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.
Bingo!
Ron Paul is prepared to fight wars the way Thomas Jefferson would. Of course Jefferson didn't have to face weapons that could kill millions of people. And even Jefferson would be in favor of issuing Letters of Mark and Reprisal to stop the spread of WMDs.
I don’t know if that is a very good endorsement. :)
Thank you. I’ve asked on a couple of different threads, but no one had any idea. I was wondering if he could come in 3rd if there is a small turn-out on the Republican side. With what you’ve said, it sounds like that is a possibility.
Agree 100%. That's why I spend so much time defending the guy even though I prefer Thompson. It's not because I "hate Jews" or "don't support the troops" or any of that silliness.
Defend him on the Constitution; but he can’t be defended in his view of our legitimate national interests.
So you’re actually predicting Paul will come in first in Iowa? That’s your official prediction?
His lip will sink his ship.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
LOL.
If that’s true, Mr. Paul would quickly have a lot of navy members and their families very angry at him.
That one Nuke Submarine would have to be on duty and patrolling 24/7, 365 days a year.
And Ron Paul doesn’t understand Jihad.
He blames America, even when Jihad is GLOBAL, and has been in existence for centuries before our country was even born.
Ron Paul would not keep us safe.
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?
So maybe people are only talking about stopping and boarding, but the actual question included sinking, which would be "attack and destroy".
Yes, I personally feel that way. However, I don’t know if that means the United States has a moral duty OR authority to intervene whereever one party is unfairly attacked by another party.
Further, even my personal moral obligation doesn’t mean if I see someone who looks shifty, and think they MIGHT be planning to attack someone, I can walk up to them and shoot them just to be safe.
You misunderstood. If our troops were not in other countries, they would not be targets, because they would not be there.
The person who mentioned attacks on our troops was suggesting that since we have troops in countries that Iran might be threatening, that threat was a “national security” issue.
It wasn’t about whether Iran was targetting our troops, it was about whether our troops were “targets” only because they happen to be in the place Iran would want to target.
Reminding everybody once again that I am trying to advance the discussion of what I consider a serious question, and not specifically arguing MY point of view (since that is boringly too much like everybody else’s point of view), my argument here was NOT in any way meant to mimic any argument others may have made about our troops being targets because the aggressors are mad that we are there.
It was merely a matter of being physically located where the attacks were happening. If you aren’t where the attacks happen, you don’t get hit by them.
And I’m actually not a big fan of us putting our troops somewhere JUST so that an attack on someone turns into an attack on us.
Yes it is, but that is a separate issue from whether we should sink a ship carrying nuclear weapons to Iran.
Russia & Pakistan already got nukes. They can lob them at us just as easily as Iran would. What's to stop Iran from getting them from them? I'm not condoning their behavior, but if they want them they'll get them from somewhere without our knowledge.
“Ron Paul is certifiably insane.” © 2008
I work for a living. Hence the break in-between my posts here. I don't sit my ass on this computer 24/7 like you chumps do.
You simply attempt to deflect. Ron Paul's answer shows that he is clearly unqualified.
Paul's foreign policy is a breath of fresh air. He gave a speech in front of VETERANS and stated that no American soldiers will be fighting under a UN or foreign flag or being involved in nation-building. It's time we start defending America first.
Will you still be contributing to Ron Paul's campaign after the Iowa results are released? Seeing how he is polling so well and all...
And you're a fool to believe those same biased polls that have already been debunked by Paul's grassroots support. I guarantee you Paul will be in the Top 3 today.
Copyright Law?
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.