The cast of pro-war Republican candidates again argued for aggressive sanctions and pre-emptive strikes on Iran in Thursday’s Republican Presidential debate. But the real battle was between Rep. Ron Paul on the one side and Rep. Michele Bachmann and Rick Santorum on the other.
Ron Paul argued that jumping the gun on Iran’s alleged nuclear weapons program would lead America down the road to another bloody, expensive war.
“To me the greatest danger is that we will have a president that will overreact, and we will soon bomb Iran,” he said. “We ought to really sit back and think, not jump the gun and believe that we are going to be attacked. That’s how we got into that useless war in Iraq and lost so much.”
He went on to say it makes more sense to stop threatening Iran in our rhetoric and our policies and open up a diplomatic engagement.
Senator Rick Santorum, in defiance of the evidence and everything that is known about Iran, said the Shiite Iranian leadership is the equivalent of al Qaeda, a Sunni jihadist group. Escaping an explanation about how an entire country would aim to be incinerated in a nuclear retaliation by bombing Israel and the U.S. with atomic weapons, he made explicit how certain war would be under his leadership.
Michele Bachmann decided to take another route of fact-less war rhetoric:ย “We know without a shadow of a doubt that Iran will take a nuclear weapon, they will use it to wipe our ally, Israel, off the face fo the map. And they’ve stated they will use it against the United States of America. We would be fools and naves to ignore their purpose and their plan.”
Ron Paul responded by reiterating the facts, that there isย “no U.N. evidence” of an Iranian nuclear program. Indeed, the U.N.’s nuclear watchdog, the IAEA, concluded that Iran is not diverting nuclear materials towards a weapons program.
The GOP field for President of the United States is virtually unanimous in their aims for military confrontation with Iran, a country that has not been shown to be a credible national security threat to Israel, the U.S., or any other country. Ron Paul exhibited his variance with the establishment by arguing for peace.
"The GOP field for President of the United States (as well as the current administration) is virtually unanimous in their aims for military confrontation with Iran.."
You forgot this part (as well as the current administration) so I added it.
Obama never saw a war he did not like. Just read HMS killed 70+ (forgot the total) in Jamaica of all places? What is Homeland Security doing there?
For real? Jamaica? wow! Well if that did happen at least they weren't killed by some evil communists or Islamic radicals. I'm sure that would be some consolation to them.
its like watching a vegetarian hanging out with cannibals
Dr. Paul needs to run independently from the Republicans as it's obvious that he has little of importance in common with these clowns. When the National Review pleads for conservatives to not vote for Gingrich you know that they are seriously in trouble. Dr. Paul could in fact, I believe, put a stake through the heart of the Republican Party in it's current format. Let the Tea Partiers have what is left. True Conservatives can follow Paul and regain the respect the Republicans used to have before they went tits-up with wackos.
Ron Paul is going to win the Repuiblican nomination. hHe is running against 5 insane warmongers. The party may be divided. But the vast majority of voters from both parties, Want nothing to do with another war in Iran or anywhere else. The Republican Party will be destroyed if it runs another insane warmonger for President and it should be.
testing, testing,
Hello Angela:
My posts are not being posted (Ive post 2 so far) I re-posted one – my first one… Did I break any rules or use inappropriate language, etc.? Please let me know. Thanks ๐
I don't see Ron Paul getting the nomination because they simply wouldn't let that happen.
There's already solid evidence that the 2004 election was fraudulent, I see absolutely no reason to trust the American electoral system given that they've got away with it once -possibly more than once. Aside from that, the fact that Paul has remained in the GOP gives me concern about how trustworthy he might be…
Testing
May i be so rude and crude as to ask, AngelaKeaton: Exactly What is it that you are so ubiquitously "T(t)esting"?
Hey Angela, you're posts would be waaaay better with cleavage!
Have a good night Angie. You are getting to be like one of the family.
Yeah but if Paul goes indy, what would Liberman du
Going Independent is pointless. Its not like you get equal coverage as the one party/ two color system. In fact the Commies of the Republicrat party make it impossible to expand beyond them especially on the national level.
Take this into consideration… when was the last time A house representative was not a republicrat at some point in the race. you have many that become independent once in office but none that started out that way and made it…
Don't you ever wonder why that is? Ever wonder? Even a little bit? Its not that they can't be popular its that there is a concerted effort to not allow it to happen. Once independents third fourth and fifth parties come out and take root its over for the parasites in the Republicrat bicolored party. They can't have that.
Until they change the rules of the game all descent MUST be channeled into an official party, fake interchangeable "party platform" be damned.
auto delete?
It was Michelle "Give us Barabbas" Bachmann vs. Dr. Ron "Not Barrabas" Paul.
Not *at all* confident that the people of the United States will make the right decision.
Ron Paul 2012, the only anti-war candidate.
Every time one thinks that W and Cheney were the dumbest the Republicans could produce, they find not just one who is dumber but a whole bunch: Perry, Cain, Santorum, Bachmann, Palin, McCain and his handler Lieberman, Newt and his big empty head, his stiffness Romney, the neocons favorite harlot Rubio, and other assorted imbecils, traitors, and agents of a foreign power. Who on earth are going to be their candidates 4 years from now? avigdor lieberman, jonathan pollard, a piece of broccoli, and a pet rock?
@ RickR30 LOOOL, that really made my day and made me laugh ๐
And unfortunately, when it comes to the Dems, the majority (?) (Especially with the African Americans – they have told me this to my face point blank) believe that if one is against Obama, than one must be a “certified racist,” and only against Obama cause he's a "black man." Correct me if I'm wrong, but probably the vast majority of so-called "progressives" and "Liberals" also feel like this, and will blindly vote for Obomber come hell or high-water, even if Dr. Paul wins the Repub nomination (Of course not to say that any other candidate amongst the pro-war, Israeli firster (and second, third, fourth, and fifth!) Repubs are any better, save for Dr. Paul of course).
And quite ironically IMO, the vast majority of so-called "conservatives" and so-called "Tea Partiers" (who have been totally zioconized) want to see the certified war (and peace) criminal Obomber out of office, cause they think he is “anti-war” and too “pro-peace” (wtf??!!), he is not fanatically pro-zionist enough (Yes, they think he is actually “anti-Semitic,” and have “thrown Israel under the bus” … Have these people been on the freaking moon?!), they think he is pro-Muslim/pro-Islam (as the leader of the worldwide (as what many Muslims see at least) neo-Crusader alliance he's just not killing enough innocent subhuman "Islamics" – he's only killing them by the thousands including old men, women, and children, as opposed to by the millions – just give him another four years), they think that he is an anti-corporate/business, full fledged Marxist Commie (as opposed to being bought and owned by the fascist Wall Street Banksters, Corporations, and Lobbyists, as all Rebublicrats are, save for Dr. Paul), etc., etc., etc.
Have you guys seen the movie “Idiocracy?” Well, welcome to that future… But it has Electrolytes?!?!
Put some butter and chedder cheese on the broccoli and I could go for it.
What the hell is "the face of the map"?
Also, even if La Madame Bachmann would write "nave", it's written "knave". The "nave" is the central part of a church (and it's pronounced very differently).
Autodelete lol
I seriously doubt that Ron Paul will run as a third party candidate. His son has promise, and Ron Paul will not want to kill his chances of running for President in the future.
Dr, Ron Paul is a true statesman in the honorable sense of the word. A honorable statesmen is a person who furthers the interests of his country through peaceful means, while also doing everything possible to keep his country out of war. A statesman of the Dr. Ron Paul variety would consider it a great failure on his part if his country ever went to war. To a modern statesman of the Santorum/ Bachman ilk, however, war as just another tool in the toolbox to further his country's interest. They see nothing unacceptable or immoral about war and have no problem with the innocent victims of war (just collateral damage). Dr. Ron Paul seeks to settle conflicts with other nations in a peaceful manner. Santorum/Bachman view the attempt to settle conflicts with other nations in a peaceful manner as cowardly and stupid, and seek to give a veneer of legitimacy to aggressive warfare by gaining international approval of such wars through bribes, intimidation, and vieled threats.
Quoting from the article, as to what Bachmann said last night ->>> (…) Michele Bachmann decided to take another route of fact-less war rhetoric: ”We know without a shadow of a doubt that Iran will take a nuclear weapon, they will use it to wipe our ally, Israel, off the face of the map. And they’ve stated they will use it against the United States of America. We would be fools and naves to ignore their purpose and their plan.” (…)
I know that while obviously the first part of her statement about Iran wanting to “wipe Israel off of the map,” has been thoroughly debunked several dozens of times (if not more) by REAL Middle-East and/or Iran experts and scholars, including ones fluent in Farsi, what about the second one, about Iran stating that they would “use a nuclear weapon against the USA?” I mean, this is at least the second time that Michele Bachmann has mentioned this in the past 3-4 debates (and it’s usually mentioned in the same sentence, right after the same infamous, false canard about Ahmadinejad saying he would “wipe Israel off of the map” first part), so where in the heck did she get this from? Yes, I know that her extremist pro-war, neocon advisers told her to say this, but has this ever been something that the Iranians were ever even “alleged” to have said? Something actually said, but propagandistically and falsely “mistranslated” from Farsi, like the first part of her infamous canard? I mean is there some extremist pro-Ziocon, pro-Hasbara website that one can at least point to and at least say that yes, this is a blatantly false, pro-Ziocon “mistranslation” of what Iranians actually did say, such as MEMRI for instance?
I doubt it, and this is where IMO, Dr. Paul utterly failed to call her out on it (as he also didn’t the first time she made this allegation 3-4 debates ago). He should have said that as far as he knows (and he obviously reads everything, not just neocon pro-war and anti-Obomber “talking points” like the other candidates) the Iranians NEVER said that they would “Nuke America” with a nuclear weapon, and he should have asked her for proof, as this is quite a very bizarre, and serious, and as it seems TOTALLY fabricated LIE that she is continuing to make. But obviously something that not being addressed, will give much, much ammo and propaganda to the other Republican candidates, and just general anti-Freedom, anti-Liberty, anti-Paul extremist Ziocon, war party types (of both parties), as they will say that Ron Paul will be an “appeaser” (Yeah, of course it’s always 1938) and will not even use force, and refuses to even “protect” America, even though the “Iranians said that will use nuclear weapons against America.” I mean at least the first part of this canard, about “wiping Israel off of the map” is an actual mistranslation, yes, a bad, propagandistic, utterly fake and false mistranslation, but nonetheless a mistranslation of something actual said, but the second part is something as far as I know nothing but something Bachmann and/or her Ziocon advisors TOTALLY made up from thin air – a bold faced LIE.
But unfortunately, probably like 95% of Americans, if they have even heard of this allegation made by Bachmann, will not be able to know that this is the case (many, or least close to 50% still believe that Saddam was connected to 9-11 (and with self identified “Republicans” this is higher), many if not most Republicans believe that the warmonger in chief Obomber, is too pro-peace and/or not “aggressive” enough against our alleged “enemies” (!!!), many or most Republicans believe that Obomber is a secret “Mooozlim,” trying to help Muslims restore the Khalifate, many or most Republicans believe that he is actually trying to “destroy” Israel, with many of them also believing that he is a vicious “anti-Semite,” etc., etc., etc., point being is that this group will believe almost anything…)
So IMO, Dr. Paul REALLY needs to address this blatantly false, fake, Hasbara “talking point,” and ASAP! Otherwise it will be too late for him, and for all Americans to ever experience Liberty, Freedom, and Peace…