August 11 2011 Republican debate Thread

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Weren't you the one complaining about people being condescending towards you in this very thread?

I fail to see where me making that statement is the same as calling my intelligence into question. Stating that you think someone is out of touch on military affairs is not the same as cussing at and talking down too someone. Maybe I should have reworded it but unlike the other poster I ment no disrespect. It is possible to have different opinions without resorting to insults.

What other poster?

I didn't say anything disrespectful to either Avorysuds, Shacklednation or Kevin, did I? I hope not because I respect all three of them even Avory after he was rude to me earlier.

If I did, then I apologize. I considered a retort to Avory after the comment about me voting, but because of my respect for him, I reworded it.

Immie

I was referring to avoysuds from page 9 not you. Doesn't matter its water under the bridge as far as I'm concerned.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

I don't think I mentioned either bombing or sanctions. That doesn't mean, however, that I think we should just pull all of our troops out and let Iran have its way either. However, saying that the funny thing is that I do believe and have for a long time that we should not be in Iraq or Afghanistan on the ground. We have the military might to have a presence in the area without actually being there.

We are a threat to any nation in the world whether or not we have troops in their vicinity.

Immie

Well if you don't support sanctions or bombs to stop Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons, assuming that they ever attempt to acquire them, what is it that you would do?

That I don't have an answer to yet.

Our support and protection of Israel has been sufficient to date. For now, that is what I would consider. With proof of a nuclear program, I would have to re-evaluate the threat at that point.

Immie

Personally, even if Iran were to develop a nuclear weapon, I wouldn't be worried about Israel's security. They have plenty of nuclear weapons themselves and are more than capable of defending themselves. No reason the U.S. needs to be involved at all.

 

[Immanuel]

Iran in our own backyard, huh? Iran is going to attack and invade the preeminent military power that has ever existed on this planet? Iran?

September 11, 2001 ring a bell?

Honest question and not a damned bit of sarcasm there.

Immie

Well Iran had nothing to do with 9/11 for starters, though I don't believe that was your point. I believe your point is that some terrorists got us back then so it could potentially happen again. Yes, crimes happen, and horrible things could happen in the future no matter what we do. However, a noninterventionist foreign policy would dramatically reduce the motives anyone may have to want to plot some kind of 9/11 style terrorist attack on the United States.

No, that was not my intention. My intention was to state that we are vulnerable and it can happen again.

What right do we have to tell another country that they can't have nuclear weapons, while at the same having 5,113??

Shit, I can't argue against this because I have been known to say it in the past.

I submit because I can't reply to that. However, I will not be voting for Ron Paul or Mitt Romney and if one of the others wants my vote they damned well better prove to me that they are not part of the party "establishment".

Also, I should have included you in my I hope I was not disrespectful post. You too were pleasant throughout this discussion.

Immie

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

I do not understand how anyone believes that allowing a damned lunatic that has made it plain as day that he intends to wipe Israel off the face of the earth to have a nuclear weapon will bring about peace?

Immie

It should be pointed that there is some controversy over the translation of what Ahmadinejad actually said in the speech you're referring to. Which translation is more accurate I don't know, because I obviously don't speak the language. I have no doubt that Ahmadinejad dislikes Israel, but whether he actually threatened to wipe them out is questionable at the least.

I've not heard of any refutation on his part and it has been an issue for quite some time.

Immie

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Israel - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That about sums it up fairly well.

 

[ShackledNation]

I understand your points here.

However, I think it is too late for that. Electing Ron Paul and suddenly saying we give up is not going to solve the problem. Iran is not going to stop seeking the bomb and they are not going to stop being a threat to either the U.S. or Middle East security.

Damn! I know I am going to sound like George Bush with this statement, but we will eventually have to deal with them, either in the ME or in our own back yard.

Immie

Allowing Iran to develop nuclear weapons is not saying "we give up." That is were you are fundamentally wrong. Allowing Iran to develop such weapons is in the better interest of the United States than continually threatening them with sanctions and military force.

The end goal of foreign policy is peace. How is restricting trade with Iran and threatening to invade them going to create peace? How will it create anything but resentment and more hate?

I do not understand how anyone believes that allowing a damned lunatic that has made it plain as day that he intends to wipe Israel off the face of the earth to have a nuclear weapon will bring about peace?

Immie

I do not understand how anyone believes that making a damned lunatic even angrier will bring peace. I don't mean to be rude, but I think you dodged my question. Exactly how does preventing Iran from getting nuclear weapons create peace? Especially when we have thousands ourselves, and when we used them?

You have said you do not support sanctions or military action to stop Iran from getting nuclear weapons. You also concede that you cannot disagree with the point that the US has no right to tell other countries not to develop nuclear weapons when we have 5,000 ourselves. My final question, then, is how can you possibly say you disagree with Ron Paul and that you believe the US should stop Iran from developing nuclear weapons?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

What right do we have to tell another country that they can't have nuclear weapons, while at the same having 5,113??

Not to mention being the only government to have ever used nuclear weapons.

 

[elvis]

You guys advocating for Ron Pauls policies are just completely out of touch.

The genie is already out of the bottle. Mistakes have been made as well as good decisions. We can't erase all that by simply leaving people alone. Our soldiers are their excuses but their beliefs are their reason. We have to finish what we've begun for better or worse. We created some of the problems over there and walking away from them won't make them go away.

You break it you bought it.

Weren't you the one complaining about people being condescending towards you in this very thread?

Are you going to cry again?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

September 11, 2001 ring a bell?

Honest question and not a damned bit of sarcasm there.

Immie

Well Iran had nothing to do with 9/11 for starters, though I don't believe that was your point. I believe your point is that some terrorists got us back then so it could potentially happen again. Yes, crimes happen, and horrible things could happen in the future no matter what we do. However, a noninterventionist foreign policy would dramatically reduce the motives anyone may have to want to plot some kind of 9/11 style terrorist attack on the United States.

No, that was not my intention. My intention was to state that we are vulnerable and it can happen again.

That is always going to be true, however. The question is what makes it less likely to occur? If we were to force Iran to do what we want them to do it would have to be through some war-like means. It would require sanctions or bombs, even if you don't necessarily endorse those particular means. If we were to do this we increase the chances that somebody will want to attack us. Sanctions cause people to starve, and bombs blow people up. That tends to cause resentment.

 

[Immanuel]

Allowing Iran to develop nuclear weapons is not saying "we give up." That is were you are fundamentally wrong. Allowing Iran to develop such weapons is in the better interest of the United States than continually threatening them with sanctions and military force.

The end goal of foreign policy is peace. How is restricting trade with Iran and threatening to invade them going to create peace? How will it create anything but resentment and more hate?

I do not understand how anyone believes that allowing a damned lunatic that has made it plain as day that he intends to wipe Israel off the face of the earth to have a nuclear weapon will bring about peace?

Immie

I do not understand how anyone believes that making a damned lunatic even angrier will bring peace. You dodged my question. Exactly how does preventing Iran from getting nuclear weapons create peace? Especially when we have thousands ourselves?

They are absolutely nothing without a nuke.

With a single Nuke they can destroy a lot of American lives and whether or not we would retaliate with nukes is a question that would have to be asked.

A nuke or dirty bomb brought into an American city would be a disaster. If he doesn't have them, then we at least have the security of knowing that he can't use them against us.

Immie

 

[NYcarbineer]

So Newt Gingrich won?

Holy crap, does anyone need any better indication of how pathetic this field is??

 

[Avorysuds]

So Newt Gingrich won?

Holy crap, does anyone need any better indication of how pathetic this field is??

And yet anyone of them could possibly beat Obama... Is that an indication of how bad Obama is??

 

[Immanuel]

Allowing Iran to develop nuclear weapons is not saying "we give up." That is were you are fundamentally wrong. Allowing Iran to develop such weapons is in the better interest of the United States than continually threatening them with sanctions and military force.

The end goal of foreign policy is peace. How is restricting trade with Iran and threatening to invade them going to create peace? How will it create anything but resentment and more hate?

I do not understand how anyone believes that allowing a damned lunatic that has made it plain as day that he intends to wipe Israel off the face of the earth to have a nuclear weapon will bring about peace?

Immie

I do not understand how anyone believes that making a damned lunatic even angrier will bring peace. I don't mean to be rude, but I think you dodged my question. Exactly how does preventing Iran from getting nuclear weapons create peace? Especially when we have thousands ourselves, and when we used them?

You have said you do not support sanctions or military action to stop Iran from getting nuclear weapons. You also concede that you cannot disagree with the point that the US has no right to tell other countries not to develop nuclear weapons when we have 5,000 ourselves. My final question, then, is how can you possibly say you disagree with Ron Paul and that you believe the US should stop Iran from developing nuclear weapons?

Can't rep you for the pleasant conversation due to needing to spread it around some.

Thanks for the conversation and the attitude presented.

I submit that I can't come up with any further arguments although, I will not be voting for Ron Paul.

Immie

 

[elvis]

So Newt Gingrich won?

Holy crap, does anyone need any better indication of how pathetic this field is??

Ron Paul "won" all the debates last time, dipshit. These things are meaningless.

 

[ShackledNation]

I do not understand how anyone believes that allowing a damned lunatic that has made it plain as day that he intends to wipe Israel off the face of the earth to have a nuclear weapon will bring about peace?

Immie

I do not understand how anyone believes that making a damned lunatic even angrier will bring peace. You dodged my question. Exactly how does preventing Iran from getting nuclear weapons create peace? Especially when we have thousands ourselves?

They are absolutely nothing without a nuke.

With a single Nuke they can destroy a lot of American lives and whether or not we would retaliate with nukes is a question that would have to be asked.

A nuke or dirty bomb brought into an American city would be a disaster. If he doesn't have them, then we at least have the security of knowing that he can't use them against us.

Immie

But the likely future consequences of being so hostile towards them now is a larger conflict in which they ultimately will obtain nuclear weapons, and because of our history with them they will be even more likely to use them than before.

Iran will not willingly cease production of nuclear weapons. That means our only options are force. Sanctions and military action will only brew disconent and hatred towards the US. Maybe it will encourage Iranian youth to join terrorist groups, and then attack the US. Maybe these groups will obtain nuclear weapons, and create an even worse situation.

Iranian will be no more of a threat with nuclear power than it is without nuclear power. The only reason it is a threat at all is because we keep trying to tell them what to do. It all started in the 1950s when the CIA initiated a coup that overthrew their democratically elected leader and installed the shah as leader. Ever since, Iran has had hostile views of the US. Doing more of the same will only make matters worse, and cause another generation to become infused with hatred toward us.

 

[ShackledNation]

I do not understand how anyone believes that allowing a damned lunatic that has made it plain as day that he intends to wipe Israel off the face of the earth to have a nuclear weapon will bring about peace?

Immie

I do not understand how anyone believes that making a damned lunatic even angrier will bring peace. I don't mean to be rude, but I think you dodged my question. Exactly how does preventing Iran from getting nuclear weapons create peace? Especially when we have thousands ourselves, and when we used them?

You have said you do not support sanctions or military action to stop Iran from getting nuclear weapons. You also concede that you cannot disagree with the point that the US has no right to tell other countries not to develop nuclear weapons when we have 5,000 ourselves. My final question, then, is how can you possibly say you disagree with Ron Paul and that you believe the US should stop Iran from developing nuclear weapons?

Can't rep you for the pleasant conversation due to needing to spread it around some.

Thanks for the conversation and the attitude presented.

I submit that I can't come up with any further arguments although, I will not be voting for Ron Paul.

Immie

Thank you for the polite attitude as well. I just gave you some rep. I appreciate your honesty and refrain from insults. Have a nice evening.

 

[Immanuel]

I do not understand how anyone believes that making a damned lunatic even angrier will bring peace. You dodged my question. Exactly how does preventing Iran from getting nuclear weapons create peace? Especially when we have thousands ourselves?

They are absolutely nothing without a nuke.

With a single Nuke they can destroy a lot of American lives and whether or not we would retaliate with nukes is a question that would have to be asked.

A nuke or dirty bomb brought into an American city would be a disaster. If he doesn't have them, then we at least have the security of knowing that he can't use them against us.

Immie

But the likely future consequences of being so hostile towards them now is a larger conflict in which they ultimately will obtain nuclear weapons, and because of our history with them they will be even more likely to use them than before.

Iran will not willingly cease production of nuclear weapons. That means our only options are force. Sanctions and military action will only brew disconent and hatred towards the US. Maybe it will encourage Iranian youth to join terrorist groups, and then attack the US. Maybe these groups will obtain nuclear weapons, and create an even worse situation.

Iranian will be no more of a threat with nuclear power than it is without nuclear power. The only reason it is a threat at all is because we keep trying to tell them what to do. It all started in the 1950s when the CIA initiated a coup that overthrew their democratically elected leader and installed the shah as leader. Ever since, Iran has had hostile views of the US. Doing more of the same will only make matters worse, and cause another generation to become infused with hatred toward us.

See post number 193.

It is not always easy to argue a point that you are not fully behind or sure of.

I'm still not voting for Paul.

Immie

 

[NYcarbineer]

So Newt Gingrich won?

Holy crap, does anyone need any better indication of how pathetic this field is??

And yet anyone of them could possibly beat Obama... Is that an indication of how bad Obama is??

Define 'possible'.

 

[ShackledNation]

They are absolutely nothing without a nuke.

With a single Nuke they can destroy a lot of American lives and whether or not we would retaliate with nukes is a question that would have to be asked.

A nuke or dirty bomb brought into an American city would be a disaster. If he doesn't have them, then we at least have the security of knowing that he can't use them against us.

Immie

But the likely future consequences of being so hostile towards them now is a larger conflict in which they ultimately will obtain nuclear weapons, and because of our history with them they will be even more likely to use them than before.

Iran will not willingly cease production of nuclear weapons. That means our only options are force. Sanctions and military action will only brew disconent and hatred towards the US. Maybe it will encourage Iranian youth to join terrorist groups, and then attack the US. Maybe these groups will obtain nuclear weapons, and create an even worse situation.

Iranian will be no more of a threat with nuclear power than it is without nuclear power. The only reason it is a threat at all is because we keep trying to tell them what to do. It all started in the 1950s when the CIA initiated a coup that overthrew their democratically elected leader and installed the shah as leader. Ever since, Iran has had hostile views of the US. Doing more of the same will only make matters worse, and cause another generation to become infused with hatred toward us.

See post number 193.

It is not always easy to argue a point that you are not fully behind or sure of.

I'm still not voting for Paul.

Immie

Fair enough, and true. It is better to think about a position and potentially strengthen it rather than ignore possible shortcomings. Thank you for the respectful debate.

 

[Immanuel]

But the likely future consequences of being so hostile towards them now is a larger conflict in which they ultimately will obtain nuclear weapons, and because of our history with them they will be even more likely to use them than before.

Iran will not willingly cease production of nuclear weapons. That means our only options are force. Sanctions and military action will only brew disconent and hatred towards the US. Maybe it will encourage Iranian youth to join terrorist groups, and then attack the US. Maybe these groups will obtain nuclear weapons, and create an even worse situation.

Iranian will be no more of a threat with nuclear power than it is without nuclear power. The only reason it is a threat at all is because we keep trying to tell them what to do. It all started in the 1950s when the CIA initiated a coup that overthrew their democratically elected leader and installed the shah as leader. Ever since, Iran has had hostile views of the US. Doing more of the same will only make matters worse, and cause another generation to become infused with hatred toward us.

See post number 193.

It is not always easy to argue a point that you are not fully behind or sure of.

I'm still not voting for Paul.

Immie

Fair enough, and true. It is better to think about a position and potentially strengthen it rather than ignore possible shortcomings. Thank you for the respectful debate.

Sometimes I learn more by trying to take on something I don't fully understand than to simply accept what seems right to me.

I honestly did not like the way Ron Paul put his response to that question and quite truthfully, I did feel like he was saying "give them nukes" or at least that was the ultimate outcome of what he was saying.

Through the discussion, I came to see more of what he meant and the inevitability of it happening anyway. Then Liebuster came out with something that I have typed at least twice before and I realized, I could not respond any further.

Immie

 

[JohnA]

Paul supports nuclear weapons for Iran
if they want to develop a nuclear weapon, that is their right


The man is scary on foreign policy

Paul does not have a prayer

well he said we have no right to stop them ( do we )?
did we stop china no ,did we stop russia no pakistan no

bring troops home to protect OUR borders with mexica instread of somebody elses
he said mind our own business
very good points