Reason #3,421 why Ron Paul is an idiot

[MonkeyFunk]

watching him on MTP. Russert asked him how he would respond if he were President and Iran invaded Israel. Ron replied "They're not going to! That's like saying Iran is about to invade Mars. I mean, they are nothing! They don't have an army, or a navy, or an air force."

Iran has 545,000 active duty troops, making it the 8th largest active military on Earth.

I don't think it's likely Iran would invade Israel, but to claim they have no army is ridiculous.

[TwilightGardener]

1. I don't get that either. Conventional wisdom is that we wouldn't want

to invade Iran because it wouldn't be the relative cakewalk (militarily speaking) that Iraq was. Baffling.

[MADem]

11. When you are invading, you don't worry about the ARMY so much.

You worry about the civilian population. And I would worry about the highly nationaliztic Iranian population. They may take issue with their present government, be living in a repressed society, but they do love their land, their history and their culture.

Remember, the ARMY in Iraq melted away. All the deaths in Iraq have come from INSURGENTS, not a uniformed army battling on a battlefield in a conventional warfare scenario.

Also, the concepts of rebuffing an invasion, and initiating one (in this case the Iranians invading Israel--a joke, that) are totally diverse They require different manpower strengths and different talents. You need way more bodies to attack, fewer to defend.

If Iran invaded Israel, which they wouldn't, Israel would wave a tac nuke at Teheran, and they'd run away fast.

It was a stupid question Russert asked. Totally idiotic. Iran WILL invade Mars before they invade Israel.

[TwilightGardener]

15. Well, I agree with much of what you say, but my point was that

I don't understand why Paul thinks Iran is a military creampuff, when they have a fairly sizable army--does he not know very much about them? I agree they're not going to attack anybody anytime soon, but they are certainly capable in a military sense.

On edit--more so than Iraq, anyway.

[MADem]

28. It's a poorly trained bunch of schmucks with no equipment.

Size isn't everything. They're a critical mass of cannon fodder without training and equipment--I think that was his point. They'd need a heavy influx of armaments and training (say, a year or two with a few Russians helping them out) to get to an even semi-acceptable level.

I still think the guy is an idiot, though.

[TwilightGardener]

34. Ah, OK--I get your point.

[sendero]

49. That's damn sure not..

... what I have heard. Where do you get your information?

[MADem]

61. From people I know over there. From a variety of military sources in our and other

governments.

You do realize the Iranians are RATIONING gasoline? They're having trouble making their own government payroll and pensions schemes? The roads are more pothole than macadam in many places?

The infrastructure is falling apart. They aren't RICH, and their oil, because of their crappy equipment and the habit of their mullahs of skimming off the top for the benefit of their own families, isn't allowing them to get ahead at all. Corruption now is worse than it was under Shah...! And they aren't doing as well, getting all that great FMS money and grants like they used to get--they're on their own and they can't balance the checkbook.

Their military, with their shitty fake North Korean rockets, and their fake, plastered over old US shah-era jets that they call "home grown," is about as ready as the "OOOOOOOH, SCARY!!!!" Saddam Army was. Remember how tough they were supposed to be? It wasn't the 'cakewalk' that was the problem--it was the AFTER-CAKEWALK, with the IEDs, that killed so many of our young people.

Same thing would happen in Iran if we tried to pull anything there, which is why we won't.

Read between the lines of this piece, which is planted to suggest that there is more THERE there than there actually is there: http://aawsat.com/english/news.asp?section=3&id=3528

It's not the Army that's the problem, see? Anyone who went into Iran would meet the full force and fury of the civilian population and a home-grown insurgency that would mandate twenty two hour curfews. The fact remains, though, that they'd get their clocks cleaned if they even thought about any adventurism. They'd get the Osirik treatment times a hundred, or a thousand, if they even entertained the notion of causing Israel any trouble.

[HughMoran]

2. Another Freeper running for office

No more Freepers in high office!

[graywarrior]

3. And a new series of wRONg Paul lawn signs popped up overnight in Venice FL

Unfuckingbelievable.

[MonkeyFunk]

4. And Russert just let it slide

he couldn't say "Excuse me? Did you just say Iran has no army, navy or air force?"

[graywarrior]

7. Listening to the two of them is enough to make you stab your ears.

[kansasblue]

5. Saw home made signs in Lawrence KS and

and the local store I saw Paul bumper stickers and info on the counter.

[proud2BlibKansan]

17. They are all over KC

They're everywhere! They're everywhere! And they're crazy! They're crazy!!

Have a great holiday!! :hi:

[justgamma]

6. Ron Paul infomercial is running in Iowa right now.

A half hour ad buy. Oh my.

[MADem]

8. Ron Paul IS a nitwit. But Iran has a conscript Army, and it ain't the Army of the Iran-Iraq War,

either. The elite units are small in number, and the vast bulk of the troops are fucking idiots who are unmotivated and need to be told ten times to do one thing.

They have no weapons, they have no money, they have no PAINT to paint their barracks and military installation facilities. Their bases are crappy, crumbling messes, their hangars are littered with junk that doesn't fly anymore, and hasn't, reliably, since shortly after the Shah took a casket of Persian earth, boarded a plane, and flew the hell out of there. They're paid slave wages and they give about as good as they get--so there ya go.

The Iranians are only capable of being successful in an asymetrical environment. Full out invasion of ANYWHERE is just a non-starter.

They aren't going to invade Israel. The Stopped Clock was right in this instance. As a fighting force, they can't fight their way out of a paper bag.

The only thing they have going for them is that the army to their left and the army to their right (Afghanistan and Iraq) are jokes, too. So for now, they're in good company.

If the Turks decided to go after them, they'd have a war on, but that's unlikely.

[TahitiNut]

9. I'm MORE interested in WHY people express support for Ron Paul than in bashing him.

It seems to me that this is the unreported story. Sure, you can make fun of his claims in support of his opinion that Iran poses little threat to Israel that Israel can't handle, but that digs down THREE levels and ignores the topmost position that Ron Paul has taken in this area: That the U.S. has no fucking business invading and occupying Afgahnistan, Iraq, OR Iran!

People who think "Democrat" is a sexually-transmitted disease (negative, smear campaigns do that, you know) can support Ron Paul to express their opposition to U.S. militarism. That's important.

Furthermore, Ron Paul saw in the Huckabee campaign the slight whiff of fascism ... and has been VERY CLEAR in expressing his disgust with the CORPORATE/GOVERNMENT INCEST that has taken us into a global FASCIST role. Now ... I strongly disagree with the directions Ron Paul would take to address these serious core corruptions in our national body politic, but it's important (imho) that people suppport Ron Paul for saying so!

The most frustrating part of the policital problem is the fragmentation of the opposition to the endemic Cooorporate Fascism that holds this country in its grip - Ike's "Military Industrial Complex" has become FAR MORE than Ike saw. The corruption is about 98% complete in the GOP ... and about 40% complete in the Democratic Party.

Unless more and more people wake up immediately, we've got many years ahead of us to suffer ever greater corruption. (I don't think we serve that wake-up call by bashing messengers WHEN THE MESSAGE is valuable!)

[MonkeyFunk]

10. I don't believe Ron Paul's message is of value

He's a racist right-wing nutcase, and I'll neve feel like I have to tread carefully on a Democratic site when saying so.

[TahitiNut]

16. I should have known better than to invest time in composing a cogent reply.

“Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.” (Matthew 7:6)

[MonkeyFunk]

18. I gave you a cogent reply

Was there anything unclear in what I wrote? I think Ron Paul is a right-wing nutbag.

You apparently don't. That says much more about you than it does about me.

[TahitiNut]

21. "Oink!"

:eyes:

[MonkeyFunk]

23. says the man

who chastises me for not giving a cogent reply :eyes:

[MADem]

12. He gets the pothead vote--that's really the crux of it. NT

[EstimatedProphet]

52. No, he doesn't

He gets the Lyndon LaRouche vote

[MADem]

60. Yes he does. Along with the "John" vote

As I said: http://www.abcnews.go.com/2020/Stossel/story?id=3970423&page=1


And here's the cite, from his own mouth:

In the interview, we discussed prostitution, drug use and gay marriage. Paul says these are not things that the federal government should try to control.

"I think the government's role should not be involved in personal habits. When you defend freedom, you defend freedom of choice, and you can't be picking and choosing how people use those freedoms . . .whether it's personal behavior or economic behavior, I want people to have freedom of choice," Paul asserted.

He believes the constitution says such issues should be left to the states to decide, and if a state chooses to legalize marijuana, cocaine, heroin and/or prostitution, so be it.

[Nickster]

14. I think you have it right. It seem to me least, very similar to Ross Perot and NAFTA. The Republican

s that didn't want to support Pappy and didn't hear what they needed to from the Democratic Party found an outlet in Perot. We poo-pooed Perot as crazy on his warnings about NAFTA and shunned the voters that were up for grabs during that fight. In the same way that our candidates poo-poo the Get Out of Iraq sentiment that's clearly what the majority of people want. Some Republican voters want an end to the craziness that has overtaken their party and all they seem to hear from us is "more of the same". So they hear one candidate that states unequivocally that Iraq is a bad situation, and he just happens to be a Republican, so they gather around him. Right leaning Democrats hear the same message and start to align with him. I don't believe the average voter takes the time to hear anything about his other crazy views, they just hear the one main issue they want addressed and fall in line. I wonder how much wind would be taken out of his sails if any of the other leading candidates stepped forward and said he/she would end our misadventures in the Middle East?

[TahitiNut]

20. I see it similarly. The repeated obfuscation of message v. messenger and attack politics ...

... serves to mask the actual postions and principles of the vast majority of the electorate. The political dialog stoops to the lowest common denominator, where valid criticisms of candidate positions are called "bashing" and empty rhetoric about "electability" and personal attacks about "nutcases" and "woo-woo" run amok under the false guise of 'discussion.' There seems to be less and less intellectual integrity demonstrated all around.

[Nickster]

22. What's that saying, Corruption thrives in chaos? Throw up enough smoke and all the beltway folks get

to keep their own enterprises going.

[EstimatedProphet]

53. No, we called Perot crazy because he was crazy

Remember him dropping out of the race entirely because of a slight comment? That alone should be automatic disqualification for a presidential campaign.

[proud2BlibKansan]

57. But I loved those charts of his

The man could make a great chart. You gotta give him that. LOL

[Nickster]

58. You miss my point. The message he had about NAFTA was right on. He may have been crazy, but he had

a message about losing jobs that resonated with voters. A message that the Democratic party should have been co-opting from him. There was a turning point where we could have taken a lot of dissaffected Republicans and Independents and we missed it and just laughed at Perot because he came off as crazy. He didn't become a billionaire from being all that crazy.

[TahitiNut]

59. It's hard to talk about 'WHAT' when the 'WHO'-birds are screaming.

:shrug:

[proud2BlibKansan]

27. He seems to be attracting the politically naive

So many of them claim they have never worked on a campaign before or never paid much attention to politics and many claim they have never even voted.

Clearly we have much in common with them though, as they profess a similar dissatisfaction with the Bush administration. Nothing would please me more than to win over the Ron Paul supporters when (if?) it becomes clear to them he is not going to be on the ballot next November.

So it pains me to see them criticized.

[scarletwoman]

35. Also well said. Instead of mocking Ron Paul voters, we ought to be considering how we could win

them over with a similar anti-status quo message from the left.

sw

[proud2BlibKansan]

38. It's personal for me

I have a lot of friends in the anti-war movement who are supporting Ron Paul. They are bright and passionate. I hate to lose them over this election, which in the grand scheme of things is really not that important.

[scarletwoman]

45. From my distant window here, my first thought is that this could be a wonderful opportunity to open

up some deep discussions. I think I would personally really enjoy having a real sit-down political conversation with some Ron Paul supporters. I'd like to pick their brains; find out where our respective worldviews converge and where they diverge and why.

I think I'd like the opportunity to measure my leftist perspective against theirs, to compare our respective analyses and solutions to those things upon which we mutually agree need changing.

Who knows, maybe it could be the beginning of raising a Third Force in American politics, outside of the Major Party duopoly. I see a possibly HUGE benefit for grassroots people power if such an alliance could be built.

sw

(edited to make a small grammatical correction)

[proud2BlibKansan]

46. LOL You need to be on a couple of my email listserves

It ain't pretty :)

But yes I agree with you. We need to find common ground with this voting block.

[scarletwoman]

54. Heh. So, your listserves are no better than DU?

:evilgrin:

[proud2BlibKansan]

55. Actually a couple of them are worse

But a certain female candidate is not popular on ANY of my lists. LOL

[scarletwoman]

30. Very well said, TN. Waking up the consciousness of voters to the dangers and corruptions of the MIC

and incipient fascism is a valuable and necessary activity. Instead of bashing Ron Paul, progressives ought to be taking advantage of these issues being raised and offering our OWN directions for dealing with them.

sw

[TahitiNut]

33. (grin) God forbid that we ACTUALLY be issue-oriented, huh?

The feces-flinging monkeys wouldn't know what to do. :rofl:

[scarletwoman]

39. If you haven't signed up for the personality cult of your choice, you are defying the program.

Such defiance WILL be punished! :spank:

[TwilightGardener]

36. You make a good point in that Paul serves as an important outlet

for conservatives who disagree with the neocon plan and the religious takeover of the GOP. I have softened towards him since Huckabee went up in the polls--much more afraid of Hucky now than Paul--Paul is a voice of sanity next to Huckster. I just wish they could have found a less-extreme standard-bearer.

[TahitiNut]

40. DUers speak frequently of Lesser Weevils.

I'd rather have a misguided/mistaken but principled person than a malicious, self-aggrandizing sociopath.

The plague of cynicism that infests our electorate and is rampant on DU precludes any hope whatsoever that a truly ethical and principled liberal (i.e. for ALL, not just the privileged) would be permitted to win. It's not just "their fault" (where 'they' are the media, the corporations, the religious, or the wealthy), it's the vault of every single one of us that destroys the issue-based principled political discourse with feces-flinging, epithet-based rhetoric, and personality cult assassinations.

For my taste, Paul is far too property-centric in his political paradigms and models. It's that "neo-Libertarian" simplistic discourse that talks big about money but perpetuates (and magnifies) inequities in the economic and political system. Nonetheless, it's fascinating to see him arrive at valid (imho) conclusions and attract those who're too intoxicated with the rot of the rhetoric to look further but who still see the wrongness that's rife in our governmental behavior.

[LeftishBrit]

62. Aren't 'misguided but principled' persons often just as dangerous, though?

They often impose very evil things with messianic fervour because they believe in them.

E.g. I am quite sure that Thatcher *really believed* in the drastic right-wing economic shift that she imposed on our country. And while Blair could be an unprincipled 'spinner' in little things, I think that on the big things, such as the Iraq war, he *really strongly believed* in what he was doing. He certainly wasn't increasing his own popularity that way, after all!

I understand that Paul attracts some people just because he's against the war; but I find some of his views terrifying. He basically seems to feel that the American constitution of 1789 is not only *necessary* but *sufficient*; and that insisting that all parts of the USA should be a democracy, by means of the Voting Rights Act, was somehow wrong. Also, as I've stated elsewhere, he has truly evil RW views on economic issues; e.g. he has said that it is a serious error to consider that just because a person needs medical care, (s)he is entitled to have it. To me, anyone (especially a doctor!) who holds such a view is a monster and ultimately a murderer.

I just think all Republican candidates at the moment are so evil that it's frightening.

[scarletwoman]

63. You are confusing "principled" with "Ideologue", they are not the same at all.

Thatcher was an ideologue, she was not "principled" in the least. Neither are most right wingers, neither was Blair.

To be principled requires some degree of personal integrity and sense of honor. Those are qualities clearly absent in ideologues, whose overriding concern is the acquisition and maintenance of the personal and political power required to force reality to bend to their wills. Their sole ethic is that the ends justify the means.

Ron Paul's ideas are definitely a mixed bag; they range from wholly rational and laudable (a non-interventionist foreign policy), to abhorrent (his statements about the Civil Rights Act). But I can see that his ideas come out of a set of internally consistent and coherent principles, and that they are NOT rooted in an egoistic quest for personal power.

sw

[LeftishBrit]

65. Actually, much as I loathe Thatcher...

I think that she did have honour and integrity in her own way. She was absolutely financially honest (though she created a culture which enabled financial corruption, and though her son is a total crook); and though one cannot say that like the George Washington legend she 'never told a lie', I think one can say that she very rarely told a lie in which she herself did not believe.

A closer analogue to Ron Paul might be the maverick and racist politician Enoch Powell, whose anti-immigrant venom and hatred of Europe, etc. may have attracted the tabloids and the mobs, but actually damaged his political career. He clearly believed in what he was saying. And like Paul, he was occasionally accidentally right about certain issues (can't remember which at the moment!, but I know he opposed a few of Thatcher's policies).

Being principled is not on its own a good thing, though being unprincipled is generally a bad thing. People can have evil and dangerous principles and strongly and genuinely believe in them.

[bullwinkle428]

43. I know of several big-money types on other boards I frequent

that are quite enthusiastic about Ron Paul - I really don't think it's his "dedication to uphold the principles of the Constitution" that fires them up; rather, it's the Libertarian message of ultimate degregulation and dismantling of everything put together by FDR that really gets them going. Oh sure, they constantly bring up the idea of "the original intent of the Founding Fathers", but that's nothing more than a nice rationalization.

Some of these same people were extremely pro-Bush in the early days of the Iraq invasion & conquest, so I don't know if they're just looking at Paul as a kind of "eject button"...a way to say NOW that Bush "never really represented the true ideals of conservatism", when these same assnozzles were calling us traitors for daring to declare our disgust for the idea of "pre-emptive war"...

[TahitiNut]

47. EVERY candidate, to some degree or another, is an Ink Blot in our Rorschach political 'process'

It should go without saying that using a Broad Brush to characterize the 'base' for any one of these Ink Blots is merely falling prey to being fixated on our OWN interpretation of the Ink Blot.

I get this image in my mind of one person looking at the ink blot and saying "fascinating" while the other person turns to them and says "You PERVERT!"

There so MUCH in how we ourselves see that candidate that drives our opinion of their supporters that we invest almost no consideration in how their motives actually might be akin to our own.

[lame54]

13. video of iran military

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=527KuLXMUJc

[proud2BlibKansan]

19. There are so many reasons to criticize Ron Paul; this isn't one of them

He is making a good point and staring the neocon fear mongers down.

My congressman says the same thing, BTW, and he is not an idiot.

[MonkeyFunk]

24. So you're saying

that Iran doesn't have an army, a navy or an air force?

[proud2BlibKansan]

25. Iran is not going to attack anyone

Promoting that idea is just fear mongering and giving the neocons exactly what they want.

[MonkeyFunk]

26. That's not the question

the question is does Iran have an army, airforce or navy?

[proud2BlibKansan]

29. It doesn't make any difference what kind of army they have

They are NOT going to attack anyone. Period. That was Ron Paul's point. Sorry you seem so hung up on this to the point that you would feed the fear.

[U4ikLefty]

50. No, MF just wants to win a pissing contest.

[proud2BlibKansan]

56. I guess

:eyes:

[MonkeyFunk]

64. and I said the OP

I didn't think they'd invade anybody.

Piss yourself.

[SOS]

42. Yes Iran has an army

Iran's annual military spending is $4.3 billion.
That's about one quarter of the New York City school budget.

[rAVES]

48. Yea but they are brown and scary, and look a little bit like the dudes that made 9/11

:sarcasm:

interesting thing is, though I'm being sarcastic, this is the basic view that Bush/Cheney use... and the Oil.

[doc03]

31. I agree with Ron Paul on that myself, I don't recall

him saying anything about Iran not having an Army. His point was Iran is not going to invade Israel just because we move our troops out of the area. Israel has 300 plus nukes and if Iran attacked them they would be wiped off the face of the earth the same if we were there or not. Israel is perfectly able to defend itself. I totally agree with him on all his foreign policy platform, why do we need troops in 120 countries? If we didn't spend so much money running all over the world playing policeman we would have money for the things other countries have like health care, good railroads and infrastructure. I don't agree with most of his other ideas though.

[proud2BlibKansan]

32. I am with you

I like what he says about foreign policy. But we pretty much part ways on every other issue. LOL

[scarletwoman]

37. Foreign policy AND the War on the Drugs. I've waited YEARS to hear someone call bullshit on THAT!

:hi:

[proud2BlibKansan]

41. Good point

But will someone please tell Dr Paul that I am going to need my Social Security to buy my drugs!

[scarletwoman]

51. I noticed he back-pedaled quite a bit on the Social Security thing.

He made a clever point, imho, when he said that at least *he* had always voted against raiding the Social Security fund -- "I've actually been saving Social Security."

He also insisted that he wasn't about to try to just radically change everything overnight.

I suspect what's happening is that Ron Paul, being as surprised as anyone else by his surge of support and the popularity of his anti-war, anti-interventionalist rhetoric, is finding himself forced to go deeper in his own thinking on some of his earlier stances. He can't just spout off the usual "liberatarian" catch-phrases anymore, he's thinking about how he would go about making these ideas work in the real world -- just in case he might actually win.

sw

[rAVES]

44. Compared to Israel.. they might as well have troops of monkeys flinging shit around the place

What a stupid fucking question to ask anybody..