Mitt Romney for President - Page 6

Yes, it's foolish to take you to task for doing the same thing you criticized me for. Right.


OK, so Iran probably has a nuclear weapons program. Iran is probably pursuing a nuclear weapon. And Iran probably would still be pursuing a weapon even if we left them alone. Now, let's add to that the threats against Israel and the United States. Let's add to that the fact that Iran's leaders run an oppressive regime which supports terrorism. And Iran's fanatical religious zealots believe that their Messiah will come when Armageddon arrives.

From all that, you conclude it doesn't really matter if Iran gets a nuclear weapon and that everyone would be better off if we just withdrew militarily, economically and diplomatically? How do you support that?

Maybe if it's a statement, or two, or three. But there has been a repeated pattern of aggressive statements. These have been going for years. You're really going to tell me you just don't know what they mean?


Tell you what..I'll concede that at present, they are probably being a bit more aggressive in tone because of our actions. Obviously, they don't much like the fact that we're turning up the heat (so to speak) on them diplomatically and financially. However, that doesn't mean our actions are wrong. It doesn't mean the situation would be better if we didn't take those actions. Ultimately, those actions are a result of Iran's original provocations, from anti-Israeli and anti-semitic statements (holocaust denial, anyone?) to supporting terrorism, to enriching uranium despite massive oil resources.

Let's take this down a notch and let me ask this: What do you think we should do with respect to Iran policy?

So we should open trade with a country that openly supports terrorism and is exceptionally hostile towards our ally, Israel? I disagree.


Right, so we should wait until Iran develops a nuclear weapon. After all, we can respond "pretty quickly." Hope for the best, you say! Secondly, can we please stop with the "we were misquoted" nonsense with regard to wiping Israel off the map? That's by far not the only statement they've made. Some are much more specific.


What you're saying is "let them do whatever they want." I disagree.


How you actually view the U.S. and Israel as the aggressors here is beyond me.

No, free trade is the way to send American dollars to support terrorism.


Iran having a nuclear weapon is a real, credible threat. And it's becoming more imminent by the day.


There is. And by the way, words mean stuff. If you see me in my garage building a rocket launcher and I tell you "I'm going to blow up your house with this rocket launcher if you look at me cross-eyed," you might consider that a "real, credible, threat."


If I see actions where we are the aggressors, I'll label those actions as aggression. But the U.S. doesn't typically act in that fashion. Now, we definitely meddle in places we should not, but I wouldn't call that "aggression." We don't conquer. We don't invade a country and make it another state or territory.

I'm good. Thanks.


It's a hell of a lot better than the stupid Chinese/Canada analogy.


Iraq: In response to a perceived threat from WMD and breaking U.N. resolutions.

Pakistan: Killing terrorists who supported the 9/11 and other attacks.

Vietnam: Supporting a non-communist government over a communist one, during the heigh of the Cold War.


Different issue. I fully concede that we stick our noses where they should not be at times.

It represents a real, credible threat. I wouldn't say it's imminent yet. However, I don't think we should wait for it to be imminent. That doesn't doesn't mean I want military action, but we should absolutely not go down the Kumbaya path you describe.


If you honestly don't see the problem with that specific analogy, I can't help you.


Not at all.


I'm not justifying it at all. I'm simply saying it wasn't an act of aggression. That is all.


No, they cannot. Totally different situations.


I'll ask you to restate that as I'm not sure what you mean.


I don't agree with that at all. We had the right policy with the Soviets...or should I say we had the right policy under Reagan. That's a major example which contrasts with you position.



Agreed. See "Installing the Shah" for an example.


In a vacuum, yes. In reality and with regard to Iran, no. Obviously installing the Shah was a bad move that ended up biting us in the butt. However, there isn't much point trying to re-litigate that now. It doesn't change the fact that the Mullahs, the Ayatollah and President Ahmadinejhad are anti-Semitic fanatics who are dedicated to Israel's destruction, support of terrorism, oppression of their people, etc. I really don't see the point in going back decade after decade to play the Guess the Real Aggressor game. At present, Iran is the one making aggressive statements towards Israel. Iran is the one that supports terrorism. Iran's leaders are the ones who question the Holocaust (ehh..pardon me..."research whether or not it occurred as an open, scientific question." Cough.)

Here's the point: Given the world as it is, given Iran as it is, my view is Iran cannot be allowed to have a nuclear weapon. We should use every diplomatic and economic tool we have, but in the end it may take military action to prevent it. I fundamentally disagree with those who say "we" have no right to tell Iran if it can have a nuclear weapon, just as I disagree with opening trade with Iran is a good idea. Those views aren't going to change...unless Iran does.

Do you and your Mary Poppins view of the world actually think that will work?


Agreed. Make it clear they will be destroyed if they do.


Maybe we should go up to that wounded, scared animal and offer it a candy bar. I'm sure it wouldn't eat our faces off then.


I read the other posts on this, and it's pretty clear you have no idea what the fuck you're talking about. Frank clearly has far more knowledge on this topic than you...by far.

Ah, I see we're back to fantasyland. We're back to just leaving poor little Iran alone and hoping for the best.

Ladies and gentlemen, Ron Paul and the Paul Tards®!!!!

You know, on this issue I really must. Why? Because we're not simply disagreeing about an issue. It's not like I'm arguing for military action in Iran while you argue against. It not just that an argument like that which happens to get heated. No, it's that you are espousing a view of the world that has been proven throughout history to result in disaster if implemented as policy.

Anyone with any understanding of history--of how the world works--knows that your approach (the Paul approach) is dangerous. The examples are numerous. Neville Chamberlin decided to leave Germany alone and agree to positive relations. The result? The Blitz. We decided to leave Japan alone despite growing evidence of its hostility. The result ? Pearl Harbor and entry into WWII. History is replete with such examples of what happens when strong nations withdraw and allow tyrants to have their way. It is further replete with examples of making the mistake of thinking our adversaries always share our values, as if somehow if we treat them differently, they will forget their ways and learn to embrace us. Your approach will do nothing but embolden Iran and ultimately put Israel and the United States at greater risk.

Think about it: You are actually saying that we should simply "leave them alone" and hope for the best. I'm sorry, but no. We can disagree about what to do and how to do it. But when you fundamentally refuse to understand and acknowledge how the world works, I'm going to call you out on it. Not only that, but when I see a group of people blindly and naively embrace these views, I'm going to label them what they are: Paul Tards. You should hear yourselves. You're looking out the window, seeing a bright sunny day. You're then running around telling everyone it's raining. You label this mere disagreement. I label it insane fantasy.



Uploaded with ImageShack.us

The only difference is you see 5 lights.

Are you going to cry? It is not I that have to defend myself, it is you. Defend your position on Iran. Offer examples of such policies working in the past. Otherwise, admit you're just going to bed and hoping everything turns out OK in the morning.

Show me where I said that. My god....you can't even be a real person.

So you cannot demonstrate why your position is the best approach. Got it. Oh, and by the way...saying that your position is fantasy is not an insult. Saying "Ron Paul and the Paul Tards" when referencing Paul's foreign policy is not calling you names.