Peter Schiff shocks supporters with support for strike on Iran
December 15th, 2009 | Author: Shaun Booth
In this clip Schiff, rather than taking the hardline position against intervening in foreign affairs, takes the position that he would have intervened in Afghanistan and Iraq. The reasons that he gives are troubling to his non-interventionist followers.
He says that if their was proof of WMDs in Iraq he would have approved of the invasion. Like so many others in Congress, unless Schiff was willing to do his homework on foreign policy, he may very well have followed his potential colleagues in the vote to invade.
The bottom line is that Schiff needs to take a principled stand on foreign policy issues, and not just economic issues if he expects the already great sums of money ($1 million plus) to continue to flow into his warchest from his legion of followers nationwide.
The most disturbing portion of the clip has Schiff declaring that if Iran was proven to have a nuclear weapon that he would like to, “blow the place up!” if our inspectors are not allowed in to inspect their nuclear sites. This seems to align with many of the establishment GOP that Schiff wants to dethrone.
I don’t think Schiff has thought these positions through as far as he should, once he does I truly hope he re-articulates his positions and reclaims his Constitutional base.
132 Responses to “Peter Schiff shocks supporters with support for strike on Iran”
Leave a Reply
- It’s not your father’s NASA anymore
- Deflation Cometh
- The Patsy Generation: How The Government Sticks It To The Young
- Arizona Immigration Law [Cartoon]
- Meet Jan Brewer, a bright new face in the GOP crowd
- Some Answers For Progressive Conservatives
- Five Reasons Home Prices May Slump For Years
- Economy Turning A New Corner [Cartoon]
- Iran To Take Russia’s Leftover Nukes [Cartoon]
- 2011 Tax Increases = -6% Drop in GDP?
Destroying Iran’s weapons factories with Cruise Missiles or unmanned drones is better than sending troops to dies in the desert.
And if you think we should allow Iran to have nukes then you should probably be voting Democrat.
Like or Dislike:
1 
2
Wow, thanks for the insightful post. I look forward to reading more from you
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I agree with Jack. He is referring to airstrikes than occupying the country with troops.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I think reasonable people can disagree about whether Iran obtaining a nuclear weapon is reason enough to intervene. The questionable part of the statement is not about blowing things up but rather about whether intervention is necessary in the first place. However, IF we were to intervene, this would be the way to go rather than another occupation or more sanctions, each of which would have continuing negative effects on the Iranian people. IF we were to intervene, “blowing the place up”, as oddly as it initially sounds, would likely be the most effective and least damaging way to intervene.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
Yup. He just lost my support. We are not the world’s god damn police nor should we be taxing our citizens to ‘police’. Plus Iran is not ‘omg the most evilest place on earth’; they are a country reacting to Israel’s aggression on the state of Palestine.
Like or Dislike:
3 
0
Peter is speaking hypothetically. He is directly AGAINST the idea of America policing the world, largely because we can’t afford it, but also because we don’t need to be the world police. Peter would support troop reduction across the board to reduce the tax burden on American citizens. No more Vietnams, Afghanistans, or Iraqs. If we attack another country, it should be justified and swift, not prolonged and controversial.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
you all seem to be missing the bit where he says
“if there were proof”
and THERE NEVER WAS, it was always lies and hidden agenda, and anybody with a brain could always see that.
I am as against “Team America World Police” as anyone can be but I’d happily leave those decisions to Peter Schiff because unlike the vast majority of Americans he sees the truth all too clearly.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
But there was “proof”, plenty of it to satisfy Bush and congress. Sure the proof turned out to be nothing. Had Schiff been in congress would that “proof” have been good enough for him? I think ole Pete is starting to “politic”. He’s learning the ropes and that to play the game you have to be one of them. It happens to most who have grand illusions of changing government or who simply fool the sheep to further their agenda in order to gain power over the people. I’m not sure about Schiff. I thought I was but I’m not.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Is it humorous or just pathetic that Schiff is already being written off as a member of the establishment? Doubtlessly you are all familiar with Schiff’s other videos where he discusses foreign policy. No? Maybe you should listen to what he has to say. In summary, he does not support interventionism and he is not a neocon. So, yes, you can vote for him.
Obviously cynicism has a place, but so does having a sense of proportion. Or I suppose you would rather have Dodd or one of those other Republicans win the race. Can’t you purists understand that Schiff represents, at least, a chance–a hope? What’s the worst he could do, hmm? And what if he’s actually sincere about being a monkey wrench in the socialist machine?
At any rate, what I find particularly alarming is this strain of naiveté which refuses to recognize that, yes, evil is out there. Do you really think that if we simply stop interfering in their affairs, the Islamic radicals will call it even? One way or another, we’ve stirred up a hornet’s nest; nobody is saying Iraq was a good idea. (Including Schiff, if you pay attention to his other videos.) But I suppose it’s better to sacrifice hundreds of thousands of American lives on principle rather than consider that Iran’s threat of nuclear assault might just be serious.
Anyway, the fact of the matter is that a vote for Schiff is a vote for freedom. End of story.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
If you think a single attack on America in it’s enitire history and not a single attack in the nine years since, is an indication that “Islamic radicals” are out to get us, then you’re the naive one, friend.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Libertarian foreign policy is a great topic, but let’s save that discussion until after you help elect another useless mainstream senator. The conversation will be much more stimulating if our economy is imploding under the weight of hyperinflation. After all, the path to a limited and well-regulated government is paved by assuming that every promising new libertarian candidate is really a socialist/corporatist shill. Nevertheless, no one can ever make you compromise your principles.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Funny Jokes
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Another new supplement, I truly couldn’t have reported the idea better by myself.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
You’ve got your point across a lot better than I ever could, thanks!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0