The Ron Paul Disqualification (LRon didn't know Iran has an army)

Heading Right ^ | Dec. 24, 2007 | Ed Morrissey

[jdm]

The more Ron Paul talks, the more he demonstrates his unfitness for the office he seeks — and maybe for the office he holds. Yesterday on Meet the Press, Paul came up with a number of stunners, but his take on Iran may have been the most clueless of all:

MR. RUSSERT: So if Iran invaded Israel, what do we do?

REP. PAUL: Well, they’re not going to. That is like saying “Iran is about to invade Mars.” I mean, they have nothing. They don’t have an army or navy or air force. And Israelis have 300 nuclear weapons. Nobody would touch them. But, no, if, if it were in our national security interests and Congress says, “You know, this is very, very important, we have to declare war.” But presidents don’t have the authority to go to war.

Paul shows himself to be completely clueless in this passage. Iran does have an army; in fact, their Revolutionary Guard comprises not just a military but also a financial and intelligence apparatus that keeps the mullahcracy safely in power. The Artesh (regular forces) consists of a navy, an air force, and ground forces, all of which are duplicated in the Revolutionary Guard. Instead of having no military, Iran effectively has two of each branch.

The military expenditures in Iran mirror that of the US. Teheran uses 2.5% of its GDP on military spending, while the US hovers around 4% — and our forces reach all around the world. Iran has a substantial military, one that is well-funded and one that serves a dual purpose of threatening its neighbors and cowing dissent at home. It also funds a serious ballistic missile threat which affects the balance of power in the region. The new Shahab-3 can reach to Europe and certainly represents an existential threat to Israel.

But that isn’t the extent of the Iranian threat. Iran also funds terrorist movements, especially Hezbollah and Islamic Jihad in Syria and Lebanon. Those funds don’t get counted in the percentage of GDP, but they sustain an important column in the aggressive Iranian strategy for hegemony in the region. Any consideration of the threat Iran represents to the world has to include this — which once again Paul inexplicably ignores.

More than anything else Paul has said or done in this cycle, this statement should disqualify him for any consideration, serious or not, for the Presidency. His constituents in Texas ought to rethink his qualifications for Congress, too.

[Dr. Frank fan]

Iran can’t “Invade” Israel in the first place. Not because it has no army, which it obviously does, but simple geography.

That's a great point. As everyone knows, it's physically impossible to invade any country that is not geographically contiguous with yours. All countries can only invade their immediate neighbors and no one else. For example, it would be physically impossible for the United States to invade, oh, Iraq.

[SandRat]

Iranian Warships http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/iran/ships.htm

Iranian Air Force http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/iran/airforce-equipment.htm

Ron Paul’s Brain Power = -0

[Squantos]

Ron Paul........I thought it ended with a “q” ?

[News Junkie]

I was traveling on business in South Carolina last week. I saw a LOT of Ron Paul signs on the road side. Many more than for any other candidate. It was quite amazing.

[matthew fuller]

"Ron Paul doesn't know his ass from his elbow. ...an embarrassment, even for a congresscritter. "

Even more so for a practicing OB/GYN (as late as 2001)......

[reagan_fanatic]

[Eric Blair 2084]

Ron Paul is not a viable candidate.

However, his libertarian philosophy of “leave me the Hell alone from left wing socialists and right wing moralists” is a viable candidate. You can put a cardboard cutout who speaks about freedom and people will vote for him/her.

That should tell people something. Are there any other potential future public serpents besides myself paying attention?

[Man50D]

LOL!!!!

[Right Wing Assault]

Ron Paul on Iran: I ran?

[mad_as_he$$]

I saw a war plan for fighting Mainland China that was authooered right after WW2 by the British. The final determination was that there were enough Chinese to beat a combination of ALL Western military forces in a conventional war. How? Arm then with sticks and swords. They could simply walk over Allied troops. Three years after the report was written China invaded Korea and kicked our a$$. The number of divisions they used was less then 3% of the regular army. Point? Enough guys with crude weapons will run right over anybody.

[mad_as_he$$]

Iran GDP (purchasing power parity): $599.2 billion (2006 est.) $600 billion x 2.5% =$15,000,000,000

Kalifornia The state's GDP is at about $1.7 trillion (as of 2006)

United States GDP (purchasing power parity): $13.06 trillion (2006 est.)

And they spend it with the Russians

You can do the math - my Wal-Mart Calculator, made in China, does not have that many zeros and is not scientific.

[Revelation 911]

i can appreciate that mindset - Im just pingin....doing the task to which was handed to me

have a great New Years

[Proud2BeRight]

I’ll bet they don’t even have a blimp.

[Milligan]

Iran doesn’t need to spend any money on their military.
They don’t need missiles, guns or tanks.

Hezzoblah use their bodies as weapons.

[traviskicks]

Agreed, in response to Russert’s question about whether Iran would invade Israel... lol, a ridiculous question.

[Billthedrill]

Whether Paul meant "nothing" in a literal or figurative sense he was mistaken. The real issue I have with this approach isn't in order of battle, it's in the demonstrated Iranian ability to utilize state-supported terror in engagements short of open warfare that serve to advance their interests without exciting an Israeli nuclear response. A candidate that fails to appreciate that this is not only a possible scenario that falls outside the "non-interventionist" playbook, but the actual scenario that we're dealing with currently and that in fact is at the very root of what has been rather inadequately termed the "War on Terror" is not a candidate with any strong claims to mastery of foreign affairs.

Clearly Israel's 300 (or whatever) nuclear weapons have not prevented extensive Iranian involvement in the terror campaigns directed against her. Whether they might in theory is a question I shall leave to academicians and Mr. Paul. In practice, they haven't.

[Allegra]

For example, it would be physically impossible for the United States to invade, oh, Iraq.

Yes, and besides why would the United States ever want to do something like that?? {GASP!}

[ksen]

. . . and he’s openly stated that an attack SHOULD NEVER BE ANSWERED.

Get a grip, he hasn't said any such thing.

[ksen]

According to the US gov’t, Tehran uses 2.5% of its GDP on military spending. I’d say that would buy a lot of military might for them.

Estimated 2006 GDP for Iran was $600,000,000. That means if they spent 2.5% of GDP on their military it would equate to a whopping $15,000,000 a year. We spend more than that on toilet paper for our military.

They have no credible military.

[ksen]

This goes without even mentioning that Saudi Arabia has made large purchases of M1A2s . . .

Gee, I wonder who sold them those?