Presidential Election: 2012

  • Thread starter Omnis
  • 3,780 comments
  • 157,091 views
That would be a good question to ask him, yeah. He needs to clarify the issue with Iran and the NPT. My understanding of his statements regarding Iran is that he is trying to get his audience to look at the situation with empathy in order to cut through the war propaganda. Nobody on that stage-- including the moderators-- has ever posed a question on Iran in an intelligent fashion like you have brought up here. All we hear about Iran is that they are evildoers that want to destroy Israel.

I don't doubt that he would enforce treaties, but I think that doubt comes through for some as an overstatement of his reluctance to engage in war carelessly and without declaration. Of course NAFTA and CAFTA would probably bite the dust, etc. But if there is an international conflict or issue, I don't see why a Paul administration couldn't be involved as a mediator instead of an instigator.
 
Ohh, and the Republicans will do a much better job? Obama must have his reasons for doing whatever he's doing "wrong", you think he's intentionally ruining your country? No, why would he? You can listen to Fox news and the Republicans promising that they will do a much better job all you want, but unless they show some real evidence that Obama is running American into the ground and that they will restore America's economy and reduce its debt, I think it's better for Obama to see out his full 2 terms and finish what he started with America.
No one ever intends to screw things up. "The road to ruin is paved with good intentions." We are talking about a president that proposed a stimulus and had his economic advisors shows how without the stimulus unemployment would hit 8% but with the stimulus it wouldn't get that high. We have a stimulus and unemployment is over 9%. It didn't do as promised and we are worse off than their worst projections. One would think that would be enough to make someone stop and think that maybe they have their economic theories wrong. But no, instead they gave an excuse that they forgot to factor something in, or didn't predict a certain factor. Either way, they were way off and the same economic team is directing policy. Why should I support a president who is following bad economic advice and then doesn't look for new advice when what he had previously turned out to be bad?

Or why should I follow a president whose policies appear to not be allowed by the constitution and when you ask his party's Congressional leader about its constitutionality she says, "Are you serious?"

But you are right, Republicans will not be any better. I know this because Obama hasn't done anything better than the Republicans. What is it you think he has done so well that wasn't done by Republicans?

You have to say though, that Obama did, in 2 years, what the Republicans under Bush failed to do, which was to catch the World's most wanted man.
You think the years under Bush played no role in leading up to catching bin Laden? Do you think Obama took all the intelligence gathered under Bush and threw it in the trash and began a whole new search? No, both administrations get credit. To think anything else is naive or dishonest.
 
That would be a good question to ask him, yeah. He needs to clarify the issue with Iran and the NPT. My understanding of his statements regarding Iran is that he is trying to get his audience to look at the situation with empathy in order to cut through the war propaganda. Nobody on that stage-- including the moderators-- has ever posed a question on Iran in an intelligent fashion like you have brought up here. All we hear about Iran is that they are evildoers that want to destroy Israel.

I don't doubt that he would enforce treaties, but I think that doubt comes through for some as an overstatement of his reluctance to engage in war carelessly and without declaration. Of course NAFTA and CAFTA would probably bite the dust, etc. But if there is an international conflict or issue, I don't see why a Paul administration couldn't be involved as a mediator instead of an instigator.





...yea, he's basically up front saying he's not going to defend the NPT. I've never heard a more concerted attempt at dismantling the NPT.
 
I'm not getting that he wouldn't defend a NPT from that. He's saying that you can avert that conflict through talks and trade rather than sanctions that lead to war. To me, that is a totally reasonable expectation as long as you don't believe the war propaganda that says Iranians are a pack of barbaric lunatics hell-bent on the destruction of western civilization.

You don't want a breakdown of society there like we had in Iraq that would reveal the violent, crazy savages by erasing everything else. I think the responsible thing to do would be to explore all diplomatic options first. We can always declare war if Iran continues to be a belligerent even after extending our hand. Israel would likely strike first anyway. In developing a nuclear weapon, Iran would be entering a world of pain. The point is, we can do a better job for humanity by first considering the advice of Jefferson. If that fails, then things will just unfold like they would have anyway.
 
I'm not getting that he wouldn't defend a NPT from that. He's saying that you can avert that conflict through talks and trade rather than sanctions that lead to war. To me, that is a totally reasonable expectation as long as you don't believe the war propaganda that says Iranians are a pack of barbaric lunatics hell-bent on the destruction of western civilization.

You don't want a breakdown of society there like we had in Iraq that would reveal the violent, crazy savages by erasing everything else. I think the responsible thing to do would be to explore all diplomatic options first. We can always declare war if Iran continues to be a belligerent even after extending our hand. Israel would likely strike first anyway. In developing a nuclear weapon, Iran would be entering a world of pain. The point is, we can do a better job for humanity by first considering the advice of Jefferson. If that fails, then things will just unfold like they would have anyway.

I think you're adding a lot of your own interpretation. Both of those videos asked specifically if Ron Paul would simply allow Iran to acquire nuclear weapons, and his response, while not specifically saying "yes I would" was to say "it makes sense that they should want them and it wouldn't be a threat". That's clear enough for me.
 
Well, it's not clear enough for me, which is why I said it would be a good question to ask him. I mean, he's absolutely right... a nuclear Iran is not a threat to us. To Israel, perhaps, but not us. But, so what? I'm familiar enough with Ron Paul to know that he is not reckless. When you put him on a stage and ask these important questions framed to be given soundbyte answers in 15 seconds, it makes it really difficult to not appear radically different and subsequently dangerous. It doesn't help that he's a terrible public speaker too.

He needs to be asked about treaties specifically and how he would deal with the ramifications of Iran violating a NPT. When I have time I'll look up his comments in his A Foreign Policy of Freedom, which is a collection of congressional statements that I'm sure will contain some commentary on Iran.
 
Last edited:
I don't see a problem with his stance on Iran either personally. I think they should have the same right to pursue nuclear power or a nuclear bomb as anyone else, and I doubt that they would actually use it if they did have it. Certainly they are no threat to our nation. Warheads without ICBM's to strap them to, aren't very scary from this side of the ocean. Israel has nukes too, so I find it far more likely that the two will just end up in a staring contest much like the us and the ussr had between them. Anyway, Israel claims to be god's chosen, so I'm sure they'll be fine. :dunce:
 
I don't see a problem with his stance on Iran either personally. I think they should have the same right to pursue nuclear power or a nuclear bomb as anyone else

You must not be familiar with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which they signed:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_Non-Proliferation_Treaty


Omnis
It doesn't help that he's a terrible public speaker too.

He needs to be asked about treaties specifically and how he would deal with the ramifications of Iran violating a NPT. When I have time I'll look up his comments in his A Foreign Policy of Freedom, which is a collection of congressional statements that I'm sure will contain some commentary on Iran.

If he would be willing to enforce the NPT with the threat of US military action, then he's the worst public speaker I've ever seen (and I've seen George Jr.). He gave every indication that he's not. If that's really his position, he botched it royally.
 
I'd be happy to pull everything we have out of Germany and most of the rest of the world. But he's absolutely 100% wrong about not enforcing the nuclear non-proliferation treaty with Iran.

His isolationist zealotry isn't going to keep us safe, and the belief that it will is a conceit that we can't afford to make. It pretends that we're so powerful that we actually cause all of our own problems - which simply isn't true.

Don't get me wrong, I think we need to pull troops back in a major way. I think our military is exceptionally wasteful, and I think he's right to poke at it. But he has basically advertised (pre-election) that he's willing to sit by idle and let Iran violate the NPT. When he takes office, what do you think they'll do? What do you think other signatories of the NPT will do? What kind of message does that send to the rest of the world about any and all of the treaties they've signed with the US under a Ron Paul administration?

It's a real shame, because I like almost all of his message, but he's damned reckless on this issue and I think it makes him look completely inadequate for the commander in chief role.

It's not an all-or-nothing situation. We don't go bankrupt just because we're willing to enforce our treaties. We don't have to have troops stationed all around the world and continue to occupy other countries just to enforce our treaties. It's not a question of bankruptcy vs. let everyone do whatever they want regardless of what they promised us.

Korea is another good example where we need to not pull the troops home, at least not all of them. Japan, Germany, that's fine. Almost everyone in Iraq and Afghanistan can come home too. Korea is another NPT issue that we need to be vigilant about.
I personally feel the NPT is a joke. It's no different than a group of big tough guys with guns intimidating all the computer nerds without guns into signing a sheet that says that the tough guys are allowed to have guns but no more than they already have, but the nerds are never allowed to have any. Or like a powerful government who is allowed to have guns in a military, but whose citizens are not allowed to have guns. Both of these situations happen around the world and I know you don't like inequality when it comes to gun ownership.

I find it amusing that GTP's shining beacon of morality thinks every sovereign individual has a right to self defense, but when they team up and establish a national border they no longer have the right, at least not as far as the more powerful nations on the list are concerned. I have no problem with every single country around the world possessing nukes. I have no problem with Iran or North Korea developing them. I think they should go ahead and remove themselves from the treaty - I think everyone should because it is an agreement that limits national sovereignty just like the UN, NATO, and EU. The NPT shouldn't exist in the first place and none of these idiotic governments around the world should have ever signed it.

You believe that if everybody has a gun nobody will use them for fear of immediate blowback. I believe that theory applies 100% to national interests, and I feel that if every country around the world had a nasty arsenal or nuclear weapons nobody would ever use them because they know they would be history in a matter of minutes.

I'm also quite surprised you would label his foreign policy as isolationist. Nobody has yet been able to explain to me how a peaceful demeanor, diplomacy, and free trade can be called isolationist. However, I can easily understand how most other politicians' views that every other country is harboring terrorists is isolating ourselves on one side of the fence, and the terror mongers on the other.

EDIT: Omnis, I wouldn't doubt that Paul is personally against the NPT's existence, but he has never said it in public because about 99% of people vehemently disagree with that stance.
 
Last edited:
I think you're adding a lot of your own interpretation. Both of those videos asked specifically if Ron Paul would simply allow Iran to acquire nuclear weapons, and his response, while not specifically saying "yes I would" was to say "it makes sense that they should want them and it wouldn't be a threat". That's clear enough for me.
I'm not 100% sure it should be an issue anyway. Clearly, if Iran really wants nuclear weapons nothing short of military action will stop them. Sanctions are only slowing them down, but that is due more to supply than Iran purposely slowing down.

Ron Paul does not leave the impression that he will take on military police actions. If the country wants military action in Iran it will have to be an official declaration of war. That is a power of Congress. At that point the only question would be if he is willing, as Commander in Chief, to look at a declaration of war and then not actually send any troops in or if he will act on that.

I know it is hard to remember that military action is not something we are supposed to do at the whim of an executive order, especially since that has been how we've done pretty much everything for decades, but I would prefer a president that would rather follow Constitutional protocol to the letter than one willing to send troops into a country without hesitation because there is a rebellion that can't possibly beat the military on their own.


I cannot say if that is where Ron Paul is headed with his stance on Iran, but there are sanctions in place now so we are inching closer to military action and I would enjoy seeing military action be done properly in this country.
 
I personally feel the NPT is a joke. It's no different than a group of big tough guys with guns intimidating all the computer nerds without guns into signing a sheet that says that the tough guys are allowed to have guns but no more than they already have, but the nerds are never allowed to have any. Or like a powerful government who is allowed to have guns in a military, but whose citizens are not allowed to have guns. Both of these situations happen around the world and I know you don't like inequality when it comes to gun ownership.

I find it amusing that GTP's shining beacon of morality thinks every sovereign individual has a right to self defense, but when they team up and establish a national border they no longer have the right, at least not as far as the more powerful nations on the list are concerned. I have no problem with every single country around the world possessing nukes. I have no problem with Iran or North Korea developing them. I think they should go ahead and remove themselves from the treaty - I think everyone should because it is an agreement that limits national sovereignty just like the UN, NATO, and EU. The NPT shouldn't exist in the first place and none of these idiotic governments around the world should have ever signed it.

You believe that if everybody has a gun nobody will use them for fear of immediate blowback. I believe that theory applies 100% to national interests, and I feel that if every country around the world had a nasty arsenal or nuclear weapons nobody would ever use them because they know they would be history in a matter of minutes.

I'm also quite surprised you would label his foreign policy as isolationist. Nobody has yet been able to explain to me how a peaceful demeanor, diplomacy, and free trade can be called isolationist. However, I can easily understand how most other politicians' views that every other country is harboring terrorists is isolating ourselves on one side of the fence, and the terror mongers on the other.

EDIT: Omnis, I wouldn't doubt that Paul is personally against the NPT's existence, but he has never said it in public because about 99% of people vehemently disagree with that stance.

We gave up something when we signed that treaty. It was a contract, they agreed to perform an action in exchange for us performing an action. We've upheld our end of the bargain. Not upholding their end of the bargain is akin to theft (as it is with any contract).

Maybe they never should have signed it, but they did. They need to sign something else to get out of it. This is the way it works with individuals and it is the way it should work with nations. I'm all for everyone having a gun, but when someone willingly signs a contract not to have a gun, they need uphold that.

I'm not 100% sure it should be an issue anyway. Clearly, if Iran really wants nuclear weapons nothing short of military action will stop them. Sanctions are only slowing them down, but that is due more to supply than Iran purposely slowing down.

Ron Paul does not leave the impression that he will take on military police actions. If the country wants military action in Iran it will have to be an official declaration of war. That is a power of Congress. At that point the only question would be if he is willing, as Commander in Chief, to look at a declaration of war and then not actually send any troops in or if he will act on that.

I know it is hard to remember that military action is not something we are supposed to do at the whim of an executive order, especially since that has been how we've done pretty much everything for decades, but I would prefer a president that would rather follow Constitutional protocol to the letter than one willing to send troops into a country without hesitation because there is a rebellion that can't possibly beat the military on their own.


I cannot say if that is where Ron Paul is headed with his stance on Iran, but there are sanctions in place now so we are inching closer to military action and I would enjoy seeing military action be done properly in this country.

Interesting approach. Yea that's not how this country operates anymore, but it was set up the way it was for a reason. If that's his take on the situation, I'm willing to listen. I still don't think we need him as an apologist for them bailing on their contracts. So regardless of whether this is his take, the message is poor. If this was his take, again it's a huge failure of public speaking because that's not the message he sent either.
 
I personally feel the NPT is a joke. It's no different than a group of big tough guys with guns intimidating all the computer nerds without guns into signing a sheet that says that the tough guys are allowed to have guns but no more than they already have, but the nerds are never allowed to have any. Or like a powerful government who is allowed to have guns in a military, but whose citizens are not allowed to have guns. Both of these situations happen around the world and I know you don't like inequality when it comes to gun ownership.

I find it amusing that GTP's shining beacon of morality thinks every sovereign individual has a right to self defense, but when they team up and establish a national border they no longer have the right, at least not as far as the more powerful nations on the list are concerned. I have no problem with every single country around the world possessing nukes. I have no problem with Iran or North Korea developing them. I think they should go ahead and remove themselves from the treaty - I think everyone should because it is an agreement that limits national sovereignty just like the UN, NATO, and EU. The NPT shouldn't exist in the first place and none of these idiotic governments around the world should have ever signed it.
Well put sir. Illegal treaties mean nothing. The Constitution is the only valid source of authority in this country. No other legislation can supersede it.

You must not be familiar with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which they signed:

I actually am. IMO, it's crap as stated above.
 
We gave up something when we signed that treaty. It was a contract, they agreed to perform an action in exchange for us performing an action. We've upheld our end of the bargain. Not upholding their end of the bargain is akin to theft (as it is with any contract).

Maybe they never should have signed it, but they did. They need to sign something else to get out of it. This is the way it works with individuals and it is the way it should work with nations. I'm all for everyone having a gun, but when someone willingly signs a contract not to have a gun, they need uphold that.
Where is this international supreme court to strike down the chairman of the home owner's association when he convinces each individual home owner to sign a contract saying they can't have guns inside their own homes? Surely you don't think an illegal contract like that should be upheld, because denying a person gun ownership in their own home is infringing their rights to defense of themselves and their property. Whether they signed it or not, the contract is illegal and void to begin with. So where is this international supreme court to reject a contract which denies these rights to entire countries?
 
Where is this international supreme court to strike down the chairman of the home owner's association when he convinces each individual home owner to sign a contract saying they can't have guns inside their own homes? Surely you don't think an illegal contract like that should be upheld, because denying a person gun ownership in their own home is infringing their rights to defense of themselves and their property. Whether they signed it or not, the contract is illegal and void to begin with. So where is this international supreme court to reject a contract which denies these rights to entire countries?
It has an exit clause. By not using it Iran is just being troublesome. North Korea used it, and now we just kind of shrug our shoulders while keeping a suspicious watch on them.

Personally, I don't think military action in Iran will ultimately achieve anything positive but they did agree to a treaty that has a written-in way to leave. If Iran wanted out and wanted to be able to make nukes without repercussions they could do it.

And calling it illegal seems a bit harsh. They signed it voluntarily. If there was some sort of strong-arming going on then how did India, Israel, and Pakistan get through it without signing, and two of them publicly making nukes? It isn't as if India and Pakistan are tension free areas. All Iran has to do is say that with the tensions in the region they feel they need a deterrent and give 90 days notice.
 
OK, I flipped through the book and found some comments. It's hard to find exactly what the record is on each topic because there's no index... it's all just statements organized chronologically with excerpts from a personal journal interspersed. If they were going to organize the contents chronologically like that I would have at least included an index. /shrug. There's also some stuff on the Ron Paul file at lewrockwell.com

Anyway,

Those who wish for a regime change in Iran should especially reject sanctions...
Sanctions do not hurt political leaders, as we know most recently from our sanctions against Iraq, but rather sow misery among the poorest and most vulnerable segments of society. Dictators do not go hungry when sanctions are imposed.

As we have learned with US sanctions on Iraq, and indeed with US sanctions on Cuba and elsewhere, it is citizens rather than governments who suffer most. The purpose of these sanctions is to change the regime in Iran, but past practice has demonstrated time and again that sanctions only strengthen regimes they target and marginalize any opposition. As would be the case were we in the US targeted for regime change by a foreign government, people in Iran will tend to put aside political and other differences to oppose that threatening external force. Thus this legislation will likely serve to strengthen the popularity of the current Iranian government. Any opposition continuing to function in Iran would be seen as operating in concert with the foreign entity seeking to overthrow the regime.

I find it shocking that legislation this serious and consequential is brought up in such a cavalier manner. Suspending the normal rules of the House to pass legislation is a process generally reserved for “non-controversial” business such as the naming of post offices. Are we to believe that this House takes matters of war and peace as lightly as naming post offices? [...]
This legislation seeks to bring Iran in line with international demands regarding its nuclear materials enrichment programs, but what is ironic is that Section 2 of HR 2194 itself violates the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty (NPT) to which both the United States and Iran are signatories. This section states that “t shall be the policy of the United States…to prevent Iran from achieving the capability to make nuclear weapons, including by supporting international diplomatic efforts to halt Iran's uranium enrichment program.” Article V of the NPT states clearly that, “[n]othing in this Treaty shall be interpreted as affecting the inalienable right of all the Parties to the Treaty to develop research, production and use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes without discrimination and in conformity with articles I and II of this Treaty.” As Iran has never been found in violation of the NPT — has never been found to have diverted nuclear materials for non-peaceful purposes — this legislation seeking to deny Iran the right to enrichment even for peaceful purposes itself violates the NPT.


This policy is pure isolationism. It is designed to foment war by cutting off trade and diplomacy. Too many forget that the quagmire in Iraq began with an embargo. Sanctions are not diplomacy. They are a precursor to war and an embarrassment to a country that pays lip service to free trade. It is ironic that people who decry isolationism support actions like this. [...]
With the exception of the military industrial complex, we all want a more peaceful world. Many are hysterical about the imminent threat of a nuclear Iran. Here are the facts: Iran has never been found out of compliance with the nuclear non-proliferation treaty (NPT) they signed. However, being surrounded by nuclear powers one can understand why they might want to become nuclear capable if only to defend themselves and to be treated more respectfully. After all, we don't sanction nuclear capable countries. We take diplomatic negotiations a lot more seriously, and we frequently send money to them instead. The non-nuclear countries are the ones we bomb. If Iran was attempting to violate the non-proliferation treaty, they could hardly be blamed, since US foreign policy gives them every incentive to do so.

So, according to Ron, he is not surprised that Iran would want a weapon. I believe Iran got into trouble with the NPT for not reporting to the IAEA on time a few years ago. Still, it appears that they have never been actually out of compliance, or have at least not been subverting the treaty since that time. Certainly there is no evidence (to my knowledge) worth going to war over that Iran is using its nuclear programs for anything other than peaceful purposes as outlined in the treaty.

FK, Iran won't exit the NPT because Israel WILL bomb the 🤬 out of all of their facilities as soon as the 90-day notice posts. They did it to Saddam. So Iran is kind of stuck between a rock and a hard place. I guess you could say that that's why Ron thinks a change in our overall policy and attitude would remove some incentive for an Iranian weapons program.

Anyway, at the end of the book he has kind of a conclusion about what a non-interventionist foreign policy is all about. I don't know why he doesn't use this more in the debates... He calls his policy "Strategic Independence." He basically says that treaties cannot automatically commit future generations to war. That we have to be vigilant but not meddling and seek a declaration of war before using acts of war like blockades, sanctions, or force for the resolution of conflicts. It's the cautious declaration with clearly stated objectives that prevents quagmires, etc. And of course he says that talk and trade is the best tool for peace instead of being so bellicose.
 
All I'm seeing are apologies for Iran's obvious interest in being a nuclear power and a systematic process of undermining the NPT. All of his statements make me think he does not respect the NPT and would not enforce it. A lot of these are good points, but at the end of the day we had an agreement.
 
Do you see anyone you are 100% happy with from any party so far?

This is not a small blemish. This guy is on record as saying the first thing he would do in office is call back all US military personnel. Not trusting the guy with foreign policy is kindof a big deal. I like the domestic policy, but the foreign policy needs major work.

Doesn't matter, he won't be the on republican ticket anyway.
 
Would you rather let Romney handle the situation?

Thankfully he has no chance of winning. I bet Gingrich would take the nomination before Mitt. Even with all the constant media support for the guy, I just think he is just too fake for most people to get behind. Also being a Mormon hurts him when it comes to the rabid christian groups.

I would vote for Gary Johnson as well as Paul, and mayyyyyybe even Newt, but the rest, Romney especially, forget it.
 
Danoff you're having this nationalist attitude which at this point hasn't got us very far in the world and only hurts us more in the end. Yet, you take that same attitude when it comes to Iran and you act as if our nation is the police force of the world, which it isn't. Iran is it's own nation and they have their own things to do, they know just like any other nation that if they attack one or more nations a hammer of that nations allies will come down upon them. However, you sound -not to be rude- like Fox news sound bites talking about how Iran is some massive threat; like Iraq right?! The Middle east will be the middle east now and fifty years from now, they've been at war in amongst themselves for hundreds to thousands of years. Why do you think the NPT would change that or any other agreements the top tier nations would make that Iran doesn't agree to. Not saying I agree with Iran but it's not our nations choice to tell them what they can and cant do, being aware of them and controlling them are two seperate things.

This is not a small blemish. This guy is on record as saying the first thing he would do in office is call back all US military personnel. Not trusting the guy with foreign policy is kindof a big deal. I like the domestic policy, but the foreign policy needs major work.

Doesn't matter, he won't be the on republican ticket anyway.

^ how does that answer the question?
 
His isolationist zealotry isn't going to keep us safe, and the belief that it will is a conceit that we can't afford to make. It pretends that we're so powerful that we actually cause all of our own problems - which simply isn't true.

We have caused the mid-east/oil problem, it is true and it is a big threat on our economy. Iran is not a military threat to us at all, if they were then they would be a larger threat to Israel and I'm pretty sure they would have done something by now. Anyway, here are some excerpts from Paul on the issue.

2006
Elite money managers, with especially strong support from U.S. authorities, struck an agreement with OPEC to price oil in U.S. dollars exclusively for all worldwide transactions. This gave the dollar a special place among world currencies and in essence “backed” the dollar with oil. In return, the U.S. promised to protect the various oil-rich kingdoms in the Persian Gulf against threat of invasion or domestic coup. This arrangement helped ignite the radical Islamic movement among those who resented our influence in the region. The arrangement gave the dollar artificial strength, with tremendous financial benefits for the United States. It allowed us to export our monetary inflation by buying oil and other goods at a great discount as dollar influence flourished.
______

During the 1970s the dollar nearly collapsed, as oil prices surged and gold skyrocketed to $800 an ounce. By 1979 interest rates of 21% were required to rescue the system. The pressure on the dollar in the 1970s, in spite of the benefits accrued to it, reflected reckless budget deficits and monetary inflation during the 1960s. The markets were not fooled by LBJ’s claim that we could afford both “guns and butter.”

Once again the dollar was rescued, and this ushered in the age of true dollar hegemony lasting from the early 1980s to the present. With tremendous cooperation coming from the central banks and international commercial banks, the dollar was accepted as if it were gold.
______

Most importantly, the dollar/oil relationship has to be maintained to keep the dollar as a preeminent currency. Any attack on this relationship will be forcefully challenged—as it already has been.

In November 2000 Saddam Hussein demanded Euros for his oil. His arrogance was a threat to the dollar; his lack of any military might was never a threat. At the first cabinet meeting with the new administration in 2001, as reported by Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neill, the major topic was how we would get rid of Saddam Hussein-- though there was no evidence whatsoever he posed a threat to us. This deep concern for Saddam Hussein surprised and shocked O’Neill.
______

Now, a new attempt is being made against the petrodollar system. Iran, another member of the “axis of evil,” has announced her plans to initiate an oil bourse in March of this year. Guess what, the oil sales will be priced Euros, not dollars.

Most Americans forget how our policies have systematically and needlessly antagonized the Iranians over the years. In 1953 the CIA helped overthrow a democratically elected president, Mohammed Mossadeqh, and install the authoritarian Shah, who was friendly to the U.S. The Iranians were still fuming over this when the hostages were seized in 1979. Our alliance with Saddam Hussein in his invasion of Iran in the early 1980s did not help matters, and obviously did not do much for our relationship with Saddam Hussein. The administration announcement in 2001 that Iran was part of the axis of evil didn’t do much to improve the diplomatic relationship between our two countries. Recent threats over nuclear power, while ignoring the fact that they are surrounded by countries with nuclear weapons, doesn’t seem to register with those who continue to provoke Iran. With what most Muslims perceive as our war against Islam, and this recent history, there’s little wonder why Iran might choose to harm America by undermining the dollar. Iran, like Iraq, has zero capability to attack us. But that didn’t stop us from turning Saddam Hussein into a modern day Hitler ready to take over the world. Now Iran, especially since she’s made plans for pricing oil in Euros, has been on the receiving end of a propaganda war not unlike that waged against Iraq before our invasion.

http://web.archive.org/web/20070303220038/http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2006/cr021506.htm

I believe Ron Paul see's global bankers as the largest national threat atm and he has been trying to defend us against it.
 
Danoff you're having this nationalist attitude which at this point hasn't got us very far in the world and only hurts us more in the end. Yet, you take that same attitude when it comes to Iran and you act as if our nation is the police force of the world, which it isn't. Iran is it's own nation and they have their own things to do, they know just like any other nation that if they attack one or more nations a hammer of that nations allies will come down upon them. However, you sound -not to be rude- like Fox news sound bites talking about how Iran is some massive threat; like Iraq right?! The Middle east will be the middle east now and fifty years from now, they've been at war in amongst themselves for hundreds to thousands of years. Why do you think the NPT would change that or any other agreements the top tier nations would make that Iran doesn't agree to. Not saying I agree with Iran but it's not our nations choice to tell them what they can and cant do, being aware of them and controlling them are two seperate things.

Iran is a voluntary signatory to the NPT. That's why they don't get to choose to start up a nuclear program. We have a massive interest in making sure our treaties are enforced.

We have caused the mid-east/oil problem, it is true and it is a big threat on our economy.

You're not really listening to what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that ignoring what the rest of the world is doing is not going to keep us safe or solve problems. Ron Paul seems to think that we should just ignore our past treaties and let countries like Iran or North Korea acquire nuclear weapons (that they committed not to acquire) and that some how this will be better in the long run since we're leaving them alone. I think that's incredibly arrogant and naive. These are not exactly parts of the world that recognize human rights. They cause enough problems without nuclear weapons.

Torching the NPT (as Ron Paul seems to want) will not only greatly increase the likelihood that one of these nukes will actually get used, but will weaken all active US treaties and undermine future foreign policy as well.
 
I believe Ron Paul see's global bankers as the largest national threat atm and he has been trying to defend us against it.

Absolutely. Economics is the knife that we are stabbing ourselves in the eye with, and fixing our spending, tax, and monetary systems are our only defense. They (the corporate banking elite) are truly a huge threat and almost no one but him and Lyndon LaRouche have really stood up against it until lately. Now it seems that even the mainstream puppets are starting to realize that were f:censored:d if things don't change right away. You know things are bad when they are actually admitting that things are bad. :ill:
 
Iran is a voluntary signatory to the NPT. That's why they don't get to choose to start up a nuclear program. We have a massive interest in making sure our treaties are enforced.

What Paul seems to be saying most times to gain the interest of voters is that he is more hesitant to be in war through methods of acting as the world Police. Yes Isolation isn't good in some aspects, but being in everyone's business has really done wonders for our economy and other issues. If Iran wants to retract their signature like NK then who are we to not allow this, now I don't or at least from our news sources don't recall hearing them wanting to retract but I think they should and just do what they wish.
 
Absolutely. Economics is the knife that we are stabbing ourselves in the eye with, and fixing our spending, tax, and monetary systems are our only defense. They (the corporate banking elite) are truly a huge threat and almost no one but him and Lyndon LaRouche have really stood up against it until lately. Now it seems that even the mainstream puppets are starting to realize that were f:censored:d if things don't change right away. You know things are bad when they are actually admitting that things are bad. :ill:

As well as when you see them physically get mad like most of us Middle Class citizens, but they're on camera. I tend to do a facepalm when I see it and wonder why now they want to join in when it would have been so much easier to tell the truth from the drop.
 
Iran is a voluntary signatory to the NPT. That's why they don't get to choose to start up a nuclear program. We have a massive interest in making sure our treaties are enforced.



You're not really listening to what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that ignoring what the rest of the world is doing is not going to keep us safe or solve problems. Ron Paul seems to think that we should just ignore our past treaties and let countries like Iran or North Korea acquire nuclear weapons (that they committed not to acquire) and that some how this will be better in the long run since we're leaving them alone. I think that's incredibly arrogant and naive. These are not exactly parts of the world that recognize human rights. They cause enough problems without nuclear weapons.

Torching the NPT (as Ron Paul seems to want) will not only greatly increase the likelihood that one of these nukes will actually get used, but will weaken all active US treaties and undermine future foreign policy as well.

The thing is, you are assuming that a Paul administration is just going to pull the covers over its head and sit oblivious to the rest of the world while it fixes the economy. A reluctance to go to war does not mean that steps can't be taken to make sure the NPT is followed. And if it isn't, despite those steps taken, then it is appropriate to gather the rest of the state signatories and put a collective declaration of war on the table.

There is no reason to believe that talk and trade could not ease the tension with Iran and diminish its regime and nuclear ambitions. Iran has literally never had that with us. They've never been treated as a regular sovereign state.

To rush in with a military crackdown is something that Paul describes as "Go-it-alone Isolationism." Why would you want to be a loyal ally to a state that is so frequently engaged in wars? That's a diplomatic strain for sure. Meanwhile, our enemies multiply. They resort to terrorism since they obviously cannot confront our military in a conventional fashion. Hopefully we've learned something by now.

And it's not like we have anything to lose because war can always be put on the table. It would just be much more responsible to be peaceful in our approach to international conflicts, and I'm sure it would engender much more respect for our country in the process.


What Paul seems to be saying most times to gain the interest of voters is that he is more hesitant to be in war through methods of acting as the world Police. Yes Isolation isn't good in some aspects, but being in everyone's business has really done wonders for our economy and other issues. If Iran wants to retract their signature like NK then who are we to not allow this, now I don't or at least from our news sources don't recall hearing them wanting to retract but I think they should and just do what they wish.

The thing is, Iran won't withdraw from the NPT. They can't. If they do, Saudi Arabia and Israel will blow their bungalow off the face of the earth. With all the weapons our military-industrial complex has pumped to them in exchange for all that foreign aid they got. It's no secret that Israel doesn't like countries that begin with an I, and they have already shown how they will respond to nuclear technology back when Saddam was cruising around in his battle-Benz. And if you remember the huge Wikileaks release, the Saudi King has been trying to get the US to go to war with Iran so that he won't have to.
 
Last edited:
The thing is, Iran won't withdraw from the NPT. They can't. If they do, Saudi Arabia and Israel will blow their bungalow off the face of the earth. With all the weapons our military-industrial complex has pumped to them in exchange for all that foreign aid they got. It's no secret that Israel doesn't like countries that begin with an I, and they have already shown how they will respond to nuclear technology back when Saddam was cruising around in his battle-Benz. And if you remember the huge Wikileaks release, the Saudi King has been trying to get the US to go to war with Iran so that he won't have to.


Omnis I agree with you, but once again this is what is getting America in trouble with we the people. They jump head first to benefit themselves and not the people as well as the guys who line the pockets with money. However, maybe we will start a new string of wars and be the mercenary of our allies soon. Also lets not forget that Israel will kill Iranian scientist and other officials that have anything to do with this Nuclear program, so whether we allow them or not isn't a big deal to them. I mean it was last month that the mossad were said to have killed one of the nuclear physicist. Yet who are we to tout these ideals this is hogwash conspiracy
:dopey:.
 
Back