Ron Paul in Iowa debate: Iran should be allowed to develop nuclear bomb

The best clip from the Thursday night Republican primary debate.

From NewsMax.

Excerpt:

Iran should be allowed to have a nuclear bomb, Republican candidate Ron Paul suggested during Thursday’s presidential debate.

The maverick Texas Congressman also said it was time to stop the half-century old embargo on Cuba and all troops should be brought home.

His comments brought scorn from rival candidates. Michele Bachmann said she would do everything in her power to prevent Iran becoming nuclear.

Rick Santorum said “Iran is not Iceland, Ron. “It’s been at war with us since 1979.

“Anyone who suggests Iran is not a threat to this country is not seeing the world very clearly.”

Paul said it is natural for Iran to want a bomb as it is surrounded by countries such as India, Pakistan and Israel which all have one and with China, the United States and Russia all involved in the region. He said the U.S. should not get involved in the country’s internal affairs.

Consider this recent article on Iran’s weapons development, from Investors Business Daily.

Excerpt:

Tehran’s navy deploys ships to the Atlantic capable of launching long-range missiles. This is not a joke. This is a dress rehearsal for the day an EMP attack ends our way of life.

‘Is it possible for us to witness a world without America and Zionism?” Iran’s Mahmoud Ahmadinejad asked at “The World Without Zionism” Tehran conference in 2005. “But you had best know that this slogan and this goal are attainable, and surely can be achieved.” He added that Iran had a “war preparation plan” for, as he put it, “the destruction of Anglo-Saxon civilization.”

Electromagnetic pulse, or EMP, is not a subject familiar to most Americans. But it’s quite familiar to the Iranian military.

It’s been practicing for the day when an Iranian missile tipped with a nuclear warhead lifts off from a vessel parked in international waters off our shores, the warhead detonating high above the American heartland, sending electromagnetic waves rippling across the American landscape, frying every electronic circuit within range.

In a July 18 statement, Rear Adm. Habibollah Sayyari said the Iranian navy plans on deploying warships in the Atlantic Ocean as part of a program to ply international waters.

Two days later, another Iranian rear admiral, Seyed Mahmoud Mousavi, revealed for the first time that his navy has equipped a number of its logistic vessels and units with long-range missiles.

The squadron will be equipped with the Nur missile, which is based on China’s long-range Silkworm C-802 anti-ship cruise missile and has a 125-mile range and 365-pound warhead.

It is not these ships and their missiles that threaten us, but what comes later as they use these forays to gain experience operating far from Iranian shores.

A simple Scud missile, with a nuclear warhead, could be fired from an inconspicuous freighter in international waters off our coast and detonated high over the U.S.

It would wreak devastation on America’s technological, electrical and transportation infrastructure. Masked as a terrorist attack, Iran would have plausible deniability of any responsibility.

Iran has practiced launching and detonating Scuds in midflight, launched from ships in the Caspian Sea. It’s also tested high-altitude explosions of its Shahab-3 ballistic missile, a test consistent with an EMP attack.

The warhead need not be of a staggeringly high yield — nor must the missile have an intercontinental range.

“One nightmare scenario posed,” according to Peter Vincent Pry, an expert on EMP who sits on a congressional panel looking into the threat of such a weapon, “was a ship-launched EMP attack against the U.S. by Iran, as this would eliminate the need for Iran to develop an ICBM to deliver a nuclear warhead against the U.S. and could be executed clandestinely, taking the U.S. by surprise.”

Iran has previously called for Israel, our ally, to be “wiped off the map“.

Excerpt:

Leaders around the world on Thursday condemned a call by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad that Israel be “wiped off the map,” and a top Iranian official said that mass demonstrations in his country on Friday would rebuff the rising criticism from abroad.

“I have never come across a situation of the president of a country saying they want to . . . wipe out another country,” British Prime Minister Tony Blair said at a summit outside London of the 25 leaders of the European Union’s member states.

Blair said Ahmadinejad’s comment was “completely and totally unacceptable.”

In a joint statement, the E.U. leaders “condemned in the strongest terms” the Iranian president’s call, saying it “will cause concern about Iran’s role in the region and its future intentions.” President Jacques Chirac of France told reporters that Ahmadinejad risked Iran “being left on the outside of other nations.”

Russia’s foreign minister, Sergei Lavrov, in Israel, called the Iranian president’s statement “unacceptable.”

The statement was widely reported in the Arab world; leaders there reacted for the most part with silence. Most Arab countries have no diplomatic relations with Israel. But the Palestinian negotiator, Saeb Erekat, said, according to the Associated Press: “We have recognized the state of Israel and we are pursuing a peace process with Israel, and . . . we do not accept the statements of the president of Iran. This is unacceptable.”

U.S. and European leaders have grown increasingly worried about the bellicose attitude of Iran at a time when it is pursuing a nuclear program that they have said may be intended to produce a nuclear weapon.

Iran is also sharing weapons technology with North Korea.

Is Ron Paul right to want to let Iran have nuclear weapons and long-range missiles? Does he understand modern weapon systems? Is he aware of the threats that Achmadinejad has made to Israel and the United States? Is he aware of Iran’s military interference in Iraq? Does he understand how Iran influences Syria, which is now imitating Iran in shooting innocent people in the streets? Is he letting facts influence his ideology?

14 thoughts on “Ron Paul in Iowa debate: Iran should be allowed to develop nuclear bomb”

  1. It is specifically because Ron Paul knows the situation over there that he gave the best response of all the candidates. He knows that it was as a matter of fact America that is the terrorist to the middle east and *not* vice versa. America has been poking and prodding so hard and long over there that it is literally amazing that Americans do not realize why they hate us.

    America has no authority whatsoever to police foreign nations. It is a fact that intervening in foreign nations causes all sorts of problems and keeps hatred alive and boiling.

    The only sensible policy is to mind our own business, as the founding fathers did and suggested. There literally would not be a problem with them and us if we never meddled in their affairs as we are legally obligated by our own Constitution.

    But what about morally? Does blockading them and securing their (foreign) borders so that their innocent citizens cannot get food, water, or medical supplies count as a moral action that Jesus would approve of? How does hampering their economic and social progress through aggressive means help the gospel and glorify the risen Lord?

    Please consider these things in light of hard historic facts and Jesus’ teachings.

    Thanks.

    1. Ron Paul is very wrong about foreign policy. You’d have to dig deeper than he has to determine the chain of events that has led to the current situation. There is truly nothing that can be done to prevent their hating us than to either convert or totally submit to their religious notions of how the world should work. I don’t think anyone can come up with a case where our country has intervened without any invitation or justification, and usually both.

      We cannot “mind our own business” if we want our businesses to prosper. To deal with democratic societies is to increase the prosperity of each democratic society involved. Yet, to ignore those societies not in the least run as ours or the typical western society, is to allow for the undemocratic societies to spread their form of ideology, thus causing the suffering of more people. Free societies=prosperous people. Note how what we consider poor in this country means more living space than upper middle class of even European countries. In Middle Eastern countries, the impoverished have no parallel in our country. Where’s the morality in allowing that to perpetuate for those people. The manner in which our involvement is certainly up for debate, but that we extend to the world that which has been the reason for our success is about the most moral thing we can do.

      As to the blockading issues, we’ve never prevented humanitarian aid in countries upon which we’ve placed sanctions or erected blockades. That their own leaders prevent such aid from reaching the people in need is evidence that such people need people like us to be somehow involved.

      1. “We cannot “’mind our own business'”
        Well, it is for this reason (going were not invited) America is broke. To fight the globe, America has to steal the senior’s money and Medicare. Is that morally correct?
        Mr. Paul has been aware and has denounced at the WH about these irregularities, but it goes to deaf ears because that is not the kind of politics the presidents want to practice, of course.
        I am so delighted to see finally, Americans are understanding the meaning of responsibility the first leader of America has toward not only America but to the whole world. Americans like to be friends, not enemies of the world.
        We have plenty of priorities at home to take care. If an eminent threat approaches somewhere in the world, of course, America is obliged to assist, but not at the expense of the poor. Charity begins at home.

    2. That’s right RobertH!
      It is morally wrong for America to intrude in other nations affairs. How would we like if Irak, for instance, tries to impose policies on our nation? Of course we’ll react.By sending armies to other nations we are not friends -that’s not what they want. Do unto others what we like them to do to us -very simple.

  2. What on earth is wrong with Ron Paul? He wants us to believe that the only reason Iran wants nuclear weapons is because everyone else has them? Also why do the sanctions have to be beneficial towards us, maybe, just maybe we need the sanctions because it is the right thing to do on the world stage?! He’s accusing the US of being motivated by oil. This man is most un-American. How does he expect to run as leader of the free world, when he doesn’t understand what price needs to be paid for that freedom? Freedom isn’t free! I think we have to get a clear idea of what’s at stake here. This man is not running for president of Lilliput, he’s running for leader of the free world. So what if America spends a trillion dollars on its foreign policy, so what if there in 135 countries around the globe. If they weren’t there who would be? Or better yet where would any of us be? What is the real financial cost of global freedom because it has a price and when it isn’t properly financially funded the net loss is in lives people!!! America is not the villain of this piece, it is not America’s fault that there are wars the world over, it is not America’s fault that socialist regimes keep their people starving and hungry. America is the hero and anyone who thinks otherwise needs to have their head examined.

    1. While America is a hero it would be foolish to believe that we’ve never done anything wrong – we’ve done a lot wrong, especially when it comes to the middle east. I love that Ron Paul has some new ideas when it comes to international affairs though I’m not sure I agree with him on the nuclear weapons stance (I would have to think it through a little more myself). And to believe that the US isn’t motivated by oil – have you been living under a rock? There are plenty of other areas around the world that could use US intervention and we ignore them completely – like Syria which has no oil yet we get involved in places like Iraq and kuwait and Libya – all oil. Even Clinton had said after the Mogadishu fiasco that the US would only intervene if it served in it’s interest – to the thunderous applause of both parties. We even have historical perspective of why the European and American powers put in place the autocratic governments we did in the middle east despite the fact all else involved were democratic – it was because monarchies that are loyal to us are more predictable than democracies who have loyalty to their own people, and it’s benefited us greatly. Overall, I’m split between you and RobertH…

      1. I don’t believe determining national interest is as cut and dried as some would believe. To develop relations with oil producing countries is indeed in the national interest given the difficulties in getting some of our own to loosen up restrictions on developing our own resources. But regardless, it is also in our national interest to prevent despots from controlling the oil reserves upon which other friendly nations rely, or at least preventing them from deciding to withhold it to the detriment of their buyers. As they are making big bucks off their oil, they have the ability to use those bucks to nefarious ends. Whatever can be done to promote a more democratic attitude within those cultures can only benefit the world and ultimately ourselves. How we go about that is the issue.

        1. I agree with you 100% but you have to becareful when you start to interfere with the operations of foreign nations. In one of your previous posts you talk about not being able to mind our own business if we want our business to prosper…while I fully believe that oil has allowed us to grow in ways that no other feasible energy source would have allowed we are subsidizing and solely relying on a single point of failure while creating enemies. The far right is completely for subsidizing the entire oil chain at the expense of everything else while completely refusing to tax (either directly or indirectly) those that benefit from the massive infrastructure (military, etc) that we must maintain in order to support the oil business – while I know Ron Paul has said he is against raising taxes, he at least has put forth ideas that are outside of the very small box that most of our government’s thinking seems to be stuck in.

          PS – if you’re going to I’ve oversimplified, etc, I agree – people have writting books on this topic and I have but a few sentences. My overall point is I like that Paul is approaching the topic with a new point of view – our old one is clearly not working nor do I believe it’s sustainable…I’m not in favor of Iran having a nuclear bomb but we’re spending ourselves in to financial collapse and we have close to 7000 nuclear weapons…

      2. Well said Jerry!
        Unfortunately, our leaders think their role is to babysit the whole world and Americans.
        Honestly, we need to restore the trust and respect of the rest of the world, lost to the intrusion of America in somebody else business. One thing is to assist peoples out of love for humanity and another different is to station our troops in their countries. In the name of the jobs creation policy, we send our youth to die in strange soil -immoral!

  3. Who elected the United States to defend the rest of the world? Why must we sacrifice our soldiers for the defense of other countries? That doesn’t keep us free. What keeps us free is keeping foreign threats out of OUR borders.

    If Iran launched a missile, do we not have defense capabilities to shoot them down? Do we not share intelligence with other countries? We had knowledge of 9/11 before it happened. We disregarded the threats.

    The reason an attack could get through our defenses is because we’re so spread out. We have a military presence in over 100 countries. There are quite a few gaps in our national defense web by being so spread out.

    How would we feel if we had foreign armies stationing themselves in our country? We’d be apprehensive.

    We need to rethink our foreign policy. We have allies out there in the Middle East. There’s strong potential for regime change in Iran. Remember the protests and uprising against Ahmadinejad not so long ago? He’s losing support from within. He won’t risk attacking anyone and having the hammer of 20 or so nations coming down on him.

    1. Who elected the average citizen to lend aid to the stranger being mugged or bullied? Can we truly stand by while people are living in misery? Are we only to lend our treasure, but not our might? That we might be able to keep threats outside our borders is not the same as eliminating the threats. It is comparable to not having the legal ability to arm one’s self and to live behind locked and fortified doors of our homes. The evil still exists outside looking to get in or simply lying in wait. Think England right now. A real show of force would have a positive effect on reducing the rioting. A real show of force globally will have the same effect on keeping despots at bay.

      I would not put such a high price on our intelligence capabilities as we have lost much by moving from actual bodies infiltrating and/or collecting intel through developing relationships to relying on electronic surveillance primarily. We knew only that a plot existed before 9/11, but not detail enough to prevent it.

      There is no legitimate reason why foreign armies would station themselves in our country, unless our own gov’t became so corrupt that elements of our population requested aid.

      No doubt we must always reassess our foreign policy as an ongoing effort to maintain effectiveness. Currently, our allies are not likely confident in our willingness to truly help as long as we have a left-of-center faction so keen on NOT promoting our strength and willingness to use it.

      Do not underestimate the potential for Ahmadinejad to do the unthinkable.

    2. So much wisdom in your statements!
      Just remember 9/11 happened for two reasons. 1. Because America has become so proud, thinking it is invincible without God. 2. Because we have made so many enemies and zero friends. Let’s accept it, it is our own fault.

    1. P,
      When did Ron Paul said “throwing Israel under the bus?”
      If you want to disagree, at least pay attention and understand his statements.
      I refuse to authorize my tax money to go to fight somebody else fight. We need to fight at home for jobs creation, health insure provision, and more. If we are so generous, we must send relief to combat Somalia hunger -now that I call American love for the world.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s