Ron Paul: U.S. Already Committing Acts of War Against Iran

There are 20 comments on the story from Jan 23, 2012, titled Ron Paul: U.S. Already Committing Acts of War Against Iran. In it, reports that:

GOP Debate in Tampa, FL

Ron Paul said that America has already committed an act of war against Iran "by blockading the country," and asked the U.S. to put itself in Iran's shoes:

Can you imagine if someone was blockading the Gulf of Mexico? You have to have perspective. It is an act of war to blockade a country and we are doing that. ... No one wants a hot war in Iran right now.
Paul was disputing Gingrich's claim that Iran is "provoking and taunting" the US.

Do you agree with Paul? Is America provoking Iran?

Join the discussion below, or Read more at .

Since: Sep 07

Location hidden

#41 Jan 24, 2012
are you listening.. ron paul?
Ron Paul

Redford, MI

#42 Jan 24, 2012
Asian Guy wrote:
are you listening.. ron paul?
Yes, Yes I am.
And I'm thinking how little you know about my position on National security and something called blowback.

Since: Jan 12

Location hidden

#43 Jan 24, 2012
Stratton wrote:
You don't think taking 52 American citizens and holding them hostage, beating them and subjecting them to mock executions is an act of war?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_hostage_cri...
OK then, how about killing 241 American soldiers?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1983_Beirut_barr...
You're either a moron - and I don't think you are - or you're being deliberately dense.
Stratton,
Thank you. I'm not being deliberately dense. I had completely forgotten about the Beirut barracks bombing. That is because of my own ignorance. I was too young at the time to remember it, but I have heard of it. I can understand the anger of muslims towards the pro-Israel US army involvement but it was a horrific act and if you say that Iran was involved in it then I'm prepared to believe that that might be true (I'm in no position to argue with you about this, seeing as you had to remind me of its existence!)

Still, Iran never declared war on America -- no US government has ever claimed that Iran declared war against them. I believe the US government line is that both the 1979 hostage taking and the 1983 bombing were acts of terrorism (correct me if I'm wrong), not aggression by a foreign state.

The 299 soldiers killed in Lebanon in 1983 were part of an army involved in a civil war overseas -- not merely a peacekeeping force, they had been involved in fighting. What Ron Paul says is true: if america would keep its military out of the middle east, then people in the middle east would not hate us so much, and there would be less bloodshed on all sides. What is so wrong with avoiding bloodshed?

Anyway, you educated me here, thanks.

Asian Guy -- How about more of the educating and less of the mindless insults? All you had to do was show me where I was going wrong.
Stratton

Arlington, MA

#44 Jan 24, 2012
A US court found that Iran was the mastermind behind the 1983 Beirut barracks bombing which was carried out by Hezbollah and Islamic Jihad, organizations that receive their funding and marching orders from Tehran.

You can call it terrorism, sure, but terrorism specifically directed at one state by another can arguably be taken as an act of war.

As for Ron Paul, what he always ignores is that there are reasons why our military is in the Middle East. We aren't there to piss off Muslims. We are there to defend the national interest of America - to protect free trade from nations like Iran that threaten to close the Persian Gulf, to protect our ally Israel from those who seek to annihilate her, and to seek out and destroy terrorists who are the common enemy of all peace-loving people. If we did not fight these battles in the Middle East, our enemies would gleefully bring them here to our shores.

In the 1930s England and France thought just like Ron Paul does. They said, "Well let's just be nice to Hitler and let him do what he wants and then he won't hate us so much." You may be young, but I'm sure you know how that turned out. Human nature hasn't changed any since then. When aggressive people smell weakness, it makes them more aggressive, not less. When a power vacuum is created, someone always moves in to fill it. Tell me who you would hand over that power to under whose protection you'd sleep better at night than the USA? That is why Ron Paul's foreign policy is dangerously flawed.

Since: Jan 12

Location hidden

#45 Jan 24, 2012
Stratton wrote:
A US court found that Iran was the mastermind behind the 1983 Beirut barracks bombing which was carried out by Hezbollah and Islamic Jihad, organizations that receive their funding and marching orders from Tehran.
You can call it terrorism, sure, but terrorism specifically directed at one state by another can arguably be taken as an act of war.
As for Ron Paul, what he always ignores is that there are reasons why our military is in the Middle East. We aren't there to piss off Muslims. We are there to defend the national interest of America - to protect free trade from nations like Iran that threaten to close the Persian Gulf, to protect our ally Israel from those who seek to annihilate her, and to seek out and destroy terrorists who are the common enemy of all peace-loving people. If we did not fight these battles in the Middle East, our enemies would gleefully bring them here to our shores.
In the 1930s England and France thought just like Ron Paul does. They said, "Well let's just be nice to Hitler and let him do what he wants and then he won't hate us so much." You may be young, but I'm sure you know how that turned out. Human nature hasn't changed any since then. When aggressive people smell weakness, it makes them more aggressive, not less. When a power vacuum is created, someone always moves in to fill it. Tell me who you would hand over that power to under whose protection you'd sleep better at night than the USA? That is why Ron Paul's foreign policy is dangerously flawed.
I'll have to think about a proper response to your rather well-argued post. The most obviously questionable bit is this:
Stratton wrote:
If we did not fight these battles in the Middle East, our enemies would gleefully bring them here to our shores.
That, to many people, is not at all clear. At least in a literal sense. Perhaps you meant economically? The main example that I'm aware of where Islamic terrorists literally attacked on US soil was 9/11. In his public statements Bin Laden made it clear that 9/11 was a retaliation for a history of aggressive, anti-arab, US foreign policy. In particular I think he mentioned the Israel-Palestine conflict. So that all goes against what you said: no America in the Middle East, no attacks on American shores. Israel, and international economic activity in the Middle East, yes those would be a problem. On the whole I think powerful people in that part of the world do not want to cross the oceans and attack America. Certainly that is true of Saddam Hussein and the Taliban.
Stratton

Arlington, MA

#46 Jan 24, 2012
EonBlueApocalypse wrote:
<quoted text>
In his public statements Bin Laden made it clear that 9/11 was a retaliation for a history of aggressive, anti-arab, US foreign policy. In particular I think he mentioned the Israel-Palestine conflict. So that all goes against what you said: no America in the Middle East, no attacks on American shores.
Actually, what he said was that it was the presence of American military in the holy land of Saudi Arabia - not about Israel. We were there at the request and invitation of the Saudis after Saddam invaded Kuwait.

But keep in mind, none of these Islamists - including Bin Laden - had any qualms about American military helping them when they were fighting the Soviets in Afghanistan in the 80s. I would suggest that any public statements made by Al Qaeda should be taken as what they are - propaganda - and not as gospel truth.

Al Qaeda's overriding goal is to overthrow the existing governments of Muslim countries and replace them with a caliphate, or Muslim theocracy, that would eventually expand to cover the whole world. The reason they aim their attacks at the US is because we are the biggest obstacle to that plan - not just by virtue of our military presence, but by the counterexample we present of democracy, human rights, and religious freedom.

Finally, the idea that our foreign policy has been anti-Arab is counterfactual. We supported Egypt aginst Israel in the 1956 Suez War. We supported Iraq against Iran in their war during the 1980s. We defended Saudi Arabia and Kuwait from Iraqi agression and continue to defend Qatar and other Gulf States against Iranian aggression. We give billions of dollars in foreign aid to Arab countries every single year. I am still waiting for the day when an Arab country finds our foreign policy so odious that they send back all the money they've received from us.

I'd like to see more people like you on this forum who are capable of having an actual civilized discussion.

Since: Sep 07

Location hidden

#47 Jan 25, 2012
EonBlueApocalypse wrote:
<quoted text>
Stratton,
Thank you. I'm not being deliberately dense. I had completely forgotten about the Beirut barracks bombing. That is because of my own ignorance. I was too young at the time to remember it, but I have heard of it. I can understand the anger of muslims towards the pro-Israel US army involvement but it was a horrific act and if you say that Iran was involved in it then I'm prepared to believe that that might be true (I'm in no position to argue with you about this, seeing as you had to remind me of its existence!)
Still, Iran never declared war on America -- no US government has ever claimed that Iran declared war against them. I believe the US government line is that both the 1979 hostage taking and the 1983 bombing were acts of terrorism (correct me if I'm wrong), not aggression by a foreign state.
The 299 soldiers killed in Lebanon in 1983 were part of an army involved in a civil war overseas -- not merely a peacekeeping force, they had been involved in fighting. What Ron Paul says is true: if america would keep its military out of the middle east, then people in the middle east would not hate us so much, and there would be less bloodshed on all sides. What is so wrong with avoiding bloodshed?
Anyway, you educated me here, thanks.
Asian Guy -- How about more of the educating and less of the mindless insults? All you had to do was show me where I was going wrong.
you don't need to say verbally that you declare war on somebody. you just need to physically engage in the actions that dictate an act of war.

in the case of the middle east, you need to understand the history of the area for the last 500 hundred years before you can really get a feel of what is going on.

few people are willing to do the reading.

the people in the middle east hate us not because as you say we are always meddling in that area...they hate us because we were part of the group of allies who destroyed their caliphi ottoman empire during world war one.

you need to do some reading to understand what the caliphi is. and more importantly, you need to read up on the history of the ottoman empire.

all this information is available on the internet with just a google search.

understand this one bit of info, and you will understand much of what is happening there now...

the koran mandates that muslims can NEVER surrender to non-muslims. at most, they can only adhere to 10 year truces.

as I see it, the ottoman empire never surrendered after they lost in world war one. they signed a peace treaty. but they never honored it.

essentially, what we are experiencing now in the middle east is a continuation of world war one. a war that the muslims started a hundred years ago in an attempt to add more land to their empire.

turkey was the center of this empire back then. and I think they still are the center of it. but they choose to stay out of the limelight so to speak to hide their connection to it all.

I'm not the only one who thinks this way. that is why the EU is not so keen on allowing turkey entry into the EU.

Since: Sep 07

Location hidden

#48 Jan 25, 2012
Ron Paul wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, Yes I am.
And I'm thinking how little you know about my position on National security and something called blowback.
I read about "blowback".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blowback_ (intelligence)

first thing that comes to mind is - you have to believe that we were wrong in fighting back against the communist aggression in the last century.
http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/20TH.HTM

from what I read, the communists in the last century murdered over 200 MILLION people in the world in their unsuccessful bid to dominate the world.

obviously, if you believe in blowback, you probably don't believe in the domino effect.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domino_theory

if you don't believe in our policy of fighting back against the communists in the last century, and you don't believe in the domino theory, then, my guess is - you probably think the usa government was and is evil.

in your eyes, our interventions in the world where the communists were aggressively murdering innocent people in the MILLIONS was wrong. am I reading you correctly?

iran, iraq, kuwait, central america, north/south korea, cambodia, vietnam, etc... these are all places where you think we shouldn't have been involved in. right?

my guess is - you probably think we should allow iran to obtain the nuclear bomb. right?

you probably think everybody wants to be your friend. and nobody will bother you if you just leave them alone. right?

have you read the koran? islam mandates the extermination of the jews. death to homosexuals. death to those who convert out of islam. death for cartoons, movies, and books. unending war with non-muslims until they submit to islam. again, have you read the koran?

with a history of wars dictating otherwise. confirming that evil exists in the world since the beginning of time. you want us to sit on the sidelines and do nothing.?

in one word. NAIVE.

personally, I don't think we should be setting up bases all over the world. but on the other hand, I don't think we should sit on the sidelines either.

the way I see it.. if somebody tries to take over an ally, rather then send in our troops, we should send tactical nukes in to persuade them to do otherwise. use our technological advantage. and quit playing these expensive war games.

frankly, I think ron paul is just another jimmy carter. and we all know how jimmy carter thinks. right?

he sides with the enemy all the time. america is wrong. the enemy is right. a peanut brain.
Ron Paul

Romeo, MI

#49 Jan 25, 2012
Asian Guy wrote:
<quoted text>
I read about "blowback".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blowback_ (intelligence)
first thing that comes to mind is - you have to believe that we were wrong in fighting back against the communist aggression in the last century.
http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/20TH.HTM
from what I read, the communists in the last century murdered over 200 MILLION people in the world in their unsuccessful bid to dominate the world.
obviously, if you believe in blowback, you probably don't believe in the domino effect.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domino_theory
if you don't believe in our policy of fighting back against the communists in the last century, and you don't believe in the domino theory, then, my guess is - you probably think the usa government was and is evil.
in your eyes, our interventions in the world where the communists were aggressively murdering innocent people in the MILLIONS was wrong. am I reading you correctly?
iran, iraq, kuwait, central america, north/south korea, cambodia, vietnam, etc... these are all places where you think we shouldn't have been involved in. right?
my guess is - you probably think we should allow iran to obtain the nuclear bomb. right?
you probably think everybody wants to be your friend. and nobody will bother you if you just leave them alone. right?
have you read the koran? islam mandates the extermination of the jews. death to homosexuals. death to those who convert out of islam. death for cartoons, movies, and books. unending war with non-muslims until they submit to islam. again, have you read the koran?
with a history of wars dictating otherwise. confirming that evil exists in the world since the beginning of time. you want us to sit on the sidelines and do nothing.?
in one word. NAIVE.
personally, I don't think we should be setting up bases all over the world. but on the other hand, I don't think we should sit on the sidelines either.
the way I see it.. if somebody tries to take over an ally, rather then send in our troops, we should send tactical nukes in to persuade them to do otherwise. use our technological advantage. and quit playing these expensive war games.
frankly, I think ron paul is just another jimmy carter. and we all know how jimmy carter thinks. right?
he sides with the enemy all the time. america is wrong. the enemy is right. a peanut brain.
You are wrong, my Asian friend.
I voted to go to war in Afghanistan.
I supported WW2.

I believe we only go to war with a declaration of war from the Congress as the Constitution states, except under unusual circumstances. the link below describes my view on Afghanistan.

I believe in a strong National defense. Right now we are weak and vulnerable to attacks on our soil because our military is spread too thin around the world and our borders are wide open. This is a recipe for disaster. Our overseas spending, foreign aid, nation-building, and protecting other countries borders is not the role of the US government. We have WAY overstepped our bounds.

Even worse is our financial instability, the threat of inflation and hyperinflation and our debt crisis. America going bankrupt is a much greater threat to our National security than Iran getting a nuke and being stupid enough to use it. That won't happen because they know they would be brought down, and that is not their goal or desire.

When we do ultimately go to war, we need to be serious about it, go in with a declaration, get the job done quickly, and come home. No nation building (as Bush promised wouldn't happen.)
http://www.thepoliticalguide.com/Profiles/Hou...

This describes my national defense stance:
http://www.ronpaul2012.com/the-issues/nationa...
JDC

El Paso, TX

#50 Jan 25, 2012
Ron Paul wrote:
<quoted text>
Right now we are weak and vulnerable to attacks on our soil because our military is spread too thin around the world and our borders are wide open. This is a recipe for disaster. Our overseas spending, foreign aid, nation-building, and protecting other countries borders is not the role of the US government. We have WAY overstepped our bounds.
Yes we can secure S Korea's border with 25,000 troops at no cost to S Korea, yet we cannot afford nor have we secured our own border.

We borrow from Europe to defend Europe. We borrow from the Gulf states to defend the Gulf states. We borrow from Japan to defend Japan. Is it not a symptom of senility to be borrowing from the world so we can defend the world?

Are vital U.S. interests more imperiled by what happens in Iraq where were had 50,000 troops, or Afghanistan where we have 100,000, or Europe where we have 80,000 troops or South Korea 28,000,-- or by what is happening on our border with Mexico?...What does it profit America if we save Anbar and lose Arizona?
Stratton

Arlington, MA

#51 Jan 25, 2012
There is a difference between sensibly reallocating our forces away from Cold War-era bases that may no longer be vital, and completely withdrawing all out military forces to within our own borders, which is what Ron Paul proposes. The first will make our military more effective; the second will cripple it. The first will help America preserve its power, the second amounts to unconditional surrender.
JDC

El Paso, TX

#52 Jan 25, 2012
Stratton wrote:
There is a difference between sensibly reallocating our forces away from Cold War-era bases that may no longer be vital,
MAY no longer be vital? OK, I'll bite how is having troops in Japan, S Korea, Italy, Kuwait, or even Afghanistan vital to our country?
JDC

El Paso, TX

#53 Jan 25, 2012
Stratton wrote:
completely withdrawing all out military forces to within our own borders, which is what Ron Paul proposes.
Heaven forbid if we actually could secure our border. But then we would know what comes into this country and who comes into this country.

Our greatest threat is within our own borders much like 9/11. Secure our borders and we become a safer and more secure nation.
America is Not the Same

Overland Park, KS

#54 Jan 25, 2012
A lot of those illegals crossing the boarder in TX, is said to be connected with those who we have been fighting against in Afghanistan and Iraq.
We need to secure the boarders, but with Obama our guns have went to our enemies along with weapons missing in Libya and 2 drones missing in the Middle East and in the hands of china and Pakistan
Nice going Obama.
Plain to see what side he is on
Just Sayin

Toledo, OH

#55 Jan 25, 2012
Here is what the government has in store for America.

http://www.wnd.com/2012/01/soros-occupy-to-tu...

http://www.apfn.org/apfn/camps.htm

Ron Paul is our only hope.
Just Sayin

Toledo, OH

#56 Jan 25, 2012
Stratton wrote:
There is a difference between sensibly reallocating our forces away from Cold War-era bases that may no longer be vital, and completely withdrawing all out military forces to within our own borders, which is what Ron Paul proposes. The first will make our military more effective; the second will cripple it. The first will help America preserve its power, the second amounts to unconditional surrender.
We have been giving all these countries money. If they want our protection let them pay us.
Just Sayin

Toledo, OH

#57 Jan 25, 2012
America is Not the Same wrote:
A lot of those illegals crossing the boarder in TX, is said to be connected with those who we have been fighting against in Afghanistan and Iraq.
We need to secure the boarders, but with Obama our guns have went to our enemies along with weapons missing in Libya and 2 drones missing in the Middle East and in the hands of china and Pakistan
Nice going Obama.
Plain to see what side he is on
Not to mention now that Obama is giving our missile technology to Russia.

http://www.westernjournalism.com/obama-will-g...
Just Sayin

Toledo, OH

#58 Jan 25, 2012
Santorum is a liar. He knows he has not won Iowa. Iowa needs to be stricken from the US elections for it's handling of the caucus.

http://www.examiner.com/conspiracy-in-denver/...

http://caucuses.desmoinesregister.com/2012/01...

Ron Paul needs to use a strong hand in this state.
America is Not the Same

Overland Park, KS

#59 Jan 25, 2012
Just Sayin wrote:
Here is what the government has in store for America.
http://www.wnd.com/2012/01/soros-occupy-to-tu...
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/camps.htm
Ron Paul is our only hope.
I don't follow links.
But I know what is in store for America in the next 5 years.
All you have to do is to read what has been written centuries ago.
It's all coming to the forefront and Obama is a part of it
Paul is at 10% Nation wide and at 6% in Florida
He will drop out
Obama was elected to do a job not for Americans

you can get a description on what is in store an WHO are the players at prophecy and truth web site.
gives you the players in distruction and the next world war
Just Sayin

Toledo, OH

#60 Jan 25, 2012
America is Not the Same wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't follow links.
But I know what is in store for America in the next 5 years.
All you have to do is to read what has been written centuries ago.
It's all coming to the forefront and Obama is a part of it
Paul is at 10% Nation wide and at 6% in Florida
He will drop out
Obama was elected to do a job not for Americans
you can get a description on what is in store an WHO are the players at prophecy and truth web site.
gives you the players in distruction and the next world war
If the Republicans don't stop blacking out Ron Paul Obama will win the election because Ron Paul's supporters are going to write him in rather than vote for the lesser of the two evils.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

US Politics Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 2 min Tinka 1,224,259
News Republicans are not compassionate 2 min Dee Dee Dee 143
News 8 Shocking Statements Opponents Of Marriage Equ... 3 min Cujo 97
News Pentagon dispels rumors of Texas takeover 3 min Lawrence Wolf 14
News Global warming 'undeniable,' scientists say (Jul '10) 4 min ritedownthemiddle 34,227
News The President has failed us (Jun '12) 5 min _White American_ 326,346
News NYPD officer shot in head dies, commissioner ci... 8 min Le Jimbo 1
Election 'Fox News Sunday' to Host Kentucky Senate Debate (Oct '10) 10 min Le Jimbo 180,357
News Ben Carson confirms presidential campaign 24 min yup 83
News Riots in Baltimore raise questions about police... 34 min mr goodwrench 636
More from around the web