Ron Paul vs Condoleezza Rice
tags:
Stumble ThisRon Paul questions Condi without much luck, no straight answers here.
X Greetings! You are not currently logged in, but please don't let that stop you from voting up any videos you like. :)
|
| |||||||||||||||
Condi,Dodge,Iran,Israel,War,Congress,Paul Ron Paul vs Condoleezza Rice
Comments  playlists with this video Bombing Iran: The Real Cut and Run by marinara
who voted for this video Constitutional_Patriot
- siftbot
x25Ron Paul Vs Condoleezza Rice Related Videos
| Watch this Video NextFriends O' the Sift Top New Videos by Vote  Subscribe Top 15 Sifters of All Time Top 15 Sifters of the Past Week 15. Seric
(121 votes) Newest Appreciated Comments         | ||||||||||||||
1) Not all "terrorists" are alike, obviously. Condi needs to get it straight that Hezbollah is not Al Qaeda. They are very different organizations with somewhat opposed goals. They shouldn't be lumped together. As Paul points out, it is highly unlikely that Iran would be helping Sunni terrorists, and Condi's answer is just some more of the vague hand waving he was complaining about.
2) Iran Nuclear Program: Iran is currently approaching a major energy crisis. Lack of maintenance and support for their oil refinement infrastructure, combined with increased energy demand, has been having serious effects on their economy. It's projected that within a decade, Iran will not be exporting any oil at all. To help combat the crisis, Iran is now requiring all of its automobile manufacturers to make hybrid cars only. It is only reasonable that they move to nuclear energy. That's not to say that they might not also work on nuclear bombs on the hush-hush as well; it's in their interests. But as things stand, they can't afford /not/ to build nuclear reactors at this time.
3) The supposed unilaterality of the opposition to Iran is not as simple as it seems. To be sure, the craziness of Ahmadinejad does tend to make non-Iranians worry, but the real worry isn't that Iran will bomb anyone. Rather, the power afforded by nuclear weapons would make Iran a far more influential country, with far more say as to how the Western countries interfere in the Middle East. To be sure, there is some truth to Condi's assertion that it's a national security matter; a rise in Iranian power could threaten our petroleum supply. In response, one must answer with the cliche, nonetheless true, that we need to reduce our dependence on petroleum period. A more far-sighted foreign policy would allow Iran to do as it wills in the region--decreasing Middle Eastern animus toward the West and especially America--and simultaneously move toward alternative energy sources in serious way. The Bush administration's lack of concern with alternative energy is well established by now.