Ron Paul's brilliant take on Iran

[pettypace]

I remember first hearing Paul perfectly encapsulate the ridiculous hypotheticals floating about Iran in a GOP debate earlier this year.
There's no need for either Dem to verbally intimidate Iran, a country which hasn't been involved in any military conflicts sans the matchup against America's former hated adversary in the 80's.

Here's the snippet he brought up in the debate from his analysis in April 2006. (Obama should adopt this stance going forward)

http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2006/cr040506.htm

If Iran had a nuclear weapon, the odds of her initiating an attack against anybody-- which would guarantee her own annihilation-- are zero. And the same goes for the possibility she would place weapons in the hands of a non-state terrorist group.

[autorank]

1. K*R Why can't one of our candidats think like this.

This is simply the truth. I even heard Zakaria (sic) say the same.

The knee jerk, I'm tough on things I need to be tough on, response to questions
on Iran is telling. Mike Gravel was right.

On domestic policy Paul is way short of a serious program. But on individual
rights, usually, and foreign policy, Iran/Iraq always, he's right where we
should all be.

Rather an avoiding foreign entanglements, we embrace them with the 800 or so
bases... protecting what?

[eridani]

18. On domestic policy, he's several tacos shy of a combination plate

He's right on imperialism and the PATRIOT Act, though. Two very big things, and left anti-imperialists need to work with our rightwing counterparts on this issue.

[patrice]

2. Plus, it's plane stupid to "show your hand" one way or the other. nt

[frogcycle]

6. Mutually Assured Destruction worked for a long time

If 3d world countries aspire to join the nuclear-armed world, they SHOULD be aware of the stakes.

Ron Paul's comments are spot-on - as long as they DO know they'd face annihilation.

Sometimes speaking softly and carrying a big stick doesn't work. You have to growl and shake the stick every once in a while.

[patrice]

7. I do not support MAD.

There is such a thing as real Strength without it.

[frogcycle]

8. there is no supporting or not supporting it

it was, and it was the reason we aren't toast

you want what, unilateral disarmament? Lion lies down with lamb?


You wouldn't shake the stick, wouldn't even carry it? Just speak softly and... run like hell?

[patrice]

9. False dichotomy. I think there are a variety of things that could be useful.

It's hard to speculate what they might be without more specific factors, but it's obvious that there could be more functional defense options than only MAD.

[frogcycle]

10. sure - the missile shield, star wars, etc. but

ONLY putting up a good defense is not necessarily a deterrent - just a challenge. And if the opposition thinks penetrating that defense is a challenge without consequences, well, eventually they'll get through.

[patrice]

11. I don't think you've exhausted the possibilities there. nt

[AlCzervik]

3. imo the media is salivating over the possibly of a strike on Iran, why can't the candidates say

"Enough is enough, try covering news instead of trying to instigate it"

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

4. "Brilliant "guy, and I'm glad he's not MY gynecologist.

:hi:

He's good at stating the obvious though, "This will be uncomfortable". :-)

[begin_within]

5. But Iran has oil, right?

Then bombs away!

[Hardrada]

12. Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich had the best views

on foreign policy and I wish they had gained much more traction within their own parties.

[uponit7771]

23. word

[demwing]

13. I'm sorry, but I call bullshit

or at least naivete.

It is not logical, nor historically accurate, as far as I know, to claim that a weapon, once built, will not be used. Time and time again, humanity has shown that if we build the weapon, we will use it, when we want to, where we want to, and under whatever circumstances we deem rational at the time.

Sure, we've established an uneasy nuclear detente, but who here will claim with straight face that if we (or others) were sufficiently threatened, say by whatever NEW weapon comes along some day, that its a guarantee that some ass wouldn't set off whatever bombs they had left in hopes of "getting them before they got us???"

This is not tough talk on my part, this is just the opposite. I am absolutely chicken shit number one when contemplating nuclear proliferation. One day, it is a statistically significant probability that some wild ass with a hard on for destruction will detonate a weapon, and we'll either be a little fucked for a long time, or it will escalate, and we'll be forever fucked, for ever.

End of story.

[whosinpower]

16. Well....

The only time a nuclear weapon was used as a weapon was twice - Hiroshima and Nagasaki - as far as I know.

The real asskicker is that nuclear empowered nations still fight their enemies - they just use proxy wars on poor third world nations to do their bidding - aka Afghanistan invaded by the Soviets.

I am more likely to believe that if Afghanistan HAD nuclear weapons in the first place - the soviets would never of invaded. Osama Bin Laden would never of been enlisted by the CIA to fight.....al Quaeda never would of existed or grown as it has....911 never would of happened.......

Let me ask you this one - if Saddam Hussein HAD nuclear weapons - do you think George W. Bush would of still invaded? I highly doubt it.

I don't like nuclear proliferation any more than you do....but just think of what could of been, had little old Afghanistan had nukes in the first place.

[demwing]

20. "If Saddam Hussein HAD nuclear weapons..."

No, W. would not have invaded Iraq, unless he knew that Saddam had no way to deploy those weapons. But 100+ Billion barrels of Iraqi oil (not to mention the 100+ TRILLION cubic feet of Iraqi natural gas) makes the risk more acceptable.

Which is why Bush won't take on North Korea. Demented leadership with nasty weapons and and no goodies to plunder? Fuck'em. Let them be evil. We have no financial incentives there. That, at least, is how I imagine the BFEE rationalize this action, or lack of action.

And getting back to Ron Paul, I challenge him or his supporters to tell me how Paul can show how the probability of Iran doing ANYTHING is at ZERO. That line of logic is naive when you're discussing theoretical strategies, or the ins-and-outs of social economic policy and procedure, but it's damn dangerous when discussing the probability of nuclear annihilation while playing military tag with a nation controlled by a group of radical, psychotic, fundamentalists who believe that death in a holy war guarantees them eternal fame and heavenly bliss.

Ron Paul may have a few interesting ideas, but the man is a world class nut job, and I hope he never gets nearer to the gates of power than he managed in this season.

[whosinpower]

22. Which nation are you talking about?

"That line of logic is naive when you're discussing theoretical strategies, or the ins-and-outs of social economic policy and procedure, but it's damn dangerous when discussing the probability of nuclear annihilation while playing military tag with a nation controlled by a group of radical, psychotic, fundamentalists who believe that death in a holy war guarantees them eternal fame and heavenly bliss."


Are you talking about Iran, or the US.....seriously. If you need to judge the leaders - judge them by their actions, not by their words....and who comes closer to your assessment?

The reality is that Iran has not invaded anyone for a long long long time. You are falling for the propeganda to make Iran to be all evil....just like Saddam Hussein HAD WMD and was ready to use them.......don't fall for it.

[Leopolds Ghost]

19. We are fucked no matter how you look at it... the old "One Ring" hypothesis about nukes

The longer we posess them, the greater the probability
they will eventually be used within said escalating time period.

AND

The only event that would curtail said posession of nukes would be
a civilization-ending event of equal or greater magnitude
to the threat posed by nukes themselves.

We can't drop 'em into the sea, and we can't destroy 'em except
in the fires for which they were intended -- or a similar or
worse event (disease, mass oil energy die-off, etc.)

[cosmicaug]

14. Brilliant?

If Iran had a nuclear weapon, the odds of her initiating an attack against anybody-- which would guarantee her own annihilation-- are zero. And the same goes for the possibility she would place weapons in the hands of a non-state terrorist group.

I'm too tired to actually read the article but I can find something I disagree with in that excerpt alone. My disagreement is that I am not comfortable with assuming that a rational course of action will arise from what may be a religiously driven ideology. I think that that assumption is hardly "brilliant". You could argue about how much of a role religion is presently playing and about how modernized Iran may or may not be but to dismiss the role of religion altogether is foolish, in my opinion. Besides, though the government was hardly nice, to say the least, Iran's society seemed plenty "modernized" before the Islamic revolution which shows that a turn toward a harsher theocracy can always be right around the corner.

[Diamond Dog]

15. Israel's is a religious driven ideology. Are they dangerous?

Wait, don't answer that.

[bobbert]

17. But that's trusting people not to be stupid

And there are a lot of people that don't think things through before they act. That would be like saying there's no way the US would attack Iraq without UN approval.

[demwing]

21. Amen to that! /nt