Support Politirant Through Amazon
Visit our sister site at the Political Forums

Author Topic: Paul says friendship best way to deal with Iran  (Read 4776 times)

Offline Mister D

  • V.I.P.
  • Imperial Grand Poobah Ranter
  • *
  • Thank Yous
  • -Given: 109
  • -Received: 164
  • Posts: 6114
  • Karma: 359
  • Egalitarianism is simply absurd
Re: Paul says friendship best way to deal with Iran
« Reply #10 on: November 06, 2011, 06:33:24 PM »
The Persians and Medes were distinct peoples as you article says. Anyway, I don't understand what you mean by "real Persians". Iran is predominantly Persian. It always has been for the last 2000 years.

Shia are Muslims. It's not a race or even an ethnicity. That's like saying Italy is populated by Catholics and Italians.
"Pushing people forward simply because of their colour, irrespective of merit, would be most unfortunate and would of course lead to disaster. It would mean that Rhodesia would then develop into a kind of banana republic where the country would in no time be bankrupt."


~Ian Smith

Offline Captain Obvious

  • V.I.P.
  • Grand Poobah Ranter
  • *
  • Thank Yous
  • -Given: 2
  • -Received: 70
  • Posts: 1165
  • Karma: 165
  • My junk is ugly
Re: Paul says friendship best way to deal with Iran
« Reply #11 on: November 06, 2011, 06:46:30 PM »
What an idiotic statement - offer "friendship" to Iran?

The same Iran who openly takes American citizens hostage under the farce of spying?  The same Iran who openly states that Israel has to be "wiped off the map", the same Iran who openly denies the Holocaust, the same Iran who is funneling weapons to insurgents in Iraq...

Are you fucking kidding me?

Friendship?

Get the fuck out of here, we should be dropping daisycutters on them right now.
Write drunk, edit sober - Ernest Hemingway

Offline Mister D

  • V.I.P.
  • Imperial Grand Poobah Ranter
  • *
  • Thank Yous
  • -Given: 109
  • -Received: 164
  • Posts: 6114
  • Karma: 359
  • Egalitarianism is simply absurd
Re: Paul says friendship best way to deal with Iran
« Reply #12 on: November 06, 2011, 07:00:05 PM »
What an idiotic statement - offer "friendship" to Iran?

The same Iran who openly takes American citizens hostage under the farce of spying?  The same Iran who openly states that Israel has to be "wiped off the map", the same Iran who openly denies the Holocaust, the same Iran who is funneling weapons to insurgents in Iraq...

Are you fucking kidding me?

Friendship?

Get the fuck out of here, we should be dropping daisycutters on them right now.

Paul does have tendency to blame all of Iran's actions on US policy. I don't agree with him but, more importantly, it's political death to make such a view a theme of his foreign policy.
"Pushing people forward simply because of their colour, irrespective of merit, would be most unfortunate and would of course lead to disaster. It would mean that Rhodesia would then develop into a kind of banana republic where the country would in no time be bankrupt."


~Ian Smith

Offline chuckster

  • Newbie Ranter
  • *
  • Thank Yous
  • -Given: 0
  • -Received: 1
  • Posts: 8
  • Karma: 1
Re: Paul says friendship best way to deal with Iran
« Reply #13 on: November 06, 2011, 07:44:37 PM »
hell man political policy isnt more important than common sense paul should stfu and we should already have flown sorties over anything close to a nuclear plant in that godforsaken patch of desert

Offline MMC

  • V.I.P.
  • Imperial Grand Poobah Ranter
  • *
  • Thank Yous
  • -Given: 277
  • -Received: 211
  • Posts: 6181
  • Karma: 423
Re: Paul says friendship best way to deal with Iran
« Reply #14 on: November 07, 2011, 09:25:14 AM »
The Persians and Medes were distinct peoples as you article says. Anyway, I don't understand what you mean by "real Persians". Iran is predominantly Persian. It always has been for the last 2000 years.

Shia are Muslims. It's not a race or even an ethnicity. That's like saying Italy is populated by Catholics and Italians.

Well technically you are correct. But the Shia are related to the Ummayyads and Abbasids. The Medes and Persians being over ran in population and thru waves of immigration. Until they were no longer a dominate population. Nor ruling population.

Since 661 AD the Sunni have been committing Genocide on the Shia their own related tribe. Both Arab tribes in going to war in their beginning did not seek Conversion of those they Conquered except with Women. IMO the Shia Arabs assimilated the Medes and the Persians.
"To destroy this invisible government, To dissolve this UNHOLY ALLIANCE between Corrupt Buisness and Corrupt Politics is the First task of the Statesmanship of the DAY" ~Theodore Roosevelt~ Steward of The People!

Offline MMC

  • V.I.P.
  • Imperial Grand Poobah Ranter
  • *
  • Thank Yous
  • -Given: 277
  • -Received: 211
  • Posts: 6181
  • Karma: 423
Re: Paul says friendship best way to deal with Iran
« Reply #15 on: November 07, 2011, 09:37:47 AM »
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab

The first written attestation of the ethnonym "Arab" occurs in an Assyrian inscription of 853 BCE, where Shalmaneser III lists a King Gindibu of mâtu arbâi (Arab land) as among the people he defeated at the Battle of Karkar. Some of the names given in these texts are Aramaic, while others are the first attestations of Ancient North Arabian dialects. In fact several different ethnonyms are found in Assyrian texts that are conventionally translated "Arab": Arabi, Arubu, Aribi and Urbi. Many of the Qedarite queens were also described as queens of the aribi. The Hebrew Bible occasionally refers to Aravi peoples (or variants thereof), translated as "Arab" or "Arabian." The scope of the term at that early stage is unclear, but it seems to have referred to various desert-dwelling Semitic tribes in the Syrian Desert and Arabia.[citation needed]

Medieval Arab genealogists divided Arabs into three groups:

"Ancient Arabs", tribes that had vanished or been destroyed, such as 'Ad and Thamud, often mentioned in the Qur'an as examples of God's power to destroy wicked peoples.
"Pure Arabs" of South Arabia, descending from Qahtan. The Qahtanites (Qahtanis) are said to have migrated from the land of Yemen following the destruction of the Ma'rib Dam (sadd Ma'rib).
The "Arabized Arabs" (musta`ribah) of center and North Arabia, descending from Ishmael, the elder son of Abraham. The Book of Genesis narrates that God promised Hagar to beget from Ishmael twelve princes and turn him to a great nation.(Genesis 17:20) The Book of Jubilees, in the other hand, claims that the sons of Ishmael intermingled with the 6 sons of Keturah, from Abraham, and their descendants were called Arabs and Ishmaelites.

Book of Jubilees 20:13 And Ishmael and his sons, and the sons of Keturah and their sons, went together and dwelt from Paran to the entering in of Babylon in all the land which is towards the East facing the desert. And these mingled with each other, and their name was called Arabs, and Ishmaelites.....snip~


 :)    ;)

"To destroy this invisible government, To dissolve this UNHOLY ALLIANCE between Corrupt Buisness and Corrupt Politics is the First task of the Statesmanship of the DAY" ~Theodore Roosevelt~ Steward of The People!

Offline MMC

  • V.I.P.
  • Imperial Grand Poobah Ranter
  • *
  • Thank Yous
  • -Given: 277
  • -Received: 211
  • Posts: 6181
  • Karma: 423
Re: Paul says friendship best way to deal with Iran
« Reply #16 on: November 07, 2011, 09:50:25 AM »
Technically all the Arabs under proto would be labeled Nabataeans.....they migrated into the lands that were once held by the Edomites. Yep looking it up under Wikipedia says the same thing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab

Classical kingdoms:
Main articles: Palmyra and Nabateans.

Proto-Arabic, or Ancient North Arabian, texts give a clearer picture of the Arabs' emergence. The earliest are written in variants of epigraphic south Arabian musnad script, including the 8th century BCE Hasaean inscriptions of eastern Saudi Arabia, the 6th century BCE Lihyanite texts of southeastern Saudi Arabia and the Thamudic texts found throughout Arabia and the Sinai (not in reality connected with Thamud).

The Nabataeans were nomadic newcomers[70][dubious – discuss] who moved into territory vacated by the Edomites – Semites who settled the region centuries before them. Their early inscriptions were in Aramaic, but gradually switched to Arabic, and since they had writing, it was they who made the first inscriptions in Arabic. The Nabataean Alphabet was adopted by Arabs to the south, and evolved into modern Arabic script around the 4th century. This is attested by Safaitic inscriptions (beginning in the 1st century BCE) and the many Arabic personal names in Nabataean inscriptions. From about the 2nd century BCE, a few inscriptions from Qaryat al-Faw (near Sulayyil) reveal a dialect which is no longer considered "proto-Arabic", but pre-classical Arabic. Five Syriac inscriptions mentioning Arabs have been found at Sumatar Harabesi, one of which has been dated to the 2nd century CE.


Late kingdomsFurther information: Lakhmids, Ghassanids, and Kindites
The Ghassanids, Lakhmids and Kindites were the last major migration of non-Muslims out of Yemen to the north.

The Ghassanids revived the Semitic presence in the then Hellenized Syria. They mainly settled in the Hauran region and spread to modern Lebanon, Palestine and East Jordan. The Ghassanids held Syria until the expansion of Islam.
Greeks and Romans referred to all the nomadic population of the desert in the Near East as Arabi. The Romans called Yemen "Arabia Felix".[71] The Romans called the vassal nomadic states within the Roman Empire "Arabia Petraea" after the city of Petra, and called unconquered deserts bordering the empire to the south and east Arabia Magna.

The Lakhmids as a dynasty inherited their power from the Tanukhids, the mid Tigris region around their capital Al-Hira they ended up allying with the Sassanid against the Ghassanids and the Byzantine Empire. The Lakhmids contested control of the Central Arabian tribes with the Kindites with the Lakhmids eventually destroying Kinda in 540 after the fall of their main ally Himyar. The Sassanids dissolved the Lakhmid dynasty in 602, being under puppet kings, then under thir direct control.[72]
The Kindites migrated from Yemen along with the Ghassanids and Lakhmids, but were turned back in Bahrain by the Abdul Qais Rabi'a tribe. They returned to Yemen and allied themselves with the Himyarites who installed them as a vassal kingdom that ruled Central Arbia from "Qaryah Dhat Kahl" (the present-day called Qaryat al-Faw) in Central Arabia. They ruled much of the Northern/Central Arabian peninsula, till they were destroyed by the Lakhmid king Al-Mundhir, and his son 'Amr.

Now do you see why I make the distinction between Perisans and Iranians. Also as Cyrus the Great.....had no desire to see the Brews Wiped out of Existence! Nor any other Tribes. As he had learned what was lost would be forever!    ;)     :)
"To destroy this invisible government, To dissolve this UNHOLY ALLIANCE between Corrupt Buisness and Corrupt Politics is the First task of the Statesmanship of the DAY" ~Theodore Roosevelt~ Steward of The People!

Offline GRUMPY

  • V.I.P.
  • Senior Ranter
  • *
  • Thank Yous
  • -Given: 0
  • -Received: 17
  • Posts: 387
  • Karma: 51
Re: Paul says friendship best way to deal with Iran
« Reply #17 on: November 07, 2011, 10:27:14 AM »
WASHINGTON (AP) — GOP presidential hopeful Ron Paul says "offering friendship" to Iran, not sanctions, would be a more fruitful to achieving peace with Tehran.

The Texas congressman says fears about Iran's nuclear program have been "blown out of proportion." He says tough penalties are a mistake because, as he says was the case in Iraq, they only hurt the local population and still paved a path to war.

When asked on "Fox News Sunday" what he would do to deter Iran's alleged nuclear ambitions, Paul said "maybe offering friendship to them."

Paul's remarks put him at odds with both the Bush and Obama administrations; U.S. policy has relied heavily on sanctions and diplomacy to try to convince Tehran to abandon its atomic program. Iran says its nuclear program is peaceful.
http://news.yahoo.com/paul-says-friendship-best-way-deal-iran-165913503.html


again as usual Ron Paul is correct.. but we need to expand this sentiment to all nations of the world and remove all abases and military from every country in the world.. We have proven that peace through the barrell of  a gun doesn't really work so instead of spending a half a trillion a year policing the world, lets try using that money to rebuild a crmbling America.


Generally I agree with Ron Paul's ideas about foreign policy.

Iran is a unique situation in that we have been escalating with them for years now and they are very close to some kind of nuclear capability. We aren't starting from a zero point with them. Trying to change our policy towards them now would be like running up to someone, punching them in the face and then asking if we can let bygones be bygones.

I definitely agree with Paul about not needing to police the world and have so many overseas bases especially now that our emphasis is on a rapid response military. It should not be necessary to occupy giant countries like Iraq in the future just as it was not necessary over the past forty years.

conley i picked here to jump in but could have a couple earlier, ron paul while pretty spot on with regard to fiscal policy is a foreign policy nightmare, delusional and factually misleading.....other than the israelis it is a region of nuts and quite frankly given israelis willingness to appease one might question their connection to reality as well.....these clowns, iran, iraq, saudi arabia whoever, they are not our friends, period end of story.....here is a plan produce our own energy making us independent of this region, support the israelis and by this i mean tell do what you want/need to do, secure our borders and let that mad house that we generally call the middle east go to hell.....care not about being liked focus on being feared.....for a second bush was as evidenced by the about face of libya, but then his small imprint strategy was seen for what it was....soft.....as for iran military action is what is required and it must be complete......

Offline Conley

  • V.I.P.
  • Imperial Grand Poobah Ranter
  • *
  • Thank Yous
  • -Given: 288
  • -Received: 190
  • Posts: 7726
  • Karma: 398
  • Are You Not Entertained?!?
Re: Paul says friendship best way to deal with Iran
« Reply #18 on: November 07, 2011, 10:34:19 AM »
WASHINGTON (AP) — GOP presidential hopeful Ron Paul says "offering friendship" to Iran, not sanctions, would be a more fruitful to achieving peace with Tehran.

The Texas congressman says fears about Iran's nuclear program have been "blown out of proportion." He says tough penalties are a mistake because, as he says was the case in Iraq, they only hurt the local population and still paved a path to war.

When asked on "Fox News Sunday" what he would do to deter Iran's alleged nuclear ambitions, Paul said "maybe offering friendship to them."

Paul's remarks put him at odds with both the Bush and Obama administrations; U.S. policy has relied heavily on sanctions and diplomacy to try to convince Tehran to abandon its atomic program. Iran says its nuclear program is peaceful.
http://news.yahoo.com/paul-says-friendship-best-way-deal-iran-165913503.html


again as usual Ron Paul is correct.. but we need to expand this sentiment to all nations of the world and remove all abases and military from every country in the world.. We have proven that peace through the barrell of  a gun doesn't really work so instead of spending a half a trillion a year policing the world, lets try using that money to rebuild a crmbling America.


Generally I agree with Ron Paul's ideas about foreign policy.

Iran is a unique situation in that we have been escalating with them for years now and they are very close to some kind of nuclear capability. We aren't starting from a zero point with them. Trying to change our policy towards them now would be like running up to someone, punching them in the face and then asking if we can let bygones be bygones.

I definitely agree with Paul about not needing to police the world and have so many overseas bases especially now that our emphasis is on a rapid response military. It should not be necessary to occupy giant countries like Iraq in the future just as it was not necessary over the past forty years.

conley i picked here to jump in but could have a couple earlier, ron paul while pretty spot on with regard to fiscal policy is a foreign policy nightmare, delusional and factually misleading.....other than the israelis it is a region of nuts and quite frankly given israelis willingness to appease one might question their connection to reality as well.....these clowns, iran, iraq, saudi arabia whoever, they are not our friends, period end of story.....here is a plan produce our own energy making us independent of this region, support the israelis and by this i mean tell do what you want/need to do, secure our borders and let that mad house that we generally call the middle east go to hell.....care not about being liked focus on being feared.....for a second bush was as evidenced by the about face of libya, but then his small imprint strategy was seen for what it was....soft.....as for iran military action is what is required and it must be complete......


Grumpy, here is what I have stated in this thread

http://politirant.com/the-latest-happenings/israel-test-fires-missile-that-could-hit-iran/msg20955/#msg20955

Iran is a problem that will not go away on its own. There is no way that we can use friendship to deter what will happen. Our choices are either deal with the problem now, before Iran has nuclear capabilities, or wait until they do. I prefer the former for obvious reasons. I believe we should give the Israelis the green light to go ahead with their bombing runs.

Now, the rest of your post is very similar to what Ron Paul is saying. Leave the Middle East to its own end and secure our own borders. RP agrees that it is the responsibility of the federal government to secure our borders and that should be step one in homeland security, not the sieve it is now.

We should invest heavily in alternative energy research along with private industry and during the transition period rely on oil from U.S., Canada and other allies. No more giving money to shady governments for their oil, which then gets passed on to terrorists.
Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. -Eisenhower

Offline LoVE

  • V.I.P.
  • Senior Ranter
  • *
  • Thank Yous
  • -Given: 127
  • -Received: 79
  • Posts: 556
  • Karma: 140
Re: Paul says friendship best way to deal with Iran
« Reply #19 on: November 07, 2011, 12:16:56 PM »
excellent summation Conley, in a real sense Paul is correct
you mad bro?

 


Support Politirant Through Amazon