Why is every republican candidate in heat to nuke iran besides ron paul.

[Aeson]

When we have interfered in Iran, it was either to prevent Soviet influence or to stop them from exporting terrorism or build nukes.

I'm having trouble figuring out how these ones fit:

1. Setting up the Shah at the UK's behest (you monsters!)
...
3. Fund their war with Iraq..and also fund Iraq at the same time

[kentonio]

Lets add a bit more meat to those bones shall we..

Times we have ****ed with Iran:

1. Setting up the Shah at the UK's behest (you monsters!)

CIA overthrows the Iranian government, working behind the scenes reputedly without the authorization of your own President until Truman left office. Installs puppet who brutally oppresses his own people while supporting US interests.

1978: One year before the revolution, US President says ''Under the Shah’s brilliant leadership Iran is an island of stability in one of the most troublesome regions of the world. There is no other state figure whom I could appreciate and like more.'

Six months before the revolution, CIA produces report which reads '“Persia is not in a revolutionary or even a "prerevolutionary" situation”.

2. Try to get our guys back from their embassy when they were kidnapped (oh, what a horrible thing for us to do)

Iranian hostage taker reported to have said "You have no right to complain, because you took our whole country hostage in 1953.”

3. Fund their war with Iraq..and also fund Iraq at the same time

Please provide some evidence of this funding of the Iranian war effort. As for funding Iraq, you gave Iraq your blessing to attack Iran, gave Iraq billions of dollars, military technology, intelligence and training. Oh and lets not forget the materials for chemical and biological weapons.

Oh and of course Iraq used chemical weapons against the Iranians. When the Iranians complained to the UN, who lobbied to stop any action being taken? Oh yes, that was that lovable friend of Iran, the USA again.

4. Try to bribe them to stop funding hezbollah (did not work out so well)

Is this a reference to Iran-contra? Otherwise known as US officials breaking the law by arming Iran in order to pay for ****ing with yet another countries government?

5. Attempt to stop them from getting nuclear weapons

I don't want Iran to have nukes, but given the above is it any bloody surprise that they want to get them? The last half century has been a continual sequence of America ****ing with Iran, managing to overthrow their government, install a dictator, praise that dictator while he tortures his people, completely miss that he was about to be overthrown, help solidify the revolution by encouraging and aiding Iraq to invade, then providing that new revolutionary theocracy with weapons to help oppress their people and defend their country. Now you want to attack their country. Is any of this starting to sound a little bat**** ****ing crazy to you yet?

[Zevico]

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/28353_Ron_Pauls_Photo-Op_with_Stormfront/comments/

That's Ron Paul, with the head of Stormfront, an American Neo Nazi group. To the right, the son of the head of Stormfront. Happy days!

[Zevico]

Here's Paul claiming he didn't write a newsletter with his name on the letterhead. Of course, the newsletter is often written in first person, and refers (surprise!) to a journal for gynecologists. So who ever wrote this newsletter is either Paul, or a fellow gynecologist who also happens to be a Truther/Bircher/Anti-Semite/Neo Nazi.

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/39649

[RGBVideo]

An Australian neo-con, I'll be damned

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/arti...ront/comments/



That's Ron Paul, with the head of Stormfront, an American Neo Nazi group. To the right, the son of the head of Stormfront. Happy days!

Ahh, guilt by association, the favorite tactic to target lumpenprotelariat everywhere.

OMG HE IS IN THE SAME PICTURE WITH [insert bad guy]! HE IS MOST DEFINITELY A [insert bad guy]!

Spoiler:

Given that these guys were asking for his autograph, how should Paul have any idea who they are?

Even more horrible: Paul actually has something in common with these evil nazis! He wants to end the government discrimination policy known as affirmative action! Horror of horrors!

[C0ckney]

VJ: yup it's absolutely desperate stuff, but perhaps not surprising when you consider the source

Earlier, after the September 11, 2001 attacks, Johnson—who has described himself as "pretty much center-left before 9/11"[5]— transformed his blog's discussion of bicycle racing, programming, web design, and the occasional humorous news item into a very active discussion of the War on Terror, Islam and Islamism, Eurabia, and the Arab-Israeli conflict.

LGF won the "Best Israel Advocacy Blog" award from the Jerusalem Post in 2005.[6] According to Gil Ronen, a reporter for Internet news outlet, Israel National News, "If anyone ever compiles a list of Internet sites that contribute to Israel’s public relations effort, Johnson's site will probably come in first, far above the Israeli Foreign Ministry's site."[7]

[Zevico]

The latest issue of The Weekly Standard, a leading conservative publication, reprised reports of incendiary language in Mr. Paul’s newsletters that were published about 20 years ago.

A 1992 passage from the Ron Paul Political Report about the Los Angeles riots read, “Order was only restored in L.A. when it came time for the blacks to pick up their welfare checks.” A passage in another newsletter asserted that people with AIDS should not be allowed to eat in restaurants because “AIDS can be transmitted by saliva”; in 1990 one of his publications criticized Ronald Reagan for having gone along with the creation of the federal holiday honoring the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., which it called “Hate Whitey Day.”

The magazine article largely matched a similar report in The New Republic in 2008, and it was written by the same author, James Kirchick. The passages were plucked from a variety of newsletters that Mr. Paul’s consulting business published during his years out of Congress, all of them featuring his name: Ron Paul Political Report, Ron Paul’s Freedom Report, Ron Paul Survival Report and Ron Paul Investment Letter.

Mr. Paul did not respond to an interview request, but repudiated the writings in 2008. Likening himself to a major news publisher, he said he did not vet every article that was featured in his newsletters. “I absolutely, honestly do not know who wrote those things,” Mr. Paul said in an interview on CNN at the time, adding that he did not monitor the publications closely because he was busy with a medical practice and “speeches around the country.”

Mr. Paul, who is a physician, had said his political persuasion as a libertarian precluded him from harboring such biased views because “I don’t see people in collective groups.”

On Monday, his deputy campaign manager, Dimitri Kesari, reiterated that Mr. Paul “did not write, edit or authorize” the language.

“He totally disavows what was said and disagrees with it totally,” Mr. Kesari said. “The only responsibility he takes is for not paying closer attention.”

Mr. Paul is the latest in a series of candidates whose quick improvement in polls has drawn new scrutiny of the more problematic portions of their résumés. The focus on his newsletters comes as he seeks to seize momentum in polls by raising questions about his opponents.

During an appearance on “The Tonight Show With Jay Leno” on Friday, Mr. Paul joked that Representative Michele Bachmann of Minnesota, a Republican rival for the nomination, “hates Muslims, she wants to go get them.” He also concurred with Mr. Leno that former Senator Rick Santorum speaks about “gay people” almost exclusively, adding, “And Muslims.”

Though Mr. Kesari said those comments were intended to be “lighthearted,” they drew criticism from some commentators, including the Fox News host Greg Gutfeld, who on Monday pointed to Mr. Paul’s newsletters as evidence that he was being hypocritical.

Mr. Paul has survived previous questions about his newsletters. During his 1996 race for the House, Democrats publicized issues of his newsletter that called Barbara Jordan, the African-American Texas congresswoman, a “half-educated victimologist” and said of crime in Washington, D.C., “I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal.”

He defended the statements to The Dallas Morning News at the time, saying they were taken out of context. He also told the newspaper he did not know that his newsletter — with 7,000 to 8,000 subscribers — was listed by a neo-Nazi group called Heritage Front, apparently as recommended reading, under the Internet heading “Racialists and Freedom Fighters.”

But in an interview in 2001 with Texas Monthly, Mr. Paul said he regretted that he had not admitted that he had not written the newsletters. “They were never my words, but I had some moral responsibility for them,” Mr. Paul said.

He said that he had “actually really wanted to try to explain that it doesn’t come from me directly,” but that his campaign aides had told him, “Your name was on that letter and therefore you have to live with it.”

"They were my words, and then they weren't."

Phew. Glad Paul dodged a bullet there.

This is from the NYT by the way.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/20/us/politics/bias-in-ron-pauls-newsletters-draws-new-attention.html

[Zevico]

Felch: fact is, you're calling me a liar without good reason. I haven't actually lied to you or to anyone else. I've posted articles. Those articles posted newsletters printed under Paul's name, by a company owned, apparently, by Paul. Is it really so implausible to question Paul's bona fides in those circumstances? The notion that he didn't read a newsletter put out in his own name, from which his company derived a profit, strikes me as implausible to say the least. Of course people can be careless but this is ludicrous. In particular the fact that it was written in first-person, and the fact that it refers to his own activities, suggests that he did indeed write those articles. Likewise, if Paul knew who the head of Stormfront was and consented to taking a picture with him while smiling that speaks, at the very least, to incredibly poor judgement. At worst it suggests a sympathy with his ideas that would be consistent with the writings contained in Paul's newsletter. Paul's willingness to openly advocate for conspiratorial ideas didn't stop with his newsletters: the author of the article reports Paul stating that the USA needed to "kill the CIA" because it was part of some conspiracy or another, quite recently in 2007.

I hold no particular animus towards you or anyone else merely because they agree with some of the principles and ideas which Paul has expressed. I think every idea deserves serious thought and debate whether I think it right or wrong. Pointing out the flaws in my reasoning or someone else's doesn't make me or them liars.

I think Paul has expressed some very dangerous ideas. His denial of those ideas strike me as, if not implausible, then at the very least unsatisfying.

[kentonio]

If you release a newsletter under your name, written in the first person then you are selling it as being by you. He made millions from doing this, and never felt the need to disassociate himself. Now suddenly its getting in the way of his campaign, so he can just go 'oh no that wasn't me' and we're all supposed to just go 'oh ok'?

[HalfLotus]

Not worried. Obama managed to win with close ties to Marxists, Communists, and other anti-American elements. Americans are open minded like that.

[MRT144]

Not worried. Obama managed to win with close ties to Marxists, Communists, and other anti-American elements. Americans are open minded like that.

You left out Democrats, blacks, jews,gays etc etc.

[Felch]

Felch: fact is, you're calling me a liar without good reason.

Since when was trolling not a good reason?

[PLATO]

2008 Election demographics:

Group Obama McCain

All Voters Pct. 53% 45%

SEX
Men 47 49 48
Women 53 56 43

RACE
White 74 43 55
Black 13 95 4
Hispanic 9 67 31
Asian 2 62 35
Other 3 66 31

AGE
18-29 18 66 32
30-44 29 52 46
45-64 37 50 49
65 & over 16 45 53

INCOME
<$15,000 6 73 25
$15,000-29,999 12 60 37
$30-49,999 19 55 43
$50-74,999 21 48 49
$75-99,999 15 51 48
$100,000 & over 26 49 49

UNION HOUSEHOLD
Yes 21 59 39
No 79 51 47

REGION
East 21 59 40
Midwest 24 54 44
South 32 45 54
West 23 57 40

PARTY
Democrat 39 89 10
Republican 32 9 93
Independent 29 52 44

POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY
Liberal 22 89 10
Moderate 44 60 78
Conservative 34 20 78

GAY/LESBIAN/BISEXUAL
Yes 4 70 27
No 96 53 45