Posted on 01/03/2008 9:15:39 AM PST 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.
Yeah, but treaties are unconstitutional too aren't they, just ask Ron.
Good move by the host, actually ... Mr. Paul didn't need a second whack with that axe. You slew him on the first blow. Nicely done.
vaudine
Pot calling the kettle black.
Your one-liner knee-jerk defense of every idiotic statement from Ron Paul is the most vivid example of a Pavlov response.
Iran hasn’t been or is being ignored:
http://www.mnf-iraq.com/index.php?searchword=iran&option=com_search&Itemid=
Iraq to discuss border agreement with Iran
Iran may now be cooperating with U.S. in Iraq
Iranian rockets found, turned over to Coalition Forces
US-Iran to discuss Iraq on December 18
US, Iranian Officials to Discuss Iraq Security Issues
Much more at MNF-Iraq.com
And how, precisely, do we "know" that? What information there is, seems to indicate a fair level of nuclear cooperation between NK and Iran.
Just when you thought Ron Paul couldn’t say something more stupid, he proves me wrong...
Israel isn't a signatorie. NK was, but they withdrew, legal, after violating it, illegal. The US under GWB has stopped and searched ships carrying North Korean cargo in the past, so this goes beyond speculation, and represents a change in policy.
You are the only one suggesting "Attack" and "destroy", so your argument is a complete strawman.
None the less, boarding, inspecting, and seizing of nuclear arms shipped to Iran is in keeping with current international treaties and U.N. sanctions. Therefore, yes the U.S. would be acting legally.
Do you think you have a moral obligation to prevent harm to some one else at the hands of a third party?
It's this sort of thing that causes the British to tout the superiority of their unwritten constitution over our written one.
On balance, I prefer the written variety; however, sometimes the rational response to a specific situation runs far in advance of the written word, and the latter becomes an obstacle -- and potentially a dangerous one.
This is especially true when response times are on the order of hours or days, as opposed to the weeks or months required to deal with Congress or the Supreme Court.
Such a load of crap.
They don't care one wit about our "international presence". That is an old worn-out propaganda lie designed to dupe simple-minded citizens like yourself. It seems to still work.
They just want to kill you and your family because you are American.
Non starter. Those were your solutions and nobody else was even talking about them until you raised them.
Now boarding, inspecting, and seizing nuclear weapons in accordance with current treaties and UN sanctions will be perfectly legal, and expected.
Ron Paul asked Republicans to vote for him. The voters very quickly answered, "No, why would we do that?"
Well, not really "exposed", since he has always been known as a hypocrite by those who follow his postings.
Excellent. Keep up the good work.
Which is the exact opposite of Ron Paul's position on national defense.
He is a clueless nut job. I don't know who I pity more, him or his supporters.
If you are aware, I would appreciate your answer. Thanks.
I will wait until Ron Paul becomes President and crack becomes legal. I will buy some from the local Paultard run "People's Farm-acy".
I'll let you know how it goes.
If we pulled out of the Middle East, they would not suddenly love us and end their centuries’ old goal of the domination of Islam. What it would do is embolden them. If they chased us out of the Middle East or out of anywhere in the world, what better recruiting tool would there be? Their strength would grow beyond comprehension. They would be strong enough to be collapsing governments and establishing Islamic states.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.