Originally Posted by dyna mo (Post 18350088)

please.

ron paul is a career politician who has figured out exactly what to say and when to say it so he will continue to get re-elected into the same dysfunctional system he points his finger at.

i grew up in ron paul's district in texas, i can't point to anything substantive he has EVER contributed to the u.s. not to mention he is statistically in the lowest 10% of congressman based on his voting record alone.

Originally Posted by bm bradley (Post 18349812)

what about the part where Iran states they intend to wipe everyone off the earth that doesn't follow their religion exactly as Iran thinks they should, starting with Israel?? hummmm...?

pretty sure Chine, Russia, Isreal, the US as never put that one out there

Originally Posted by BestXXXPorn (Post 18350229)

Ron Paul may be "part of the system" but he's one of the few good parts standing up for what needs to be said and what needs to be done. He's not going to suddenly change if he's able to take the Presidential office.

@dyna mo His record isn't all that abysmal at all in relation to every other member of congress. In fact, of the three congressmen running for President, he has the highest voting record...

I also fail to see your automatic negative connotation of career politician. That's just a logical fallacy. While many career politicians stay in office by flip flopping on issues and don't really propose anything to congress, etc... That simply isn't the case with Ron Paul and his track record proves it.

In every other industry being a career XXXX is a good thing. If anything, he knows the game better than anyone else with less experience and as long as he doesn't start changing his mind on issues and sticks to his guns I see absolutely no problem with being a career politician in this case.

Originally Posted by BestXXXPorn (Post 18350280)

Oh please post the entire quote so people can understand what an earmark is you totally took that out of context:

"I think you?re missing the whole point. I have never voted for an earmark. I voted against all appropriation bills. So, this whole thing about earmarks is totally misunderstood.

Earmarks is the responsibility of the Congress. We should earmark even more. We should earmark every penny. So, that?s the principle that we have to follow and the ? and the responsibility of the Congress. The whole idea that you vote against an earmark, you don?t save a penny. That just goes to the administration and they get to allocate the funds."

Earmarking is a good thing as it shows exactly how much this bill is going to cost the American people and where the money is going to go.

His point is completely valid and logical. Yes, he earmarked but he voted down every single one of those bills. That's important to note and you completely cut out the explanation.

So yeah, I agree... typical Ron Paul. Doing the right thing and looking out for the American people while the rest of congress wants to bury the numbers and hide the monies so they can be appropriated any way they want after the bill has passed.

Originally Posted by BestXXXPorn (Post 18350335)

Ok I won't reply to that in the interest of getting back on topic. I would like to point out though that this thread was fantastic. No name calling, swearing, raging; we all handled ourselves like civilized adults having a discussion on a topic we are in disagreement with so +1 for us :P

That said and back on topic:

I stick with my original comment. We have to bear with imperfections until they manifest into crimes. It is not a crime for countries to possess nuclear weapons; otherwise our country would be one of the main ones at fault... we do hold more nukes than any other country and test more as well.

And let's look at the track record... I believe the US has been attacking more countries and has more troops on foreign soil than anyone else... I think if you were to ask the vast majority of people outside the US if the US government is a "bad guy" they'd say yes. Doesn't that say something?

This is the question to answer: "Who are we to say what other countries can and can not do?"

Originally Posted by Vendzilla (Post 18350220)

I guess all the nuclear submarines and surface ships that I identified as a sonar tech were all Bull Shit?

Major part of my job was analyzing soviet ships, I knew more about their Navy than I knew about ours. Basing the soviet threat on the end of the cold war, which was in 91 is just showing how limited your comment is

You don't have a clue as to the history of how the USSR was bankrupted trying to keep up with the US spending on arms and then the bottom falling out of oil prices.

Maybe you thought all those nukes were fake, I moved some of ours around, they were very real.

I guess the bay of pigs was all faked too, you know, having nukes right off our shoreline?

Where do you get your news from, Cracker Jacks boxes?

Originally Posted by seeandsee (Post 18349996)

ron paul will be president in 2012

Originally Posted by BestXXXPorn (Post 18350280)

Oh please post the entire quote so people can understand what an earmark is you totally took that out of context:

Originally Posted by acrylix (Post 18350690)

dyna mo doesn't seem to be the type to let facts get in the way of a good argument. I'm sure he knows all about earmarks, but continues to rely on that old crutch whenever he needs something to smear his arch enemy Ron Paul (who he supposedly used to vote for) with. It's a big fail, as most people who learn what Paul has done in regards to earmarks, realize it actually makes sense.

dyna mo also likes to use quotes out of context. Like this bogus "flip-flop" thread he started a couple of weeks ago:

https://gfy.com/showthread.php?t=1032142

Watch how he posts the title of an op-ed piece as his proof. Upon reading the piece, it becomes apparent that his accusations were completely false.

Originally Posted by Ethersync (Post 18350906)

He is absolutely correct about Iran.

Originally Posted by dyna mo (Post 18349670)

from the debates last night:

"Just think of how many nuclear weapons surround Iran. The Chinese are there. The Indians are there. The Pakistanis are there. The Israelis are there. The United States is there. All these countries ... why wouldn't it be natural if they might want a weapon?"

Originally Posted by dyna mo (Post 18350956)

the first 2 videos are well-done documentaries, imo, appreciated, i did not watch the 2nd 2 because i am familiar the history and the utter failure of our foreign policy in iran, and it makes me sick to my stomach.

yes, ron paul's version of history is true, but my point is more towards his policy would be to let the proliferation of nuclear weapons continue unabated.

specifically, i am concerned that there is no base to his statement that sanctions CAUSE wars, they don't help matters and his laissez-faire policy towards nukes.

Originally Posted by Ethersync (Post 18351017)

Sanctions are an act of war.

Keep in mind that the CIA has said there is no proof that Iran is building a nuclear weapon. Iran has also signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. It's worth mentioning that Pakistan, India and Israel refuse to.

But let's say Iran does build a bomb. There is no chance they would use it against Israel. Israel has over 300 and would turn the country into glass. Also, Israel is well within their rights to take military action against Iran on their own to prevent it.

If Iran does intend to build a nuclear bomb I think the reason is obvious. They want want to be treated with respect. They were our bitch for a long time and it took the Iranian revolution for them to take control of their own country. They tried democracy and we overthrew their democratically elected leader and re-installed a brutal dictator. If they had nuclear weapons we would be forced to treat them with more respect.

Also, there is a huge youth population in Iran right now. This is a result of the Mullahs telling everyone to have a bunch of kids after the Iranian revolution. These young people want to westernize. In fact Iran is already more western than any other country in the region. I personally think a good immediate first step would be to remove trade sanctions with Iran under the condition that they agree to not pursue the development of nuclear weapons. I think they would quickly become a strong alley in the region.

It's also worth noting that ALL of our intelligence for our operations in Afghanistan after 9/11 came from Iran. We would have been fucked without their help. The Taliban is an enemy we both share. As a thank you to them for helping us Bush added them to his "Axis of Evil". This stopped the "pro-west" reform government that was in power in Iran in their tracks and led to the current whacko that is in power now. The Mullahs were experimenting with strengthening ties with us after 9/11. In fact 1 million Iranians had a candlelight vigil in Tehran supporting us after we were attacked on 9/11.

Originally Posted by dyna mo (Post 18351169)

i.e. what youare saying is iran will develop a nuclear weapon (if that's their plan) regardless of what the rest of the world does to block that?

never looked at it that way. so then i guess ron paul would be right since any attempt would be wrong/fruitless? is that the logic?

Originally Posted by Ethersync (Post 18351248)

Reread what I wrote...

Originally Posted by dyna mo (Post 18351440)

1st you say there is no proof about building a weapon then go on to provide reasons for why iran would build a nuke weapon.

Originally Posted by dyna mo (Post 18351440)

big assumption and leaving out the fact iran is a rogue nation.

Originally Posted by dyna mo (Post 18351440)

there's nothing that can be done if iran wants to go nuke. we've already set the table.

Originally Posted by Ethersync (Post 18351504)

It's a logical assumption. You have your head buried in propaganda. What is a "rogue nation" to you?

Originally Posted by Ethersync (Post 18351504)

Yes, the CIA has said there is no proof. Yes, I gave some hypothetical reasons why Iran might want to build one. And what?



It's a logical assumption. You have your head buried in propaganda. What is a "rogue nation" to you?



You are cherry picking from what I wrote. I said a good first step would be to remove sanctions if Iran agrees not pursue a nuclear weapons program. That is an example of something that could be done.

Originally Posted by Ethersync (Post 18351504)

You are cherry picking from what I wrote. I said a good first step would be to remove sanctions if Iran agrees not pursue a nuclear weapons program. That is an example of something that could be done.

Originally Posted by dyna mo (Post 18351513)

... treated everyone with respect who treats me the same. your bullshit comment about me reveals that you are incapable of having dialogue with someone who does not share your view. that's sad, especially when i made sure to go on the record in a previous thread that i respect your views on things.

Originally Posted by dyna mo (Post 18351513)

fuck it, you know what, fuck you.

Originally Posted by TheSquealer (Post 18351514)

All they have done up to this point is violate their agreements, kick out inspectors, play games with the UN and buy time as they develop a nuclear weapon.

Originally Posted by dyna mo (Post 18351513)

your bullshit comment about me reveals that you are incapable of having dialogue with someone who does not share your view. that's sad, especially when i made sure to go on the record in a previous thread that i respect your views on things. i'm going to do a ron paul and flip flop on that.

Originally Posted by Ethersync (Post 18351557)

Rather than go back and forth on the specifics I'll paraphrase your point as being that they have not been all that cooperative. Which begs the question... Why should they be? It is their country.

Originally Posted by Ethersync (Post 18351583)

I am more than willing to have a dialogue about this. I think you are overreacting. No reason to make this a petty argument.

I have spent a lot of time studying the history of Iran and their relations with the west. This is a subject I actually know quite a bit about.

Originally Posted by TheSquealer (Post 18351600)

They don't have to be. They can suffer the consequences of making everyone uncomfortable, of making everyone in the region insecure, of making radical speeches, of threatening to wipe Israel off the map, of not cooperating with UN weapons inspectors, of not fulfilling their end of the obligations they have under the treaties that govern these things and so on... they don't have to cooperate.



So what? I don't care. I don't agree with much of the past. But in 2012, its irrelevant what happened in 1979 or whatever.

That still doesn't explain kicking out the IAEA inspectors and continually lying about their intentions. That doesn't explain their refusal to cooperate with the rest of the world in any way, shape or form when it comes to verifying what they are doing. That doesn't explain the concern of the rest of the world.

USA sucks. Lets just put that out there and agree on it.

That still leaves the problem of dicey regimes trying to arm themselves with the worst imaginable weapons and wanting everyone to believe they will use them. The USA being full of assholes doesn't address the threat and concerns that are shared by all developed nations with respect to Iran.




That's a dream that just never comes true. This is the game these nations play... just like N Korea... do just enough to get some food, money, medicine, oil and trade... then go back to starting more shit so they can get even more... doing so while being in full violation of all their agreements and pursuing their long term agenda and goals.

Further, it runs counter to human behavior. Those without much power and status, continually seek more power and status. This is true of individuals, of groups and of nations. They will not stop until they have nuclear weapons and then they will start making threats with them. Thats exactly how the game works.

Why anyone would say "hey, i think these guys are legit and really need to have nuclear weapons pointed in every direction - but lets forget their obligation to die killing infidels, they just need a hug" needs their own head checked.

I guess..... well... why not? lets give the fanatical extremists in an unstable government and unstable nation and who believe its their obligation to die killing anyone who doesn't share their religious views and who will stone a 13 year old girl to death for being raped, nuclear weapons. Whats the worse thing that could happen?

Originally Posted by moeloubani (Post 18351615)

Ron Paul makes sense. Wish he would have taken it a bit further and said that the one country that should never be allowed to advise any country, person or group on nuclear weapons was the only country to ever actually kill innocent people with a nuclear weapons, the United States of America.

Originally Posted by dyna mo (Post 18351621)

i appreciate that.

i used the term rogue because as you wrote, the iranian people are unique from their government and their government is run by a loon. there are no real checks & balances to iran government and in turn, that means to me there are no real checks & balances they would embrace with a nuke arms program.

that's what i meant by rogue. i don't think it's wise to look away while a *rogue* nation develops nuclear weapons. i am not saying i am right, but i am saying more nukes is not a right answer.

Originally Posted by moeloubani (Post 18351633)

So you aren't okay with Iran kicking out IAEA people even after they let them inspect, but you're perfectly okay with Israel, a country that hasn't signed the NPT and doesn't allow any weapons inspectors into their country at all. Even Iran allowed them in.

Originally Posted by moeloubani (Post 18351652)

The Iranian people have elections. How are they any different than the United States? What checks and balances does the US have? Israel? China? Russia? Do you mean checks and balances like the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty that Iran has already signed but countries like India, North Korea and Israel aren't a part of? Maybe we should be helping Iran defend itself against countries with hundreds of nuclear weapons that adhere to no such 'check and balances'?

Their government is run by a well educated man that was once the mayor of Tehran and won his way to the top just like every other politician on Earth.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obama


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush

It seems to me, if anything, he is a more legitimate leader and represents more of his people than any of the two previous presidents that the United States has had.