Watching the debate last night I was struck by the naive and ludicrous answer that Ron Paul gave in response to a question about Iran and suddenly realized that his stance on Iran closely mirrors Obama's ideas, or as the moderator said "Candidate Paul is running to the left of Obama on Iran". The question was about what would Paul do as President if it was confirmed that Iran had a nuclear weapon. Paul refused to answer the question directly, prompting the moderator to ask the same question three times. He still got no straight answer. Paul said: "There's no evidence that Iran is close to getting a nuclear weapon" "We have caused Iran's desire to want a nuclear weapon" "Look what we did with Libya, we talked them out of their nuclear weapons and then we killed them. It makes more sense to work with people. We have 12,000 diplomats in our service, we ought to use diplomacy." Exasperated the moderator asked what the U.S. response should be if Iran militarily closed the Straits of Hormuz, a bottleneck for the transportation of oil out of the Middle East. Paul once again ignored the question, then turned the situation around and said that Iran would close the Straits if we bombed them. Paul then said that the President was wise to withdraw economic sanctions on Iran because sanctions are an act of war and if the sanctions were maintained that this would cause Iran to close the Straits of Hormuz. Paul also said that "it would be wrong to declare war on 1.2 billion Muslims and say all Muslims are the same is dangerous talk." Hmmm...this is a classic strawman argument--thinking that we are declaring war on all Muslims if Iran gets a nuclear weapon. Unless he thinks the population of Iran is 1.2 billion. Then he said that the radical Muslims come here but don't go to Switzerland or Sweden proving that it's our fault that we are being attacked by terrorists. I wonder if Paul has forgotten about attacks on England, Spain, Germany, Malaysia, Sri Lanka, Canada, Algeria, Turkey, etc. etc. Then he said that we were considering going to war because Iran captured one of our drones. Then he (emphatically) said there was no U.N. evidence that Iran is enriching uranium, no I.A.E.A. evidence that Iran is trying to build a nuclear weapon. Is this man of sound mind?