Ron Paul: All We Are Doing Is Promoting Iran's Desire To Have a Nuclear Weapon

This man is a rambling fool. Ron Paul's answer on the question of Iran is so far removed from common sense it isn't even funny. Bret Baier points out that his position is to the left of Barack Obama.

Take a look at this video and keep in mind, Glenn Beck would consider voting for this clown over Newt Gingrich.

Let us assume that we were completely wrong and imperialist etc in 1954. Does that mean that we should allow the mullahs to get nukes?

That is a good question, and I am not really arguing we should. Rather, I am arguing against the notion that our actions don't provoke other nations in any way, or the malignant notion that is so popular in these parts that American foreign policy is infallible and has never borne bad fruit. That silly view is not at all congruent with conservatism.

Rather, conservatism is the intelligent and reasoned approach as contrasted with the stubborn ignorance of the Left. Conservatives look at facts and respond appropriately, and if errors have been made we admit them and learn from them. We should understand the reality of international relations and the nuances involved, and seek practical results. Trying to carry off macho poses to look tough as candidates does not impress me at all.

Iran is a dangerous nation, and we should be watchful and do what has to be done for our own safety, but that shouldn't include intentional provocation when it isn't necessary or a view that the Iranian people themselves have no right to self-determination. It also shouldn't involve pretending that history started in 1979 and that we had no role in the twisted development of the America-hating nation that now occupies that place on the globe. We did a great deal to produce the current reality in Tehran, and we should be adult enough to admit it.

I dunno about your conclusion then.

If our mistake was protecting oil assets in Iran, I think I disagree. If there was another way to do so, I have no idea.

I believe Iran was better, for it’s people, under the shah. I think it obvious that it was better for America and the world than the mullahs. Yes, there was oppression and certain constraints on freedom under the shah, but less than today? I don’t think so.

Contrary to your conclusion, I think it could be posited that the mistake was made in allowing Iran to collapse into what it is today rather than in helping make it what is was previous. And, I’m not certain that your point that the people of Iran were against their previous government and for the current one is valid.

Certainly the young revolutionary theocrats were against the shah’s Iran, but I think it entirely possible that the people as a whole would rather have that Iran than what they have now, back then and today.

thanks for your reply.

I believe Iran was better, for it’s people, under the shah.

Let me entreat you to really consider this statement for a moment. Doesn't it seem even a little bit proper to consider that it should have been up to the Iranian people to decide what they thought was better for them? They elected their leadership and we overthrew it. It really is that plain and simple. I think we were better off under other leaders than Obama, but would that make it okay for a foreign nation to remove him from office and put somebody else of their choosing in power? I hardly think so.

I think it obvious that it was better for America and the world than the mullahs. Yes, there was oppression and certain constraints on freedom under the shah, but less than today? I don’t think so.

At that time, without a doubt. However, history doesn't spring up from nothing, and putting him into power had consequences. And even if the Iranians themselves were better off under the Shah, which they may very well have been, they would hardly accept our machinations that put him there. And the Shah's rule almost certainly conditioned the rise of those mullahs. I will certainly grant that they were becoming more powerful under Mossedeq but they took great advantage of increasing their power under the Shah and turning us into a powerful symbol of evil.

Contrary to your conclusion, I think it could be posited that the mistake was made in allowing Iran to collapse into what it is today rather than in helping make it what is was previous.

I'm sorry, but that still doesn't really make engaging in such onerous behaviour valid. Even if we could be better off why should we do such things? It doesn't reflect our own values of self-determination. We used to believe in upholding the rights of people to democratic choice, but when Iran chose in a way we didn't like we chose for them. I really can't think that is right, and I believe history has shown that it didn't work out even for our own good in the end.

And, I’m not certain that your point that the people of Iran were against their previous government and for the current one is valid.

They certainly may not love it now, but at the time they seemed rather supportive. And there is no doubt that they elected Mossedeq. And, in the end, I just don't think it should be up to us to approve those for whom Iranians vote. If they shoot at us, then it is our problem, but not what they do at the ballot boxes. What we did in the 50s has led to disaster after disaster for relations in that part of the world, and we really should be less obstinate in our denial of error.

thanks for your reply.

And thank you.

I do hope you will understand me in this, as these things do often create massive flame wars on this forum. I am not defending Iranian barbarism or the development of nukes over there. I am merely trying to be honest in my appraisal of the history of our foreign policy in places like Iran. Accusations of "blaming America" makes a fun soundbite in a debate I am sure, but it actually just excuses terrible mistakes and covers over the importance of sound foreign policy with phony notions of American infallibility. If we would make our lives better we have to be more mature and be open to self-criticism.

I’m not interested in flame wars either.

I have a problem with simple moral equivalency as a default position. America is truly unique in history.

So, I don’t accept without question that we never should interfere in ‘democratically elected governments’. Pure democracies devolve, often quickly to tyranny. We have many examples of the ‘people’s choices’ for government that were horrible for them and the world.

Like it or not we have power, we had an unusual amount after WWII. Power brings responsibility. I’m glad we didn’t isolate and let the world’s peoples figure out their futures.

I’m not a huge interventionist nor an isolationist; I think I’m a realist.

In short, going to a bottom line that they elected Mossedeq, doesn’t carry near the same weight for me; they elected Immanutjob too.

It counts, but the other factors, what it means to their people, America and the world counts also.

I think we’ll remain somewhat where we were prior, but I greatly appreciate your posts and courteous reply.

So, I don’t accept without question that we never should interfere in ‘democratically elected governments’.

I am comfortable with this point, and actually don't take an absolutist position on this either. Since I can't be sure of what may be happening out there somewhere I will allow that interference like you describe may be wise in some situations. However, I think our instinct on these things should be the conservative one, and that means to be cautious and keep interference to a minimum, only doing so in very extreme situations. Iran in 1953 hardly seems such a situation, and I think our decision then has borne much bad fruit.

Like it or not we have power, we had an unusual amount after WWII. Power brings responsibility. I’m glad we didn’t isolate and let the world’s peoples figure out their futures.

Perhaps, but such is only good if we do the right things for the right reasons. If we argue that we are right in what we do simply because we are America, and I don't say you are doing this but such is common in the GOP today, how then can we be responsible? Without a willingness to be self-critical and see our mistakes for what they are there can be no responsibility. That is to tread the primrose path of dalliance and surely recks not our own rede.

This is why I have often been disappointed by the arguments by GOP candidates in the past. They argue that any criticism of American policy is "blaming America" and this is to refuse to be responsible and is the opposite of what conservative values require. Strength is only a virtue in a cause that is right. If we see ourselves as unique to a degree that we cannot believe we are capable of error then our strength will simply be oppression. The founding fathers struggled precisely because they knew they were fallible men subject to human failings, and we certainly are no better.

I think we’ll remain somewhat where we were prior, but I greatly appreciate your posts and courteous reply.

I thank you for yours as well. It has been a pleasure.

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.