Posted on 02/16/2010 2:05:11 PM PST by Michael van der Galien
It turns out that crackpot Ron Paul’s son Rand can understand why poor, innocent Iran might want nuclear weapons—they feel “threatened” by big, bad America (hat tip to Rand Paul: Too Kooky for Kentucky for the video):
Watch it at NRB - sorry, can't embed videos here at FR.
(Excerpt) Read more at newsrealblog.com ...
Pirut KAT. LOL!
Nope. I was going through ZOT withdrawal and I am quick on the trigger today. LOL
They ARE threatened...by millions of their own citizens rising up against a repressive regime of pseudo religious fascists.
STFU, Rand. Both you and your lunatic father.
Rand Paul clearly has more than few nutty views, which isn’t surprising considering that he’s Ron Paul’s son. The surprising part to me is that he’s actually run a very competent campaign in two important areas: raising campaign funds and building an organization inside his state via the Tea Party and his father’s supporters. He’s outworked Grayson in the grassroots and mastered an insurgent campaign running as the “conservative” choice in the race. Recently, in the past few weeks I’ve noticed Paul playing more and more defense and there hasn’t been any recent polling to see if it has affected his support. If the next polling shows Paul still leading by double digits, he might be too difficult to catch by the primary date on May 20.
Terrific. You shouldn't have any problems finding the multiple instances when the Israeli Prime Minister or President, or the American President has called for the destruction of the state of Iran; To wipe it off the face of the map.
People Idiots like Rand Paul, have absolutely no understanding or appreciation for the ideology or goals of the people who control Iran. Nor do they appreciate their Sunni brothers, who share a similar set of goals, primarily to reestablish the Caliphate across the Muslim world, and beyond.
This has NOTHING to do with Iran feeling threatened. This is about Iran's ability to project force and to maximize their regional influence to create an unbending hegemony.
Paul's statement is such an over-simplification of the dynamics of the middle-east, it would be funny if he wasn't a serious candidate with a legitimate chance of winning. This kind of thinking is just as dangerous as the isolationists were in 1939. Paul is bad, bad news.
Palin needs to un-endorse him. Now.
This statement pretty much applies to every group protesting our overseas efforts since 9/11. Liberal Democrats, Progressives; the detritus of all the rest.
May we continue to expose their loony thinking before the jihadis manage to pull off another 9/11.
Wiping a country off the map is not the same thing as destroying it. It could just mean changing the political boundaries. For example, in 1989 East Germany and West Germany were wiped off the map and were replaced with one country called Germany.
I'm not saying Iran is necessarily the good guy here. I'm saying that continuing to threaten them only encourages them and makes war more likely.
Exactly. This is why Rand has no idea what he’s talking about. Iran is continuing to pursue nukes precisely because they DON’T feel threatened. Khaddafi felt threatened, and that’s why he gave his nuke program up.
The implication that Iran would be less belligerent if the US left them alone isn’t just silly, it’s dangerous. They’ll feel emboldened to develop nuclear weapons and embark on a quest to dominate the region militarily and gain de facto control of the Persian Gulf oil supply. Also, the loss of the American nuclear umbrella will mean that the Saudis and Turks WILL feel threatened and will either bandwagon with the Iranians or pursue their own nuclear program. Either way, things get a lot more dangerous for everyone.
It’s easy for isolationists like the Pauls and Buchanans of the world to blame the US for making the world more dangerous, but the truth is quite the opposite. What peace there is in the world is a direct consequence of America’s armed strength and her willingness to use it. You can argue that we could have used it more judiciously or effectively over the last 10 or even 60 years (I certainly have), but to argue that it has caused rather than deterred dangerous conflict in the world is just to ignore history.
Gee whiz, lookie here...
Agreed. It was a statement of desire, not fact.
Looks like another Deb Medina moment.
Damn these Paulites. Great on 90% plus of the issues by they have to be Kuchinch kooks on terrorism/foreign policy so no conservative can vote for them in good conscious.
Palin or no Palin this Paul needs to lose that primary or it could mean Senator Conway (D).
UR Funny. I didn't know Conan O'Brien was a freeper.
I’m sure the supercilious crone will attempt to enlighten us with his oh so amazing intelligence again.
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.