Thread: This Isn't 1776 , So Vote Hunter

Originally Posted by MW

I think Duncan Hunter's "attack Iran" policy would hurt this country a lot more than it would hurt fanatical Islam.

Can you please direct me to this "attack Iran" policy you're referring to?

Do you think it wise to allow Iran to develop nuclear weapons?

Why does Iran having Nuclear weapons really affect us so much? IF ISRAEL has a problem with Iran having nuclear weapons, then Ron Paul has stated Israel has every right to defend herself. SO, let Israel bomb the Iranian nuclear facilities.

Also, didn't we say the EXACT SAME THING regarding Iraq? "Saddam is making weapons, we have PROOF!!!! We cannot let him get them..." Baddabing, baddabang! Look what happened.

So to me, this is the SAME fear mongoring. If Iran has a nuclear weapon, then let Israel deal with it. Why do we have to jeopardize over and over and over again American Soldiers for others issues. And we think its okay. Its so preposterous.

Also, it is irrelevent that Russia and China want to become superpowers. Let them. What right do we have to be the only ones? See - you see the fear that is instilled.. Now China will be our "next enemy". If we really cared about China, would we be borrowing billions a day from them to fund our "war on terror"? Do you see how its all mixed up.

Chavez from Venezuela and many others have threatened America. So what? So now we act with due process. You ARE guilty without committing any crime. This is that 'pre-emptive attack doctrine' Ron Paul was speaking about. We just decide that a country is bad so we nuke them? And that is okay. What next? Our own citizens are next? I guess so, have you read the Patriot Act.....

By your thinking, we will never get out of this hole. Because if its not Russia, its China, if its not China, its Iran with weapons, if not Iran it will be Korea etc... etc... it just all boils down to - "allowing our interventionistic foreign policy to bankrupt us and make enemies".

Also, 'investing' in other countries to mine oil or whatever is not the same as "foreign intervention". <-- NOamNASTY

Here's an interview I found on how Hunter feels regarding Iran, apropos:

Excerpt:

Wheaton, Md.: Given that it has been proven that Iran his supporting terrorists in Iraq, do you favor strong military action against the terrorist government of Iran?

Rep. Duncan Hunter: Iran is clearly moving down the path toward developing nuclear weapons. They have emplaced more than 1,000 centrifuges within their weapons complex, and substantial tunneling and dirt-moving is taking place at several locations. My position is that Iran cannot be allowed to build a nuclear device. We've all been hopeful that sanctions would compel Iran to abandon its weapons development. However, to date, it would be fair to say that Iran is not strongly inconvenienced by existing sanctions. Indeed, China and Russia -- both with an appetite for Iranian oil and money -- probably will blunt any effective sanctions recommended to international bodies by the United States. This leaves us with the prospect that preemptive action may be necessary. As president my commitment would be to deny Iran nuclear weapons capability. Preemptive military action has been used in the past to disrupt weapons programs. If necessary, I would use it.

Besides Iran's nuclear program, its missile program and its Shahab-3 missile is capable of reaching Israel and other U.S. allies. This development compels us more than ever to continue, with substantial resources, America's missile defense program. Currently, we continue to develop theater ballistic missile defense systems that can handle the emerging theater threats, such as that represented by the Shahab-3. Additionally we should continue to work with Israel to increase the effectiveness and wide deployment of their own missile defense program, known as Arrow. In the U.S. we presently have the start of a missile defense system with the deployment of a few interceptors in Alaska and on the Pacific Coast. This program should be continued with substantial resources. Lastly, the U.S. should take advantage of the Russian offer to cooperate on missile defense by pursuing a program to station Aegis missile defense warships in the Black Sea. This would place U.S. interceptors in the corridor that must be traveled by Iranian missiles if they are targeted at Western Europe.

Long answer, but it's a big question. The prospect of nuclear weapons development and missile delivery systems by Iran constitutes the emergence of a new era that I would call Terrorists With Technology. Americans will be required to meet this emerging challenge with technology, better intelligence capabilities, increased space assets, and courage.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 01460.html

I think what he's saying makes a lot of sense. A non-intervention attitude is not going to stop Iran from developing nuclear weapons. Furthermore, it's certainly not going to change the attitudes many of those in the Mid-East have toward America. It's not hard to see the inherent dangers behind allowing Iran to develop nuclear capabilities. What do suggest we do when extended talks and sanctions have no effect?

Personally, I'd support doing whatever is necessary to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons. Iran's leadership is worse than ours! Burying our heads in the sand and pretending we live in a utopia isn't very wise in my opinion. There are some dangerous folks out there and we need to contend with them. We also must support our allies when necessary.

Originally Posted by MW

Here's an interview I found on how Hunter feels regarding Iran, apropos:

Excerpt:

Wheaton, Md.: Given that it has been proven that Iran his supporting terrorists in Iraq, do you favor strong military action against the terrorist government of Iran?

Rep. Duncan Hunter: Iran is clearly moving down the path toward developing nuclear weapons. They have emplaced more than 1,000 centrifuges within their weapons complex, and substantial tunneling and dirt-moving is taking place at several locations. My position is that Iran cannot be allowed to build a nuclear device. We've all been hopeful that sanctions would compel Iran to abandon its weapons development. However, to date, it would be fair to say that Iran is not strongly inconvenienced by existing sanctions. Indeed, China and Russia -- both with an appetite for Iranian oil and money -- probably will blunt any effective sanctions recommended to international bodies by the United States. This leaves us with the prospect that preemptive action may be necessary. As president my commitment would be to deny Iran nuclear weapons capability. Preemptive military action has been used in the past to disrupt weapons programs. If necessary, I would use it.

Besides Iran's nuclear program, its missile program and its Shahab-3 missile is capable of reaching Israel and other U.S. allies. This development compels us more than ever to continue, with substantial resources, America's missile defense program. Currently, we continue to develop theater ballistic missile defense systems that can handle the emerging theater threats, such as that represented by the Shahab-3. Additionally we should continue to work with Israel to increase the effectiveness and wide deployment of their own missile defense program, known as Arrow. In the U.S. we presently have the start of a missile defense system with the deployment of a few interceptors in Alaska and on the Pacific Coast. This program should be continued with substantial resources. Lastly, the U.S. should take advantage of the Russian offer to cooperate on missile defense by pursuing a program to station Aegis missile defense warships in the Black Sea. This would place U.S. interceptors in the corridor that must be traveled by Iranian missiles if they are targeted at Western Europe.

Long answer, but it's a big question. The prospect of nuclear weapons development and missile delivery systems by Iran constitutes the emergence of a new era that I would call Terrorists With Technology. Americans will be required to meet this emerging challenge with technology, better intelligence capabilities, increased space assets, and courage.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 01460.html

I think what he's saying makes a lot of sense. A non-intervention attitude is not going to stop Iran from developing nuclear weapons. Furthermore, it's certainly not going to change the attitudes many of those in the Mid-East have toward America. It's not hard to see the inherent dangers behind allowing Iran to develop nuclear capabilities. What do suggest we do when extended talks and sanctions have no effect?

Personally, I'd support doing whatever is necessary to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons. Iran's leadership is worse than ours! Burying our heads in the sand and pretending we live in a utopia isn't very wise in my opinion. There are some dangerous folks out there and we need to contend with them. We also must support our allies when necessary.

It is precisely our manipulations that are causing them to fight back. I mean, just think of it if it was happening to you. The revolutionary war was the same thing. You press, you manuever, you manipulate - how long before they had enough? The fact that you will STOP Iran from gettting Nuclear Weapons is telling because why not just bomb them now? Why not just bomb Korea? You see the path we are going down.

Now, this idea of utopia is a gambit that used for those with no real argument. It is precisely why we want Ron Paul because bombing everyone, waging wars for special interests will NOT lead to utopia!
What has it gotten us so far? Seriously, I am asking in a real way.

What has our war in Iraq gotten us?

First of all, Iran's nukes would not be able to reach us.

So here is the same round robbin. Police the world. Police its own populaton. - This is just a return to what nazisim was. Same thing. Enemies, patriotism, control the public, our way the right way etc..

I mean, it doesn't take a genuis to see all the similiarties between all the fascist regimes and what America is moving towards. All in the name of safety and terror. Kinda ridiculous, if you ask me.

I always ask this question. IF TERROR or TERRORISM was SOOOOOOOOOO Important, WHY ARE OUR BORDERS WIDE OPEN? WHY are DEMS removing Funding for more security etc..

Because it is all a sham! When the attacks on our own soil start happening, it won't be because they hate freedom.. it will be becasue we are over their boming the sh*t out of them! It will because they "infiltrated" thru our DOORS WIDE OPEN border! Then what happens, martial law. Confiscation of your arms, and the Patriot Act will really show its true colors.

"Who knows only his own generation remains always a child"

One of the most fascinating and little known nuggets of American history is that the first two wars the U.S. waged on foreign soil was against muslim countries in North Africa, otherwise known as the Barbary States. These states used pirates to attack American vessels, kidnapped American citizens, demanded high ransoms, and made the U.S. pay big money to allow our ships to pass by these states unmolested. Some of our founding fathers argued to bend over and comply with the muslims demands instead of fighting them. Other founding fathers like Thomas Jefferson were repulsed by the idea and saw the true danger that islamic theocracies posed to the West. After several years of appeasement, we finally took the fight to them and won. Thus began the legendary status of our fledgling republic and the war was forever commemorated in our national anthem and the Marine's Hymn.

Unfortunately, we Americans have gone soft and we don't have the intestinal fortitude to fight our enemies within and our enemies abroad. IMO, there's a decent chance that the U.S. will cease to exist before the end of the 21st century.

BrightNail wrote:

Why does Iran having Nuclear weapons really affect us so much? IF ISRAEL has a problem with Iran having nuclear weapons, then Ron Paul has stated Israel has every right to defend herself. SO, let Israel bomb the Iranian nuclear facilities.

Personally, I wish we lived in a world without nuclear weapons. However, that is not the case. I think this will answer a lot of your questions:

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/artic ... E_ID=43956

As you can see, there is much more involved than the security of Israel. Besides that, don't we have a responsibility to aid and assist our allies when there in danger? Would you turn your back on a friend in his or her time of need?

Also, didn't we say the EXACT SAME THING regarding Iraq? "Saddam is making weapons, we have PROOF!!!! We cannot let him get them..." Baddabing, baddabang! Look what happened.

Are you suggesting we ignore the threat in Iran simply because of bad intel in Iraq? Such a position could prove disastrous beyond anything you or I could ever imagine.

Also, it is irrelevent that Russia and China want to become superpowers. Let them. What right do we have to be the only ones? See - you see the fear that is instilled.. Now China will be our "next enemy". If we really cared about China, would we be borrowing billions a day from them to fund our "war on terror"? Do you see how its all mixed up.

The actual reality of three superpowers is far from irrelevent! I don't know about you, but I'd much rather be a Pit bull than a Chihuahua. Furthermore, three Pit bulls in the same pit is just asking for trouble. One of them is eventually going to want to prove he's the badest dog in the pit. I know it's hard for some to wrap their mind around the ideology behind "Peace through Strength" but it works. That philosophy is what brought the Soviet Union to its knees and ended the Cold War - it also averted the Cuban Missile Crisis. The Soviet Union, while a superpower, were a constant threat to the United States and our interest throughout the world. Regarding your comment about fear - I would suggest that a small dose of fear can be healthy. "Fear is an emotion indispensable for survival" --Hannah Arendt

Chavez from Venezuela and many others have threatened America. So what?

Hugo Chavez is not currently a serious threat to our national security and he certainly doesn't have the capabilities of physically attacking us or our allies.

We just decide that a country is bad so we nuke them? And that is okay. What next? Our own citizens are next?

That line of thinking is extremely simplistic, don't you think? We aren't going to nuke a country just because it's bad. Actually, at this point and time, I don't think we're going to nuke anyone. Who's fear mongering?

By your thinking, we will never get out of this hole. Because if its not Russia, its China, if its not China, its Iran with weapons, if not Iran it will be Korea etc... etc...

Actually, you're wrong. Our situation with Russia is much better than it was years ago, thanks to our "Peace through Strength" initiatives. We live in a complicated world that demands we always be on our toes. Moreover, we must be prepared to deal with our enemies no matter where they raise their ugly heads. Unfortunately, Utopia is fictional island.

I too support the ideas of less intervention throughout the world. However, I don't think non-intervention is realistic.

Certainly the ME is a volatile place - always has been and regardless of what we do - it always will be.

There's a very good chance the US will cease to exist in the next 10 years if we don't do something - and Iran will have nothing to do with that.

BrightNail wrote:

First of all, Iran's nukes would not be able to reach us

Hello, have your forgotten about terrorist? What if a group of terrorist were to get there hands on a nuclear device produced by Iran?

Did you even check the link out I provided in one of my post above? I think it described the dangers of an Iran with nuclear weapons.

Because it is all a sham! When the attacks on our own soil start happening, it won't be because they hate freedom.. it will be becasue we are over their boming the sh*t out of them!

Please spare us the Ron Paul rhetoric.

Originally Posted by SecureTheBorder

"Who knows only his own generation remains always a child"

One of the most fascinating and little known nuggets of American history is that the first two wars the U.S. waged on foreign soil was against muslim countries in North Africa, otherwise known as the Barbary States. These states used pirates to attack American vessels, kidnapped American citizens, demanded high ransoms, and made the U.S. pay big money to allow our ships to pass by these states unmolested. Some of our founding fathers argued to bend over and comply with the muslims demands instead of fighting them. Other founding fathers like Thomas Jefferson were repulsed by the idea and saw the true danger that islamic theocracies posed to the West. After several years of appeasement, we finally took the fight to them and won. Thus began the legendary status of our fledgling republic and the war was forever commemorated in our national anthem and the Marine's Hymn.

Unfortunately, we Americans have gone soft and we don't have the intestinal fortitude to fight our enemies within and our enemies abroad. IMO, there's a decent chance that the U.S. will cease to exist before the end of the 21st century.

I think this is where we get the word barbareans from ?

Also some make the claim that Jefferson kept the Quran because he liked the religion , what a crock ! he kept and stdied the Quran because he wanted to know his enemys . Something Americans should be doing also .

Read some of the verses in the chapters of Sura ,it will let you know how they play the game . They already know our Holy Books .

I don't understand the reason behind this strong defence of muslims, unless you are a muslim because this is opposite of freedom ,especially for women . I can understand the men liking it, since it allows them multiple wives . I hear this is why so many black women are not putting themselves back into bondage , but the men are joining in leaps and bounds .

I just want to say when we are debating don't throw everyone into one class because of their religon or nationality, remember their are good and bad in every nationality, I don't care who they are. And not everyone agree's with the leaders of their country...point infact...America..George W Bush.

I hate it when people around the world go, those damn Americans are this and that because of the stupid policys of our congress and president.

I believe there are good helpless people in every country in the world that are just as helpless as we are at the moment. And have been depressed so long they don't know how to fight back. But the fighting back in their country has to be their problem.

I would not want them fighting our battle with our government, that is up to us as citizens of the United States.

In America we need to screen who we are letting in and weed out the bad and send them back to their home countrys, get rid of the radicals and that includes the ones from Mexico and Latin America who think the so.west belongs to them.

"DO NOT JUDGE A BOOK BY ITS COVER" Give respect to people who deserve it. Do not judge anyone because of the color of their skin, religon or nationionalty. WE ARE BETTER THAN THAT!!

And we don't have to agree on everything! we are all different! Debate is healthy just keep it clean.

SASAD I think your tops and agree with most of what you say . hre comes the ,but...

I would not join a violent religion or organization . I was a freedom fighter before it was cool . My granfdaddy born in the late 1800s was one too . And we all lived in the south . So not only did the blacks not trust us, buta few of the whites did't like us either ,not nearly the count the racist [imo] NOI or NAACP would have you believe .

So if I joined a nazi party LaRaza , Mencha ,KKK ,NOI or other supremist group, would that be ok and should I accept their religion or theocrocy also ? I don't like hate groups ,religious or otherwise . I saw them all help to divide my nation ,blacks , whites , yellows and reds .

Being racist is not a race thing, it's a people thing ! All of us have evil in us some just more than others .