Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Paul says he'd lift sanctions on Iran
WCAX ^ | 12-19-07

Posted on 12/19/2007 11:36:37 AM PST by SJackson

MANCHESTER, N.H. (AP) - Campaigning in New Hampshire today, Republican Ron Paul says he would lift sanctions on Iran and order the U.S. Navy to pull back from its shores.

Paul says if the U.S. relieved pressure on Iran, people would breathe a sign of relief, interest rates probably would not go up and oil prices probably would drop.

Speaking in Manchester, Paul said the Bush administration has been looking for war with Iran.


TOPICS: Foreign Affairs; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: 911truth; iran; paul; ronpaul; sanctions
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140 ... 161-171 next last
To: Fester Chugabrew
Iraq, as a country did not pose an imminent threat to our national security.

OK, leave out the whole WMD thing, when was having over 90 attempts to shoot down US jets, attempted assassination of a former President, being a co-conspirator in the first WTC bombing not a threat to our national security? By all other standards, any one of those would be considered an act of war.

101 posted on 12/19/2007 1:01:35 PM PST by mnehring (Ron Paul: 'When fascism comes it will be wrapped in a flag and carrying a cross'..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: Fester Chugabrew; SJackson
These words from Ron Paul’s web page regarding the issue of war are fairly reasonable. They certainly do not read like words from some nut case.

Then why did George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison (who between them were all either signers and/or authors of the Declaration of Independence and/or the Constitution) seem to take a different view of the role and duties of the Commander-in-Chief?

102 posted on 12/19/2007 1:03:39 PM PST by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: Fester Chugabrew; SJackson
Ron Paul clearly voted against the Authorization for Use of Military Force in Iraq, and did so on the grounds that Iraq, as a country did not pose an imminent threat to our national security.

Fine, so he voted against Iraq, the majority of both houses of Congress voted differently. Does MoRon Paul think that his vote is the only one that should count?

103 posted on 12/19/2007 1:05:26 PM PST by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: Fester Chugabrew
Ron Paul clearly voted against the Authorization for Use of Military Force in Iraq, and did so on the grounds that Iraq, as a country did not pose an imminent threat to our national security.

That's his opinion, and he gets to vote as he wishs.

Clearly then the Authorization was constitutional and his statements such as

“No war should ever be fought without a declaration of war voted upon by the Congress, as required by the Constitution.

and

“Under no circumstances should the U.S. again go to war as the result of a resolution that comes from an unelected, foreign body, such as the United Nations.

are irrelevant

104 posted on 12/19/2007 1:09:23 PM PST by SJackson (uh, Congressman, you know, uh, Gov Huckabee is not selling fascism, he's sending a Christmas message)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: Fester Chugabrew
Ron Paul clearly voted against the Authorization for Use of Military Force in Iraq

But Congress Constitutionally authorized force over Paul's vote, so Paul doesn't have to go along?

105 posted on 12/19/2007 1:12:00 PM PST by Navy Patriot (The hyphen American with the loudest whine gets the grease.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: mnehrling
The UN is a different animal than the individual, sovereign countries represented thereby. Acts of war on the part of our nation should be declared by us as a people, not on the basis of other authorities.

Ron Paul did vote in favor of Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists, which in turn took us directly to Afghanistan where the terrorists made their home under the Tali-ban. Does this constitute a declaration of war on our part? In this case we were indeed attacked by terrorist on our own soil and our national security is threatened by the same.

106 posted on 12/19/2007 1:12:29 PM PST by Fester Chugabrew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee
Then why did George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison (who between them were all either signers and/or authors of the Declaration of Independence and/or the Constitution) seem to take a different view of the role and duties of the Commander-in-Chief?

Those wacky founders, they just couldn't get everything right.

Then again, maybe when the took the office of President, they ceased to be founders and became neocons.

107 posted on 12/19/2007 1:13:53 PM PST by SJackson (uh, Congressman, you know, uh, Gov Huckabee is not selling fascism, he's sending a Christmas message)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: TracyTucson

“Humble foreign policy and not being the Policemen of the world and not killing American troops overseas for failed missions.”

So why didn’t Paul vote to bring the troops home when he had the chance? He didn’t even bother to vote on this one. There is nothing consistent about his record. I’m still waiting for someone to show us what the one thing he has ever accomplished. None of his bills ever went anywhere. He more often than not supports (co sponsors their resolutions) the socialist caucus of congress.

FINAL VOTE RESULTS FOR ROLL CALL 608

H RES 571 RECORDED VOTE 18-Nov-2005 11:33 PM QUESTION: On Agreeing to the Resolution BILL TITLE: Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that the deployment of United States forces in Iraq be terminated immediately

It was voted down 403 to 3.

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2005/roll608.xml


108 posted on 12/19/2007 1:15:34 PM PST by AuntB (" It takes more than walking across the border to be an American." Duncan Hunter)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: SJackson

Ron Paul is an idiot. Ron Paul wants to play nice with Jew haters.


109 posted on 12/19/2007 1:16:14 PM PST by Brandie (Vote for a Conservative! Islam is a Death Cult, is that simple enough to understand!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SJackson
Paul says if the U.S. relieved pressure on Iran, people would breathe a sign of relief, interest rates probably would not go up and oil prices probably would drop.

and we would have peace in our time.Not

110 posted on 12/19/2007 1:16:19 PM PST by mjp (Live & let live. I don't want to live in Mexico, Marxico, or Muslimico. Statism & high taxes suck)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

Washington and Jefferson warned against becoming entangled in other nation’s affairs. None of the forefathers you mentioned was a nut case, either. There is room for genuine debate regarding our role in foreign affairs, presidential powers, and the like.

Ron Paul brings a different perspective, to be sure, but I see nothing in his arguments to make him worthy of the knee-jerk slander that seems to crop up whevever his name is mentioned. Sounds just a like a bunch of frothing-at-the-mouth Bush haters.


111 posted on 12/19/2007 1:16:19 PM PST by Fester Chugabrew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: SJackson
Then again, maybe when the took the office of President, they ceased to be founders and became neocons.

Yep, Jefferson made the Louisiana Purchase (which is clearly not mentioned in the Constitution) just to help out his cronies in "big farming" and they were probably Zionists to boot!

112 posted on 12/19/2007 1:16:22 PM PST by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: SJackson

They’re coming to take me away, ha-haaa.
They’re coming to take me away, ho-ho, hee-hee, ha-haaa


113 posted on 12/19/2007 1:18:38 PM PST by Proud2BeRight
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Fester Chugabrew
Washington and Jefferson warned against becoming entangled in other nation’s affairs.

Let's see, during the Whiskey Rebellion, George Washington declared martial law in certain parts of the country and commanded American troops on American soil to enforce taxes.

Thomas Jefferson and James Madison both fought undeclared wars off the coast of Africa.

None of the forefathers you mentioned was a nut case, either.

I never said they were, Ron Paul is a nutcase though.

114 posted on 12/19/2007 1:19:17 PM PST by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies]

To: SJackson
Once they have enriched uranium, and it's enriched sufficiently, the weaponization will take a short period of time, and I don't trust the Iranians

And once Mr. 'Can I get a round of applause here' shows where the Iranians represent a threat to our borders and have declared war on this nation (not a loose band of terrorists, but the Iranian government itself) perhaps Freddie can get the war he so much hopes for.

As that is not the case however the best course of action is to trade with all and maintain conversations with all.

Unless of course someone can explain even in the depths of the Cold War it was possible to trade with and maintain some form of relationship with the Soviet Union and China....

115 posted on 12/19/2007 1:22:42 PM PST by billbears (Those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it. --Santayana)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: SJackson
Republican Ron Paul

He is definitely the top Republican of choice amongst the Freakazoids here in Portland...sort of a Ralph Nader with personality.
116 posted on 12/19/2007 1:24:33 PM PST by crazyhorse691 (The faithful will keep their heads down, their powder dry and hammer at the enemies flanks.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mnehrling

What do you reckon we’d do if foreign military jets entered our airspace? Sit here and look dumb? How close would we let them come before we took action?

Okay. Our jets were over there to protect our ability to purchase oil from the region. Right? Do other countries send their fighters over here to protect their ability to purchase wheat?

Maybe you do not think our country can sustain itself without sending troops into over a hundred other countries. Some people happen to think we are stronger, and smarter, than that.


117 posted on 12/19/2007 1:24:46 PM PST by Fester Chugabrew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee
Yep, Jefferson made the Louisiana Purchase (which is clearly not mentioned in the Constitution) just to help out his cronies in "big farming" and they were probably Zionists to boot!

They did know how to "colonize", put the neocons to shame. I've always thought James Polk has been an underated President given his accomplishments in this regard. I doubt Ron Paul would agree.

118 posted on 12/19/2007 1:24:58 PM PST by SJackson (uh, Congressman, you know, uh, Gov Huckabee is not selling fascism, he's sending a Christmas message)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]

To: mjp
I really like Paul's theory that communists would not have tried to take over the world one small country at a time, if we had just not interfered and done so much bad in those countries.

Makes me wonder how doctor Paul would treat cancer in a patient, stay out of the organs it invades?

119 posted on 12/19/2007 1:25:48 PM PST by Navy Patriot (The hyphen American with the loudest whine gets the grease.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies]

To: Fester Chugabrew
What do you reckon we’d do if foreign military jets entered our airspace?

If we agreed to let them fly over based on a signed treaty, we should let them fly over.

Our jets were over there to protect our ability to purchase oil from the region. Right?

No, our jets were there as part of the surrender terms (ok, cessation of hostilities) treaty with Saddam. He agreed to allow them to flow over to enforce the no fly zones and to inspect his so called compliance of banned weapons.

Your attempt to place moral equivalence in the situation is somewhere between sad and frightening.

120 posted on 12/19/2007 1:30:50 PM PST by mnehring (Ron Paul: 'When fascism comes it will be wrapped in a flag and carrying a cross'..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 117 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140 ... 161-171 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson