Ron Paul: "I Think Sanctions Give Iran Motivation To Want A Nuclear Weapon"

Tyler Durden's picture

There are those who say that while they agree completely with Ron Paul's economic policy of fixing the #1 issue that ails America (as a reminder, total US debt/GDP would only decline under a Ron Paul presidency) they disagree with Paul on his foreign policy. We wonder why when all he does is instead of appealing to the jingoism of warmongers and patronizing the basest of herd instincts, he simply tells the truth. Such as on Today's State of the Union show on CNN when asked if Obama has done "enough" to force Iran to stop its nuclear development via sanctions and others, his reply was spot on: "I think he gets too much involved. I think sanctions gives the motivation for them to want a nuclear weapon. We have 45 bases around them, we can demolish them within hours. And the worst thing the sanctions do, and Republicans and Democrats both support it and the other GOP candidates want war even more, the whole thing is there is a lot of dissension in Iran and we should encourage it by not interfering, once we get involve and threaten to bomb them, it becomes nationalistic - everyone joins the Ayataollah and Ahmedinejad. So there is a blowback - unusual circumstances and unintended consequences. So yes, our people are well-intended, but they don't realize how much damage they do by not accomplishing what they want and causing more harm to us. So our military personnel right now are very adamant not to be involved in a bombing of Iran, it makes no sense whatsoever to our military personnel, to the CIA, even though they are much more interventionist than I am."

And probably even more important in light of Obama's apology for burning down Korans (but not for pictures of torture), Paul had this to say: "I thought McNamara was rather astute when he they asked him about the mess he caused in Vietnam: "don't you think you should apologize to the American people and to the world" he said: "what good is an apology: if you make mistakes and you see this and you stir enough trouble, why don't we change our policy. That's what he said: "we should change our policy."  So if we have a policy going on in the middle east that is begging that we apologize now and then and others condemning it, I think we should reassess our foreign policy, and that is what I think we are not doing, and that is why I am quite different than the other candidates - the American people are sick and tired of the wars going on over there, we are going broke fighting these wars that are not legitimate in that we were not attacked, they were not declared, and the American people in their majority want us out of there." 

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
spiral_eyes's picture

And the way Qadaffi was overthrown having sucked up to his NATO overlords. And the way North Korea is conveniently left alone now they have nukes. Our foreign policy is completely stupid.

CrashisOptimistic's picture

Iran is exporting NO LESS OIL THAN IT DID BEFORE SANCTIONS.

They gave China a discount to make that happen.  Then the price of oil went up and they are making the same money they made without the discount.

THEY ARE UNDER ZERO PRESSURE.  THEY ARE NOT DESPERATE.

The beating of the war drums is just insane.  Just what is expected from all this?  Does the "moral war" faction from Hillary's State Department and the DNC expect a country that overthrew the Shah to embrace Islam more tightly would now suddenly open new gambling . . . pardon the expression . . . Mecca's?

Achmeblahblahjob WON HIS ELECTION.  There was probably cheating and his reported margin was likely larger than reality, but his margin was so large that even 5% cheating would still yield a win.  He won.  He is what the people there want.  (Of course, the Libyan majority were also very pleased at Gadaffi's paying 100% college tuition for their college aged children to go to university anywhere in the world, but that didn't stop NATO, whose oil companies informed their governments that they were about to lose their oil production contracts there to PetroChina and PetroBras, because Gadaffi wanted them out).

Iran is post Peak.  They are not the only source of nuclear weapon proliferation threat.  They are not desperate and not likely to attack anyone in desperation.  

The whole concept is election year politics.

 

Hober Mallow's picture

It is only a matter of time for any idiot, if unrestrained, to reach nuclear capacity.

Technology becomes cheaper and more user friendly.

Information and know-how flows more and more over time.

Does this mean we should do nothing?

Quite the contrary, this means we should throw these people back to stone age and make sure we keep them there. And we should do it ASAP.

Umh's picture

Why don't you go build a bomb?

Hober Mallow's picture

I don't have to, my democracy has them for me.

woolly mammoth's picture

Simpleton maybe, but more like being paid time and a half for working the blogs on a Sunday.

Hober Mallow's picture

nah-nah

no pay here, no elephantiasis either.

Just a guy who believes the western civilization needs to confront the perils of nuclear proliferation.

Yes, in fact it is simple and I am a simpleton: I want to survive and I want my descendants to survive as well.

JohnnyBriefcase's picture

There is only one country who has ever dropped a nuke on another country.

 

Do you know which one it is?

 

 

Libertarian777's picture

There is only one country who has ever dropped a nuke on another country.

 

Correction.. there is only one country who has ever dropped TWO nukes on another country.

 

CrockettAlmanac.com's picture

That was a plus 1 comment -- literally.

JohnnyBriefcase's picture

Pretty insane and really puts current events in perspective.

Element's picture

 

 

... he simply tells the truth.

 

First whips the money-changers out of Dodge, then truth-telling to the sheep.

This has traditionally been the quickest way to get revered, then Crucified.

cranky-old-geezer's picture

 

 

I want to survive and I want my descendants to survive as well.

But you're ok with USA going around wiping out other people (and their descendants) under the banner of controlling nuclear arms?

If USA attacks / invades Iran, American cities will be nuked (by Russia).

So what's more important?  Keeping your sorry ass alive, or preventing Iran from having nukes?

With your sorry attitude you shouldn't be allowed to have any descendants.  You should be sterilized ...or better yet, killed altogether.

Let's hope you live in one of those American cities getting nuked.

Hober Mallow's picture

I see you are much in favour of democratic, open, plural discussions.

Russia will not nuke America, that is nonsense.

 

GubbermintWorker's picture

Then find one for you to sit on.

Michael's picture

I agree. Israel with its 300+ nuclear bombs should be thrown back to the stone age. That whole country is full of paranoid schizophrenic psychopaths.

Piranhanoia's picture

less than half it seems.  only the least able are in charge.  

lincolnsteffens's picture

Perhaps someone should look in their own mirror.

I've read a number of your comments and have gone to many of your suggested links and do find some of the links very interesting. You are obviously a very bright person. Here comes the but...

In spite of your claim of not hating and entire religious group you consistently tar ALL Jews in total when you make most of your derogatory comments. I am descended from people who consider themselves Jewish. I consider myself  of Jewish heritage but don't object if you want to refer to me as a Khazar though it may be inaccurate . I do not practice any religion. You know nothing about me yet you claim repeatedly the world would be better off without the likes of me. I suggest sir that the world would be better off without the likes of you. I mean no slander against any other person of your genetic pool or belief systems. I refer only to you as a peddler of hate to anyone who will listen.

Element's picture

 

 

Does this mean we should do nothing?

Quite the contrary, this means we should throw these people back to stone age and make sure we keep them there. And we should do it ASAP.

--

You and General Curtis Lemay would have got on famously, he was also psychopathically belligerent:

-- 

During the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962, LeMay clashed again with U.S. President John F. Kennedy and Defense Secretary McNamara, arguing that he should be allowed to bomb nuclear missile sites in Cuba. He opposed the naval blockade and, after the end of the crisis, suggested that Cuba be invaded anyway, even after the Russians agreed to withdraw. LeMay called the peaceful resolution of the crisis "the greatest defeat in our history".[31] Unknown to the US, the Soviet field commanders in Cuba had been given authority to launch—the only time such authority was delegated by higher command.[32] They had twenty nuclear warheads for medium-range R-12 ballistic missiles capable of reaching US cities (including Washington) and nine tactical nuclear missiles. If Soviet officers had launched them, many millions of US citizens would have been killed. The ensuing SAC retaliatory thermonuclear strike would have killed roughly one hundred million Soviet citizens, and brought nuclear winter to much of the Northern Hemisphere. Kennedy refused LeMay's requests, however, and the naval blockade was successful.[32]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curtis_LeMay

 

I think we can file that sort of sad mentality under, "what not to do".

Troll Magnet's picture

spiral eyes,
norh korea isn't left alone because they have nukes. we leave them alone because they have nothing that we and our corporate overlords can steal and profit off of. no oil, no gold, no need for pipelines through it and no other tangible wealth? ok, then no US thieves. it's that simple.

spiral_eyes's picture

there's always a resource to be gotten from war:

more government largesse for the military-industrial complex.

we bomb somalia, but leave kim jong-un alone. hmm. 

mick_richfield's picture

Their ability to put half a million artillery shells into Seoul in an hour might also be relevant.

Element's picture

And let's not forget that last time Chinese soldiers and Russian Pilots kicked the 'UN' forces arse, for quite some time.

 

That also might have something to do with it.

Vince Clortho's picture

They also have a Big friend named China.  The last time the U.S. tried to intervene militarily in N Korea we had the Korean War.

That went well.

CrockettAlmanac.com's picture

They say that suicide is painless but I'd rather not find out for sure.

oldman's picture

@Vince

Korea

The first of many losses?

Oh, shit----I forgot custer!

never mind                        om

fockewulf190's picture

Actually, the war was already well under way. South Korea was almost completly wiped out with only the Pusan perimeter holding out with their backs to the ocean. Only massive air attacks from Japan and US carriers and desperate close combat held off the North Koreans until the Inchon landings sliced all the supply lines and caused he NK army to utterly collapse. South Korean troops even managed to take Pyongyang and the North was almost finished. Had China not sent thousands of troops over the Yalu river and attacked UN forces into their flanks, causing a massive retreat of UN forces and the infamous Chosin Reservoir fighting withdrawel, Korea would be united today and probably nearly equal to Japan in economic power. Truman had his chance years earlier to really back up the Nationalist Army during the Chinese Civil War and defeat the Russian backed communists led by Mao, but he dropped the ball big time and Asia is what it is today because of it. Just saying.

fockewulf190's picture

I think the real reason we leave them alone is because we actually learned a lesson at the Chosin Reservoir. China dosen't want anybody playing in their North Korean sandbox, even if it's filled with broken toys and smells like a sesspool.

scatterbrains's picture

I wouldn't be surprized if we start to see a rash of oil field related sabatage in those M.E. countries that we've swindle with paper printing. Not sure how our overlords would deal should that start to happen. Seemed strange how quickly S.A. denied the pipeline explosion as if to try and nip what revolt momentum might be building.

 

Winston Smith 2009's picture

Crashis: "Just what is expected from all this?"

Same thing as always, a continuation of the geopolitical and military dominance of the Middle East by the US and Israel without any potential input that might come from a nuclear armed Persian Gulf state.  That's what it's about, that's what it's aways about.  Fear of attack by Iran is just the BS spewed to whip up the fear factor of the typically ignorant citizens of the US. 

Any nuclear weapon from Iran or anywhere else has a return address on it, if not by the trajectory and flight characteristics of the missile then by the specific isotopic composition of the fissile material and fission products that can be analyzed after the blast.  Therefore, why should the threat of Mutual Assured Destruction work less well to deter a country with a few nuclear weapons from attacking the US than it did for the Soviets?  It should deter even better since the destruction would be mostly one way -- on the country that attacked the US.  The truth lies here: would the US have attacked Iraq for a "regime change" if Saddam had had nuclear weapons?  The answer is the same as it currently is for N. Korea and Pakistan who have nuclear weapons - NO.  And that is the major reason these small nations want nuclear weapons.  It's "regime change" deterrence.

Do I want US domination of the Middle East?  Yes.  But lets get real about the true reasons behind the news propaganda.

Element's picture

 

 

Do I want US domination of the Middle East?  Yes.

 

I was with you until THAT, but why do you want such a barbarous and unjust thing?

Ultimately you're saying that the guy with the most guns has all the rights on planet Earth, and that national Sovereignty and law of any other people must give way to US JDAMs.

If so, yeah, you'll definitely getting WWIII that way.

Because that shit is competing for the most Hitler-esque global conquest sentiment I've read so far today.

Ghordius's picture

+1 might makes right? sounds like a very goood way to lose the support of all allies and lose that very hegemony

Element's picture

I'm no Angel Ghordius, but I feel dirty every time I read one of these sick Iran-attack war threads and see what people are chomping at the bit for, and expressing quite insane attitudes and intents.

Ghordius's picture

I understand, though I have to point out that the American Vocabulary has somewhat evolved. Words like War on..., Fighter, Fight, Dominate, Dominance, etc. are more neutral/positive, i.e. less literal than in the rest of the world.

Exchange the statement with one with "arbitrate" or "monitor", for example.

Perhaps you have followed the statements going in the direction of "Germany wants to dominate...". About the same.

Element's picture

Ok, though I don't know if that equates to less offensive or less arrogant, or considerably more so? These words still have the same definitions, though they may be getting said in a more flippant and 'acceptable' manner, taken less seriously than before, mainly because people rarely shoot back, or at least rarely survive if they do shoot back at Americans, in the ME.  Maybe that's why they feel it's their place to use such outrageous sentiments, and don't suspect it's going to be a problem?  I suspect more of late that they're simply totally disconnected from the reality of such remarks and just don't give a shit, devoid of all human commonality.

'Unworthy' is the word that keeps springing to mind.

I've not read comments RE Germans etc.

boiltherich's picture

And Saudi Arabia raised prices for Asian customers while lowering them for Europe and the USA, because they are among the most adament that Iran not get a bomb.

Silver Bug's picture

Ron Paul is the ONLY true man left running. Even if he doesn't win, his message will. Once again this is another great example of his wisdom. Ron Paul 2012!

 

http://ronpaul2012blog.blogspot.com/

whstlblwr's picture

The bankers/CIA are in control and they want their Romney. They follow my idea in Washington and ship in the senile seniors from their homes to vote. Fucking time for us to play dirty too.

Everytime I make comment have to clean up my computer ZH, WTF.

falun bong's picture

U.S. politics has become the laughing stock of the world. Nervous laughter though...because people know one of these nutcases might end up with his (or her) finger on a big fat red button.

It's only when I hear Ron Paul that I'm proud again. His words show the world that there are still a few who have a grasp of reality and are not just utter puppets of the corporate/banking/military monster.

What other country has an "evolution problem"? More than 100 Congressmen who do not even believe in evolution. No wonder America is 24th in the world in science & engineering. Again, the laughing stock.

We can only make a change as people get informed and aware. Keep working on it. Online, at the gym, at the bar, in your neighborhoods. The more people who know, the less power the fascisti can keep. Keep truthtelling as long as it's still (mostly) legal.

Blano's picture

You were doing fine until the evolution shit.  Then YOU became the laughingstock.

Flakmeister's picture

Part of the problem of this country is the inability to differentiate reality from fiction....

Genesis is a nice story, but it has nothing to do with reality and should never be mentioned within the context of a policy debate...

cranky-old-geezer's picture

 

 

Creation and evolution are nice theories but they have nothing to do with reality and should never be mentioned within the context of a policy debate...

Fixed it.