Ron Paul thinks "friendship" will solve Iran crisis

Pseudo-conservative demagogue Ron Paul is floating around in fantasyland again, going soft on Iran:

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.

Some of those locals he mentions, unfortunately, are as anti-Israel as Ahmedinejad himself and even supported the Occupy Wall Street insanity. But let us be clear: these sanctions usually involve barring weapons and such from being shipped there, not food and drink, which Paul hasn't considered. His use of "maybe" shows he hasn't a clue how else to deal with Iran, and he's obviously making these statements because he's worried about the news that Israel may attack Iran's nuclear installations.

Since I've mentioned the Occupy subject, I think it would be best to bring up a related subject involving Ron Paul. First, let's take a look at what he says here when he stupidly slammed the mission to obliterate al-Awlaki. He said:

Speaking to an audience at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C., the Republican presidential candidate roundly blasted Obama for approving last week's predator drone strike that killed al-Awlaki, the al Qaeda figure linked to two unsuccessful attacks on U.S.-bound airplanes.

Paul noted that another American, editor of online al Qaeda magazine "Inspire," Samir Kahn, was killed in the attack. Paul questioned whether the government has the right to kill journalists, as well as terrorists.

"Can you imagine being put on a [hit] list because you're a threat?" Paul told a crowd of sixty journalists and their guests. "What's going to happen if they come to the media? What if the media becomes a threat."

Paul, of course, refused to recognize that Khan, by joining the al Qaeda and editing their obscene propaganda, was just as abominable a creature as al-Awlaki and it was on those grounds that Khan was terminated. It's got nothing to do with his being a journalist.

Now, here's the part that needs sharp attention:

Paul took the opportunity in the same press dinner, however, to also express sympathy for the ragtags of the left, the budding Occupy Wall Street protest movement.

Paul said that he shared the frustration of the protesters currently occupying the Wall Street section of New York City, and said he felt the demonstrations are rooted in a host of economic woes brought on by fiscal irresponsibility and globalization.

"I think civil disobedience, if everyone knows what they're doing, is a legitimate effort," Paul said, according to CBS News. "It's been done in this country for many grievances... The solution is to get a healthy economy back."

Just how exactly are they supposed to do that when the whole real purpose of the Occupy movement has since proven itself to be more about socialism, racism, rape and anarchy? Why, their repulsive methods have just damaged business for a resturant (H/T: Betsy's Page). As this article tells, quite a few of the Paulbots have attended these OWS gatherings, and here's news of another supporter who was arrested for arson. Those concerned about the damage the OWS movement is causing would be strongly advised to pay careful attention.

Ron Paul's foreign policy outlook on regimes like Iran is bad, but then if he's going to support a movement as horrific as OWS, so is his domestic policy outlook.