The U.S. attacked Iran's elected government in the 50s and has supported attacks against its current theocratic one ever since the 80s. I don't support their current government or the one that we dealt with in the 50s, but I do think we have a lot of reasons to hate Iran, just as their government has plenty of reasons to hate us. I disagree with you; there are different approaches as to how we deal with Iran. One is the attitude Reagan took in Lebanon--leave, ignore them and other Islamofascist states, and stop funding them and their enemies in the region via foreign aid programs both national and international. That would be Paul's approach. Yours is 'bomb them and hope they don't get more pissed off.' That is a different approach.
"The point is that Paul is indeed crazy and his supporters are even worse."
"Harmony, liberal intercourse with all nations are recommended by policy, humanity, and interest, but even our commercial policy should hold an equal and impartial hand, neither seeking nor granting exclusive favors or preferences; consulting the natural course of things; diffusing and diversifying by gentle means the streams of commerce, but forcing nothing; establishing with powers so disposed, in order to give trade a stable course, to define the rights of our merchants, and to enable the government to support them, conventional rules of intercourse, the best that present circumstances and mutual opinion will permit, but temporary and liable to be from time to time abandoned or varied as experience and circumstances shall dictate; constantly keeping in view that it is folly in one nation to look for disinterested favors from another; that it must pay with a portion of its independence for whatever it may accept under that character; that by such acceptance it may place itself in the condition of having given equivalents for nominal favors, and yet of being reproached with ingratitude for not giving more. There can be no greater error than to expect or calculate upon real favors from nation to nation. It is an illusion which experience must cure, which a just pride ought to discard." Yeah, Paul is as crazy as those darn mobocrats back in the late 1700s. Should have been put down by the King, what ho!
"I am glad to see that Paul and his supporters are finally being recognized as being ultimately no different than LaRouche and his supporters, something I have been saying for years. Brainwashed robots following a crazy old man."
Right. Anyone who remotely agrees with Paul must be brainwashed. That's the way to get us to come over to agree with you. Insult us. Perhaps if you call us a bunch of f'ing meathead morons who have $#!# for brains we'll think your way faster. Don't you think what you are doing is counterproductive, if you really believe that the people who disagree with you are wrong AND brainwashed? You're arguing with a zombie, after all. If your characterization is true, it just makes you look dumb and annoys the zombie.
"It isn’t 1850 anymore. Time to get with the f’ing program."
Yeah, I guess it's a hardball world. I've gotta jump on the team and come on in for the big win.
Is there a single LyndRon LaPaul supporter who isn’t an expert at rationalization? You construct convenient straw man arguments based on twisting both the arguments of those who do not support Paul as well as the arguments of Paul himself. For example, you say that my approach would be to “bomb them and hope they don’t get more pissed off.” This is laughable, of course, as neither I nor anybody on “my side” ever articulated such an approach.
You then said that Paul’s approach would be the same as Reagan’s, which is completely false. Paul has never articulated a consistent approach to Iran and what he has said over the years is certainly not what you said. Paul’s approach is remarkably consistent with Noam Chomsky as well as that of the 1979 hostage takers. That is to say that Paul blames the U.S. for overthrowing the Iranian government in 1953 when in fact the government was increasingly unstable. “Meddling” did not lead to Iranian aggression and state-sponsored terrorism against the U.S. in the last sixty years. Radical Islam did. That happens whether we “meddle” or not and history has shown that not meddling will lead us to things like 9/11.
Paul’s foreign policy, if you are correct, is to “ignore them.” Few people would argue with this. We have tried “ignoring them” in the past and we ended up with 9/11, Pearl Harbor, WWI, WWII, and so on. The fact is the U.S. will be attacked and hated regardless of whether we “ignore them” or not. Suggesting that things will magically get better if we ignore our enemies - whether they are Islamic nations or not - is not supported by reality. I’m terribly sorry, but that’s the way it is.