By The Right Scoop


In a town hall yesterday, Ron Paul said that Iran is acting in a “rational manner” by threatening to disrupt the world oil supply in the Persian Gulf. He believes Iran is only defending itself from the provocations of the West and told the crowd that if he were president, he’d be “provoking them a lot less.”

“We’re just looking for trouble,” Paul said. “We’re building the war propaganda against Iran just as we did against Iraq.”

Since Paul believes that Iran doesn’t have nuclear weapons to defend itself, he characterized Iran’s response as saying “we can’t really defend ourselves so we might sink a boat, sink a ship out there in the Persian Gulf.”

Here’s the full video:

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. …

About 

Blogger extraordinaire since 2009 and the owner and Chief Blogging Officer of the most wonderful and super fantastic blog in the known and unknown universe: The Right Scoop

Trending Now

Comment Policy: Please read our new comment policy before making a comment. In short, please be respectful of others and do not engage in personal attacks. Otherwise we will revoke your comment privileges.


NOTE: If the comments don't load properly or they are difficult to read because they are on the blue background, please use the button below to RELOAD DISQUS.

  • http://norunnyeggs.com steveegg

    Somebody needs to ask Ron Paul about World War I. I don’t remember the US explicitly, or even implicitly, taking sides before the Germans started torpedoing everything in the mid-Atlantic and encouraging Mexico to invade the US to grab back, among other states, Texas.

    • http://iuwolf.myopenid.com/ Matt

      It could be argued that our involvement in WWI allowed WWII to happen.

      • Anonymous

        Oh my goodness! You’re mad man! Mad as a hatter!! How does your statement even bear any resemblance to sense?!! Do you know history at all man!!!! And please don’t come back to me with some crappy answer along the lines of ‘Oh I know history, just not the history you were taught by your slave masters at school’. Newsflash, you conspiracy theorist, history-manipulating, Paulbot hacks: Alex Jones is not God!

        • http://twitter.com/pixelpatriot Pixel Patriot

          WWI was pretty much a stalemate before we got involved… us getting involved gave the allies a victory. After the war we (along with other nations) placed ridiculous sanctions on Germany which created an environment for Hitler to rise to power.

          • Anonymous

            Harsh sanctions would have been placed on Germany anyway Pixel! What?! You think war reparations and imposed tough luck for the country that loses a war was an American idea?! Gimme a break and quit the senseless gibberish man.

            This then leaves your point about the decisive victory American involvement brought, which isn’t much of a point on its own. Why? Becasue since the beginning of time, different nations have won and lost wars and have managaed to move on; one cannot then come up with an argument to say because Germany lost the first world war, it was an absolutely inevitable state of affair for the world to end up with another war, started by Germany some twenty one years after the end of the first one. Like I said, people move on.. The Germans could have done so… should have done so… WOULD HAVE DONE SO if not for one crucial ingredient you seem to be missing out quite conveniently, that of one raving mad lunatic by the name of Adolf Hitler. Lemme guess, going by the reasoning of your god, Ron Paul, America provoked him too, right?

            Sick stuff dude. Absolutey sick stuff.

            “Matt” is right though, you could make an argument for saying america’s involvement in ww1 caused ww2… that is, if you wanted to argue just for the sake of argument and prove something that is absolutely unproveable because of the senseless ego that drives such as those who defend Ron to defend the indefensible!

          • Anonymous

            And I’m not watching the clip. Sorry.

          • http://profiles.google.com/kaiserpha Patrick Allen

            One thing you can give credit for (and possibly blame him for at the same time) was that Woodrow Wilson wanted much more leniency for German reparations. Unfortunately, he scuttled actual chances at peace because of his overreaching progressive ideology, since no sane Republican or Democrat would approve his treaties which basically signed away American sovereignty.

            • Anonymous

              Anything like the way Obama is signing ours away?

          • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_U2EE4CIYSYUSYECGPKM7AKKZKU poptoy

            What you just said is indeed true. However let it be known that the U.S. did not want it that way but France insisted and Great Britain went along with it. Did the Treaty of Versailles lead to WW II…..in a lot of ways….you bet it did.

          • Anonymous

            Oh yh and you’re wrong about America subjecting Germany to ‘ridiculous sanctions'; It was France that did this and not America. I seem to remember one French PM saying the ToV must squeeze Germany till the pip squeaks. So you just don’t know your history either, plain and simple.

      • Anonymous

        so argue it, please.

        • http://www.facebook.com/people/James-Lumpkin/716358540 James Lumpkin

          The financial burden placed on Germany after WW1 were so severe that their economy could never recover thus her people were doomed to poverty. This led to the hyperinflation of the Weirmar Republic which eventually led to national discontent due to the people being unable to pay for basic necessities. I suppose you have never seen the pics of the people rolling wheelbarrows full of marks to the grocery store for bread. Anyways, this discontent is what Hitler and the Nazi Party tapped into to get elected. After they were elected they took over the institutions of Germany by stealth and force. The rest as they say is history.

          • Anonymous

            But what exactly does your story prove as per n8sebaka’s request?

            • Anonymous

              I think he’s trying to say that financial burden was imposed by us, but the truth is it was caused by them going to war.

      • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_U2EE4CIYSYUSYECGPKM7AKKZKU poptoy

        I have taught History my entire life and I never heard of that scenario. EVER !!! Could you please explain a little more. Thanks.

    • K-Bob

      Ron Paul started World War I.

      In the library.

      With the wrench.

    • Anonymous

      If Russia, China…ANY country threatened us of a bombing……stopped our exports by naval blockade: Hmm. Would America just do nothing to defend itself? NOT. The countries that are waiting for (25%) of their oil supply want the straights to remain open. Iran’s ONLY retaliation to sanctions is to defend their turf. Obama MUST trigger a war before election time. The Saudis are increasing their oil exports to offset sanctions on Iran. Iran has no choice after the US, England and France killed Khadafi and split the oil up in Libya. Fabricating ANOTHER act of aggression is wrong…constitutionally, economically and morally. Using these tactics; this SAME scenario will play out against the United states down the road, and would be justified by the actions we display on others.

  • Anonymous

    Iran sponsors terror all over the globe and this is his response? Who in the hell supports this clown?

    • Anonymous

      “Who the hell supports this clown?” Oh, you’d be surprised John.

    • Anonymous

      So, when we vote for President, we are voting for a commander in chief, not a legislator in chief. So, while I think the good Dr. would do us less harm than most on legislation, he is a blithering idiot on foreign policy–or just naive. Not sure how he pulls the support he does running for President.
      I don’t think I would have too much trouble pulling the lever to have him in Congress. I will never support him as our Commander in Chief.

    • PFFV

      Fellow clowns of course. The people of the USA are easily brainwashed into believing what they want to believe. Wouldn’t is be nice if all we had to do was put up a privacy fence and ignore the rest of the world? Wake up stupid Paul supporters!

  • http://twitter.com/MRoCkEd MRoCkEd

    People need to remember the Lord’s Golden Rule more.

    What would happen if someone was threatening and provoking us?

    • Anonymous

      What would happen if someone was threatening and provoking us?-MRoCkEd

      We beat them like school boy bitches.

      • Anonymous

        “…Like school boy bitches.” One word: ROFL!

    • Anonymous

      Very sanctimonious of you. Unfortunately, that rule doesn’t apply here. It applies with your next door neighbor, the guy in the grocery line, etc.

      If someone breaks in my house and wants to kill me and my children, I’m not going to think “hmmm..If I were in his shoes I wouldn’t want me to shoot him”.

      Mr. Ahmedinijad needs no provoking to want to kill you and your family. The very fact that we are a free, strong, non-muslim country is provocation enough. So, unless you are suggesting we all jump in to sharia law, bow to the 12th Imam, and buy burkas for our females we will continue to provoke him.

    • Chicago Nick

      Ever heard of 911? Is that provocation? Or what about sending terrorists into a war zone to kill soldiers while not wearing combat uniforms of a nation? That’s a flagrant violation of the Geneva Conventions which the Muslim world wipes their camel chafed azzes with…or what about threatening daily to nuke America and Israel off the map?

      This hairy azzzed Muslim monkey has been threatening to bring genocide to Israel since he participated in the 78 Hostage crisis the western world has chosen to ignore. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ahmadinejad_alleged.JPG

  • http://twitter.com/113KriEger 13Krieger

    This is a perfect example of why Ron Paul’s policies are naive bordering on neglect and most certainly dangerous.

    His idea that ”Iran is acting in a “rational manner” by threatening to disrupt the world oil supply” is a prime example of a man living in a time that is not inturn with the 21st Century. Electing Ron Paul will just create another ”Guns of August” situation where politicians and military commanders continued to employ 19th century ideology to a 20th Century War (i.e. World War One)

    The results were the first World War and over 30 million people dead.

    How do I draw that conclusion?? Simple…look at his opinions as to Iran and his statements in the debates on ”if the america leaves the terrorists alone (by withdrawing form the region) they (the terrorists) will leave America alone”.

    This type mentality has happened before….we called them isolationists in the 1900s and appeasers in the 1930s….what were those results??? Answer: two different World Wars!

    This is why people need to open their eyes and stop being robots of Ron Paul….

    Face it the man is dangerous and his ideas of the world are outdated and will end up causing the next world war!

    • Anonymous

      “Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God.”

      Is peace a good thing? We’ve been taking the war tac for so long. Maybe we should try something different?

      • http://twitter.com/113KriEger 13Krieger

        how do you equate ignorance to peace…..

        how do you even begin to negociate with someone who starts out with a position of we want you dead….kinda hard to expect peace from someone like that.

        so your arguement is weak to non existant

        • Anonymous

          He is well read on the subject as am I.

          There are many nations that do not live in a perpetual state of war – successfully. I wonder what their formula is.

          • Anonymous

            Depend on the US for their protection?

          • http://twitter.com/113KriEger 13Krieger

            Obviously not because anyone that reads history should understand the terrorists will NOT leave the USA alone. Terrorists will view the kinds of withdrawal that Ron Paul’s is calling for as weakness and that will empower them to attack the USA homeland. Any one that reads history can see that.

            You also do not grasp that because the US has over the past 100 years has taken the positions it has there is no way they can shrink from their obligations on the world stage. To become isolationists now would put USA interested in great jeapardy not to mention its citizens and the world in general. You cannot just say…sorry about the past 100 years…we will go home and leave you alone now… That is NAIVE!

            • Anonymous

              Unfortunately, some people have that one eye half open (the other closed) viewpoint that if we still trade with the world, we cannot be isolationists and, hence, dismiss your argument offhand, never having listened to what you say.

              They would not like the facts, of history or of present times, to get in the way of a perfectly good story. I was accused of using liberal tactics when I mentioned Paul advocates isolationism. Go figure. Me, a liberal!!!

          • http://twitter.com/113KriEger 13Krieger

            That is an easy one….they all run to the USA and scream help us.

            Why don’t you go and ask Neville Chamberlain how ”peace in our time” worked out??

          • Anonymous

            I think they smoke weed all day, take 2 weeks off every month for “holiday”, and retire at 50 while bankrupting their country. Just a guess.

          • PFFV

            “There are many nations that do not live in a perpetual state of war”

            True, thanks to the United States of America keeping the world in check.

            • Anonymous

              And the United States is broke and less secure and more hated around the world because of it. Sounds like a good trade off doesnt it?

      • Anonymous

        Ron Paul is supposed to be all about Liberty. But doing nothing to stop those whose intent is mayhem and murder does not create liberty, but slavery to tyranny. This is not a new argument.

        “Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace — but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death! (Patrick Henry, St. John’s Church in Richmond, Virginia on March 23, 1775.)

        • Anonymous

          The Christian Just War requirements.

          1. the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;

          2. all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;

          3. there must be serious prospects of success;

          4. the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated.

          I don’t see anything unreasonable with this – do you?

        • Anonymous

          Ron Paul is supposed to be all about Liberty. But doing nothing to stop those whose intent is mayhem and murder does not create liberty, but slavery to tyranny. This is not a new argument.

          I strongly disagree with RP about Iran but I believe he makes case about your own government treating you like a terror suspect police state means the terrorist already won the war against liberty.

          Ben Franklin said those who would give up liberty for security deserve neither. And that’s exactly what we got today. How prescient of old wise Ben. Ron Paul makes his case well but he’s just wrong on Iran, just plain wrong.

      • K-Bob

        You are sort of correct.

        We do need to try something different. It’s a concept I like to call “Victory.”

        • Anonymous

          The old testament gives a precise prescription for war. I think we all agree that unless you’re willing to do it – it’s best not to go in. It’s too hard to figure out whether they are friend or foe waiting to see if they are going to shoot you or not.

      • Anonymous

        I appreciate the spirit of your post, but -with all due respect – in the context of Iran it is incorrect. Peacemakers involve two parties that come to the table and agree on common objectives. USA as one of the parties has attempted peace offerings with Iran, but if the other party is not interested in peace, but rather war, then I think the more appropriate scripture would be Proverbs 25:26, “If the godly give in to the wicked, it’s like polluting a fountain or muddying a spring.”

    • http://twitter.com/jodywick Jody Wickersham

      I am a new Paul convert. I used to think like you people because I used to let the media tell me what Ron Paul thought instead of actually listening to his words. RP is not an isolationist, but he doesn’t believe in nation building. He favors actually declaring war and winning! And this is really bugging me lately, since when does conservative mean you believe in policing the world?! And what the hell do you care what Iran is doing when our country is about to implode?! We won’t survive one more progressive, whether republican or democrat.

      • http://twitter.com/113KriEger 13Krieger

        Jody,

        You claim Ron Paul is not isolationistic… please explain how you watch Ron Paul say statements like;

        ”if we leave the terrorists alone that will leave America alone”
        or
        ”America should just leave Iran alone”
        or
        ”if I am elected President I will bring all (he means all) US troops abroad home immediately (and he means like NOW immediately”
        or
        ”Iran should be allowed to have Nuclear Weapons”
        or
        ”we should not be helping Israel by giving them money or weapons, they should be left alone to defend themselves”

        Then you say Ron Paul favors actually declaring war and winning it….but the facts say different.

        Fact;
        Ron Paul left the Republican Party because could not stand Ronald Reagan and
        felt Reagan was right wing military facist.

        Ron Paul was against the First Gulf War even though the choise was clear and Iraq was the agreesor and the objectives were clear and so was the exit strategy. He view was the region should handle itself and the USA should not get envolved.

        Ron Paul was against and still is against Afganistan even though it is a prooven fact that the Taliban supported, funded and was providing safe harbor to the terrorist that cause 9/11

        This is classic speech of an isolationist or an appeaser for peace on any term.

        So, lets explore your agreement. This 1900s style isolationism or 1930s style appeasment will do what?? Look to history for your answer….how about World Wars one and two!!!!

        But lets us move a step away and see how this will effect the USA economically. If the USA were to immediately implement the Ron Paul school of foreign policy then you can look forward to

        –collapse of USA exports….
        –collapse of USA foreign business interests as overseas USA companies will be the first targets of the terrorists around the world.
        –USA shipping abroad will most likely collapse as under the isolationist Ron Paul doctrine the US Navy will become more a coast guard and only opperate close to USA shores.
        –terrorist will be empowered to expand their donimations at will because the USA will have retreated from the world stage as a defender of the Western Ideals and Capitalism.
        –the dollar will collapse because no one will no longer trust the USA as a defender of Western Civilizations
        –a new depression will occur because of the huge contraction of the economy due to increased cost/risk of doing business overseas causing massive economic downturn and layoffs worse than today.

        Now tell me how that will not effect you or make the USA implode.

        Your arguement is weak because you refuse to pay attention to history.

        FACE THE FACTS the terrorist will not stop…why because they are finatics bend on world Islamic domination! Nations like North Korea will not stop…
        Ron Pauls 19th Century foreign policy ideas were just as wrong in the 20th Century as they are today in the 21st Century.

        So….take off the Ron Paul ”isolationist” glasses and see the world for the 21st Century that it is!

        • http://www.facebook.com/Sunsettommy Thomas Pearson

          Have you learned the difference between NON-Interventionism and Isolationism?

          Paul is the former and not the latter.He has made it clear he is for a strong national defense and would wage war if needed.

          • http://twitter.com/113KriEger 13Krieger

            yeah I hear you but Ron Pauls past says different. If Ron Paul was President in 1990 Saddam Hussen would still be in power and Kuwait would be part of Iraq now.

            you are soo right Ron Paul is a non-interventionist…….NOT

            Ron Paul is a freaking isolationist and his past proves it!

            • futureatstake

              I believe that had we not attacked Iraq, the Muslims would be killing each other instead of our troops. Our current foreign policy in the middle east has bonded them against a common enemy. (U.S.!) War has always made for good economics domestically, and this (not oil or the spread of democracy) is what motivates the progressive politicians, both Democrat and Republican. Dr. Paul WILL aggressively defend our nation and he will be absolutely justified in doing so because we, as a sovereign nation, will respect every other nations sovereignty.

            • http://www.facebook.com/Sunsettommy Thomas Pearson

              It is obvious that you do not understand the difference.

              It is easy to find the evidence.That Ron Paul is an ardent non interventionist.

  • Anonymous

    Yap Yap Yap… The man’s insane, God help him!

  • puma_for_life

    If we developed our own domestic oil supply, we wouldn’t have to care about their threats.

    • Anonymous

      I partly agree. That is, we need to be energy independent. However, I don’t think it would even put a dent in our foreign policy unless you actually believe that we only go over there for oil. It may be partly a reason, but there are plenty more.

  • Anonymous

    I would’ve never voted for Paul but i liked a few things he was for but now that’s gone. I’m disappointed that we haven’t done more to Iran when we had the chance. They’ve killed our troops and still are and we do nothing. Then this clown comes along saying these types of things. Paul is like the guy you go to the bar with and always finds a way to get your ass kicked.

  • http://profiles.google.com/smcaronx Steve Caron

    what versions of the F word are permissible here?

    • grizzlybear71

      Phuck?

  • Anonymous

    This is the main reason I can not support Paul…I agree with him on much but he would destroy our foreign policy.

  • Eve

    This is the major reason I cannot support Ron Paul and find his foreign policy to be extremely scary. It is dangerous to America’s security and allies. Let’s wait until we are attacked again, huh? His views on why Iran is doing what they are doing, is dead wrong. Whether the West is here or there – will not derail Iran’s agenda.

    He had me speechless, I think it was the second debate, when he was asked if a fence should be build along our border. His answer was something like, well no building the fence could keep us in. Really?

    Mark Levin said it best: “Hitler would have wanted nukes too”

  • Anonymous

    Look what happens when you rely on the U.N. or for that matter the IAEA. Ron Paul is totally out of his mind and is going to get a lot of people killed if he is elected. It makes me sick when his supporters try to defend his lunacy. How is it only his ardent defenders kbow how to interpret what he is saying when the rest of us hear his words we only hear crazy talk.

    • Anonymous

      “Ron Paul … is going to get a lot of people killed if he is elected.”

      Thankfully, he won’t be!

  • Anonymous

    This man can’t be President.

  • Anonymous

    Can you believe this moron is up in the polls. My god what the hell is wrong with us conservatives, it’s like deja vu all over again. We had better pick a REAL CONSERVATIVE, or this country is FINISHED.

    • K-Bob

      I think folks can relax a bit on that point. Paul has obviously attracted a ton of disenfranchised liberals. The ones who are still into free love and drugs, but who still felt mugged by reality on 9-11.

      They still reflexively hate “Conservatives”, so they jump onto a different bandwagon that also hates Conservatives.

      They voted for Obama in 2008.

      We don’t need them to win in 2012.

  • Maxsteele

    Ron Paul likes to insult the people of the world by stating that all of their evil actions are caused by what others do to them and he seems to live in a vacuum where there is nothing that happened previous to the very convenient time frame that fits his skewed view of the world. He likes to have chicken vs egg arguments but lets follow the illogic of his argument.
    Iran is disrupting the world oil supply because the USA is provoking them, why?
    The USA is provoking Iran because it continues to try and develop nuclear arms, why?
    Iran is developing nuclear arms because USA is provoking them, why?
    USA is provoking them because they support world wide terrorist networks in Asia, South America, Lebanon, Gaza/West bank, Egypt. Why?
    Iran supporst world wide terrorist networks because USA is provoking them and the existence of Israel…whoops..argument starts to come apart now because why would Iran be supporting terrorists in the Philippines, Thailand, Vietnam, Russia ,etc..because of the USA provocation or the existance of Israel??
    But let’s continue with the false argument to show how wacky Paul is.
    Iran fought a war against Iraq for 10 yrs because (in Pauls world of conspiracy theories) the world wide banking system, illuminati, alien lizard men, protocols of elder zion (or whatever whacky conspiracty theory you want to choose) needed to finance more wars to make more money and, of course, because the USA is provoking them.
    The Iranians have ceaselessly called for the distruction of Israel and America because they are provoking them, The Iranians funded and organized the terrorist attacks in South America against Jewish and Israeli citzens, the Marine Barracks in Lebanon because they are being provoked,
    The USA is provoking Iran because the Iranain theocratic dictatorship’s act of war by attacking soveriegn US soil in attacking the embassy and holding american citizens hostage.
    The Iranian theocratinc dictatorship commited this act of war because the USA propped up a false monarchy in the Shah,
    The USA proppled up a false monarchy in the Shah because of the anarchy and tribal warfare within the middle east tribes following WWII,
    The tribal warfare following WWII was caused by USA and other world power provoking them,
    The other world powers provoked the Islamic tribes because of the war against the nazi’s and the majority of the islamic tribes support of the nazi cause,
    The Islamic tribes supported the nazis because the world power provoked them,
    The world powers provoked them because of the war against the Islamic Ottomans who were allies with the Germans in WW1,
    The Islamic Ottomans were allies with Germany because the western powers provoked them,
    The western powers provoked the Islamic Ottomans because they attempted to invade and conquer Europe for centuries,
    The Islamic Ottomans attempted to conquer Europe becaue they provoked them,
    The Europeans provoked the Islamic Ottomans from the 1400’s because they exist and are not Islamic…
    Shall we go further or have we finally come to the crux of the matter here?? Does it sound familiar when listening to the Imam’s and Ahmadenijad with his theocratic leaders in Iram screaming from the rooftops that a world wide Caliphate is coming that will destroy the western world and converst all to Islam???
    Yet, of course, in the mind of Paul and his mindless, intellectual followers it is all the fault of the USA and the west. We should all feel guilty for provoking these peace loving victims of our provocation….Paul and his ilk are even more dangerous, in my mind, then Obama the communist is.

    • http://no-apologies-round2.blogspot.com/ AmericanborninCanada

      That was laid out excellently Max

      • Maxsteele

        Awe shucks ABC :)

    • K-Bob

      I agree. If I were presented with Ron Paul!! vs Obama in the 2012 elections, I’m afraid I’d have to go with the lying, America-hating, leftist scumbag over the peace-through-cowering, anarchist lunatic.

      • Maxsteele

        With either one of them the world will go down the port-a-potty.

        • K-Bob

          Hmmm. Then we can call the truck to collect it and replace it with a new one!

          Ron Paul 2012!! Because starting over from total nuclear holocaust is one sure way to end the fed!

  • http://www.planettron.com NickDeringer

    This man is certifiable. The fact that he’s doing so well in Iowa should demonstrate how ill informed the American voter truly is. The other candidates should call this guy out in tonight’s debate. Just point out how delusional and dangerous his policies are. Bachmann, Santorum, even Romney need to call this guy an extremist who will wreak havoc in the world if he becomes POTUS. Even Glenn Beck had to turn his back on Ron Paul last night when Ziegler reminded him of Paul’s desire to legalize heroin.

    The MSM loves Ron Paul because he trashes the GOP and is crazy enough to run as a third party candidate.

    • K-Bob

      Ron Paul 2012!! Because cowering always works!

      • http://www.planettron.com NickDeringer

        LOL!!!

        Ron Paul 2012 because hiding your head in the sand isn’t just for ostriches anymore.

    • http://twitter.com/Winston80 Winston

      Iranian regime loves this crackpot

  • Anonymous

    At the Nuremburg Trials Hermann Goering said that is was easy to convince people to go to war. You just tell them there is a threat to their security and denounce anyone who disagrees as being naive or unpatriotic. That is the exact same situation we have with the war propaganda against Iran. Iran is not a threat to us. There is no credible foreign policy expert (notice I use the word ‘credible’) that thinks they are pursuing a nuclear weapon, including the recently retired head of the Mossad. That IAEA report has been floating around for 10 years. Iran has a third rate army, their navy is a joke and they have 25 Tomcats from the 1970s in their air force. They actually have 44 Tomcats, but they can’t figure out how to repair the other 19, so only 25 operational aircraft. This is a country that can’t refine their own oil, yet the fear-mongers would have us believe they are going to develop a nuke by the end of next week and kill us all with our own personal terrorist. Fear-mongering, as Goering pointed out, is an effective tool against the weak minded.

    Ron Paul was spot on with his comments. Sanctions never work, they only agitate the situation. And after listening to the sabre rattling at the Republican debates about how we should bomb Iran, or as Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum said, covertly assassinate scientists, it is easy to understand how they might want to think about defending themselves.

    This is the guy that has been floated as Ron Paul’s Secretary of Defense: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dgWA3fmfVrI

    The greatest threat to our security is our economy and on economic issues Ron Paul has no equal.

    • Anonymous

      For years, the IAEA, under the very anti-American ElBaradei, claimed Iran was nowhere near getting a nuclear bomb. In fact, they claimed Iran only wanted nuclear energy for peaceful purposes. Only just recently did the IAEA reverse their statements and now claim that, oh surprise, Iran is very close to having a nuclear bomb. (coincidentally, it was right after ElBaradei stepped down and took his millions with him. Hmmm).

      • Anonymous

        If the report hasn’t been floating around for 10 years, then why did Robert Kelley, a former IAEA inspector, say there was nothing new in the report? In a sense, though, you are correct; the report itself was underwhelming to begin with.

        • Anonymous

          Don’t get me wrong.The only thing I’m saying is that the leadership of the UN (NWO), in this particular case ElBaradei, have been covering up the truth for a long time in order to bash the US. I believe that they have known the truth all along. They have their own agenda for global power and it doesn’t include the US. All they want (and need) is our money. Why play into their hands? Kick them out of New York and send them somewhere where they would fit in, like Tehran.

          • Anonymous

            Thank you for the civil debate. I have to run to work now, but I just wanted to post that I agree with you about kicking the UN out of New York. And to stop giving them our money!

    • http://hashmonean.com saus

      That’s not what Meir Dagan, former head of the Mossad said, but what’s a little accuracy and truth to an RP supporter worth, not much. The entire western world is convinced Iran is dev. nuclear weapons, you must be living in a tin can somewhere. Only Ron Paul and fellow Iranian apologists I guess are ‘credible’ on Iran, what a joke.

      No stopping them, no sanctions, you are basically arguing to give Iran nuclear weapons.. THEN state they are also not a threat. It’s amazing that RP supporters cannot see how utterly nuts they sound.

      Of course the economy is top priority in the USA, that’s the top domestic priority.. But foreign policy doesn’t exist for isolationists, so I can’t blame you for getting those 2 confused.

      • Anonymous

        Here’s a story from a jewish paper reporting on former Mossad chief Dagan stating that Iran is far from achieving a nuclear bomb:

        http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/former-mossad-chief-iran-far-from-achieving-nuclear-bomb-1.388090

        Neither I, nor Ron Paul, are isolationists. Isolationists want to impose sanctions and impede trade. It is the current Bush/Obama foreign policy that is the more isolationist.

        The economy and foreign policy are intertwined.

        By the way, if Israel decided to attack Iran, who is the only candidate in the race who believes that Israel doesn’t have to get authorization from the U.S. beforehand? Ron Paul.

        • http://hashmonean.com saus

          You left out the part about ‘far’ being in the context of an imminent strike to stop them, when he said far he means 1-3 years.

          That doesn’t seem so far when it is put in the proper frame/context.

          • Anonymous

            I went back and re-read the article. I didn’t leave it out because he didn’t say it. Making up stuff does not benefit your argument.

            And Ron Paul was absolutely correct in his comment about Israel during the debate. It’s called sovereignty.

            As long as we are playing the questions game: Who is the only candidate in the entire field that thinks that Israel doesn’t need to get authorization from the U.S. to determine its own borders? Ron Paul.

            • http://hashmonean.com saus

              I didn’t make stuff up lol, I live in Israel Dagan has made dozens of interviews and as many statements, what I wrote is his view. You can google it if you’d like.

              And RE Israel’s borders, Obama is the only candidate who seems to think that, the rest have been great on Israel issues.. Save for Ron Paul.

              Here is talking to Iranian TV News / PressTV..

              Our enemy, who arms the terrorists trying to kill us, and telling them we are creating a ‘Concentration Camp’ in Gaza, and that his personal opinion where he thinks Israel is ‘Ripping Off the Palestinians’ is academic so not important, but that the US Israel relationship should be ended, changing US policy.

              No matter how much you want to twist things around, it is abundantly clear Ron Paul supports the Palestinians, does not like Israel, has voted that way for 30 years now including votes for Hamas, votes with Hezbollah, votes siding with Iran. Iran incidentally is working on ICBMS that will be ready according to the Pentagon in 2015, the same year the USA estimates approx Iran will finish its nuclear weapons program. But nothing to worry about, since they are not a threat, despite you know chanting “Death to America” every single Friday, in every single state sanctioned Mosque – Weekly sermons btw which are prepared by the State, and read in all mosques.

    • Anonymous

      Goering and the Nazis did a little bit more than just convince people to go to war. Poor argument on its face. I can only hope you don’t mean to compare the Nazis to the current Republican field.
      Would you have us wait until Iran deploys a nuclear weapon on us before we act?
      If sanctions don’t work, what does? Appeasement? Get your head out of the sand. The rise of socialism after WWI, coupled with a bad treaty terms for Germany, lit the fire for Hitler and the Nazis. The Brits were caught between appeasing Hitler or destroying him, which some in power believed would allow Marxism to spread throughout Europe.
      Peace through strength.

      • Anonymous

        War propaganda is war propaganda no matter who is doing it. I think Goering might have known a thing or two about the subject.

        “Would you have us wait until Iran deploys a nuclear weapon on us before we act?”

        Your premise is false. Iran does not have a nuclear weapon. This is an example of buying into the fear-mongering that I was talking about.

        “Appeasement?” Thank you for proving Herr Goering’s formula correct. First tell them there is a threat to their security, no matter how irrational the premise may be, (“Would you have us wait until Iran deploys a nuclear weapon on us before we act?”), then tell anybody who disagrees to “Get your head out of the sand,” and call them an appeaser.

        Germany was a super power; Iran is not. Iran has no ability to engage us in war. To answer your question about sanctions and appeasement more directly, the Iran situation is more closely related to Vietnam. We stopped fighting them and started trading with them. It is easy to see which foreign policy position was more beneficial.

        Peace through strength is a great policy, and one that Ron Paul believes. For instance, he voted for Star Wars, so he has always been strong on national defense. The problem is that what you are advocating is not peace through strength but peace through war.

        • Anonymous

          You are absolutley incorrect about Germany and WWII. When Hitler pushed the button for the troops to occupy the Rhineland, he was scared to death the French would come in. His troops and his country was not yet ready for war. He knew the French would do nothing, and they didn’t. They went to the Brits, hat in hand, and asked them what to do. The British policy, and the rest of Europes for that matter, was to honestly believe that Hitler wanted peace. They kept appeasing him at their peril.

          Churchill knew what was going to happen, which was why he relentlessly argued for improving England’s defenses. He was ridiculed.

          Do you honestly believe Iran is not developing nukes? Honestly? I bet you never saw 9/11 coming, eh?

          • Anonymous

            I will believe Iran is developing a nuke when there is credible evidence presented to support that claim. So far that has not happened.

            You know who did see 9/11 coming? Ron Paul. Check this out: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_6hxE3mPgtM

            • Anonymous

              If I have all the equipment in my house to make Meth and I have all the ingredients laying around that house and I’ve talked to many people about how to get rid of Meth, would you assume I’m not going for Meth just because I don’t, at this time, actually have it?

              Everything they have done and are doing so far indicates, not only a destination of a nuke, but also a near destination.

              As I’ve said before, the only world bodies that try to get us to deny that, besides Iran of course, is the UN and IAEA. They most certainly have an agenda and can’t be trusted. Look at the oil for food program with Iraq. Now THAT was a winning entitlement program, was it not!

        • Anonymous

          UPDATE:

          Here’s your hero on Star Wars now:
          ‘War Propaganda’
          Representative Ron Paul, a Texas Republican known for his calls for limited government, said that while he isn’t an expert on the missile program, defense spending should be cut and the rationale behind missile defense should be re-evaluated.

          “It’s all war hysteria, war propaganda,” Paul said in a phone interview. With the Cold War impetus gone, proponents of missile defense point to North Korea and Iran as threats. “The North Koreans are not going to be a threat to us,” he said. “The Iranians aren’t going to attack us.”

          http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-08-03/missile-defense-costing-35-billion-misses-bullets-with-bullets.html

      • Anonymous

        All Ron Paul asks is that congress declare the war first (radical) – then we have America’s support & we win it. Being a strict constitutionalists he would be all in at that point. In the mean time, focus on the fact that if we don’t get spending under control, we will be bankrupt and then it is game over.

    • http://twitter.com/113KriEger 13Krieger

      I think you assumption is wrong. Ron Paul’s naivety and dangerous foreign policy will have a dramatic effect on the economics of the USA. It will greatly effect the value of the dollar, exports, the ability to trade, businesses that have international operations, tourism, and many more international economic factors..

      Ron Paul’s idea that ”Iran is acting in a “rational manner” by threatening to disrupt the world oil supply” is a prime example of a man that is not intune with the 21st Century. Electing Ron Paul will just create another ”Guns of August” situation. That will lead to war….

      It is funny you referenced Hermann Goering….Why don’t you go and ask Neville Chamberlain how ”peace in our time” worked out??

      Ron Paul is a bumbling old fool when it comes to foreign policy and USA presence on the world stage. At his best he is naive, bordering on neglect, at worse he is dangerous and will be the root cause of the next world war because of his isolationistic views.

      • Anonymous

        Do you know any words beside “naivety”. You write like an overconfident youth and you keep repeating yourself.
        If someone is aware of what you are postulating and still arrive at a conclusion – it’s no longer naive. At that point – you may call it stupid – but I consider it the wisdom of a well read and well reasoned elder that has established himself as a thought leader.

        • http://twitter.com/113KriEger 13Krieger

          he maybe wellread in medicine, or well read on the FED but, call it what you will….how about ignorant, blind, misinformed, unenlightened, uninformed, dense, cretinous….you choose because but in regards Ron Paul’s foreign policy they all apply.

          • Anonymous

            You are a victim of the war propaganda. If your life is on the line and you are being sent overseas – it’s important to know the truth about what you are fighting for. A lot of people are coming back dead.
            The Bible is very specific about going to war – when it should be done and how it should be executed. If you are not going to do that – you end up a bunch of Vietnams and not knowing who the enemy is during the heat of battle while the politicians are still duking out policy at home.
            When you go to war – it’s all out – get it done and come home. What we have in place now is just a profit motive fueled by an unholy marriage of big government funneling billions of dollars into the “defense industry” and paying off the politicians to keep those policies in place while trying to justify their existence.
            You are trigger happy and need to cool it.

  • Anonymous

    This guy is a wack job and a half! How he is up in the polls in Iowa scares the pants off me (hold the comments, please). Paulbots beware, there is no way this man will ever become president. Got it? None! This appeared on Red State yesterday, I certainly hope it’s true. http://www.redstate.com/neil_stevens/2011/12/13/no-ron-paul-is-not-a-threat-to-win-the-iowa-caucuses/

  • Anonymous

    Breaking news: a new Rsamussinejad poll just out shows Ron Paul gaining momentum in the Iranian elections. He now is a close second to Mahmoud. It appears obvious who really likes the policies of this new age thinker.

  • Anonymous

    Oh yes Ron, the Iranians are such good guys after all… never mind they took Americans hostage for a year.. or if they used there own kids for cannon fodder during the IranIraq war… or even if they kill there own people for protesting. And I’m sure it has NOTHING to do with there ideology or eschatology.. nope it’s always our fault.

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/James-Lumpkin/716358540 James Lumpkin

      Nevermind their actions were a response to the CIA overthrowing their democratically elected govt. I wonder what you would do if the Chinese overthrew our democratically elected govt. Would you be a terrorist fighting their oppression? Probably not. You would love it and kiss the feet of your Chinese masters.

      What happened to the people who aided the Nazis during WW2 again?

      • Anonymous

        None of that excuses there behavior since 1979.

      • Anonymous

        YOU ARE CLEARLY AS RETARDED AS RON PAUL, ISN’T THAT NUT HOUSE CALLING FOR YOU!

  • Anonymous

    Twelver Shi’as cite various references from the Qur’an and reports, or Hadith, from Imam Mahdi and the twelve Shi’a Imams with regard to the reappearance of al-Mahdi who would, in accordance with Allah’s command, bring justice and peace to the world by establishing Islam throughout the world.

    Mahdi is reported to have said:

    Shi’as believe that Imam al-Mahdi will reappear when the world has fallen into chaos and civil war emerges between the human race for no reason. At this time, it is believed, half of the true believers will ride from Yemen carrying white flags to Makkah, while the other half will ride from Karbala, in Iraq, carrying black flags to Makkah. At this time, Imam al-Mahdi will come wielding Allah’s Sword, the Blade of Evil’s Bane, Zulfiqar (Arabic: ذو الفقار, ðū l-fiqār), the Double-Bladed Sword. He will also come and reveal the texts in his possession, such as al-Jafr and al-Jamia.

    Shi’as believe that Jesus will also come (after Imam Mahdi’s re-appearance) and follow the Imam Mahdi to destroy tyranny and falsehood and to bring justice and peace to the world.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad_al-Mahdi

    Ron Paul just don’t get it. You can’t apply MAD theory to religious zealots who’ve fought and killed Sunni Muslims over their belief in the 12th Iman for centuries. Ron Paul would be running away with the nomination by now if he understood the mullahs better and stopped applying MAD theory to them as if they were the lil man in NK. MAD theory works with him because he worships power, the mullahs in Iran worship their belief system. Big mistake Ron.

    • Anonymous

      It hasn’t worked with Kim Jong Il, and his son Mentally Il, in NK either. They make treaties with us to stop their nuclear programs in return for food/goods and once obtaining said goods go back to their old nuclear ways with no repercussions.

      • Anonymous

        The lil man in NK will never explode a nuke in an American city. He worships himself too much and knows that it would be game over. He sabber rattles and throw tantrums like a spoiled child but his religion is his power. Not so with the mullahs in Iran who have deep religious beliefs because they are religious zealots. Ron Paul’s view is very dangerous. Those mullahs are not Saddam or the lil man in NK and Paul can argue his lil boy/wolf argument about Iraq but he’s wrong about Iran.

        • Anonymous

          I don’t think he’s smart enough to know how to do it. But he will give the material to whoever realizes they can just walk across our southern border with a hand-held dirty bomb. Oh, wait, they are organizing in S. America now, aren’t they.

          I wasn’t disagreeing with you. Just stating that negotiating with minor players like NK OR major players like Iran and its organisations just doesn’t work. I think Paul is very wrong and when it comes to nukes, being very wrong could take 10,000 years to decay away.

  • PFFV

    What kind of a leader claims to promote srength by always blaming itself for the problems around the world? OK so say the USA pulls all of our forces back from around the globe, would that make us and our allies more secure? Who will keep North Korea in check? China? Russia? and on and on. Ron Paul’s biggest flaw is his blame the USA first mantra. This is why he will NEVER be elected POTUS. “We had it coming” on 9-11-01, what a coward and a jerk.

  • Chicago Nick

    This is why he can’t and won’t be president. This Iran has been jerking off America since 1978 and has never paid a price for that hostage crisis alone, not to mention the soldiers their proxies have murdered in Iraq and Afghanistan, along with Hezbollah in Gaza launching rockets into Israel for decades, and if he thinks WE”RE the provocateurs he’s going senile, mad or both…… and this is the third time recently he’s said something this dumb, once in the debates.

    And frankly at his age it wouldn’t be a shock if he was. He’s just another political lifer, he’s been in office as long as anyone in DC. If he’s not an insider who is? So he’s been there for 30 years standing in the corner the whole time huh? yea right.

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/James-Lumpkin/716358540 James Lumpkin

      And this is why you will get 4 more years of Obama. Prepare yourself.

    • Anonymous

      I heard today that there was a member of the Iranian Republican Gaurd at the White House. He has admittedly killed 19 American soldiers and Obama had him as a visitor. I don’t want to jump the gun before I know the facts, but this is the MO of our Traitor in Chief, who puts communist in power (czars), disses our allies, and appeases dictators.

  • Jason siejutt

    I said yesterday I don’t know if Paul is the answer. But can anyone one of you who supported Bush and now support the current field of NEOCON’s ell me how they’ve helped our country??

    Also why does everyone have to try to discredit Paul by calling him a Nut Job? His views are different. No more no less.

    I’m not a paul bot either. I just want our country to have the best man or women lead it. Not sure that it’s Paul. But i can tell you it’s not Newt or the others that are being pushed out by the republican machine

    • Anonymous

      His foreign policy positions are self explanatory. Everyone knows them, so there’s no need to go into detail. Small words are satisfactory, such as isolationist and NUT JOB !!

      • Jason siejutt

        so you think we should keep heading down the road we are on? endless wars and occupations on foreign soil? Seems crazy to me.

        • Anonymous

          So that’s the choice now? Isolationism or endless wars? Paul said that he wouldn’t do a damn thing if Iran cut off our oil supply. I’ll be real subtle about this, so you might have to put two and two together….

          Ron Paul is a M O R O N

          • Crowe Magnon

            Please show me where to find the statement that ron Paul would do nothing about Iran or anyone else that threatens the U.S. I believe he said “you go to war with a declaration of war and you fight it, WIN it, and get it over with. How does that equate to doing nothing? It all boils down to this. Is Iran foolish enough to destroy themselves in the process of ridding the world of non Islamics? Do they want to die that bad? If that were the case it would have already happened. Either we wipe them off the face of the earth before they can do it to us AND themselves, or we try diplomacy. Those my friend are the only 2 options.

            • Anonymous

              Ron Paul said it again in the debates last night. He claims that they are only doing it because of OUR behavior, and he did not spell out a single thing he would do.

              It is Iran’s constitution to restore the Caliphate and to conduct Jihad across the world. The notion that we are the reason for their actions is ridiculous.

  • Anonymous

    Ron Paul once again proves he’s SENILE,WACKO,DERANGED! His foreign policy is the classic “OSTRICH POSITION” TO TERRORISTS AND WARMONGERS WITH A TWIST EVERYTHING IS OUR FAULT WE PROVOKED IT,WE DESERVE IT,DO WHAT YOU WILL TO US! HOW MANY WAYS CAN YOU SAY WACKO,WACKO,WACKO,WACKO……..

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/James-Lumpkin/716358540 James Lumpkin

      Apparently you are unable to distinguish the difference between govt policy and a people.

      By your logic the American people are responsible for the Govt murdering the people of the Branch Dividians by the Clinton Administration. You are a terrorist. Prepare yourself for indefinate detention as passed yesterday by the Congress.

    • limagoleador94

      Hell, we might deserve it for not letting countries become independent LOL

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Randy-Anderson/1720000931 Randy Anderson

    I have one thing to say about all the comments below: they’re mostly HORSE-HOCKEY! Ron Paul 2012, bitches.

  • Anonymous

    I am constantly amazed and disheartened at quickly “conservatives” beat the war drums and encourage war over every potential threat, no matter how credible. Since when did it become the conservative mantra to kill first and justify (if possible) later? When did war become cool? Wars are unimaginably horrific and should be avoided if at all possible. I am no peacenik who believes every situation can be defused through talk, treaties, etc., I understand that there are times when force is the only action that will work. Force, however, should be the absolute last resort after all other avenues have been exhausted.

    The sad truth that most war mongering conservatives miss is that there is almost zero good that comes from war. The innocent ALWAYS suffer the worst as infrastructure is destroyed, non-combatants are killed in indiscrimate bombings, living conditions are worsened, and a power vacuum is created that is often filled by someone that is not much different than the deposed leader. Occasionally (WWII) war do seem to be effective, but more often then not (vietnam, Iraq, Korea, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Libya) the negative far far outweights any good that may have occured.

    Domestically in the US, war is always harmful. Massive debt is incurred, money is inflated and devalued, liberties and rights are stripped away, government power/control increases, and America’s reputation and credibility with the rest of the world takes another hit. If all of these outcomes are worth jumping the gun and attacking anyone without provocation, then sure, beat the war drums and go in search of blood. If however common sense and reason can trump nationalism, and you are able to pause in your “patriotic” fervor to ask yourself if there is sufficient evidence or cause for attacking, weigh the cost of the innocent lives that will be lost or forced to endure unimaginable suffering and weigh the economic cost in this once great country.

    If you still think that the cost of so-called security is worth it, then by all means continue to champion indefinite war. If the costs seem too high for what is gained, then ask yourself why a presidential candidate who recognizes those impossibly high costs is viewed as crazy. I don’t support everything Ron Paul stands for but I understand that he is the only candidate who fully understands the economic and financial danger our country faces due to our military aggression, out of control gov’t, and loose money policies. Based on his fiscal policies alone, everyone who calls themselves a conservative should be supporting this man. Based on his free market principles and beliefs, every person who supports capitalism should support this man. Based on his stance against abortion, income taxes, endless money printing, bailouts, crony capitalism, the shredding of the constitution, and gov’t encroachment in our lives, every american should support this man.

    However, all conservatives and republicans get hung up on is that he does not support policing the world and bombing anyone who looks at us the wrong way. If being a war mongering president is what you want, re-elect Obama. After all, he has not only continued W’s policies, he has upped the ante quite a bit. If you want a president who actually follows and believes in the Constitution of the United States and who wants to give you back the liberties that were taken by the current government, then look at Ron Paul. No one is asking you to agree with everything he stands for but after comparing him to everyone else, no one can deny he is far better than the alternatives.

  • Anonymous

    Typical Ron Paul. We are responsible for Iran’s behavior. If we just leave them alone, become passive and let them do what they want, they will suddenly become pro-American and a peaceful regime. This is the kind of attitude that gave Hitler the ability to do what he did. He’ll leave us alone if we leave him alone. Passive, suicidal, stupid, and naive to take this position. Ron Paul = moron.

    • Ben Lee

      Want to know why Iran was radicalized and hates America? Ever hear of Operation Ajax? Look it up. In 1953 the democratically elected Iranian prime minister Mosaddegh was removed from power in a coup organised and carried out by the United States CIA at the request of the British MI6. Why did they do that? Because the British were against Mosaddegh attempting to nationalize their oil industry. Guess who they put in his place? The Shah. The Shah then had a 20 year rein of terror and brutalized the Iranian people leading to the rise of fundamentalist Islam and Ayatollah Khomeini. (Does this sound vaguely familiar? It is, because it’s exactly what we did in Egypt by backing dictator Mubarrek and now the Islamic Brotherhood is taking over). After Iran was radicalized you know who we covertly supported in a war with them? Yes, Saddam Hussein. We all know how that turned out. 2 TRILLION dollars later. Are any of these facts in dispute? I welcome the challenge.

      US foreign policy has been schizophrenic in the Middle East for 50 years and it’s time to stop taking one step forward and two steps backwards. Can we all agree it’s never in US interests to financially back a dictator? Can we all agree there is such a thing as blowback? Can we all agree with Reagan who said his biggest mistake was putting troops in Lebanon and not realizing the insanity of Middle East politics?

      • http://twitter.com/Winston80 Winston

        Get a life…. It is funny how people distrustful of CIA believe whatever CIA says. LOL!

      • Anonymous

        Once again, more Ron Paul insanity. So, not only are we responsible for Iran hating us, we are also responsible for radical Islam.

        Your logic is the same as saying it’s Israel’s fault because Arabs and Muslims hate them. When Hamas sends hundreds of rockets into Israel every day then Israel advances to put a stop to it, Israel is the agressor in your eyes, right?

        Every last bit of agressive action we take will impact how others react to us. However, that’s an accepted reality. You are living in dreamland if you believe that all of the world’s violence happens because of neocons. If not for our aggressive action, you’d be standing on Hitler’s land right now. The belief that if we put our tail between our legs then other nations will like us is extremly naive and will only get us dead.

        By the way, yes it is sometimes beneficial to align with a dictator. Muberak kept the peace and was an ally against terrorists.

        • Crowe Magnon

          I believe it says in the BIBLE that Israel marched out of Egypt across the Jordan river and into the land that God had provided. A land flowing with milk and honey. All they had to do was kill all the inhabitants in the land ie. . Maybe that is why Israel is hated, not sure. Better read the book of Joshua again to be sure.

          • Anonymous

            Ah, Israel stole their land. I guess it had nothing to do with the U.N. and partitioning. My bad. Before you get a big head, that’s sarcasm.

    • Crowe Magnon

      Kong, you must have voted for McCain. He REALLY took Obahma to the woodshed. LOL

      • Anonymous

        As a politician, I can’t stand McCain. I did vote for him because, unlike idiots like you, I knew what Obama would bring us. He got my vote because there wasn’t anyone else to vote for, and he would still be a godsend compared to Obama.

        • http://www.facebook.com/prostamusic Prosta Chudo

          I wrote in Ron Paul because I wont vote for anyone who is against the constitution, hates freedom… is is generally as arrogantly stuck on stupid as about half the posters on this page.

  • Anonymous

    Even how much Ron Paul’s preaching on smaller government and sound financial/economic policies seem brilliant at first hearing, his national security and foreign policies are very difficult to swallow. Is this guy living in a bubble? I will not be surprise hearing Islamist ideologues flocking to his cause. Come to think of it, many of his supporters have similar maniacal way of posting their support, hmmm.

    • http://www.facebook.com/prostamusic Prosta Chudo

      By difficult to swallow you mean you dont want to accept that you cant be a bully to the world and our leaders are not angels??? You just dont like the guy telling a drunk like you to put the fucken whiskey bottle down. SOBER UP!!!

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100000597790948 Terry Wilson

    Glenn Beck addresses this with a caller, Tuesday, Dec 13, 2011: http://www.glennbeck.com/2011/12/13/ron-paul-over-newt-gingrich/

  • Anonymous

    We really don’t need a second President apologizing for America and/or finding America to be guilty of everything. He has said before that we provoked 9/11 and for provoking the enemy again. Jihad doesn’t need any provocation!!!!
    Jihad, Mr. Paul, started before the United States of America even existed. Did you ever read a history book or were you only hit with one on the head?
    Sometimes you are right, but sometimes you can say something really stupid!!!!

    • http://www.facebook.com/prostamusic Prosta Chudo

      you sound like me before I got my head out of my ass and paid attention to the details I was ignoring for religious and normalcy bias reasons. You’ll come around when you get over yourself.

  • Anonymous

    Geez. This guy is scary. Irrational and scary.

    • http://www.facebook.com/prostamusic Prosta Chudo

      This coming from a person who thinks 2+2 = corn dog. Sorry you’re just dumb, a drunk,a burnt out crack head or a religious freak wanting to invent that hating the constitution, freedom and Ron Paul are a commandment from god…. CORN DOG!!! <— now that part made sense to you didn't it.

  • jackson

    this guy is a nut!!!!

  • Anonymous

    Not trying to be ugly here, but I think age is catching up with Ron.

    • http://www.facebook.com/prostamusic Prosta Chudo

      People love Ron because they can no longer ignore the truth. Some try to ignore reality, but they can not ignore the consequences of ignoring reality forever.

  • http://twitter.com/Winston80 Winston

    Ru Paul is an excellent spokesman for the Islamofascists in Tehran. Bravo…

  • Anonymous

    Another idiot Ron Paul.

    • grizzlybear71

      The overwhelming majority of campaign contributions from active duty military personnel go to Ron Paul. What do you know that they don’t?

      • Anonymous

        If you have to ask that question then you obviously don’t know.

        ________________________________
        From: Disqus
        To: hike110@yahoo.com
        Sent: Thursday, December 15, 2011 8:29 PM
        Subject: [trscoop] Re: Ron Paul: Iran wants to disrupt world oil supply because we are provoking them

        Disqus generic email template

        grizzlybear71 wrote, in response to aZjimbo:
        The overwhelming majority of campaign contributions from active duty military personnel go to Ron Paul. What do you know that they don’t? Link to comment

        • http://www.facebook.com/prostamusic Prosta Chudo

          AZjimbo stares at the thing in his hands and yells CORN DOG!!! That’s what I know….. *Jimbo swings more Whiskey* Reason is as reason does corn dog… mr Alky-hols says I can be a bully and nobody from The I-ran gets to be upset… not the I-Raq or the I-kay-duh ooor…. … or CORN DOG!!! <— that's how talking to these people about Ron Paul is like.

          • Anonymous

            Have another toke on whatever you are smoking.

            ________________________________
            From: Disqus
            To: hike110@yahoo.com
            Sent: Tuesday, December 20, 2011 4:26 AM
            Subject: [trscoop] Re: Ron Paul: Iran wants to disrupt world oil supply because we are provoking them

            Disqus generic email template

            Prosta Chudo wrote, in response to aZjimbo:
            AZjimbo stares at the thing in his hands and yells CORN DOG!!! That’s what I know….. *Jimbo swings more Whiskey* Reason is as reason does corn dog… mr Alky-hols says I can be a bully and nobody from The I-ran gets to be upset… not the I-Raq or the I-kay-duh ooor…. … or CORN DOG!!! <— that's how talking to these people about Ron Paul is like. Link to comment

  • Anonymous

    Way to go Ron.

  • Anonymous

    Enough is enough. Can we be honest about Ron Paul? He is Obama’s great hope, Ron Paul is their Operation Chaos, people need to wake up. Glenn Beck is a freaking idiot to attack Newt then encourage RP. Ron Paul’s supporters ARE OCCUPY WALL STREET types, college age and brainless no-nothings. When they aren’t listening to Alex Jones, they are watching their other great heros, John Stewart and Stepehen Colbert.

    • http://www.facebook.com/prostamusic Prosta Chudo

      you’re a dumb son of a bitch aren’t you.

  • UpChuck.Liberals NoBO12

    Man, he makes so much sense on domestic policy then …. off the friggin’ edge on foreign policy. Why doesn’t he just put on a aluminum foil hat and call it a day?

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_TE6JZRXRNQP7EGHAWXQ7WEYFJY Neil C

    I generally agree with Mark Levin, but when he said last night that, if he could, and assuming it would be successful, he would launch an attack on Iran and take out their nuclear weapons program, he officially became a full fledged whacko! For someone who swears allegience to the constitution, Mark has gone in the opposite direction. Only a dictator could unilaterally bomb another country against whom we have not declared war. We didn’t bomb the Russians and we didn’t bomb Cuba, even when there were missiles pointed at us, or under construction. But now we need to bomb Iran? Come down off the ledge, Mark. Continuous wars have ruined our economy, and threaten our liberty, here and abroad. Stop the madness.

    • Anonymous

      Finally, a voice of sanity. Too bad the warmongering “conservatives” on this site will attack your common sense as unpatriotic.

      • http://www.facebook.com/prostamusic Prosta Chudo

        Problem is that when they attack us or Ron Paul they attack the Constitution, what made America great itself…. and defy any sane conclusions with aggressive pride and normalcy bias. I’m seeing a dozen or so people here with an unwillingness to even watch a clip that would require they NOT IGNORE WHAT IS and they instead go rambling angry like 51-50 cases who think they know history. North Korea has history teachers who would look at these arrogant asses and go… maybe some day i can be that arrogant and clueless. Ron Paul is so simply correct that it takes a special kind of editing and filtering that it’s hard to even have a conversation with these fools.

  • Anonymous

    Chris Matthews couldn’t have said your statement better. Go back to the Huffpo with these idiotic arguments about the world hating the US. I get it enough from CNN and MSNBC. It isn’t based in reality, and neither is your shallow opinion of reasons for war.

  • Anonymous

    If Russia, China…ANY country threatened us of a bombing……stopped our exports by naval blockade: Hmm. Would America just do nothing to defend itself? NOT. The countries that are waiting for (25%) of their oil supply want the straights to remain open. Iran’s ONLY retaliation to sanctions is to defend their turf. Obama MUST trigger a war before election time. The Saudis are increasing their oil exports to offset sanctions on Iran. Iran has no choice after the US, England and France killed Khadafi and split the oil up in Libya. Fabricating ANOTHER act of aggression is wrong…constitutionally, economically and morally. Using these tactics; this SAME scenario will play out against the United states down the road, and would be justified by the actions we display on others.

  • Anonymous

    If Russia, China…ANY country threatened us of a bombing……stopped our exports by naval blockade: Hmm. Would America just do nothing to defend itself? NOT. The countries that are waiting for (25%) of their oil supply want the straights to remain open. Iran’s ONLY retaliation to sanctions is to defend their turf. Obama MUST trigger a war before election time. The Saudis are increasing their oil exports to offset sanctions on Iran. Iran has no choice after the US, England and France killed Khadafi and split the oil up in Libya. Fabricating ANOTHER act of aggression is wrong…constitutionally, economically and morally. Using these tactics; this SAME scenario will play out against the United states down the road, and would be justified by the actions we display on others.

  • limagoleador94

    Meh, the US has been looking for trouble ever since it became the “police” of the world.

    From the comments it seems like no one is in “the middle ground”.

    You’re either extremely against him or extremely with him.

  • Anonymous

    If this fool wasn’t so naive, he would have the election in the bag. His foreign policy stinks!

  • Jamie Wadsworth

    I hope all of you idiots on here speaking how great a war with Iran would be are typing this out from your barracks in Afghanistan right now. Otherwise, you have no idea wtf a war of occupation is like. Our troops support Ron Paul. Are you telling me that all the men and women who believe in Ron Paul, the very ones fighting the wars you desire from the safety of your computer chair, are cowards and peace lovers? I’ll bet most of them could kill you before you were able to blink.

    I look forward to the days when the big government you love so much collapses in rubble because they had no money left to spend, no foreign governments willing to loan money to the US, and the people are too busy killing each other for food to make any money to tax. I’ll enjoy looting everything you war mongers have ever worked for from your houses when you’re killed for supporting the war that kills our country.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Wally-Lind/100000434857068 Wally Lind

    We are not still in Iraq.