Ron Paul on Iranian nukes: “I wouldn’t do that much about it”

posted at 3:26 pm on November 2, 2007 by Allahpundit

No foolin’. The money bit starts at around 1:10. One of the core arguments against the war is that it’s destabilizing the region; the destabilization that would come with Shiite fundamentalists wielding an atomic bludgeon seems of less concern. Paul squares that circle neatly by declaring that the Middle East is none of our business. He has no moral or strategic interest, obviously, in partnering with Israel to check Islamism. Nor does he seem concerned with guaranteeing our energy interests. To do so would presumably hew too closely to the dreaded neocon “war for oil” bumper sticker, although how he’d plan to meet the demand for petroleum if apocalyptic war did break out isn’t addressed here.

Never mind that, though. What can he possibly mean by “[t]hey’re incapable of even attacking their neighbors … and they have no history of doing this”? Whatever else Paul may be, he’s not stupid. Why would he think Iran, which has advanced ballistic missile technology, would be incapable of attacking anyone? And why, given their fondness for using proxies in Lebanon and Iraq, does he think they’d shy away from handing a nuclear weapon to terrorists to smuggle into a western country? The second-most powerful man in Iran is under indictment in Argentina for his role in the 1994 bombing of a Jewish center. There’s a $2.65 billion judgment standing against the Iranian government in this country for their role in the 1983 barracks bombing in Lebanon. This is what Giuliani was getting after when he smacked Paul at the debate last month: he seems somehow unable to conceive that state governments and terrorist organizations might coordinate. Which, as I said at the time, is an odd position for a man who voted for the Afghanistan war to be in.

As for the rest of it, from the nonsense about Iran only reacting to our foreign policy to his ignorant insistence that occupation is the source of all grievance, let me know when he gets around to actually addressing what Al Qaeda’s said. He likes to wag his finger at Giuliani about ignoring the enemy’s grievances the better to advance the neocon agenda. Click that last link to see how Paul himself does on that count. Money quote from Gadahn’s tirade: “[L]et us be clear: A pullout from Iraq alone, in the absence of compliance with the remainder of our legitimate demands, will get you nowhere, and will not save you from our strikes.” Click the image to watch.

paul-iran.jpg


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

NutJob!

Dread Pirate Roberts VI on November 2, 2007 at 3:28 PM

To quote Mr. Burns’ grandfather when warned of the impending threat of Japan:

“The Japanese? Those sandal-wearing goldfish tenders? Ha ha! Bosh! Flimflaw!”

/simpsons

saint kansas on November 2, 2007 at 3:29 PM

“No strategic interest”. Bah. The entire world has a vested economic interest in a stable middle east and a subsequent stable oil market.

flipflop on November 2, 2007 at 3:33 PM

Ron Paul…………..The only Man that can Save America…If this his that imbeciles idea of saving America, than I for one do not want to be saved…

doriangrey on November 2, 2007 at 3:34 PM

What a nutbar

brak on November 2, 2007 at 3:35 PM

Paul says Iran isn’t going to attack us if they get nukes! Whew! Disaster averted. Y’all will just have to find something else to worry about then, guys.

RW Wacko on November 2, 2007 at 3:35 PM

Cuckoo for cocoa puffs.

But he supports the Constitution!

JammieWearingFool on November 2, 2007 at 3:37 PM

Paul says Iran isn’t going to attack us if they get nukes! Whew! Disaster averted. Y’all will just have to find something else to worry about then, guys.

RW Wacko on November 2, 2007 at 3:35 PM

Yup, and making a place a gun free zone actually prevents people from bring guns in and shooting people……/s

doriangrey on November 2, 2007 at 3:38 PM

No, they’ll just attack every one of our assets and interests overseas.

RMCS_USN on November 2, 2007 at 3:40 PM

Guys, I think we should listen to Dr. Paul on this one. What’s not to trust about a man whose prominent supports include Neo-Nazis, conspiracy theorists, and anti-semitic Hollywood dads, and whose online supporters spend their days spamming polls?

Vote for the Constitution in 2008!!!RON PAUL 2008!!!1!

amerpundit on November 2, 2007 at 3:40 PM

Hey Ron, the 18th Century called, they want their foreign policy back.

CP on November 2, 2007 at 3:42 PM

I refuse to watch- that high pitched whine of his is a voice that only a dolphin could appreciate.

Hollowpoint on November 2, 2007 at 3:42 PM

I don’t know who is the bigger fool – Ron Paul or the people who support him.

.

GT on November 2, 2007 at 3:43 PM

GT on November 2, 2007 at 3:43 PM

The people who support him. Anyone can be a fool. It takes a real fool to listen to the fool and say “Hey, that sounds great!”, then promote him relentlessly.

amerpundit on November 2, 2007 at 3:44 PM

I don’t know who is the bigger fool – Ron Paul or the people who support him.

.

GT on November 2, 2007 at 3:43 PM

Hah hah, oh without a doubt, the idiots that support him.

doriangrey on November 2, 2007 at 3:45 PM

Yet another reason why moonbats and other kinds of demented beings are drawn to him.

least1 on November 2, 2007 at 3:46 PM

amerpundit on November 2, 2007 at 3:44 PM

Damn it…beat me by that much (holds up fingers Maxwell Smart style)… :p

doriangrey on November 2, 2007 at 3:46 PM

Vote for the Constitution in 2008!!!RON PAUL 2008!!!1!

amerpundit on November 2, 2007 at 3:40 PM

Does Paul owe you a refund for saying that? : )

Rick on November 2, 2007 at 3:46 PM

doriangrey on November 2, 2007 at 3:46 PM

Heh. Don Adams just died in the last few years, IIRC.

amerpundit on November 2, 2007 at 3:47 PM

What planet is this dude on?

liquidflorian on November 2, 2007 at 3:53 PM

Heh. Don Adams just died in the last few years, IIRC.

amerpundit on November 2, 2007 at 3:47 PM

Yea, I know…It was a sad day for me, Get Smart was one of my favorite shows growing up. I have this fantasy that Hollyweird will make a “Get Smart” movie, staring John Cusack (as Max) and Natalie Portman (as agent 99)…

doriangrey on November 2, 2007 at 3:53 PM

Calling this guy a moonbat is unfair to moonbats.

dogsoldier on November 2, 2007 at 3:54 PM

doriangrey on November 2, 2007 at 3:53 PM

Yeah, Cusack would be very good in the role. Unfortunately, Hollywood’s too busy making anti-war flops. :)

amerpundit on November 2, 2007 at 3:57 PM

Vote for the Constitution Articles of Confederation in 2008!!!RON PAUL 2008!!!1!

amerpundit on November 2, 2007 at 3:40 PM

Not picking on you, I just think that might be more accurate.

ReubenJCogburn on November 2, 2007 at 3:57 PM

Shouldn’t this guy be a janitor in some high rise office building some where.

Hilts on November 2, 2007 at 3:58 PM

Mmmm…Soledad…

MadisonConservative on November 2, 2007 at 3:58 PM

amerpundit on November 2, 2007 at 3:57 PM

Well one can always hope that their current string of cash hemorrhaging epics disasters will force them to make something the public will actually watch…

doriangrey on November 2, 2007 at 4:00 PM

Yea, I know…It was a sad day for me, Get Smart was one of my favorite shows growing up. I have this fantasy that Hollyweird will make a “Get Smart” movie, staring John Cusack (as Max) and Natalie Portman (as agent 99)…

doriangrey on November 2, 2007 at 3:53 PM

Well, for better or worse, who you’re going to get is Steve Carell and Anne Hathaway. And the Rock. But General Zod will be playing Siegfried, so that part might be okay.

ReubenJCogburn on November 2, 2007 at 4:01 PM

PDS – Peanut derangement syndrome

abinitioadinfinitum on November 2, 2007 at 4:01 PM

ReubenJCogburn on November 2, 2007 at 3:57 PM

For the record, you know I was being satirical, right?

amerpundit on November 2, 2007 at 4:02 PM

“They’re a third-rate nation, they aren’t going to attack us.”

Well, Dr. Paul, I do believe that’s what people thought of Japan before WW2 and of Al Queda before 9/11. Of course when you’re supported by sub literate “truthers” I suppose neither of those facts matter.

Terrorism rarely takes a first rate country. Terrorism takes people who believe a certain ideology and want to kill people. And it don’t matter none if they get killed alongside their victims. Look at Palestine (Gaza for the media) – definitely NOT anywhere close to a first rate country, but still managing to kill hundreds of people over the past few years.

mjk on November 2, 2007 at 4:02 PM

As for the rest of it, from the nonsense about Iran only reacting to our foreign policy to his ignorant insistence that occupation is the source of all grievance, let me know when he gets around to actually addressing what Al Qaeda’s said.

As I always say. Ron Paul and his supporters just love to act like beaten wives. This sums it up nicely, too. It’s all our fault that Iran wants to nuke Israel.

lorien1973 on November 2, 2007 at 4:05 PM

For the record, you know I was being satirical, right?

amerpundit on November 2, 2007 at 4:02 PM

Yep, that’s why I said I wasn’t picking on you.

ReubenJCogburn on November 2, 2007 at 4:11 PM

Hey Ron, the 18th Century called, they want their foreign policy back.

CP on November 2, 2007 at 3:42 PM

Spot on.

Isolationism went out the window for good with the advent of missile technology and nukes.

If Ron Paul doesn’t think Iranian nukes are a threat to the U.S., then he needs to read up on the effects of a nuke detonated at high altitude on things like microcircuits, electronics, and the power infrastructure.

The reality is that America is essentially a one-bomb nation. One nuke, launched from international waters off the east coast and detonated at sufficient altitude (pick a number — 1,000 km?) over the Great Lakes region, would generate a speed-of-light electromagnetic pulse that would fry all the unshielded, unhardened electronics (even buried cables) that were line-of-sight to the blast. Eastern seaboard — say hello to the 19th century.

A single blast might not be enough to destroy the US, but it’d cripple its ability to respond and it would sure as hell make life miserable for a LOT of people.

And it’d be easy enough for Iran to do. 1) Develop nuke weapons. 2) Build or buy (Russia, China, NorKorea) medium-range missle(s). 3) Fit nuke to missle. 4) Load missle on private boat/yacht crewed by proxy terrorist troops (Hezb., AQ, etc.). 5) Once U.S. is reeling from the attack, take the lead in the international community by sending aid and support to the powerless U.S. citizens. Promise to stand with U.S. people, hunt down those responsible. 6) Use political and media leverage from this to further own geopolitical goals.

Harpazo on November 2, 2007 at 4:12 PM

Nevermind; President Paul will sort out the details later. Don’t lose faith! The future of conservatism is riding on it!

Kensington on November 2, 2007 at 4:12 PM

ReubenJCogburn on November 2, 2007 at 4:11 PM

Oh, ok. I was just confirming.

amerpundit on November 2, 2007 at 4:13 PM

ReubenJCogburn on November 2, 2007 at 4:01 PM

Oh cr@p, even when Hollyweird does the right thing they still manage to screw it up.

doriangrey on November 2, 2007 at 4:19 PM

doriangrey on November 2, 2007 at 3:53 PM

Now that would be a smart choice for 99 :)

abinitioadinfinitum on November 2, 2007 at 4:20 PM

Oh, ok. I was just confirming.

amerpundit on November 2, 2007 at 4:13 PM

Well, I probably should have been more clear in my first comment, then. But trust me, I know you’re not a Ronbot. There aren’t many around here, and they tend to stand out. Once again, I’m so glad that commenters have to be registered on Hot Air, because the Paul cultists would ruin this place.

ReubenJCogburn on November 2, 2007 at 4:21 PM

Anyone who supports Ron Paul at this point, surely doesn’t understand even the most fundamental aspects of global trade nor the obvious to most vulnerabilities to our western civilizations.

notta_dhimmi on November 2, 2007 at 4:22 PM

notta_dhimmi on November 2, 2007 at 4:22 PM

But but but..Ron Paul is the Only Man the can Save America…The Ron Paultards have told me this hundreds of times…

doriangrey on November 2, 2007 at 4:29 PM

Only first-rate nations would dare to attack the US. You know, economic and military heavy-hitters like Afghanistan.

Blacklake on November 2, 2007 at 4:34 PM

Arrrggghhhh!!!! This guy should be treated like David Duke was. And how come nobody ever asks him why white racists groups like stormfront support him??? Hmmmm? I think the left loves to use this guy as a tool to beat the heads of Republicans. All softball questions.

Andy in Agoura Hills on November 2, 2007 at 4:34 PM

Guys and Gals, just calling RonPaul names doesn’t accomplish anything, and makes HA look bad to outsiders/newbies. How about limiting it to stinging criticisms? I know you’re all up to the task.

stonemeister on November 2, 2007 at 4:47 PM

“see no evil, hear no evil”….except for the evil of US Foreign policy as the ‘root cause’ of all problems.

trying to debate this loon on the issues, gives to much respect to his ‘views’. Anyone, who accusses the Commander and Chief of the United States of being “Determined to impose martial law”…through some devious plot…with no proof, just raw paranoia… IS UNFIT FOR COMMAND!!! And since he wants an office he has no respect for, he should be mocked and laughed at until he either retracts these and other statements and apologizes or is out of the election

jp on November 2, 2007 at 4:59 PM

Some village out there is missing their idiot…

E L Frederick (Sniper One) on November 2, 2007 at 5:05 PM

Guys and Gals, just calling RonPaul names doesn’t accomplish anything, and makes HA look bad to outsiders/newbies. How about limiting it to stinging criticisms? I know you’re all up to the task.

stonemeister on November 2, 2007 at 4:47 PM

If I yelled “The moon is made of roquefort, and I’m a 38-foot salamander!”, would you limit yourself to stinging criticisms?

I’m ashamed to admit that at one time, I actually was interested in Mr. Paul. In my defense, that was before I knew anything about his foreign policy, and once I checked him out, I backed away and washed out my hard drive. I learned my lesson with Perot — actually voted for him in ’92. Young and foolish, I was.

Splashman on November 2, 2007 at 5:10 PM

Some village out there is missing their idiot…

E L Frederick (Sniper One) on November 2, 2007 at 5:05 PM

No, they know exactly where he is…He’s hanging out with all the other villages errant idiots in Washington D.C.

doriangrey on November 2, 2007 at 5:14 PM

“Whatever else Paul may be, he’s not stupid.”

News to me.

/snark

Hawkins1701 on November 2, 2007 at 5:24 PM

Guys and Gals, just calling RonPaul names doesn’t accomplish anything, and makes HA look bad to outsiders/newbies. How about limiting it to stinging criticisms? I know you’re all up to the task.

stonemeister on November 2, 2007 at 4:47 PM

My stinging criticism is that he’s a moronic crank who’d be dangerous for the country were he to actually have any significant influence, and he should go back to Texas and engage in endless discussion about the conspiracy theory du jour with his nutjob supporters.

Does that count, or is that going to make HA look bad to the small-but-insane Ron Paul supporter demographic?

Hollowpoint on November 2, 2007 at 5:27 PM

Hey Ron, the 18th Century called, they want their foreign policy back.

CP on November 2, 2007 at 3:42 P

You get a “Ba-zing!” for that one. :-)

Hawkins1701 on November 2, 2007 at 5:27 PM

“[L]et us be clear: A pullout from Iraq alone, in the absence of compliance with the remainder of our legitimate demands, will get you nowhere, and will not save you from our strikes.” Click the image to watch.

It seems to me that Paul is quite ready to comply with the rest of their demands.

BadgerHawk on November 2, 2007 at 5:30 PM

Ron Paul makes me think of Ahmed the dead terrorist

Sultry Beauty on November 2, 2007 at 5:37 PM

It seems to me that Paul is quite ready to comply with the rest of their demands.

That’s why I say that RP and OBL have pretty much the same foreign policy ideas; if for different reasons.

lorien1973 on November 2, 2007 at 5:41 PM

Isolationist to the end. What a moron.

Seixon on November 2, 2007 at 5:50 PM

Isolationist to the end. What a moron.

Seixon on November 2, 2007 at 5:50 PM

Ron in a box!

abinitioadinfinitum on November 2, 2007 at 6:00 PM

Does that count, or is that going to make HA look bad to the small-but-insane Ron Paul supporter demographic?

Hollowpoint on November 2, 2007 at 5:27 PM

Now that’s what I call a stinging criticism. You make me proud [wipe a tear].

stonemeister on November 2, 2007 at 6:35 PM

As usual, I see Ron Paul and now I can’t get the “Looney Tunes” theme song out of my head.

Kowboy on November 2, 2007 at 6:42 PM

Isolationism went out the window for good with the advent of missile technology and nukes
Harpazo on November 2, 2007 at 4:12 PM

I’m in a bad position here because I’ve said things that have defended Paul supporters in the past.

Although, Paul’s view on foreign policy is the reason I would never vote for him. (even against Hillary)

All that being said, isn’t there a large grey area being isolationism and where we are today? I agreed with GWB against Gore when he spoke against nation building.
Then 9/11 happened, and again I supported GWB’s foreign policy (and still do)

But what else do we need to do in Iraq? Are these diplomats, that C Rice is sending over, going to secure the country? Why the f are we doing rebuilding roads and cities?

If Iran indeed wants to build a nuclear reactor, wait a year and bomb the hell out of it. Don’t invade and try to win hearts and minds.

And, quite frankly, he is absolutely right about being the World’s policeman. How much longer do we have to use tax payers money to secure Europe?

sweeper on November 2, 2007 at 6:43 PM

sweeper on November 2, 2007 at 6:43 PM

No one’s suggesting we invade and take over Iran; at least no one who’d influence the decision so far as I’m aware. An attack would almost certainly be limited to bombing. However, their nuke program is spread out over many sites, mostly hardened and/or underground- it’s not like Iraq or Syria where the Israelis were able to take out their nuke reactors with a few planes.

And yes- we’d all appreciate it if Europe would step up and take more of their fair share of the load, but they aren’t- even when it was in their own backyard in Bosnia it took US intervention (right or wrong) to get the ball rolling. What Paul is talking about goes far, far beyond protecting Europe.

Hollowpoint on November 2, 2007 at 7:06 PM

Hollowpoint on November 2, 2007 at 7:06 PM

Your point is well taken, but don’t forget the reasons for going to war with Iraq in the first place. I absolutely supported it, but had I thought at the time that we would need to hold their hands until they could stand on their own I would have thought differently.

It’s the same with Iran. I support ending any threat to ourselves and allies. But after the threat is neutralized why is it always our responsibility to rebuild?

sweeper on November 2, 2007 at 7:13 PM

How much longer do we have to use tax payers money to secure Europe?

sweeper on November 2, 2007 at 6:43 PM

Until such a time as nothing that happens to, in or as a result of Europe(or any other part of the world)is in any way shape or form a threat to the people of or the security of the United States. Two world wars have pretty much taught us that.

We’re not so much the worlds policemen as we are the worlds firemen, we’re are not so much doing police work as we are putting out fires, fires that allowed to burn unchecked could very well burn down our house. This is the most significant lesson America learned from those two world wars.

doriangrey on November 2, 2007 at 8:00 PM

“I wouldn’t do that much about it”

When you “cut to the chase”, that is pretty much Bush’s position too.

MB4 on November 2, 2007 at 8:42 PM

I absolutely supported it, but had I thought at the time that we would need to hold their hands until they could stand on their own I would have thought differently.

sweeper on November 2, 2007 at 7:13 PM

Bush probably feels the same way, but he has too much hubris to admit it.

MB4 on November 2, 2007 at 8:45 PM

I’ve finally decided what historical group Ron Paul-Nut belongs to…

the turn-of-the-19th-century Anarchists.

steveegg on November 2, 2007 at 8:51 PM

We’re not so much the worlds policemen as we are the worlds firemen, we’re are not so much doing police work as we are putting out fires, fires that allowed to burn unchecked could very well burn down our house. This is the most significant lesson America learned from those two world wars.

doriangrey on November 2, 2007 at 8:00 PM

That’s the lesson of two world wars? That’s the most significant lesson? Wow, of everything that needs to be learned you choose that the USA needs to send armies to defend citizens of other nations. Get the map out, with the exception of the attack on Pearl Harbor, the rest of the fighting was done to secure life and liberty of citizens of other nations.
BTW to lump WW I and WWII together shows a real lack of intellectual discipline. Were there similar causes? Are the results the same? No. From the perspective of this country, the only similarity is that our forefathers had to pay a price for the avarice of other nations.
In your opinion, do you think that the US citizen should subsidize generous welfare benefits in Europe?
Bottom line: If they are not men enough to defend their culture, their culture is not worth defending.
At this point the same holds true for Iraq.

sweeper on November 2, 2007 at 8:55 PM

sweeper on November 2, 2007 at 8:55 PM

Didn’t learn much from history I see, sad really. Figure this one out, before the US entrance into both WWI and WWI, were the conflicts getting bigger or smaller? What exactly was it that drew the US into both conflicts?

doriangrey on November 2, 2007 at 9:56 PM

Didn’t learn much from history I see, sad really. Figure this one out, before the US entrance into both WWI and WWI, were the conflicts getting bigger or smaller? What exactly was it that drew the US into both conflicts?

doriangrey on November 2, 2007 at 9:56 PM

I will answer what I think the question is rather than the one asked. The US government had no dog in the fight in WW I with the exception of the U-boat campaign of the Germans. The United States was never even part of the “Allied Forces”. Whether that conflict was growing or shrinking or stagnant leaves room for debate. But my question to you is “So the f@#k what?” WWI was absolutely a war that could have been left to Europe.

WWII was different. Then it ended. Then the cold war started. That was won. Our troops stayed to protect Europe from a defeated threat. The securiy treaty to guard against the now non existant threat grew. All on the backs on the US. We always hear that it is cheaper to keep the peace. That’s BS.
We have allowed other nations and people to sponge off this country’s labor and courage and we ask nothing in return.
It started in Europe and now it is spread to the Middle East

So what do we tell future generations? “Sorry we’re broke, but we had to finish WWI.”

sweeper on November 2, 2007 at 10:34 PM

Dorian, one other thing. Do you really think we need to stay in Germany and Japan bacause of WW I and WW II?

sweeper on November 2, 2007 at 10:35 PM

As usual, I see Ron Paul and now I can’t get the “Looney Tunes” theme song out of my head.

Kowboy on November 2, 2007 at 6:42 PM

Known as “The Merry-Go-Round Broke Down”?

My favorite lyrics…
Oh when they say I’m nutsy
It sure gives me a pain
Please pass the ketchup I think its going to rain

Oh you can’t bounce a meatball
Though try with all your might
Turn on the radio I want to fly a kite

I’d comment on the similarities in logical consistency, but I’m too nice for that. Or am I?

For anyone who doesn’t want to see a world with no oil from the Middle East and a large spreading war starting in Korea and Taiwan… find another “Last Hope”.

Edited out a longer description of the problems with his policies. Pardon me for hoping they’re self-evident.

gekkobear on November 2, 2007 at 10:48 PM

Allah has it all wrong on the economics, the question is this: is the devaluation of the dollar, and the movement away from the dollar as the world’s reserve currency worth the cost of trying to build stability in the Middle East (on our dime). I bought gold years ago when it was just over $350 an ounce and this week it has hit $800/ounce. Why did it reach this historic high? Because the dollar isn’t worth what it once was.

Randolphus Maximus on November 2, 2007 at 11:13 PM

RP is a willing fool. The terrorists put their propaganda out there that they attack us because of OUR actions alone, and this insane cranky bastard buys it hook, line, and sinker and develops a ill informed foreign policy as a result.

The terrorists must sit around wringing their hands at the thought of a RP or dem presidency.

csdeven on November 2, 2007 at 11:26 PM

Kowboy on November 2, 2007 at 6:42 PM

RP = Elmer Fudd

You wascaly wabbit!

csdeven on November 2, 2007 at 11:28 PM

I am voting for Ron Popeil for POTUS. He seems to have the right ideas…what…Popeil is not running? Ron Paul? Not Ron Popeil? Never mind.

saved on November 3, 2007 at 11:01 AM