Ron Paul on Face The Nation

  • You are viewing Orangepower as a Guest. To start new threads, reply to posts, or participate in polls or contests - you must register. Registration is free and easy. Click Here to register.

kaje

Let's Go Heat!
Nov 19, 2005
15,892
7,914
1,743
37
Stillwater, OK
www.maczealot.net
#21
What Kaje? Are you trying to say something? Oh yes, the ignore button! Maybe I should disable it a bit so I can be informed by the great kaje!
You aren't fooling anyone. You can't quote someone like you did earlier without typing the tags by hand (which also included the post # that you also wouldn't have known without reading the post). And if you're going to click the view post link, what's the point in ignoring someone? You rebel! I think my feelings have been hurt! :rolleyes:
 

CocoCincinnati

Federal Marshal
Feb 7, 2007
16,486
17,168
1,743
Tulsa, OK
#22
I put up an article on here that proved that Ahmadinejad's quote that our media ran with was completely wrong. It broke down word by word what he actually said. What he actually said was that he "wishes that the current Israeli regime could be erased from the sands of time". He doesn't want to "wipe them off the map" (and that couldn't happen anyway, Israel could take them no problem). Unfortunately, it was admitted by news outlets that he was misquoted, but it was a brief, hidden apology. And you still have people quoting a quote that never existed.

And yes, I do know the power of a nuke. As Paul clearly points out, The Soviets had 40,000 of them ready to go during the Cold War. We resolved that through diplomacy, not bombs.

We were lied to about Iraq having WMD's. Do you see the parallel that they are now doing with Iran? It's the exact same story. I'd say North Korea was acting w/ a lot more hostility when they were launching test missiles into the sea and almost hitting Japan. Doesn't that seem like a much more direct threat than someone in a 3rd world country talking about a nuke? Why don't we seem to care about that?

Iran wants nuclear energy to power their country so that they can export all of their oil - their country is very poor and they see this as their only alternative.
Well, I know this is picky but if I said to the media "I wish that old apartment building could be erased from the Tulsa landscape" and then it burned down, I'm pretty sure I would be a prime suspect. Just because he wished for Israels decline rather than outright threatening it doesn't mean he wouldn't try to make it happen if given the chance.

Also I'm sure Iran wants to have access to nuclear power for many of the benefits that come with it (maybe even for the reason you mention). But to assume that is their only reason or that they wouldn't try to develop a bomb to either use, or give to someone who would use, is a little naive and quite a bit dangerous.
 

Erick

Master in the art of Gemütlichkeit
Jun 11, 2006
5,545
311
1,713
Yukon, Oklahoma:
#23
I put up an article on here that proved that Ahmadinejad's quote that our media ran with was completely wrong. It broke down word by word what he actually said. What he actually said was that he "wishes that the current Israeli regime could be erased from the sands of time". He doesn't want to "wipe them off the map" (and that couldn't happen anyway, Israel could take them no problem). Unfortunately, it was admitted by news outlets that he was misquoted, but it was a brief, hidden apology. And you still have people quoting a quote that never existed.
Yes, I have read the articles on the misinterpretation of that phrase. Do we forget about any other the other comments he made about "burn in the fire of the Islamic nation's fury" or was he just talking about the really hot summers? It is the Ahmadinejad supporters that align themselves with Paul that will hurt his election standings. You can interpret his threats all you want, but you are blind if you do not see that he is ready willing and soon capable of using those weapons.

And yes, I do know the power of a nuke. As Paul clearly points out, The Soviets had 40,000 of them ready to go during the Cold War. We resolved that through diplomacy, not bombs.
Deplomacy had some to do with it. Their econmoy's fall was a bigger factor. One that Iran will not have. Also, why let him have one if it can be stopped!

We were lied to about Iraq having WMD's. Do you see the parallel that they are now doing with Iran? It's the exact same story. I'd say North Korea was acting w/ a lot more hostility when they were launching test missiles into the sea and almost hitting Japan. Doesn't that seem like a much more direct threat than someone in a 3rd world country talking about a nuke? Why don't we seem to care about that?
I dissagree with you on the Iraqi WMD, but that's been over a few hundred times. I do have a problem with N. Korea. Does Paul?

Iran wants nuclear energy to power their country so that they can export all of their oil - their country is very poor and they see this as their only alternative.
Do you honestly believe that? Once they do have nuclear technology, do you not expect the very next step will be to build a bomb?
 

kaje

Let's Go Heat!
Nov 19, 2005
15,892
7,914
1,743
37
Stillwater, OK
www.maczealot.net
#24
Yes, I have read the articles on the misinterpretation of that phrase. Do we forget about any other the other comments he made about "burn in the fire of the Islamic nation's fury" or was he just talking about the really hot summers?
Then why did you bring it up if you have read it? You didn't say anything earlier about "burn in the fire of the Islamic nation's fury." You brought up the quote, that you supposedly read about was actual false. Why did you bring it up if you knew if was false?

It is the Ahmadinejad supporters that align themselves with Paul that will hurt his election standings. You can interpret his threats all you want, but you are blind if you do not see that he is ready willing and soon capable of using those weapons.
Ahmadinejad supporters...Clever! Did you learn that from Bill O'Reilly? How dare us supporters not tar and feather someone for something they did not do. How dare we not continue to spread lies futher fueling the fire of the propaganda wagon that the neocons have worked so hard to build.

You seem to have a bad understanding of what rewarding and supporting means.
 
#27
People are sick and tired of scumbag politicians and while they may not agree with him on all of his policies, they know one thing for sure, he is an honest man that will make sure their liberties are not taken advantage of and that the constitution is upheld.

They know he won't bow to pressure from big business or political bullying from his constituents.

He only cares about the people and the constitution.

So they sacrifice the few disagreements they have with him on policy in favor of someone who they can respect who has integrity and is honest with them regardless of the backlash of his words.

------------------

I don't know what he'd say about Darfur, but honestly, what are we doing about it right now? NOTHING.

He'd probably say why don't we take care of our own country first.

I don't agree with Paul on quite a few things, but I am still a huge supporter based on principle alone and I will vote for him regardless of his chances because it's the right thing for our country win or lose...in my opinion.
I feel the same way!
 

Aaron C.

AKA Shortbus
Jul 20, 2005
4,389
0
0
44
Edmond, OK
www.ultimatenurse.com
#28
Well, I know this is picky but if I said to the media "I wish that old apartment building could be erased from the Tulsa landscape" and then it burned down, I'm pretty sure I would be a prime suspect. Just because he wished for Israels decline rather than outright threatening it doesn't mean he wouldn't try to make it happen if given the chance.

Also I'm sure Iran wants to have access to nuclear power for many of the benefits that come with it (maybe even for the reason you mention). But to assume that is their only reason or that they wouldn't try to develop a bomb to either use, or give to someone who would use, is a little naive and quite a bit dangerous.
Coco,

You can pick out ANY country in the world and say, "they might try to blow us up if they have the chance". That doesn't mean they will.

And as far as the wishing a building would disappear and then it burning down, well, IT'S STILL THERE! So that argument doesn't work either.

It's not OUR RESPONSIBILITY to make sure Israel is safe from Iran. Israel is more than capable of that.

=====

If we are EVER to be NUKED it will be a nuclear weapon that was physically brought to our country and detonated, NOT a missile launched from the middle east.

The best way to deter that from happening is not spending a trillion dollars in Iraq.

The best way to do that would have been to spend a trillion dollars in THE UNITED STATES.

Think how many jobs we could have provided our people with, securing our borders and doing all of the necessary things to keep a terrorist from gaining entry to our country with a nuclear weapon.
 

CocoCincinnati

Federal Marshal
Feb 7, 2007
16,486
17,168
1,743
Tulsa, OK
#29
Coco,

You can pick out ANY country in the world and say, "they might try to blow us up if they have the chance". That doesn't mean they will.

And as far as the wishing a building would disappear and then it burning down, well, IT'S STILL THERE! So that argument doesn't work either.

It's not OUR RESPONSIBILITY to make sure Israel is safe from Iran. Israel is more than capable of that.

=====

If we are EVER to be NUKED it will be a nuclear weapon that was physically brought to our country and detonated, NOT a missile launched from the middle east.

The best way to deter that from happening is not spending a trillion dollars in Iraq.

The best way to do that would have been to spend a trillion dollars in THE UNITED STATES.

Think how many jobs we could have provided our people with, securing our borders and doing all of the necessary things to keep a terrorist from gaining entry to our country with a nuclear weapon.
You're missing my point entirely. Just because he hasn't done anything yet doesn't mean he won't. Yes a lot of country's can say they might try to blow somebody up but to my knowledge only one country's leader has declared very publicly that he wishes Israel could be erased from existence and whose country just happens to be pursuing nuclear technology.

And yes I know Israel can take care of themselves but do you honestly think a nuclear strike by Iran followed with a rataliatory strike by Israel would not affect us? Something like that would have dire consequences globally and would most definitely affect us on many levels. Seems prudent to try and avoid the situation regardless of what Israel is capable of.

I disagree, I think keeping the terrorist out of the country is the SECOND best way to avoid having a nuclear weapon used on our soil. The BEST way is to keep the terrorist from ever getting the nuclear weapon in the first place.
 
Feb 7, 2007
1,015
0
166
#30
Well, I know this is picky but if I said to the media "I wish that old apartment building could be erased from the Tulsa landscape" and then it burned down, I'm pretty sure I would be a prime suspect. Just because he wished for Israels decline rather than outright threatening it doesn't mean he wouldn't try to make it happen if given the chance.

Also I'm sure Iran wants to have access to nuclear power for many of the benefits that come with it (maybe even for the reason you mention). But to assume that is their only reason or that they wouldn't try to develop a bomb to either use, or give to someone who would use, is a little naive and quite a bit dangerous.

The flaw in the apartment building analogy is that Ahmadinejad hasn't destroyed Israel yet, so thats not a parallel. I personally wish there were lots of things that could be erased from history, it doesn't mean I want to go out and start killing people because of it.

Anybody around the world could bomb another country at any given time. Should we bomb them to, just to make sure?

Iran HAS NO NUKES. There are multiple other countries that have nukes that are acting far more eratically and are much more futher developed technologically than Iran. Why doesn't anyone care?

What's stopping Israel from unleashing all the nukes in their arsenal right now? Why is it only ok for us? we have nukes, and we just transported some across country armed on an airplane. Nukes flying right over your head and you don't even know it. How do you think that is perceived by 3rd parties around the world? How would you feel if Iran starting flying plains armed with nukes? Could that be interpreted as being hostile? I think for you, the answer should be yes since you chose to take Ahmadinejad's words as being hostile.

Why didn't we nuke the Russians when they had 40,000 nukes ready to go? Was that naive and dangerous?
 
Feb 7, 2007
1,015
0
166
#31
Yes, I have read the articles on the misinterpretation of that phrase. Do we forget about any other the other comments he made about "burn in the fire of the Islamic nation's fury" or was he just talking about the really hot summers? It is the Ahmadinejad supporters that align themselves with Paul that will hurt his election standings. You can interpret his threats all you want, but you are blind if you do not see that he is ready willing and soon capable of using those weapons.

Deplomacy had some to do with it. Their econmoy's fall was a bigger factor. One that Iran will not have. Also, why let him have one if it can be stopped!


I dissagree with you on the Iraqi WMD, but that's been over a few hundred times. I do have a problem with N. Korea. Does Paul?

Do you honestly believe that? Once they do have nuclear technology, do you not expect the very next step will be to build a bomb?
How can you possibly disagree about the WMD's? Please show me where we found some since our Iraq invasion.

And your point of view that "Ahmadinajad supporters are going to hurt Paul's campaign" is inaccurate. I'm personally (and many others that have my stance) aren't Ahmadinejad supporters. We just don't believe the BS that we're being fed once again by Washington which is "Oh my God, Nukes, Terrorists, Kill, War!". If you've been paying attention you'd realize that our justification for invading Iraq changed about a half dozen times, because each prior reason was proven bogus. That's a fact.

So people like me who question this aren't supporters of Ahmadinejad, we're skepitcal of falling for these lies again. Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me.
 

CocoCincinnati

Federal Marshal
Feb 7, 2007
16,486
17,168
1,743
Tulsa, OK
#32
If you've been paying attention you'd realize that our justification for invading Iraq changed about a half dozen times, because each prior reason was proven bogus. That's a fact.
The justification for invading Iraq was Iraq's failure to comply with the ceasfire agreement from Operation Desert Storm and the subseqeuent UN resolutions to that effect. Yes it had to do with WMD's but the WMD's themself were never justification, the fact that Sadaam would not comply and show us proof that he was destroying the WMD's is why we invaded. More specifically the numerous intelligence reports that said not only was he not destroying them but was in fact tyring to build more. Yes the intelligence may have turned out to be inaccurate (I'm not convinced yet), but the fact that Sadaam was not complying is still true and valid.
 
Jul 12, 2007
706
0
566
Edmond, Ok.
#34
No worries. You haven't gone deaf. That is simply a characteristic of a closed mind who has already accepted the propaganda they've been fed as fact and would believe nothing else short of God itself floating down from the Heavens above and waking you up by pissing in your face. :D
Nice Kaje...you are so right. I suggest everyone do a little independent research and do not rely on our controlled media for their information.
 
Jul 12, 2007
706
0
566
Edmond, Ok.
#36
You're missing my point entirely. Just because he hasn't done anything yet doesn't mean he won't. Yes a lot of country's can say they might try to blow somebody up but to my knowledge only one country's leader has declared very publicly that he wishes Israel could be erased from existence and whose country just happens to be pursuing nuclear technology.

And yes I know Israel can take care of themselves but do you honestly think a nuclear strike by Iran followed with a rataliatory strike by Israel would not affect us? Something like that would have dire consequences globally and would most definitely affect us on many levels. Seems prudent to try and avoid the situation regardless of what Israel is capable of.

I disagree, I think keeping the terrorist out of the country is the SECOND best way to avoid having a nuclear weapon used on our soil. The BEST way is to keep the terrorist from ever getting the nuclear weapon in the first place.
Coco -

There are those who believe Israel while envoking its apartheid tactics against the Palestinians are also terrorists. Israel can defend itself. They have a plethera of nukes. We do not need to be in the business of defending them.
 
Feb 7, 2007
1,015
0
166
#37
The justification for invading Iraq was Iraq's failure to comply with the ceasfire agreement from Operation Desert Storm and the subseqeuent UN resolutions to that effect. Yes it had to do with WMD's but the WMD's themself were never justification, the fact that Sadaam would not comply and show us proof that he was destroying the WMD's is why we invaded. More specifically the numerous intelligence reports that said not only was he not destroying them but was in fact tyring to build more. Yes the intelligence may have turned out to be inaccurate (I'm not convinced yet), but the fact that Sadaam was not complying is still true and valid.
We invaded Iraq because of 9/11 (there were no Iraqi's in that attack - mostly Saudis who we love, and a couple of Afghans). Then we said that Hussein was friends w/ bin Laden which wasn't true either - Hussein was a sworn enemy, and there was 1/100th of Taliban in Iraq than there is today. Then the next story was WMD's, which we never found. And now we can't leave because the nation will be in trouble if we do! Is that even possible? Hundreds of thousands of innocent people have been killed now, houses, towns, sacred religious places, etc. I think they're probably ready for us to leave.

He failed to comply with an ultimatum because he knew he didn't have anything regarding a WMD. He wasn't going to be bullied into something just because we said so.
 
Feb 7, 2007
1,015
0
166
#38
And Paul has spoken on Darfur. He would not intervene because it would be unconstitutional. He strongly encourages any individuals who feel strongly about the cause to get involved. But he is not going officially involve it as American policy.
 

Aaron C.

AKA Shortbus
Jul 20, 2005
4,389
0
0
44
Edmond, OK
www.ultimatenurse.com
#39
I didn't say we shouldn't keep them from trying to acquire nukes. I said the best way to keep a nuke from going off was to keep it out.

Iran doesn't have nukes.

Neither did Iraq, and they were no threat to the U.S. or anyone else for that matter.

We completely destroyed them in what amounted to about two days.
 

CocoCincinnati

Federal Marshal
Feb 7, 2007
16,486
17,168
1,743
Tulsa, OK
#40
We invaded Iraq because of 9/11 (there were no Iraqi's in that attack - mostly Saudis who we love, and a couple of Afghans). Then we said that Hussein was friends w/ bin Laden which wasn't true either - Hussein was a sworn enemy, and there was 1/100th of Taliban in Iraq than there is today. Then the next story was WMD's, which we never found. And now we can't leave because the nation will be in trouble if we do! Is that even possible? Hundreds of thousands of innocent people have been killed now, houses, towns, sacred religious places, etc. I think they're probably ready for us to leave.

He failed to comply with an ultimatum because he knew he didn't have anything regarding a WMD. He wasn't going to be bullied into something just because we said so.
Wow! That's all I can say to that. 9/11 was never a reason that we invaded Iraq. There were suggestions made that Al Qaeda had training camps in Iraq. There were suggestion made that Al Qaeda was getting funding indirectly through the oil for food program. However, it was never given as the reason for the invasion. The reason for the invasion is exactly what I said it was. The president chose to focus on the intelligence that said Sadaam was pursuing more WMD's but we had more than enough justification to go in without that intelligence. I can't believe the revisionist history some people choose to believe. It's amazing.

Let me ask you this. What do you think happened to Iraq's WMD's? We know he had them in 1991. He did not show proof that they were destroyed. Where did they go? If he did destroy them, all he had to do was show proof of that and boom, no invasion. Why would he risk being taken out of power and give up all his money and palaces and eventually his life, if he wasn't hiding something?