Ron Paul has never said Iran should be allowed to develop nuclear weapons without resistance.
What Ron Paul said was the USA should not be entangled in so many wars as the world’s policeman or empire.
Laying siege on Iran has an effect. Tripling the sanctions and enforcing others to abide them would lead to an overthrow of the Mullahs by the Iranian people because starvation is always a local issue.
But bombing by the USA or under cover of its NATO surrogate, or by the Israelis will only anger the Iranian people and entrench further the power of the psychotic terrorists that answer to the Mullahs.
Ron Paul would back a siege because it is simply a refusal to allow Iran to trade oil, to have visas to travel, to perform any international banking, gold, precious metals or any commodity transactions or anything of value that can be monetized. These sanctions do have an effect but are leaky for lack of enforcement.
Enforcement of an oil embargo could be carried out by placing a carrier group near the Strait of Hormuz with standing orders to shoot down or sink anything coming from or going to Iran. Such as action has no effect of making war on the ground. Ron Paul could sign for this.
The invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan allowed for the complete isolation of Iran as all countries bordering it are or were at one time in agreement with the West in regards to sanctions of Iran. Ron Paul would not sign for an invasion of countries to isolate Iran. I expect he would sign for placing sanctions on all three, Iraq, Afghanistan and Iran, but even laying siege to all three may have been unnecessary. Leaving Saddam Hussein in power would not have empowered Iran as Iraqis and Iranians ruling classes are permanent enemies of each other. Afghanistan is mostly influenced by Pakistan and there is no friendly basis for Afgans and Iranian governments to carry on against the sanctions of the West. Afghanistan is poor and would not be helpful to Iran even if its governing class chose to participate in evading sanctions.
Starve them, it’s the only way. I expect Ron Paul would be fine with that as it involves no aggressive military action.
That is an absolute misrepresentation of Ron Paul’s repeated statements on Iran and repeated votes against sanctions on Iran. In fact, in some cases, Ron Paul was the lone Republican to vote against sanctions on Iran.
Iran is economically self sufficient. The only thing they don’t make at home are computers and cars.
It's worked wonders in N. Korea... Oh...
This is clearly an act of war, and Iran (or most any country) could be expected to react accordingly (but with time to plan, etc.) If it is to be war, better to hit them hard and fast, and try to take out any chance of dirty bomb or chem counterattack as things ramp up.
RON PAUL to DFU on Iowa radio - he would not stop ship with nuclear missiles from N. Korea to Iran WHO RADIO in Des Moines ^ | 1-3-08 | dfu
Posted on 1/3/2008 9:15:39 AM by doug from upland
For those who have doubts that Ron Paul would be an acceptable commander in chief, your doubts would have been absolutely confirmed if you listened to him this morning on WHO 1040 talk radio in Des Moines, Iowa.
He came on Jan Mickelson's show at about 8:50am, Pacific Time. I was the second caller.
After complimenting him on his commitment to the Constitution, I asked a question about foreign policy. If any of you can pull the podcast, you can hear the conversation.
The question went something like this: Dr. Paul, if a shipment of nuclear tipped missiles was heading from North Korea to Iran, knowing the position of Ahmadinejad and the mullahs, would you stop that ship or sink it?
His answer was stunning. He very quickly answwered, "No, why would we do that?" After that question back to me, he commented that there was almost zero chance of that happening. He said that if he knew they planned to use them against us, he would take action. But they know they would be obliterated.
I wanted to challenge him further over Iran's stated goal of destroying Israel, but I was apparently cut off by the host and couldn't do it.
There you go, folks. Dr. Paul is an unthinkable commander in chief.