran. Iran has been killing our troops in Iraq, has killed our citizens around the world since 1980. RP wants to collapse into our own borders and stick our head in the sand. The guy thinks its 1938. He's as big a piece of shit as Obama. RP will sell out every last ally we have...

So hold on a second. You don't propose we overthrow Iran. But you say action must be taken. What kind of action against Iran do you want to take? And what will the unintended consequences of that action be?

[Soul Crusher]

I think if anything Ron Paul needs to start attacking Thug/Ghetto Bama over his refusal to go along w the Keystone pipeline. 

[howardroark]

Michael Scheuer, former CIA analyst and head of the CIA's Bin Laden Unit agrees with Ron Paul on issues of foreign policy. Is he stupid and ignorant too?

[howardroark]

33 posted this in another thread, it's really good:

[headhuntersix]

So hold on a second. You don't propose we overthrow Iran. But you say action must be taken. What kind of action against Iran do you want to take? And what will the unintended consequences of that action be?

We're doing it. This is the way we've always done it up until 2003...slow burn. Sanctions/covert ops/cyber/....proxy forces. Somebody is blowing up their shit. Israel is prepared and ready and without US troops in Iraq..the IDF can overfly Iraq, land in desert to refuel and do what needs to be done. We're out of the nation building business..COIN is to expensive. Once we pull out of Afghanistan, we're done.

I love how you guys cherry pick Schuer.

[howardroark]

We're doing it. This is the way we've always done it up until 2003...slow burn. Sanctions/covert ops/cyber/....proxy forces. Somebody is blowing up their shit. Israel is prepared and ready and without US troops in Iraq..the IDF can overfly Iraq, land in desert to refuel and do what needs to be done. We're out of the nation building business..COIN is to expensive. Once we pull out of Afghanistan, we're done.

So how has that worked out for us? We sanction Iran, we perform covert ops against them, and now they're seeking a nuclear weapon faster than they ever have before.

What do you think will happen if Israel or the US bombs them? Will they just throw their hands up, give up, and walk away?

I love how you guys cherry pick Schuer.

"Cherry pick?" How have I cherry picked Scheuer? Do you even know anything he says or believes in?

[headhuntersix]

Besides....you allowing a guy I disagree with most of the time to make your argument. I've worked with CIA and DOS types, position doesn't make them right. What in your vast foreign policy experience makes RP right?

Dude I know all about this guy. He's went from a Bin Laden expert nutcase. I've read his books. As far as Iran goes...it took Iraq almost 12 years to get back to where they were in 1981 when Israel bombed the  Osirak reactor. I guess your just going to ask stupid questions you, yourself can't answer or support.

[Soul Crusher]

Lets be real here - Iran is doing this solely because of the bitch ass in the WH.   We wont drill out own oil, we wont do keystone, we wont do ANWR, we wont go refineries, etc. 


If you hated america and wanted to get your pound of flesh - isnt this the opportunity of a lifetime with obama in office? 

[headhuntersix]

Dude...they're all grabbing as much as they can. Our "allies" around the world watched us sell out Egypt and I guess Israel along with them. What a mess.

[loco]

Ron Paul would fix US domestic problems, but probably wouldn't get his way with foreign policy anyway.  So what's there to lose if Ron Paul is elected president?

[Fury]

Let's be honest. If Iran tries to shut down the straight, they lose. All we have to do is then ban all Iranian ships from using it and then it's over. Iran has to import their gasoline and no access to the straight will destroy whatever economy they have left.

Either way, that regime won't make it another 10 years. Next year's elections should be a shitshow.

I've never agreed with all of Paul's foreign policy but his economic knowledge works for me.

[Hugo Chavez]

Hey you get no argument from he on his foreign policy.  It's pretty bad. 

Go team Neocon. 

Another great thread Alexander.

[Freeborn126]

Go team Neocon. 

Another great thread Alexander.

The bloodlust of the neocons is insatiable.  There will never be enough wars for them

[Skip8282]

Ron Paul would fix US domestic problems, but probably wouldn't get his way with foreign policy anyway.  So what's there to lose if Ron Paul is elected president?

That's the million dollar question.  Let's assume the House stays stable, there's 32 or so Senate seats up for grabs.  Repubs will need 4 (I think - don't quote me) or so to gain the majority.  So, it's very possible that RP as POTUS could make big changes.  Or...

It also remains to be seen how the Repubs will treat him as a POTUS.

[Bindare_Dundat]

I think if many of you right wing guys who are in love with RP saw the plethora of people who supportr him and why, you'd drop him like a bad habit. Yeah, I fully get he wants to shrink the Gov but it won't happen like that. For the Lefties who love is wack job foreign policy..he can do some of it and maybe enough to severly endanger the country and the rest of the free world..but not enough for the likes of you. I'm sorry fella's but he's an idiot. He's another "blame America first" guy except on the Right, and the wack job lefties love him for it. Newt is nuts and unelectable....so I'm stuck with Mit.

How would I deal with the threat or the so-called threat of the Iranians, that they are going to disrupt the oil supply?

Well I’d be provoking them a lot less because they’re reacting to the provoking of the West saying “we’re gonna put on sanctions”. We have them surrounded with nuclear weapons and we’re claiming that they’re gonna build a nuclear weapon and there’s no evidence for this.

So we’re just looking for trouble. We’re building the war propaganda against Iran just as we did against Iraq.

And it’s the march on. You know it’s Libya and it’s in Egypt and now we’re involved in Syria, now we’re sending troops into Africa. And also, of course we’re still in Iraq, we’re into Pakistan and we’ve been in Afghanistan for a long time.

And people want to go to war against Iran. And I think they’re reacting to the provocations of so many other people saying that “we’re liable to bomb you because you are building a nuclear weapon.” But our CIA doesn’t confirm that nor does the UN confirm that.

So they’re acting actually in a rational manner because they’re saying “they’re gonna attack us and start bombing us”. They have to say “well, we don’t have any nuclear weapons, we can’t really defend ourselves. So we might sink a boat, sink a ship out there in the Persian Gulf”, hoping that we might back off.

I just think we’re treating the whole thing wrong. …

Nothing wrong here.

[Hugo Chavez]

That's the million dollar question.  Let's assume the House stays stable, there's 32 or so Senate seats up for grabs.  Repubs will need 4 (I think - don't quote me) or so to gain the majority.  So, it's very possible that RP as POTUS could make big changes.  Or...

It also remains to be seen how the Repubs will treat him as a POTUS.

no it's not possible for Paul to make big changes.  Paul as president is when it would start to look real obvious that republicans and dems are exactly the same on a lot of shit.  As for the foreign policy he would make a difference in that the threat to America better be the real thing and not a bunch of made up crap before we go to war.  There wouldn't be any going to war because the president personally wanted to or wag the dog style shit.  America as the neocon's world police would have to take a break.

[howardroark]

Besides....you allowing a guy I disagree with most of the time to make your argument. I've worked with CIA and DOS types, position doesn't make them right. What in your vast foreign policy experience makes RP right?

Dude I know all about this guy. He's went from a Bin Laden expert nutcase. I've read his books. As far as Iran goes...it took Iraq almost 12 years to get back to where they were in 1981 when Israel bombed the  Osirak reactor. I guess your just going to ask stupid questions you, yourself can't answer or support.

You ask what foreign policy experience Ron Paul has - I point out Michael Scheuer who agrees with Ron Paul on foreign policy and is an expert on Bin Laden and Islamic terrorism. You then call him a nutcase and again ask what foreign policy experience has. You see, you are faithfully wedded to the notion that the US needs to be involved in the Middle East.

You seem to miss the point that no matter what the US does in the Middle East it cannot benefit us. If Israel is threatened by Iran, then Israel should conduct the bombing. If the US conducts the bombing, then we'll draw more flak from Muslim terrorists and we'll encourage Iran to seek WMDs even more and do other things to disrupt our national interests. If we slap sanctions on Iran, then we'll encourage them just as much if not more. There really isn't a single thing that the US can do in the region besides leave that would serve our own interests and protect our own citizens.

If you believe otherwise, please demonstrate what the US would do that would leave Americans better off.

[headhuntersix]

Your parroting RP talking points. Who'd you vote for in the last election? Whats happening in Iran or against Iran is exactly what should be happening. I'm not talking about US led airstrikes....after all we only go after Libya. The Israeli's are capable of lauching any attack and now they won't have to go around Iran. As for leaving...yeah well unless our cars are suddenly going to drive on water...thats where all the gas comes from. So even if RP or some other President goes nuts building oil platforms, we're still going to be invloved there for the next decade or two. It really shouldn't matter to you either way because you'll still be sitting here complaining about it while I'm stuck in Iran. I have zero desire to fight in Iran and not advocating it. Israel can do the job for us.

[howardroark]

So we should sink untold trillions of dollars and God knows how many American lives to keep gasoline prices down?  THAT is the "vital" US national interest in the Middle East?  Give me a break.

[headhuntersix]

Um.....AGAIN idiot did I say deploy troops to Iran...nope....some drones, some KC135 refuelers/Jstars/AWACS/SOF and let the IDF do what needs to be done. There only reason we haven't done more is that the insurgent groups inside Iran are in many ways worse then the current government. Bush backed off playing with them and Obama hasn't even considered it. Our best chance was in 2009 and we sat on our hands.