The Water Cooler
See other The Water Cooler Articles
Title: Ron Paul Rails Against Rick Santorum: ‘We Just Plain Don’t Mind Our Own Business!’
Source:
Mediaite.com
URL Source: http://www.mediaite.com/tv/rep-ron- ... in-dont-mind-our-own-business/
Published: Aug 12, 2011
Author: Mediaite.com
Post Date: 2011-08-12 01:18:40 by Brian S
Keywords: None
Views: 67682
Comments: 85
The debate began with the two most similar candidates– Minnesotans Gov. Tim Pawlenty and Rep. Michele Bachmann– pulling no punches in disparaging each other’s records. It wouldn’t take long for the two most different candidates to have at it, and the foreign policy conversation between. Rep. Ron Paul and Rick Santorum delivered just as much as the experience one among the Minnesotans. Rep. Paul brought his vintage A-game to the debate on foreign policy tonight, attacking America’s foreign policy on Iran and arguing that they were entirely justified in wanting nuclear weapons. Arguing that the USSR had nuclear weapons and “they were the greatest danger in our history,” he concluded it made no sense to stop the Iranians, who were not a threat. Oh, and by the way, “that’s why we don’t have trade relations with Cuba,” he added as an aside. “It’s about time we start talking to Cuba and stop these wars that are 30-40 years old.” At this, Santorum shot up, interrupting Herman Cain’s question to respond as the author of the anti-Iranian bill that riled up Rep. Paul so much. “Iran is not Iceland,” he argued, noting that “Iran has killed more American men and women in uniform than the Iraqis [sic] or Afghans have.” He also added that Iran “is at war with us,” which gave Rep. Paul a comeback opening. “We started it in 1953… we installed the Shah, and the blowback came in 1979… it’s been going on because we just plain don’t mind our own business,” he shouted, to cheers. The segment via Fox News below: if (70 > (Math.random() * 100)) bing_spawn('Ron Paul'); -
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-44) not displayed.
.
.
.
#45. To: Brian S (#0)
(Edited)
Let's look at history. The U.S. got nuclear weapons before anyone else. Did we go to war to try to stop the Soviet Union and China from getting them? No. Pakistan is an Islamic country with extremist elements in the military. Did we go to war to try to stop them from getting nuclear weapons? No. North Korea is the world's only hereditary communist dictatorship. It's run by nuts who starve their only people. Did we go to war to try to stop them from getting nuclear weapons? No. India is our pal now, but they were allied with the Soviet Union during the Cold War. Did we go to war to try to stop them from getting nuclear weapons? No. But now, we are huffing and puffing because a backwards country that can't even refine their own gasoline might be trying to build a bomb. Even if they build a bomb, they don't have a delivery vehicle that could threaten us. And even if they manage to get such a delivery vehicle years down the road, they won't use it because they know that we'd incinerate their entire country if they did so. All of this is nothing more than political grandstanding.
All of this is nothing more than political grandstanding. All of this in nothing more than dancing to the tune that the bastard state, some of you people call israel, continues to play.
Never swear "allegiance" to anything other than the 'right to change your mind'!
Who are we to say who can and can't have nuclear weapons?
Tagline for sale - inquire within
well said.
Tagline for sale - inquire within
All of this is nothing more than political grandstanding. No it isn't. The proximity of Iran to Israel is everything about the connection. That is all it is about.
I know.
As Ron Paul has repeatedly warned this international meddling has gotten America into a lot of trouble. It serves no serious national issue to us whether they intend to build nukes or as Iran claims, to build nuclear power generating facilities. America needs to get out of their business altogether.
Very interesting thread.
You believe we as a nation should decide which other nations get the weapons they want to defend themselves? And who decides which nations are 'rogue'? The UN? The US?
Juan McInsane and John F'n Kerry? Obama's watch stopped on 24 May 2008, but he's been too busy smoking crack to notice.
If a country invades another country, they probably should be considered a rogue nation. Who has Iran invaded? No one. They were invaded by Iraq in 1980.
with our support.
Tagline for sale - inquire within
Limbaugh backed Romney in 2008 as well.
Tagline for sale - inquire within
I hate to say it, but Newt Gingrich won the debate. He was both calm, cool, and collected and also sharp as a tack. He adopted some of Ron Paul's position (audit the Fed) and also said that we need to completely rethink our involvement in the Middle East. Most importantly, he correctly characterized the new debt super committee as the dumbest idea that Washington has come up with in his lifetime. I don't think that he has a snowball's chance in hell of winning the nomination, but he was the only standout on the stage last night. I thought Pawlenty looked like an idiot and Huntsman looked nervous.
We have no right to say that Al-Qaeda and the Taliban can or can't have nuclear weapons?
The Taliban has the right to deny you, a rubber band & spit ball?
Obama's watch stopped on 24 May 2008, but he's been too busy smoking crack to notice.
And who decides which nations are 'rogue'? The UN? The US? I know..its all so complicated. Not like reading a menu at all. Keep trying...
'We' are a world leader and a nuclear superpower with an obligation not to destroy civilization or life on earth as we know it. 'We' also enjoy a lifestyle unparalleled in history, so count your blessings.
The Taliban has the right to deny you, a rubber band & spit ball? Every once in awhile I see a comment by you that deserves to be rated as a ”classic” and the working on your limited mental capacity makes it no coincidence that this comment is superbly stupid and deserves a place near the top of the list as most idiotic use as a parallel to a situation.
It figures that, that would be way over your head. It's as easy for others to make absurd declarations as it is for the US. The question is, by what authority do you deny other countries weapons, some shuck & jive UN regulation? You won't find it in US law, or the Bible.
Obama's watch stopped on 24 May 2008, but he's been too busy smoking crack to notice.
The question is, by what authority do you deny other countries weapons, some shuck & jive UN regulation? You won't find it in US law, or the Bible. Do you say it is okay for Al-Qaeda and the Taliban to have nuclear weapons?
The Taliban has the right to deny you, a rubber band & spit ball? They can do what ever the hell they want as long as they don't attack us. So yeah they can have a nuke if they want.
Obama's watch stopped on 24 May 2008, but he's been too busy smoking crack to notice.
Thank you for answering the question.
And who decides which nations are 'rogue'? The UN? The US? I know..its all so complicated. It's really pretty simple. You can either answer my honest questions like an adult, and help me to understand the reasoning for what seems to be an interventionist position on your part, or.. you can get all defensive, act like a teenage drama queen and keep throwing out meaningless prepubescent insults. You believe we as a nation should decide which other nations get the weapons they want to defend themselves? Or do we allow the UN to decide who gets them?
Your assumption that you can just show up and start an interrogation without offering an opinion of your own is grossly mistaken. Either add some substance of your own to the debate or fuck off...I can't say it any plainer.
Thank you for confirming my suspicions that you'd opt for the second scenario. As you wish I'll add some substance now... I think you hold a leftist, interventionist stance on foreign policy, due to your statements/justifications above. But I could be wrong. Am I wrong? Since I don't know what your political views are, I can either assume or ask questions. That's why I asked. I firmly believe we should mind our own business, unless there is absolute evidence that we are about to be attacked in some way. fuck off. LOL! No, I will not fuck off. It's not in my nature to fuck off. Anyone who knows me knows that I absolutely will not fuck off. Of course, if you're afraid, unwilling or unable to discuss your views on foreign policy, you could always use the filter. I find it immensely interesting that you view honest questions concerning your views as some sort of interrogation. Are you always this defensive, high strung and emotional when asked what your views are?
So you think the U.S. should intervene in Sudan to stop the killing & starvation?
Tagline for sale - inquire within
A bit different - Al Qaeda, with Taliban support, attacked us. I have no problem destroying those who attack us. Iran hasn't attacked us.
Tagline for sale - inquire within
Do I think current starvation and killing in Sudan while deplorable is the equivalent of a nuclear explosion?...no. However, if there were a group of terrorists (or even the government) in Sudan plotting such an event, the United States and its allies can and should intervene. Any other leading questions?
On that we agree. If someone threatens the U.S., we should act. Iran isn't a threat to the U.S.
Tagline for sale - inquire within
You consider wrapping an undeclared premise inside an assumptive question as being 'honest'? Kiss my pucker.
I didn't say a specific threat to the United States was necessary for intervention..only that a group or country was plotting to explode a nuclear device. In Iran's case, their association with middle east terrorism makes their acquiring nuclear weapons capability especially problematic. I'd say the probability of 'someone' taking out their reactor as quite high.
But for some reason Pakistan is not problematic. Hmmm...
their association with middle east terrorism is less than the Saudi's.
Tagline for sale - inquire within
I never said Pakistan wasn't a problem. Maybe you should address your 'concerns' to Hondo, who thinks its ok for any death cultist with a wad of cash to have a dirty bomb as long as they keep away from fly-over country.
I'm not in favor of the Saudis acquiring nuclear weapons either, which is a likely scenerio if Iran acquires them first.
And if Persian, Shiite Iran gets nuclear weapons, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Turkey will certainly start their own nuclear weapons program. That's the real danger here, not some nonsense about Iran being a treat to us.
Right, but did the U.S. government go to war to prevent Pakistan, the Soviet Union, China, North Korea, or India from getting the bomb? Ron Paul can be a very ineloquent speaker who is hard to follow, but this was the point that he was trying to get across. The neo-con war drums are beating against Iran right now. We can't all just panic and go into some hysteria and follow their beat. We need to think through what really matters to our national security and how to best resolve the things that actually matter. I agree with Newt Gingrich when he said: "I talked recently to General Abizad (ph) who is probably the most knowledgeable senior general who speaks fluent Arabic who said to me we have a bigger strategic deficit than our fiscal deficit. I think we need to rethink everything in the region."
Awwwww, poor thing. I've obviously hurt your feelings. You have my apologies.
The question assumes that the United States is going to war to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon, which doesn't seem likely with this president. Whether this holds true for the next administration is an open question. However Ron Paul is also a critic of international sanctions against Iran which may be seen as an alternative to going to war. He seems to think its wrong to isolate and try and stop a belligerent like Iran from tipping the balance of power and escalating tensions in the region. On Iran policy at least there seems to be a growing nexus between the Ron Paul right and the Michael Moore left. Good luck with that.
This small group of terrorists [Tea Party members] have made it impossible to spend any money. -- Mike Doyle (D-PA)
#46. To: jwpegler, (#45)
But now, we are huffing and puffing because a backwards country that can't even refine their own gasoline might be trying to build a bomb. Even if they build a bomb, they don't have a delivery vehicle that could threaten us. And even if they manage to get such a delivery vehicle years down the road, they won't use it because they know that we'd incinerate their entire country if they did so.
#47. To: Gatlin (#42)
So 10 to 20 more countries should have them?
#48. To: jwpegler (#45)
All of this is nothing more than political grandstanding.
#49. To: jwpegler (#45)
But now, we are huffing and puffing because a backwards country that can't even refine their own gasoline might be trying to build a bomb. Even if they build a bomb, they don't have a delivery vehicle that could threaten us. And even if they manage to get such a delivery vehicle years down the road, they won't use it because they know that we'd incinerate their entire country if they did so.
#50. To: buckeroo (#49)
This small group of terrorists [Tea Party members] have made it impossible to spend any money. -- Mike Doyle (D-PA)
#51. To: jwpegler (#50)
#52. To: All (#51)
#53. To: Thunderbird (#35)
Only a fucking idiot would think you have to "rule the world" in order to keep a handful of rogue nations from acquiring nuclear weapons.
#54. To: We The People (#53)
(Edited)
And who decides which nations are 'rogue'? The UN? The US?
"We (government) need to do a lot less, a lot sooner" ~Ron Paul
#55. To: We The People (#53)
(Edited)
And who decides which nations are 'rogue'?
This small group of terrorists [Tea Party members] have made it impossible to spend any money. -- Mike Doyle (D-PA)
#56. To: jwpegler (#55)
They were invaded by Iraq in 1980.
#57. To: Fred Mertz (#44)
He claims Romney won the debate hands down.
#58. To: Fred Mertz (#44)
(Edited)
He claims Romney won the debate hands down.
This small group of terrorists [Tea Party members] have made it impossible to spend any money. -- Mike Doyle (D-PA)
#59. To: go65 (#47)
Who are we to say who can and can't have nuclear weapons?
#60. To: Gatlin, *Yukon neo-Progressive Vermin* (#59)
(Edited)
We have no right to say that Al-Qaeda and the Taliban can or can't have nuclear weapons?
"We (government) need to do a lot less, a lot sooner" ~Ron Paul
#61. To: We The People (#53)
You believe we as a nation should decide which other nations get the weapons they want to defend themselves?
#62. To: go65 (#47)
Who are we to say who can and can't have nuclear weapons?
#63. To: hondo68 (#60)
We have no right to say that Al-Qaeda and the Taliban can or can't have nuclear weapons?
#64. To: Gatlin (#63)
"We (government) need to do a lot less, a lot sooner" ~Ron Paul
#65. To: All (#59)
(Edited)
#66. To: hondo68 (#64)
#67. To: Gatlin (#66)
(Edited)
Do you say it is okay for Al-Qaeda and the Taliban to have nuclear weapons?
If you can't quote US law, your edict is no better than theirs.
"We (government) need to do a lot less, a lot sooner" ~Ron Paul
#68. To: hondo68 (#67)
Do you say it is okay for Al-Qaeda and the Taliban to have nuclear weapons?
--------------
The Taliban has the right to deny you, a rubber band & spit ball?
--------------
They can do what ever the hell they want as long as they don't attack us.
So yeah they (Al-Qaeda and the Taliban) can have a nuke if they want.
#69. To: Thunderbird (#61)
You believe we as a nation should decide which other nations get the weapons they want to defend themselves?
#70. To: We The People (#69)
#71. To: Thunderbird (#70)
(Edited)
#72. To: Thunderbird (#62)
'We' are a world leader and a nuclear superpower with an obligation not to destroy civilization or life on earth as we know it.
#73. To: Gatlin (#59)
We have no right to say that Al-Qaeda and the Taliban can or can't have nuclear weapons?
#74. To: go65 (#72)
So you think the U.S. should intervene in Sudan to stop the killing & starvation?
#75. To: Thunderbird (#74)
However, if there were a group of terrorists (or even the government) in Sudan plotting such an event, the United States and its allies can and should intervene.
#76. To: We The People (#71)
I find it immensely interesting that you view honest questions concerning your views as some sort of interrogation.
#77. To: go65 (#75)
On that we agree. If someone threatens the U.S., we should act. Iran isn't a threat to the U.S.
#78. To: Thunderbird (#77)
In Iran's case, their association with middle east terrorism makes their acquiring nuclear weapons capability especially problematic.
This small group of terrorists [Tea Party members] have made it impossible to spend any money. -- Mike Doyle (D-PA)
#79. To: Thunderbird (#77)
In Iran's case, their association with middle east terrorism makes their acquiring nuclear weapons capability especially problematic.
#80. To: jwpegler, hondo68 (#78)
But for some reason Pakistan is not problematic. Hmmm...
#81. To: go65 (#79)
their association with middle east terrorism is less than the Saudi's.
#82. To: go65 (#79)
their association with middle east terrorism is less than the Saudi's.
This small group of terrorists [Tea Party members] have made it impossible to spend any money. -- Mike Doyle (D-PA)
#83. To: Thunderbird (#80)
I never said Pakistan wasn't a problem.
This small group of terrorists [Tea Party members] have made it impossible to spend any money. -- Mike Doyle (D-PA)
#84. To: Thunderbird (#76)
Kiss my pucker.
#85. To: jwpegler (#83)
Right, but did the U.S. government go to war to prevent Pakistan, the Soviet Union, China, North Korea, or India from getting the bomb?
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]