Ron Paul's Armaggedon

Wise words from my nephew, Daniel Vallencourt, about Ron Paul's disastrous foreign policies.

The Case Against Ron Paul

What President Paul would do:

* Remove all U.S. military presence from around the world

* Allow Iran to have nuclear weapons

* Cut all assistance to Israel

* Repeal the Patriot Act

The World After a Ron Paul Presidency (a scenario):

Iran provides Al Qaeda with 2 small nuclear war heads. Because there is no Patriot Act, the U.S. has no way of intercepting the communications between terrorists. One bomb makes it into New York and the other makes it into Tel Aviv. One day in the midst of America’s economic recovery due to President Paul’s great economic philosophy both nuclear bombs simultaneously explode. Three million people in America and 1 million Jews in Israel are instantaneously vaporized. Shortly after Israeli and U.S. I.C.B.M.’s turn Iran into a glass parking lot creating 25 million martyrs. (That’s 25 million dead Iranians) The world becomes more unstable than any other time in history. The U.S. and global economy is destroyed and World War 3 begins. Russia and China firm up their alliance and prepare to take back the “Superpower” mantle. Life as we know it will end.

Think this can’t happen?? Let’s look at history. Neville Chamberlain signed the Munich Agreement with Adolf Hitler. He chose not to take Hitler’s words seriously. He thought that if we just talk we can appease Hitler and avoid conflict. Hitler’s goals were pretty clear. He wanted the supreme race to rule the Earth and wanted the eradication of Jews. Chamberlain chose to bury his head in the sand and one year after signing the Munich Agreement Hitler invaded Poland sparking World War 2. In the following 6 years over six million Jews were killed and millions more were killed trying to stop the Axis powers.

Iran’s theocratic rulers and presidential spokesman Mahmoud Ahmadinejab have proclaimed that Israel must be “Wiped off the Map.” They deny that the Hitler’s Holocaust even happened. They are also strong believers in Martyrdom. They believe that killing Jews ensures their ticket to heaven. So you have a country seeking nuclear weapons that has stated it wants to kill all Jews and doesn’t mind being killed in return.

Ron Paul is the 21st century Neville Chamberlain. It is easy and convenient to stick your head in the sand and choose not to deal with these very tough problems. Wars are horrible things. But Iran must not be allowed a nuclear bomb no matter the cost. This isn’t the Cold War. The Soviet Union didn’t want to be nuked. Iran doesn’t mind being nuked if that is the price of destroying Israel. The rulers in Iran are irrational crazy people and must be taken seriously.

Yes I like Ron Paul’s domestic policy and I agree we need massive real cuts to the budget. But America must prioritize its resources in order to ensure global security and stability. America doesn’t have a healthy economy if rogue nukes are being detonated. Ron Paul is a danger to America and the World!


Leave a comment
  • fb_avatar

    Pure propaganda. Provide proof that Iran doesn't want to be nuked. How about we stop spreading fear and actually listen to military advisers. Here is one of them:

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to Paul Michael:

    You're asking Dennis Byrne to listen to something else, besides the voices in his head? Though you are right, I wouldn't expect him to listen to the perspective of someone who actual has experience in foreign policy.

  • fb_avatar

    Agreed, propaganda at its best. Really am not surprised this is coming from, but would at least like to hear both points to the argument. The thought of Iran even plotting an attack on America would be a deathwish on their part. Its funny to me how people honestly think that if we just keep pushing our military all over the world its going to make us safer. It just like you said, Mr. Bryne, Iran gives Al Qaeda a warhead, but under a Paul presidency we have all of our troops here at home guarding our BORDERS so that this type of catastrophe would not happen. Its amazing to think that people would honestly think Iran is dumb enough to try something like this. They know it would be the end of the world as we know it. I don't think they want that anymore than we do.

  • fb_avatar

    I agree: pure propaganda. I am a former U.S. Marine and I support Ron Paul. And so do all the veterans (3) in my family.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to Thomas Paul:

    I love how these so-called "journalists" sit behind their keyboards, thinking they know something about foreign policy. They rarely leave their own little world, and experience the real world, like soldiers do. Forgive this author for his lack of knowledge of how the world works. Kudos to you for your service, and your support of another patriot!

  • That list is exactly EXACTLY why we need Ron Paul as president. Thank you for posting such a wonderful list about Paul which will encourage the American people to vote for him.

    What President Paul would do:

    * Remove all U.S. military presence from around the world - Financially this will be a huge improvement for America with a visible debt of nearly 20 trillion dollars and our national credit rating reduced for the first time ever, we cant afford to be the global policeman. Or rather we cant afford to be an empire building bully. I would LOVE to see the companies that make money on perpetual warfare and killing go broke.

    * Allow Iran to have nuclear weapons - Russia had 30k missiles they had the army and the power to truly make a go at beating us. We negotiated with them, they collapsed due to financial problems just like we are about to do. Iran is no where near a threat as Russia was. Plus Israel doesn't want us involved and starting a war. They can handle it if they need to.

    * Cut all assistance to Israel - He would cut all foreign aid period. That is exactly what you do when you are nearly 20 trillion in debt and borrowing money from China and China has a 3 trillion dollar surplus. No money to Israel no money to her enemies. We pay off our debts and live in our means. pretty simple.

    * Repeal the Patriot Act - The patriot act is likened to the homeland security laws initiated by Nazi Germany to reduce civil liberties as Nazi Germany launched pre-emptive wars of aggression across Europe in the name of homeland security. We don't need our liberties reduced we need our war mongering reduced and their by reducing blowback and ending the war on terror/blowback.

    Thanks so much for clarifying why Dr. Paul is the right man to restore this country.

  • In reply to shawn4films:

    Furthermore I am Jewish and love the Jewish people and have been to Israel on 2 separate occasions. Ron Paul is the safest choice for Israel.

  • fb_avatar

    Michael Scheuer, the CIA’s former agent charged with tracking Osama bin Laden, endorsed Ron Paul in a Sunday column he published on his website.
    In the piece, Scheuer said: “Electing anyone but Ron Paul will further increase the already strong chances of widespread Islamist-conducted violence inside the United States.”
    “Michael Scheuer understands that only Dr. Paul will put our national security first and stop the foreign wars and nation building,” said Jesse Benton, national campaign chairman. “Our campaign is very proud to have his support.”
    Scheuer spent 22 years as a CIA intelligence officer, and is now a blogger and political analyst who serves as an adjunct professor at Georgetown University’s Center for Peace and Security Studies.
    He served as chief of the Osama bin Laden tracking unit at the Counterterrorist Center from 1996 to 1999. He also worked as a special adviser to the chief of the bin Laden unit from September 2001 to November 2004.

  • fb_avatar

    Former CIA Officer Robert Steele Slams Rick Santorum and shows support for Ron Paul.

    Steele goes on to say Rick Santorum is unethical, is making a fool of himself and that Rick Santorum doesn’t know anything about National Security, among other slams against Senator Santorum.

    Robert Steele says Ron Paul is the only Republican who is serious about National Security and Homeland Defense.

  • fb_avatar

    Despite numerous Republican candidates attacking Ron Paul over his “dangerous” foreign policy, Lt. Col. Tony Shaffer praised Paul for being the “most accurate” out of all the GOP contenders when it came to his perspective on Iran.

    “I think Ron Paul’s perspective or policy on Iran is probably the most accurate of the current GOP candidates,” said Shaffer during an appearance on Fox News, adding that Iran probably already has a nuclear weapon.

    As Shaffer points out in the clip, Iran would be committing suicide if it decided to create any kind of pretext for a US/Israeli attack by targeting US military assets in the region. The Iranian economy would almost certainly collapse and Iran would be completely outnumbered and outgunned.

    Indeed, as this illustration highlights, Iran is completely surrounded by US military bases. The characterization of Iran as an immediate and deadly threat to the security interests of the United States is nothing less than fearmongering propaganda that has been used by numerous GOP candidates to pose as tough leaders. It is their foreign policy of pre-emptive war that represents the greatest ‘danger’ to US security interests.

    While the likes of Rick Santorum and John Huntsman have openly declared they wouldn’t hesitate to bomb Iran, Ron Paul has consistently pointed out that pre-emptive wars against countries that pose no threat to the United States have bankrupted the country.

    Paul was attacked yet again following the Iowa caucuses by Newt Gingrich, who in the midst of an angry rant said Paul’s foreign policy was “stunningly dangerous” to the U.S. Paul responded by pointing out that Gingrich is a chickenhawk.

    “You know, when Newt Gingrich was called to service in the 1960s during the Vietnam era, guess what he thought about danger? He chickened out on that, he got deferments and didn’t even go,” said Paul.

    A d v e r t i s e m e n t

    The true popularity of Paul’s foreign policy can be judged by the amount of money he receives from the U.S. military.

    Ron Paul has has received more money in donations from active duty military personnel than all of the other Republican candidates combined and more than Barack Obama himself.

    “Paul’s military-connected contributions for the three months more than double such contributions to all the other Republican presidential candidates—and they also exceed Obama’s,” confirms Politifact.

    In the three months from April through June, Paul received “more than $25,000 from individuals who listed their employer as a branch of the military” (the campaign itself puts the figure closer to $35,000).

    So if Paul’s views on how the U.S. military should be used throughout the world are so “dangerous,” as Gingrich and others have charged, why are his foreign policy positions backed by the very people tasked with fulfilling that role?

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to Tim Cavanaugh:

    Not to mention Michael Scheuer (head of CIA's Osama Bin Laden task force), former CIA agent Chalmers Johnson, foreign policy expert Christopher Trimble, etc. But I'm sure this author knows more about foreign affairs than all them....

  • fb_avatar

    Tell your neo-con shill nephew to move to Israel if he's intent on defending them. As far as wasting our money and American lives to defend a nation who itself has over 200 nukes, in violation of the same Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, no thanks. We're $16 trillion in debt, we can't afford another war.

  • fb_avatar

    Your nephew is a fear mongering idiot.... (as you yourself are for sharing this.)
    Why you think the "Patriot Act" is necessary to gather intelligence is beyond me, but you are wrong. We have had intelligence on a great number of things, and refused to act on it because the "ripple" was needed to open the path for war.
    Quit with the propaganda already, find a more honorable way to turn a buck at least.

    Ron Paul for POTUS 2012 !!!

  • fb_avatar

    "Because there is no Patriot Act, the U.S. has no way of intercepting the communications between terrorists."

    Oh Really? Before the Patriot Act, our government never intercepted communications of terrorists? Considering the 2nd sentence of your hypothetical scenario is inaccurate, it's fair to assume the rest follows suit.

  • fb_avatar

    Its impressive how in one column someone can demonstrate how little they know on every subject they mention. From AQ relations with Iran (one being a Sunni terrorist group thats waning the other being a Shiite government like the one we just made in Iraq albeit a theocratic one)
    To demonstrating a misunderstanding of how nuclear weapons work and how difficult it would be to carry them to and through our borders let alone getting them near Israels.
    AQ had a hard enough time accomplishing attacks within the US prior to 9/11 and the still do today and no its not because of the PATRIOT act. Which now that I mention it the claim that we wouldn't be able to intercept communications demonstrates a lack of understanding of what the PATRIOT act actually does and ignores that FISA laws we had before we ever had the PATRIOT act would still be in existence and that even with the PATRIOT act in place would be what authorized the intercepted communications. Theres so much more to hit on how badly this article is written but the main one I'll hit is the Neville Chamberlain argument thrown around by people who don't really know much about Chamberlain and just use it because they think its a political code word for "wuss" without having any idea about the actual Munich agreement or what Chamberlain had done. Chamberlain had hoped for the best because the Brits didn't want to go to war and the only coalition he would have had would have been the ill prepared French which if you remember fell to the Nazis. The UK was not prepared for another war and it was Chamberlain who went back after the the agreement and prepared the defenses that actually kept the UK from falling to the Nazis as well. I guess the fact that Wikipedia is protesting SOPA made it harder for you to do your "research" for the article but I'm pretty sure you still would have gone with the misinformation you assume is how things work.

  • your analogy is backwards, the US would be Germany and the Jews are the Muslims

  • This nuke scenario is ridiculous. Replace Iran with Pakistan and Ron Paul with Romney. They are equally likely "nuclear apocalypse" scenarios, in fact I'd say moreso with Romney as he has advocated "annihilating the Taliban" in the most recent debate. Everyone knows there are intricate connections between the Taliban and ISI. Not to mention we are still funding Pakistan with overwhelming supplies of foreign aid, even though they HARBORED OSAMA BIN LADEN. We can't live in perpetual fear of being nuked by the crazies, especially not the ones our own government has previously sponsored. Why would Iran want to nuke us if we stopped blockading all of their goods? We can win with our ideas and our goods and services. We're right because we're freer and we know it. The Islamists will fall just like the Communists, unless we succumb to these Fascistic insecure ramblings

  • Plus Pakistan ALREADY HAS NUKES

  • "Iran doesn't mind being nuked if that is the price of destroying Israel."

    This is absurd. If I were to classify this in terms of nuclear armaments I would say you have succeeded in "weaponizing" absurdity. How exactly did you arrive at this conclusion?

    I'm asking because you definitely did not use any rational, real-world basis for it. I know because no such evidence exists.

    Let's do an easy test. If these Iranians are so eager to martyr themselves and go to Paradise, then why don't they just race westward and throw themselves at Israel? I mean there are 74 million of them. Only about 8 million living in Israel.

    Insane idea? I agree.

    Here's a sobering fact, last I checked, not one Iranian soul has even tried to blow himself up in any part of Israel. These martyrdom-embracing, eager-for-death-and-Paradise Iranians sure seem to be neglecting their primary goal in life.

    If you have a nation willing to sacrifice itself so completely, why wait for nuclear weapons? The Japanese were pretty suicidal in World War 2. They showed it over and over. They got nuked twice and they surrendered.

    Stop talking to people like they're mindless children. Stop acting like the Earth needs us to show it how to keep spinning. It's a mindset so wrong it's embarrassing.

    By the way, there are some intelligence sources that say Iran already has nuclear devices. You may want to look for a new boogeyman to blame on Ron Paul.

  • fb_avatar

    Beautiful analysis. This is a regime that wants to bring an end to humanity and we must NOT ignore these threats.

  • This is absurd because it assumes that Iran wants to use nuclear weapons. There is no evidence of this. The standard argument is "they're irrational, they hate us because we're free and christian."

    No, you're irrational; you listen to propaganda without question.

    How does it benefit Iran to get blown to kingdom come? How does it benefit their rulers to not have any country to rule anymore? How is it that all this idiocy is based on a mistranslation of a statement made about regime change in Israel, and yet so many believe it even as Israel says "Who cares if they get nuclear weapons? We can take care of ourselves." Why do so many ignore the CIA when it says that Iran isn't even close to getting nuclear weapons, that there's no evidence that they're enriching Uranium up to the required threshold?

    The whole argument is based on shaky conjecture at best -- that Iran is close to having nukes, that they would use them (the biggest absurdity) and that Israel would then allow them to get away with using them.

    Further, I don't know how removing sanctions and strengthening economic partnership in any way encourages Iran to or eases their way toward obtaining nuclear weapons. Nor do I understand how any sovereign nation can "allow" any other sovereign to do anything without making war on them.

    Finally, it baffles me that it somehow doesn't occur to you that the aid we send to Israel's enemies is collectively numerous times what we give to Israel and that therefore Paul's plan would strengthen our ally's position even as it restores them more of their independent self-direction.

Leave a comment

  • Advertisement:
  • Advertisement:
  • ChicagoNow is full of win

    Welcome to ChicagoNow.

    Meet our bloggers,
    post comments, or
    pitch your blog idea.

  • Visit my new website

    I'm a freelance writer, editor and author. I can help you with a wide variety of projects. Check out my new website at

  • Subscribe to The Barbershop

    Enter your email address:

    Delivered by FeedBurner

  • Dennis Byrne’s Facebook Fan Page

  • Like me on Facebook

  • Our National Debt

  • Twitter

  • Tags

  • Recent Comments

  • /Users/dennisby/Desktop/trailer.mp4
  • Advertisement: