Ron Paul & Supporters Awfully Silent on Hormuz

Discussion in 'Politics & Religion' started by Petsamo, Dec 30, 2011.

  1. I can't believe no one is discussing Ron Paul's position on Iran's threat to close the Straits of Hormuz. 40% of the world's oil flows through there. Is it because Ron Paul's supporters don't wanna be embarrassed?

    Ron Paul would probably wanna remove UN sanctions on Iran and let them develop or purchase nuclear weapons. That would prevent Iran from wanting to block the Straits of Hormuz?

    If Obama allowed the Keystone pipeline to be built and didn't interfere with oil drilling and exploration, we wouldn't be so dependent on Middle East oil.
  2. Big blustery neocons and leftists would roll in and bomb the shit of them though, right?
    Keep heaving that chest buddy - we can't afford another war...
    If your elected officials don't have the stones to declare war, up and down, then there shouldn't be a war...
    Anything else SCARE you wimps?
  3. Crispy


    Last I checked those straights were not a territory of the USA.

    Price of CL says Iran is the boy who cried wolf anyways. All sell off since he opened his mouth.
  4. Mvector


    Why is this hard to understand? Iran blocks the strait and violates international known waters then President goes to congress and can ask for declaration of war - debate takes place and congress makes their decision - in meantime, US ships can always defend themselves in international or US waters.

    Americans have gone braindead in how easy our system already handles conflict through the US Constitution - problem is, it has not been followed in decades.
  5. 377OHMS


    Sick of your diatribe. On Ignore.

    You and Tradingjournals are simply to dumb to live. I imagine someone has to tie your shoes in the morning and pin a note to your shirt with your name and address on it. Definite short-bus riders. Phhht!
  6. 377OHMS


    On Hormuz I think Ron Paul would assert that we should never have gotten into this position in the first place. He might point out that Iran has never attacked anyone and that Islam is a religion of peace. He might further say that Iran has the same right to nuclear weapons as any country in the world.

    Since Ron Paul would not place sanctions on Iran there would be no immediate conflict at the straights of Hormuz. He would not address the current situation because...he can't. It doesn't fit into his horribly naive model of international behaviour.
  7. Mvector


    Ron Paul would do the right thing - pull away from our dependent relationship with UN. The US can have interaction with UN but not at the cost of UN policies superseding US Constitutional law!

    The UN does terrible things in the world - to hell with the UN and their Agenda 21 plans!

    US can have direct diplomacy with UN or other countries directly as long as US Constitutional law is followed - it will be a great day on Earth if that ever happens - US calling their own shots through honorable actions lead by a principled President following the Constitution. That would get some respect in the world theater!
  8. Mvector


    He would command amazing respect around the world for acting in a principled and honorable manner - ALL nations knowing we have plenty of nukes to "light it up" if anyone ever messes with us. Do you fight best at the bar when confronted or in your front doorway when someone tries to break in? ;-)

    I find it interesting how very few seem to understand the psychology of conflict - the most respected is those who defend themselves from an aggressor after using the "minimum" force necessary to resolve a situation. World geopolitical respect and support comes from restraint - NOT aggression.

  9. . . :) . .
  10. Mvector


    #10     Dec 30, 2011