I wish the host would have given me more time to engage him. I was not surprised by the answer and was pleased to be able to show him for what he is. Ahmadinejad would probably pick him as our leader even over Kucinich.
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.