You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Submit your comments on this article
Syria-Lebanon-Iran
Iran sanctions, 'acts of war': Ron Paul
2011-12-30
[Iran Press TV] US Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul says Western sanctions against the Islamic Theocratic Republic of Iran are "acts of war" which can pave the way for a real conflict in the Middle East.
This from the man who thought we ought not have partaken in the second world war.
"I think we're looking for trouble because we put these horrendous sanctions on Iran," Paul said in a speech to a gathering at the Hotel Pattee in Perry, Iowa, on Thursday.

He added that Iranians are "planning to be bombed" and would understandably make the necessary arrangements to counter the threat, even though there is "no evidence whatsoever" that they have "enriched" uranium.
The gentleman is, let us say, somewhat lacking in understanding of such things. Not to mention his apparent ignorance of both IAEA and other reports.
In an earlier article titled, 'The Folly of Sanctions,' the Texas congressman had criticized the US foreign policy for imposing more sanctions against Iran and warned about its "unintended consequences."

"Sanctions were the first step in our wars against Iraq and Libya, and now more sanctions planned against Syria and Iran are leading down the same destructive path," he had warned. "Sanctions against Iran are definite steps toward a US attack."

Paul went on in his address to compare the western penalties against the Islamic Theocratic Republic to an imagined move by China to block the Gulf of Mexico, which the US would regard as an act of war.

Referring to Iran, he further pointed out that, "If you want to quiet things down, don't put sanctions on them" as it is "just going to cause more trouble."

Iran's threat to block the strategic Strait of Hormuz, he explained, is the most probable response to stricter sanctions because Tehran has "no weapons of mass destruction" whereby to deter menaces.
They're still working on that. But their BFF Syria could always lend them chemical weapons to hold them over for a bit.
Paul finally concluded that, "I think the solution" to the existing friction with Iran "is to do a lot less a lot sooner and mind our own business and then we would not have this threat of another war."
Little birdies in their nests agree, according to the sentimental formula. Except when food is running a bit short.
Posted by:Fred

#14  "the American people aren't going to elect as a commander-in-chief somebody who does not believe that Iranian nuclear weapons are a direct threat to us"

Sorry, Newt - they already did. :-(
Posted by: Barbara   2011-12-30 22:22  

#13  Dale, I see the 70-something husk of a once-intelligent person every day. Neglecting to mention, of course, the highly intelligent people who committed lobotomies on Soviet citizens who committed the crime of being dissidents, or of course Dr. Mengele and his famous studies.
Posted by: Thing From Snowy Mountain   2011-12-30 21:19  

#12  BP I respectfully disagree. "He's just as idiotically naive there as he is in foreign policy". I don't know if you are aware of the intelligence required to become a Medical Doctor in this country. These people happen to be smarter that the average person(I didn't make that up). I liked Senator Frist M.D. and had high hopes for him. People can disappoint but don't cast them of so casually. Whoever is elected will face some of the most difficult issues that I can ever recall. Copious amounts of gray matter needed and common sense.
Posted by: Dale   2011-12-30 20:21  

#11  > Paul may have some interesting ideas about the Federal Reserve & the economy,

Oh no he doesn't. He's just as idiotically naive there as he is in foreign policy.
Posted by: Bright Pebbles   2011-12-30 19:34  

#10  I will vote for any of these people that will protect the constitution. England produced the Magna Carta and they gave up so much(lied to) to join the EU. Now we have people doing the same to our constitution. I am not a Ron Paul believer. I would prefer Santorum/Palin or even Santorum/Bachmann. Ron Paul is a medical doctor. He has a long career of service. He will have his chance.
Posted by: Dale   2011-12-30 19:03  

#9  I think I just nukes myself ....
Posted by: gorb   2011-12-30 09:27  

#8  Ron Paul is nuttier than a fruitcake.
Posted by: DarthVader   2011-12-30 08:26  

#7  Deleted and reported, gorb. :-)
Posted by: trailing wife   2011-12-30 07:01  

#6  Mods, cleanup on aisle 6, please.
Posted by: gorb   2011-12-30 05:25  

#5  Spengler's summary of Ron Paul: He has in common with the Iranians a desire to make the world go away, and a fixed idea that an evil conspiracy brought about all the problems. Ron Paul isnÂ’t an Iranian, to be sure; heÂ’s just the closest an American can come to thinking like an Iranian without actually moving there.
Posted by: Anguper Hupomosing9418   2011-12-30 05:04  

#4  Iran sanctions, 'acts of war': Ron Paul

For argument's sake, suppose they are.

Some folks just need killin'.
Posted by: gorb   2011-12-30 03:08  

#3  I agree with Newt: "...Ron PaulÂ’s not a very serious potential to be president because the American people arenÂ’t going to elect as a commander-in-chief somebody who does not believe that Iranian nuclear weapons are a direct threat to us,” Gingrich told CNBCÂ’s Larry Kudlow in an interview to be aired 7 p.m. Eastern on Thursday.
Paul may have some interesting ideas about the Federal Reserve & the economy, but his views about vital interests of the United States (and even its history) disqualify him as a presidential candidate.
Posted by: Anguper Hupomosing9418   2011-12-30 01:40  

#2  The more this guy opens his mouth, the stupider he gets - he'is becoming to foreign policy stupidity what a black hole is to gravity: the most concentrated point of foreign policy stupidity in the known universe.
Posted by: OldSpook   2011-12-30 00:18  

#1  This from the man who thought we ought not have partaken in the second world war.

Well of course not - that would have allowed Nazi Germany to win and exterminate all the Jews and gypsies and a lot of us bothersome Catholics, just like WRong Paul and his collection of bigots, sycophants and crypto-fascists supporters secretly want.
Posted by: OldSpook   2011-12-30 00:16  

00:00