Posted on 01/03/2008 9:15:39 AM PST by doug from upland
I hate to be a Paul defender, especially since I disagree with his answer.
But I don’t think it is a disqualifying answer, or an answer that indicates lunacy.
There are a lot of nations who have nuclear weapons, and unfortunately given the nature of progress any nation who wants them will eventually have them.
So the question is, what authority does the United States government have in preventing a particular country from obtaining those weapons? We would answer “our national security”, but that presupposes that Iran would use the weapons against us.
Which is a risk I don’t want to take, and I guess that’s the point, but first, does that mere risk give us authority to attack and destroy ships of other soveriegn nations that are not themselves violating international OR U.S. Law?
And second, does the constitutional authority exist to attack the vessel of a foreign country with which we are not at war, in order to prevent a shipment of a legal but lethal cargo to another country with which we are not at war?
Note this — if we have the authority to stop the shipment of nuclear weapons to Iran, then by logic we must also have the authority to bomb Iran itself if they have developed a nuclear weapon. One is easier than the other, but they are the same act of war.
If we destroyed a ship from North Korea, would not North Korea have the right to defend that ship? What recourse would we have if they, in defending that ship, torpedoed one of our aircraft carriers?
Realise that we probably could prevent NK from actually doing any real damage, but they certainly would have the moral authority to take action in response to an act of war, which attacking one of their ships would certainly be.
I know the answer to this from our perspective, but why do the current nuclear states have the right to possess nuclear weapons without provoking an attack from us, but Iran does not? Is it not possible, or even likely, that Iran is threatened by a possible shia takeover of Pakistan, which has nuclear weapons? Wouldn’t Iran have some “entitlement” to it’s own weapons to assure mutual destruction on Pakistan in that event?
Like I said, I’m not advancing this argument because it is MY argument, I’m advancing the argument because I think it is a RATIONAL argument, one that deserves debate and consideration — and by definition, if such an argument exists, it is wrong to dismiss it as simple lunacy or disqualifying.
He’s a nut.
Are you high?
I give great credit to Tom Tancredo and forcing the candidates to talk about dealing with the illegal invasion. If Paul forces candidates to talk about the Constitution and where we have lost our way, that is a good thing. In these times, we need a Churchill, not a Chamberlain.
I’m not sure we can say that — he may have perceived nuclear weapons in Cuba as a direct threat against us, and he IS for using military force to defend against direct threats.
That is true even though he would NOT support putting our missles in other countries to defend those other countries.
Part of "us" is a large contingency of America's finest within range of missiles.
Cuba would argue that Soviet Missiles were not a direct threat to us. They would argue that they were placed there to defend against an American invasion. Cuba could make a case for that. Paul would say that they would be obliterated if they ever tried to use them.
The NNT does not authorise the use of military force to "enforce" the treaty provisions.
And North Korea is not a signatory, and is therefore not bound by the provisions, nor are they breaking the "laws of nations" by shipping nuclear devices.
And I don't believe Congress has "defined" shipping nuclear weapons to Iran as a crime punishable by the destruction of the ship and the death of it's crew, so even if Congress is "authorized" to "define and punish" offenses, they haven't done so, and we are talking about the President taking unilateral action.
Again, I'm advancing the discussion, which I think is an important one, not something to be simply dismissed as crazy.
Paul’s got some pretty good ideas about the Constitution, but his foreign policy ensures that it would be forever forgotten.
I doubt Ron Paul will be close to a victory in Iowa.
However, a caucus is a test of how well you get actual people to show up at a meeting and then stick with you when others ridicule their selection.
Of all the candidates, the two candidates who have shown the greatest ability to get their people to show up at meetings and cast votes are Romney and Ron Paul.
And you can be certain that those who support Ron Paul are NOT going to be talked out of it if they show up.
Fortunately for those who oppose Ron Paul, he can’t bus people in from other states. But he’s got plenty of money to bus people around IN the state, and his supporters are extremely motivated to both show up and to convince others to show up.
So let me just say that it won’t be a complete shock to me if Paul does better than expected. Including by me.
Do you believe there is a moral equivalence between nations like North Korea and Iran and the United States?
I appreciate your points. Unfortunately, the Constitution never envisioned the nuclear age. There may be situations in which the President might have to act immediately.
The key points of the NNT are:
not to transfer “nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices” and “not in any way to assist, encourage, or induce” a non-nuclear weapon state (NNWS) to acquire nuclear weapons (Article I). NNWS parties to the NPT agree not to “receive,” “manufacture” or “acquire” nuclear weapons or to “seek or receive any assistance in the manufacture of nuclear weapons” (Article II). NNWS parties also agree to accept safeguards by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to verify that they are not diverting nuclear energy from peaceful uses to nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices (Article III).
..and North Korea did initially ratify the treaty in 85- they withdrew in 2003. http://www.wagingpeace.org/articles/2003/04/10_chaffee_korea-npt.htm
I wonder if he locks his door at night, or locks his car up when he goes into the store.
Criminals surely know if they broke in they’d be obliterated.
Allowing North Korea to peddle nukes is not consistent with a strong national defense.
In fact, if that is your foreign policy, then why bother with any national defense.
Wow. If Ron's neo-Nazi friends hear a rumor that he's "in favor of busing," he could lose a lot of support.
I could buy that as well, but Paul believes we shouldn’t have our troops stationed around the world, and while I don’t agree with a lot of what he says, again it’s a compelling constitutional argument that the founders did not intend for us to station armed forces permanently in other countries around the world.
And if our forces were not around the world doing peacekeeping duties, they wouldn’t be targets.
Anyway, there is no more evidence that Iran would use nukes against our troops in other countries than they would use them against us. If they SAID they were going to attack us, I wouldn’t care that they don’t have the ability to get the bombs here, I’d blow them up.
I guess from the way I wrote my statement, it might have sounded like I was simply saying they didn’t have the means to attack us, but that wasn’t the point, it was that without some reasonable indication that Iran was actually going to attack us, the “national security” argument is at least a debateable question, not cut-and-dried.
It could well be that in 50 years, Iran will have been a nuclear power for 45 years, and be an ally of the United States.
Stop drinking the bong water.
Paul may actually be right about the constitution, and maybe we need an amendment to make what we do more clearly constitutional.
I know that the constitution was written for a time when an attack on our country would be well-telegraphed, and take months in the planning and execution. Plenty of time to raise an army from the state ranks.
The theory that we wouldn’t have a standing army went out long ago, but today the idea that you can defend your country from within it’s own borders is outdated. Anybody can attack us from anywhere in the world and do so within a day.
We are part of the global community now, regardless of what the founders expected or wanted, what happens in the world effects us immediately and significantly.
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.