Re: Who Schooled Whom?

what possible reason would the Iranians like the
United States?
---
well, Reagan did illegally sell them arms to kill Iraqi's with

otherwise, there's no reason

On Aug 21, 4:13 pm, Ixtelan <drbuck...@roadrunner.com> wrote:
> The Iranians have been battling invading armies for the last 2500
> years. The Americans are only the latest in a long line of pushy
> foreigners. For what possible reason would the Iranians like the
> United States?
>
> On Aug 17, 12:02 pm, Keith In Tampa <keithinta...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Why prey tell, do the Iranians have a reason to hate us?  Because we seized
> > their assets when their government invaded a sovereign embassy, and because
> > they held fifty-three Americans hostage?
>
> > Again, Dr. Paul is wrong in his history if you are referencing our Nation's
> > support for a coup, that toppled a corrupt government in Iran back in 1953.
> > If we had the opportunity to do so again, I and every other American should
> > support such an action.
>
> > The Iranians have no reason to hate America, we have been one of their most
> > benevolent benefactors!
>
> > On Wed, Aug 17, 2011 at 2:54 PM, plainolamerican
> > <plainolameri...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
> > > Iran is not the Soviet Union, it is a bunch of fanatics who hate
> > > Western Civilization, and especially America
> > > ---
> > > they have a damn good reason to hate the US
>
> > > treating them any differently from other muslim nations and attempting
> > > to stop them from developing nukes is folly
>
> > > RP's foreign policy is pro-American, not pro-Israel
> > > choose sides carefully
>
> > > On Aug 17, 1:41 pm, Keith In Tampa <keithinta...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > Hello PlainOl!
>
> > > > How about from the horse's mouth, on August 12th, at the Ames Iowa
> > > debate,
> > > > with regard to Iran, and a question from Chris Wallace,  who asked:
>
> > > > *"Congressman Paul -- Congressman Paul, you say that President Obama is
> > > not
> > > > too soft on Iran, you say that he is too tough on Iran. I want to put up
> > > > some of your statements. "Sanctions are not diplomacy," you say. "They
> > > are a
> > > > precursor to war and an embarrassment to a country that pays lip service
> > > to
> > > > free trade." As for Iran's nuclear ambitions, you wrote this: "One can
> > > > understand why they might want to become nuclear capable, if only to
> > > defend
> > > > themselves and to be treated more respectfull"*
>
> > > > *"Is that your policy towards Iran?"*
>
> > > > **
> > > > **
> > > > Congressman Paul responded in part:
> > > > * *
> > > > **
>
> > > > *"....Just think of the agitation and the worrying of a country that
> > > might
> > > > get a nuclear weapon some day. And just think of how many nuclear weapons
> > > > surround Iran. The Chinese are there. The Indians are there. The
> > > Pakistanis
> > > > are there. The Israelis are there. The United States is there. All these
> > > > countries -- China has nuclear weapons. "*
> > > > *
>
> > > > "Why wouldn't it be natural that they might want a weapon? There'd be --
> > > > internationally, they'd be given more respect. Why should we write people
> > > > off? There was -- you know, in the '50s, we at least talked to them. At
> > > > least our leaders and Reagan talked to the Soviets.
> > > > *
>
> > > > *What's so terribly bad about this?"*
>
> > > > Wallace followed up:
>
> > > > *"Congressman Paul -- Congressman Paul, I want to just give you 15
> > > seconds.
> > > > I want to just make sure I understand. So your policy towards Iran is, if
> > > > they want to develop a nuclear weapon, that's their right, no sanctions,
> > > no
> > > > effort to stop them?"*
>
> > > > *PAUL: "No, I think that -- I think that thing -- that makes it much
> > > worse.
> > > > Why would that be so strange, if the Soviets and the Chinese have nuclear
> > > > weapons? We tolerated the Soviets; we didn't attack them.
> > > > And they were a much greater danger -- they were the greatest danger to
> > > us
> > > > in -- our whole history. You don't go to war against them."*
> > > > **
> > > > *========
> > > > *
> > > > **
> > > > As stated, I have the utmost respect for Dr. Paul, and I think he is a
> > > > brilliant individual, who has sound economic and fiscal polices that the
> > > > Republican Party are now adopting.  Kudos to Paul, and the Tea Party for
> > > > finally seeing the light!
>
> > > > I do not agree with Dr. Paul's foreign policy, and I find it just
> > > outright
> > > > naive!  Iran is not the Soviet Union, it is a bunch of fanatics who hate
> > > > Western Civilization, and especially America.  Dr. Paul doesn't see this
> > > or
> > > > realize this.
>
> > > > On Wed, Aug 17, 2011 at 1:34 PM, plainolamerican
> > > > <plainolameri...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
> > > > > For Dr. Paul to advocate
> > > > > Iran's nuclear capabilities is just flat out scary
>
> > > > > ---
> > > > > cite source
>
> > > > > On Aug 17, 9:11 am, Keith In Tampa <keithinta...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > I would agree that our foreign policy of, "Nation Building"  was
> > > > > misguided
> > > > > > and not in the best interests of the United States.  I would also
> > > call
> > > > > > "Nation Building"  a form of "Intervention".
>
> > > > > > There is a distinction however, between "Intervention"  and
> > > "Isolation".
> > > > > > Dr. Paul espouses the latter, and that is just as misplaced as Nation
> > > > > > Building.  In fact, It's far more dangerous.  For Dr. Paul to
> > > advocate
> > > > > > Iran's nuclear capabilities is just flat out scary.  A clear
> > > indication
> > > > > that
> > > > > > Paul denies the reality of the world today.  Dr. Paul is a brilliant
> > > guy,
> > > > > > he is just flat out misplaced on what constitutes a danger to our
> > > Nation.
>
> > > > > > On Wed, Aug 17, 2011 at 4:22 AM, raymorphic <raymorp...@yahoo.com>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > "It didn't make Dr. Paul any more correct with regard to history,
> > > or
> > > > > > > his
> > > > > > > foreign policy."
>
> > > > > > > I'm not sure about the history part; what I refer to as sensible
> > > was
> > > > > > > the foreign policy solution.
>
> > > > > > > America do not like interventionists foreign policies.
>
> > > > > > > We couldn't run our country well, let alone running other people's
> > > > > > > countries.
>
> > > > > > > In addition, we're in no financial position to intervene.
>
> > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
>
> > > > > > > For options & help seehttp://
> > > groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
>
> > > > > > > * Visit our other community athttp://www.PoliticalForum.com/
>
> > > > > > > * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
> > > > > > > * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
>
> > > > > --
>
> > > > > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
> > > > > For options & help seehttp://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
>
> > > > > * Visit our other community athttp://www.PoliticalForum.com/
> > > > > * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
> > > > > * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
>
> > > --
> > > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
> > > For options & help seehttp://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
>
> > > * Visit our other community athttp://www.PoliticalForum.com/
> > > * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
> > > * Read the latest breaking news, and more.

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.