Ron Paul not tough enough on Iran?

[JimDude]

Ron Paul has said he is willing to live with a Nuclear Iran. He often makes the comparison between the soviet union and Iran and how we managed to live for 40 years with a country that had 40,000 nuclear warheads pointed at us. Iran is a third world country and is highly unstable and they have been known to sponsor terrorism.

My question is do YOU think Ron Paul should be more willing to take action against a Iran with Nuclear weapons? Im pretty sure most americans would want us to take action against Iran if they had nukes.

Do you guys really believe we can live peacefully with Iran if they had nukes?

Ron Paul has said he would go along with the war if the congress had a debate about it and declared it! Is this true?
Is Ron Paul out of touch with the people if he is not willing to go to war with Iran?

My advice is that Ron Paul should emphasize his willingness to go along with a declaration of war even if he is personally opposed to it. He needs a sprinkle of toughness. He should also emphasize that he will follow the Rule of law, the just war theory, the constituion and point out how the Bush administration lied and manipulated their way to war.

Will you be my friend?

[inibo]

I guess I would have to ask why you think we should be willing to go to war with Iran.

Is it because in modern history they have never attacked another country?

Is it because Iran, unlike India, Pakistan and Israel, has signed the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and has, unlike India, Pakistan and Israel, allowed international inspectors access to their nuclear programs, made provision to address every question that has been put to them and no evidence of a weapons program has been found?

Is it because the UN has instituted sanctions against them even thought they have not violated the NPT, while the UN has not put sanctions on India, Pakistan and Israel who have developed their programs in secret and all three have nuclear weapons?

Is it because Ahmed Ahmadinejad said "the regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time" not that Israel must be wiped off the face of the Earth?

Is it because you are afraid of a third world country that the United States has been kicking around for almost 60 years?

[Kade]

Tough enough for Iran? Finding away for the market economy to leave fossil fuels as viable sources of energy will leave Iran penniless and more willing to come to the table of brotherly trading agreement...

Or we can be asshats and charge in, with two unfinished wars behind us...

[Trassin]

If you want to understand what would be involved in a preemeptive strike against Iran and what the results would be read this article:

http://cns.miis.edu/pubs/week/040812.htm

[JimDude]

I guess I would have to ask why you think we should be willing to go to war with Iran.

Is it because in modern history they have never attacked another country?

Is it because Iran, unlike India, Pakistan and Israel, has signed the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and has, unlike India, Pakistan and Israel, allowed international inspectors access to their nuclear programs, made provision to address every question that has been put to them and no evidence of a weapons program has been found?

Is it because the UN has instituted sanctions against them even thought they have not violated the NPT, while the UN has not put sanctions on India, Pakistan and Israel who have developed their programs in secret and all three have nuclear weapons?

Is it because Ahmed Ahmadinejad said "the regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time" not that Israel must be wiped off the face of the Earth?

Is it because you are afraid of a third world country that the United States has been kicking around for almost 60 years?



Okay, first off I myself dont want to go to war with iran, but on the slim chance that they do develop nuclear missles, we should be willing to invade them. Thats what Im saying.

Okay your right, Iran has never invaded another country, but I think I can say with confidence that Iran hates Israel deeply.

Your right about Non-proliferation treaty, but the investigation if Iran violated the treaty is ongoing. The reason the U.N. placed sanctions on Iran was because they were supposedly making nuclear power plants which is allowed under the treaty, but it is suspected that they may be secretly making nuclear weapons. It is unknown at this time.

Well, whatever he said, he showed hate for another country and he probably wouldn't mind destroying Israel given a chance...
And thank you for all the info you've given me, I now realize that the likelyhood of Iran making nuclear weapons may not be so great as I previously believed.

Im not afraid of Iran nor should we be. Iran is like a little unstable kid and if you give him nukes, the results are unpredictable, thats why I show concern....

[JimDude]

Tough enough for Iran? Finding away for the market economy to leave fossil fuels as viable sources of energy will leave Iran penniless and more willing to come to the table of brotherly trading agreement...

Or we can be asshats and charge in, with two unfinished wars behind us...


If you want to understand what would be involved in a preemeptive strike against Iran and what the results would be read this article:

http://cns.miis.edu/pubs/week/040812.htm


Great Article!! and Kade, thats a great plan!!!

[hard@work]

He was pretty clear that he would release the reigns on Israel while cutting our IV drip to their veigns. That's the most hardline stance on Iran out there right now. At the same time he wants to encourage dialogue and trade, which is the most peaceful stance.

He has it covered very well.

[inibo]

Okay, first off I myself dont want to go to war with iran, but on the slim chance that they do develop nuclear missles, we should be willing to invade them. Thats what Im saying.

Ron Paul's stated position is that preemptive war "is the province of dictators and rogue states" and that "military force is justified only in self-defense." Are you saying simply possessing nuclear weapons is an act of war against the United States? In that case the three countries I mentioned are as worthy of invasion as Iran would be if it possessed nuclear weapons. I will repeat what I said, though, the IAEA has found no evidence that Iran is pursuing weapons.



Okay your right, Iran has never invaded another country, but I think I can say with confidence that Iran hates Israel deeply.


Is hating Israel an act of war against the United States?



Your right about Non-proliferation treaty, but the investigation if Iran violated the treaty is ongoing. The reason the U.N. placed sanctions on Iran was because they were supposedly making nuclear power plants which is allowed under the treaty, but it is suspected that they may be secretly making nuclear weapons. It is unknown at this time.


So if they are under sanctions because they are suspected of seeking a weapon--with no evidence to support the suspicions--why are India, Pakistan and Israel not under sanctions? There are no suspicions there: they have weapons.



Well, whatever he said, he showed hate for another country and he probably wouldn't mind destroying Israel given a chance...


But is that a justification for war?



Im not afraid of Iran nor should we be. Iran is like a little unstable kid and if you give him nukes, the results are unpredictable, thats why I show concern....

Iran is not really unstable, since the Shah was deposed they have had several democratic elections and peaceful transitions of power. They are far from being a dictatorship, they have multiple competing centers of power in their society, a healthy economy and trade relations with many countries.

I'm far more concerned about Pakistan. They are currently experiencing a political crisis, they have serious internal conflicts and are harboring the Taliban. That place could collapse into chaos tomorrow and they have nukes.

BTW, if I'm coming off as snarky I apologize. We have had new users show up here and immediately start talking about what Ron Paul is wrong about. Some appear to be deliberately trying to sow dissension and create disruptions. I might have gotten that impression about you, but I think I was wrong.

Welcome to the forums.

[max]

IRAN POSES NO THREAT TO THE USA! Not now...not ever.

Any questions?

[Kregener]

Please do not buy into the neocon propaganda that Iran loves life, their children, sunsets and dining out any less than any other country.

[Man from La Mancha]

Hello, they consider North Korea crazy and helps sponsors terrorism and they don't want to bomb them. No oil and not a Israel goal.

.

[JimDude]

Ron Paul's stated position is that preemptive war "is the province of dictators and rogue states" and that "military force is justified only in self-defense." Are you saying simply possessing nuclear weapons is an act of war against the United States? In that case the three countries I mentioned are as worthy of invasion as Iran would be if it possessed nuclear weapons. I will repeat what I said, though, the IAEA has found no evidence that Iran is pursuing weapons.
Is hating Israel an act of war against the United States?
So if they are under sanctions because they are suspected of seeking a weapon--with no evidence to support the suspicions--why are India, Pakistan and Israel not under sanctions? There are no suspicions there: they have weapons.
But is that a justification for war?
Iran is not really unstable, since the Shah was deposed they have had several democratic elections and peaceful transitions of power. They are far from being a dictatorship, they have multiple competing centers of power in their society, a healthy economy and trade relations with many countries.
I'm far more concerned about Pakistan. They are currently experiencing a political crisis, they have serious internal conflicts and are harboring the Taliban. That place could collapse into chaos tomorrow and they have nukes.
BTW, if I'm coming off as snarky I apologize. We have had new users show up here and immediately start talking about what Ron Paul is wrong about. Some appear to be deliberately trying to sow dissension and create disruptions. I might have gotten that impression about you, but I think I was wrong.
Welcome to the forums.


Im not saying we should go on a preemptive war with Iran. If we do go to war with Iran, we should only do so if were very sure that Iran is planning on making nuclear weapons. Israel, Pakistan and India are our allies. Iran is practically our enemy and our relations with them is very tense. Its true Pakistan is facing problems, but they are our ally and they probably wont give their nukes away hopefully…

First of all, the IAEA hasn’t finished its investigation. Iran could have secret undergound nuclear facilities that no inspector has ever been in.
Any country that publicly says they hate another country and is willing to destroy them is a possible threat to us. Iran isnt so fond of the U.S. either and it is unpredictable what they would want to do with us.

Your right about Iran having a healthy economy and etc, but Iran is not fully democratic as you say. The presidental candidates there are chosen by the theocratic part of Iran's government. Their democracy is somewhat similar to China's and possibly Russia's. They are not fully democratic and their elections often mean nothing. They are not a full dictatorship or a full democracy.
Its economy if fair, but it not as good as other countries such as Saudi Arabia. They managed to get by with their massive Oil revenues. The trade relations they have with other countries is mostly about oil.


There is no hard-core evidence at this time that points to Iran making nukes, However, if they are making a commercial reactor fuel, they could make weapons within 3-5 years. Apparently, after fuel rods cook in the reactor for about 5 years, they can take them out and process them into 12-15 weapons.
There is little doubt that they are making fuel rods, the question is do we trust them not to make weapons out of spent fuel rods?

Another thing, if Iran is making Nuclear power plants, why would they do so? There is no economic rational for Iran building nuclear power stations, as running them would cost many more times than the Oil power stations their already running. If you think they want Enriched Uranium for just making nuclear power and not making weapons, maybe you should think about it more....
Iran's two most hated enemies, The U.S. and Israel have nuclear weapons, that is their motivation. We should tread much more carefully and maybe, just maybe, after we have a appropriate debate with congress, the people and evidence is presented, we should consider taking military action against Iran. We should also have a plan to succeed and a exit strategy...and Ron Paul should emphasize this and point out the mistakes of Bush....

Also that Ron Paul should be more willing to be open to the idea of invading Iran and acknowledge the real threat.... mushroom clouds over our cities.....

[micahnelson]

Also that Ron Paul should be more willing to be open to the idea of invading Iran and acknowledge the real threat.... mushroom clouds over our cities.....

If Iran attacked us, we would attack them, certainly. I wrote about why this prewar saber rattling is bad for us ... over here (http://www.micahnelson.com/?p=115)

Don't be so scared of them. They are years away from a nuke, and if left alone will implode. The only reason they have the national will to put all their resources to nuclear research is because they fear an immediate US invasion.

Take away the fear, and they will be less likely to support such a risky military move.

Kinda like the threat of terrorism is used to make us support this current global conflict...

[JimDude]

He was pretty clear that he would release the reigns on Israel while cutting our IV drip to their veigns. That's the most hardline stance on Iran out there right now. At the same time he wants to encourage dialogue and trade, which is the most peaceful stance.
He has it covered very well.


IRAN POSES NO THREAT TO THE USA! Not now...not ever.

Any questions?


Please do not buy into the neocon propaganda that Iran loves life, their children, sunsets and dining out any less than any other country.


Hello, they consider North Korea crazy and helps sponsors terrorism and they don't want to bomb them. No oil and not a Israel goal.
.

Hard-work, thats great, I didnt know that, thanks for telling me.
I think we should be careful about Iran, the possibility of Iran making Nukes is real and even Ron Paul has said we should go to war when we are legitmately threathened.
Okay Krenger, I wont.
Thats a super point La Mancha, I dont know much about North Korea, but I think we should take the suggestion from Ron Paul and pull our troops from there. That might help make a peaceful situation with North Korea and I hope war with them never happens.

[JimDude]

If Iran attacked us, we would attack them, certainly. I wrote about why this prewar saber rattling is bad for us ... over here (http://www.micahnelson.com/?p=115)
Don't be so scared of them. They are years away from a nuke, and if left alone will implode. The only reason they have the national will to put all their resources to nuclear research is because they fear an immediate US invasion.
Take away the fear, and they will be less likely to support such a risky military move.
Kinda like the threat of terrorism is used to make us support this current global conflict...

Well, if Iran attacked us with nuclear weapons, then we've taken too much damage already. And in reality, Iran itself probably wouldnt attack us, they would probabaly handle off the nuclear device to a terrorist group and they would attack us. I do believe that sometimes a preemptive war is sometimes justified especially when nuclear weapons are involved...
Iran is a fairly stable economy and the only way they will "implode" is if they run out of oil revenues which is unlikely to happen anytime soon.
I dont know the true reason why Iran is or plans to make nukes. But it has been said that we been intefering with Iran for 60 years, and it is very doubtful that a few good years of diplomacy or even a decade of it is going to heal all the scars and wounds that our actions have caused in Iran. They're gonna hate us for a long time and we have to be prepared to take appropriate action if necessary....

Dont forget, terrorism is real and after Ron paul becomes president, I believe he has plans to redirect troops from Iraq to hunt for Osama...?..?

[huchahucha]

I have been trying to come to terms with RP's foreign policy concerning the middle east. I've been willing to go along with it just because every other candidates policy is just as incoherent. I have been especially contimplating RP's position after his appearance on the O'Reilly factor when Bill asked RP if he would just let Iran have carte blanche over the middle east. Then it hit me the other night at about two in the morning - I suddenly understand what RP is saying and it is BRILLIANT!
Everybody keeps asking about poor, poor Israel and RP keeps saying Israel can take care of their own problems. Of course nobody knows that because the world community always butts in and pressures Israel to make peace everytime they try to settle an issue with one of the many countries that hates them. If the U.S.A. butts out of affairs in that region there will be no more safety net. If Iran or anyone else tries to pick a fight they are going to recieve the unbridled wrath of the Israeli army. Israel thinks the U.N. is a joke, so the only thing the U.N. will be able to do is put a leash on Iran (or sit back and watch the last Hoorah of the Persian Empire).

[JimDude]

I have been trying to come to terms with RP's foreign policy concerning the middle east. I've been willing to go along with it just because every other candidates policy is just as incoherent. I have been especially contimplating RP's position after his appearance on the O'Reilly factor when Bill asked RP if he would just let Iran have carte blanche over the middle east. Then it hit me the other night at about two in the morning - I suddenly understand what RP is saying and it is BRILLIANT!
Everybody keeps asking about poor, poor Israel and RP keeps saying Israel can take care of their own problems. Of course nobody knows that because the world community always butts in and pressures Israel to make peace everytime they try to settle an issue with one of the many countries that hates them. If the U.S.A. butts out of affairs in that region there will be no more safety net. If Iran or anyone else tries to pick a fight they are going to recieve the unbridled wrath of the Israeli army. Israel thinks the U.N. is a joke, so the only thing the U.N. will be able to do is put a leash on Iran (or sit back and watch the last Hoorah of the Persian Empire).


Wow, cool. Well, I havent been talking about Israel. Israel is part of the tension between U.S. and Iran, but lets be careful here. Israel is a terrorist state, their as bad if not worse than Iran. But they are our ally at the moment...

What you are suggesting is that we cut off all ties to Israel, Iran and the middle east. And that when we are no longer a factor, Israel will be able to destroy Iran, if it gets out of control...
You are right sir, I support cutting all ties with Israel, the middle east and pulling out troops out like Ron Paul has said. But, we cannot forget about the wild card of nuclear weapons.
Iran is a fairly smart country and I doubt they will take random military actions against Israel or the United States. I dont think Israel is eager to destroy Iran. Im not a expert on the Israeli army, but if they attacked Iran, it could turn into a regional conflict that Isreal might suffer huge losses in terms of money and soldiers....Lets not forget that Israel is pretty smart too and they wont go marching off to war unless they feel threathened by Iran. The most likely scenario is that is that Israel would only go to war with Iran is if they make nukes.

I dont think allowing Israel to destroy Iran for us is a very good plan...It is unlikely that even if we cut off all support to Israel and condemn them, that it will change the minds of the Iranian terrorists and people. Dont forget about the blowback in 1953...They have a long memory and whether we like it not, since they hate us, we have to be prepared to defend our country and interests by making sure we dont get nuked here in America. It may mean that we would have to support Israel in a Joint-effort to invade Iran and secure their nuclear facilities and etc.
We can't forget though, we should do it the way Ron Paul suggests, by gathering evidence, intelligence and going to congress and making sure our war is justified.

You know, we all say Iraq was a failure, but the irony is that we could of won that war with better planning and support. One of the generals before the war started suggested we should have 700,000 troops, but Bush silenced him. After the invasion, we dismissed the entire iraqi army that took their guns homes and needed to feed their families. There were many many mistakes made in Iraq.

After Vietnam, a group of generals worked together to learn the mistakes and prepare guidelines on how we should occup/invade other countries. Their guides helped maked successful campaigns in Bosnia and the first gulf war.
I believe that if we come up with a comprehensive plan that we can indeed suceed in a possible invasion of Iran and that we could do it by the constitution and the books as Ron Paul has said.

Im not saying war with Iran is inevitable, but we should be ready because our actions have resulted in great hate for us. Were already heavily invested in there, and there is nothing we can do to change that, not for at least many many years.
So, cutting off all ties with the middle east is a good plan, but we need to still deal with possible leftover blowback...

[buffalokid777]

I do believe that sometimes a preemptive war is sometimes justified especially when nuclear weapons are involved..

Pre-emptive war was an invention of Hitler....

The Iranians would have no way to slip a nuke into our country via terrorist proxy, if the neocon nazis like Bush would seal our OPEN BORDERS....

If a nuke goes off on this country, the people to blame are the ones who NEGLECTED TO PROTECT OUR BORDERS!

That's the ONLY way a scenario like that will happen.


"All of us have heard this term 'preventive war' since the earliest days of Hitler. I recall that is about the first time I heard it. In this day and time...I don't believe there is such a thing; and, frankly, I wouldn't even listen to anyone seriously that came in and talked about such a thing." --President Dwight Eisenhower

[huchahucha]

Wow, cool. Well, I havent been talking about Israel. Israel is part of the tension between U.S. and Iran, but lets be careful here. Israel is a terrorist state, their as bad if not worse than Iran. But they are our ally at the moment...

What you are suggesting is that we cut off all ties to Israel, Iran and the middle east. And that when we are no longer a factor, Israel will be able to destroy Iran, if it gets out of control...
You are right sir, I support cutting all ties with Israel, the middle east and pulling out troops out like Ron Paul has said. But, we cannot forget about the wild card of nuclear weapons.
Iran is a fairly smart country and I doubt they will take random military actions against Israel or the United States. I dont think Israel is eager to destroy Iran. Im not a expert on the Israeli army, but if they attacked Iran, it could turn into a regional conflict that Isreal might suffer huge losses in terms of money and soldiers....Lets not forget that Israel is pretty smart too and they wont go marching off to war unless they feel threathened by Iran. The most likely scenario is that is that Israel would only go to war with Iran is if they make nukes.


I know a lot of people want to call Israel a terrorist state, I personally would not got that far. They usually only attack when they have been attacked, but it pisses people off because if you kill one of theirs they WILL kill ten of yours. I prefer Israel not destroy Iran, I think the Israeli's don't want to destroy Iran, but they certainly have the will to do it if Iran keeps pressing them. And they ARE pressing them. They don't attack directly, they use surrogates like Hezbollah. The Israelis have no problem going after Hezbollah, even when Hezbollah uses innocent civilians as bullet shields. This brings out the world community to protest Israel as being too aggressive. Anyway, with Israel left alone to defend themselves as they see fit they will become one hell of a deterent in the region.

As for the other tensions with the U.S. and Iran - I think RP is exactly right to at least acknowledge that we have been meddling in their affairs for far too long. We are never going to get any where with Iran if we don't at least acknowledge that. Acknowledging that in public could ease tensions with Iran and may eventually lead to trade agreements that will benefit both governments.

As for withdrawing from Iraq, it is getting to the point where it will be inevitable. Gen. Petreaus himself has said the war cannot be won with military action alone, and at this point it still seems like the Iraqi government does not give a shit. I can only think off two options left to us now - pull the gloves off and literally just take the country over Roman style (despite the anti war propaganda that has not happened), or else pull out. Iran has threatened to fill the void if we pull out. That will be bad for everyone in Iraq that was on our side because they will certainly be executed (unless of course they suddenly band together and decide to fight for their liberty). There are some upsides though. Iran will have their hands full for a very long time trying to get total control of Iraq, and in the mean time we can regroup and strengthen our military to deal with anything they may try to pull in the future.

[jpa]

Iran is 5-10 years away from developing nuke weapons. Even longer to develop suitcase or ICBM missles to deliver said warhead.

Nations have the right to defend themselves. Iran has a few neighbors with nuclear weapons, and frankly nuclear weapons are a the only deterrent to other nuclear weapons.

Using the twisted logic we use to invade or blow up Iran, we should be prepared to invade N Korea and Pakistan way before we get to Iran. It is not a sensible policy.

[cjhowe]

<snip>
Another thing, if Iran is making Nuclear power plants, why would they do so? There is no economic rational for Iran building nuclear power stations, as running them would cost many more times than the Oil power stations their already running. If you think they want Enriched Uranium for just making nuclear power and not making weapons, maybe you should think about it more....<snip>

Not to detract from the discussion, I'm enjoying it. However, the reason why Iran wants Nuclear power plants is because while it may have gobs of oil, they do not have refinery capacity.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/31/AR2006053101464.html

Also, what happens to Iran's economy if we decide to smartly build nuclear power plants? If the demand for oil drops, they have nothing. Since they have very few other natural resources, they need to build up their intellectual resources otherwise they will retreat into the forgotten halls of history if the world ever wakes up and obtains other reliable energy sources. What better intellectual endeavour than physics?

[JimDude]

Pre-emptive war was an invention of Hitler....

The Iranians would have no way to slip a nuke into our country via terrorist proxy, if the neocon nazis like Bush would seal our OPEN BORDERS....

If a nuke goes off on this country, the people to blame are the ones who NEGLECTED TO PROTECT OUR BORDERS!

That's the ONLY way a scenario like that will happen.


"All of us have heard this term 'preventive war' since the earliest days of Hitler. I recall that is about the first time I heard it. In this day and time...I don't believe there is such a thing; and, frankly, I wouldn't even listen to anyone seriously that came in and talked about such a thing." --President Dwight Eisenhower

Look, Hitler was a very very evil man. You can't even compare Hitler to the United States. Hitler used propaganda, subdued reason, logic and he lied and manipulated the German people kinda like Bush did for the Iraq war.
What Bush actually did in the Iraq war was not a pre-emptive war but a preventive war. Bush lied and tricked us. A pre-emptive war is when you strike a threat that shows a imminent and credible threat. A preventive war is when you attack a country because you suspect they might attack you in the future in some way, but you dont know for sure. Please read this article for more info: http://www.sunysb.edu/globalhistory/PreventiveWar.shtml

You can speculate all you want on whether or not Iran or a terrorist group can sneak a nuke into here, but would you want the president or our government to take such a risk and simply hope they dont sneak a bomb into our country? The american people probably wouldnt want their government to take such risk especially if they know about it!
I dont think any of us want to reach the point where a nuke goes off in our country, but if you had the power to prevent that, wouldn't you at least consider taking action? And c'mon, there are dozens of scenarios that could happen. Its the very unpredictability of a nuclear explosion that should cause us great alarm. ANd maybe just maybe, we should consider a invasion of Iran, and I think it would do Ron Paul some good to keep it on the table and to emphasize how he would do it the correct way by way of the consitution...

Well, I am not saying we should go off to war, but just that Ron Paul keeps it on the table. We all hate pre-emptive wars, but just because the war isnt in response to a direct attack doesnt mean its not justified.



I know a lot of people want to call Israel a terrorist state, I personally would not got that far. They usually only attack when they have been attacked, but it pisses people off because if you kill one of theirs they WILL kill ten of yours. I prefer Israel not destroy Iran, I think the Israeli's don't want to destroy Iran, but they certainly have the will to do it if Iran keeps pressing them. And they ARE pressing them. They don't attack directly, they use surrogates like Hezbollah. The Israelis have no problem going after Hezbollah, even when Hezbollah uses innocent civilians as bullet shields. This brings out the world community to protest Israel as being too aggressive. Anyway, with Israel left alone to defend themselves as they see fit they will become one hell of a deterent in the region.

As for the other tensions with the U.S. and Iran - I think RP is exactly right to at least acknowledge that we have been meddling in their affairs for far too long. We are never going to get any where with Iran if we don't at least acknowledge that. Acknowledging that in public could ease tensions with Iran and may eventually lead to trade agreements that will benefit both governments.

As for withdrawing from Iraq, it is getting to the point where it will be inevitable. Gen. Petreaus himself has said the war cannot be won with military action alone, and at this point it still seems like the Iraqi government does not give a shit. I can only think off two options left to us now - pull the gloves off and literally just take the country over Roman style (despite the anti war propaganda that has not happened), or else pull out. Iran has threatened to fill the void if we pull out. That will be bad for everyone in Iraq that was on our side because they will certainly be executed (unless of course they suddenly band together and decide to fight for their liberty). There are some upsides though. Iran will have their hands full for a very long time trying to get total control of Iraq, and in the mean time we can regroup and strengthen our military to deal with anything they may try to pull in the future.


Yes, we've been meddling with iran's affairs for too long, so long in fact, that It may take decades to repair the damage. Remember, they managed to remember after 26 years after a event in 1953.
So I think it may be a bit naive to think that once we leave Iran alone, everything will be all better again. Things may get a little better, but are we going to to take that risk?
The right thing to do is to leave the whole middle east alone unless of course our interests and security is threathened....
We wouldnt be so threathened if we had left Iran alone in the first place, but what's done is done and we have to be prepared for the consequences.

I dont see how leaving Israel alone and hoping they can somehow bring peace to the middle east will be a solution. If Israel becomes very agressive in the region, wouldnt that just motivate Iran to develop nuclear weapons faster? ANd if for some reason Israel did invade Iran, shouldnt we help, because we have invested interest in making sure Iran doesnt get nukes?

Even if we do somehow repair our relationship with iran, there will still be radical terrorist groups that could get their hands on a nuclear bomb and Iran might have no problem giving them one.
I hope for peace with Iran, but at the sometime, I realize how radical they are and I think Ron Paul and others should recognize the threat...
Hopefully, we use diplomatic, economic and trade efforts to stop Iran from making nukes. But if Iran refuses and they continue on their course, we should be prepared along with Ron Paul.
And Im not sure if we can live with a nuclear iran....perhaps we can....

I think we should just listen to Ron Paul on Iraq and just pull out...

[ARealConservative]

Iran isn't a third world country.

Not by its original defintion, and not by the co-opted one used today.

[RonPaulalways]

This is a revolution. You can't pander to the old power base that depends on war for profits and appeasing the Israel lobby to get elected to get Ron Paul elected. That whole power base needs to be made irrelevant by the rise of the Ron Paul movement.

[huchahucha]

I dont see how leaving Israel alone and hoping they can somehow bring peace to the middle east will be a solution. If Israel becomes very agressive in the region, wouldnt that just motivate Iran to develop nuclear weapons faster? ANd if for some reason Israel did invade Iran, shouldnt we help, because we have invested interest in making sure Iran doesnt get nukes?

Even if we do somehow repair our relationship with iran, there will still be radical terrorist groups that could get their hands on a nuclear bomb and Iran might have no problem giving them one.
I hope for peace with Iran, but at the sometime, I realize how radical they are and I think Ron Paul and others should recognize the threat...
Hopefully, we use diplomatic, economic and trade efforts to stop Iran from making nukes. But if Iran refuses and they continue on their course, we should be prepared along with Ron Paul.
And Im not sure if we can live with a nuclear iran....perhaps we can....

I don't think Israel can bring peace to the middle east, only Iran can do that. I think Israel has the right to defend itself to any extent, just as we do. Hopefully that is enough to make Iran think before they impulsively cause problems all over the region over religious differences. At the end of the day Iran wants nukes, but Israel already has them.

I would not suggest turning our backs on Iran either. I would keep military options on the table, but I would also start talking to them. We are never going to get anywhere with them if we don't start talking. Capitalist pig that I am, I can see that there is a lot less incentive for them to be so radical if we can find a way to make their economy suddenly boom with some sort of trade negotiation. It is kind of pointless to scream "exterminate the Jews" and "Death to America" when you are suddenly living more comfortably than you used to.

[JimDude]

Not to detract from the discussion, I'm enjoying it. However, the reason why Iran wants Nuclear power plants is because while it may have gobs of oil, they do not have refinery capacity.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/31/AR2006053101464.html

Also, what happens to Iran's economy if we decide to smartly build nuclear power plants? If the demand for oil drops, they have nothing. Since they have very few other natural resources, they need to build up their intellectual resources otherwise they will retreat into the forgotten halls of history if the world ever wakes up and obtains other reliable energy sources. What better intellectual endeavour than physics?

Thats a very good point. Your saying that Iran is making nuclear power so they can prepare to the inevitable collapse of oil usage. That is possibly true and I hope that is true. When Ron Paul becomes president, hopefully we can investigate Iran and make sure this is the case. If we later find out that all Iran is doing is making nuclear power for themselves, that great.
However, there is a great danger, even if they are just making power for themselves, we wont know for sure if wont take the opportunity to use spent fuel rods to make nuclear weapons. And if we accept that Iran has no bad intentions when they secretly do, it may become too late for us to prevent a possible nuclear war with Iran....
My argument is that Ron Paul should recognize that living with a Nuclear Iran might not be such a good idea and perhaps he could consider military actions in order to protect our interests and citizens.
Iran seems hell bent on getting enriched uranium and that does seem a tad suspicious..................



Iran isn't a third world country.

Not by its original defintion, and not by the co-opted one used today.

Okay, whatever you say. What is Iran?


This is a revolution. You can't pander to the old power base that depends on war for profits and appeasing the Israel lobby to get elected to get Ron Paul elected. That whole power base needs to be made irrelevant by the rise of the Ron Paul movement.

Look, under my scenario of the invasion of Iran, Ron Paul would be president. I believe that if Ron Paul is president, he may be able to stop all thes war profits and he should bring back transparency and stop these back-door deals.

Ron Paul is capeable of handling a possible invasion of Iran correctly. People are always gonna profit from wars. RP just needs to able to keep an invasion of Iran on the table.
Ron Paul is going to end the power of the international bankers, Israel lobby and war profit companies. All we need to do is be more open to the idea of protecting against ourselves from a nuclear attack from Iran or terrorists.

[derdy]

Look, Hitler was a very very evil man. You can't even compare Hitler to the United States. Hitler used propaganda, subdued reason, logic and he lied and manipulated the German people kinda like Bush did for the Iraq war.
What Bush actually did in the Iraq war was not a pre-emptive war but a preventive war. Bush lied and tricked us. A pre-emptive war is when you strike a threat that shows a imminent and credible threat. A preventive war is when you attack a country because you suspect they might attack you in the future in some way, but you dont know for sure. Please read this article for more info: http://www.sunysb.edu/globalhistory/PreventiveWar.shtml

You made my head spin there...

First, you can't compare Hitler to the U.S. because Hitler is a man and the US is a country and/or government. I'm assuming you mean that Nazi-Germany can't be compared to the present day United States.

However, you go on to draw parrelles between Hitler and Bush in the very next sentence, "Hitler used propaganda, subdued reason, logic and he lied and manipulated the German people kinda like Bush did for the Iraq war."
:confused:

Next, you say that we didn't fight a pre-emptive war due to the fact that it entails a credible and imminent threat. Is this not what Bush and the Neocons accomplished through cherry-picking intelligence and propaganda via the media? Now in hind-sight we can say it was preventitive, however, you can say the same thing about any of the wars that Nazi-Germany engaged in.



You can speculate all you want on whether or not Iran or a terrorist group can sneak a nuke into here, but would you want the president or our government to take such a risk and simply hope they dont sneak a bomb into our country? The american people probably wouldnt want their government to take such risk especially if they know about it!
I dont think any of us want to reach the point where a nuke goes off in our country, but if you had the power to prevent that, wouldn't you at least consider taking action? And c'mon, there are dozens of scenarios that could happen. Its the very unpredictability of a nuclear explosion that should cause us great alarm. ANd maybe just maybe, we should consider a invasion of Iran, and I think it would do Ron Paul some good to keep it on the table and to emphasize how he would do it the correct way by way of the consitution...

You logic here as to preventing a terrorist attack through preemptive/preventive warfare is seriously flawed. First, you are wanting to engage in the killing of innocents, as it's a natural by-product of war, in order to prevent something based purely upon speculation, or, as your article states, "something that could, or could not happen in the future".

My neighbor has a gun; he also gives me dirty looks sometimes. Does that give me the right to go next door and kill him? I would hope your answer is no. Liberty comes inherintly with risks and if we took the proper pre-cautions we could certainly minimize the risk to almost zero of anyone sneaking a nuke in here given the proper security protocols at points of entry, which includes making our borders more secure. It also avoids taking the moral low-road. What if our President or government was wrong? How do you justify dead children and grandmas based on your wild fantasies of suitcase nukes when all they wanted the nukes for was for protection from invasion from the United States of America? That's even IF they have nukes at all like those WMDs we were so sure Iraq had (because we sold them the WMD during the Iran-Iraq War and beyond (http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/0908-08.htm), athough most all of them were destroyed in Desert Storm and by the UN).

This gets at the transparency of government and why secretive intelligence agencies need to be disbanded. The CIA has been responsible for the overthrow of countless governments, assassinations, and all sorts of dirty tricks that have only served the aims of corporations, financers, and bankers.

Don't let your fears dicatate your logic. If anything, we should fear the secretive nature of American government, and especially the Neo-Conservatieves, more than we should some external enemy: Operation Northwoods (http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=92662).


Well, I am not saying we should go off to war, but just that Ron Paul keeps it on the table. We all hate pre-emptive wars, but just because the war isnt in response to a direct attack doesnt mean its not justified.

So, is the Iraq War justified? Certainly seemed to be when we went in to a majority of Americans, including myself, due to massive brainwashing. Do we just go around and kill people on a hunch and then apologize for dead children and grandmas afterwards when we find out it was not, after all, justified?


Yes, we've been meddling with iran's affairs for too long, so long in fact, that It may take decades to repair the damage. Remember, they managed to remember after 26 years after a event in 1953.

Lol Dude, we overthew the democratically elected Mossadeque in 1953 during Operation Ajax (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Ajax)(also see the footnotes at the bottom of link)

From this source: (http://www.democracynow.org/print.pl?sid=04/03/05/1542249)
Kermit Roosevelt set about trying to create chaos in Iran. He was able to do that very quickly by a series of means. The first thing he did was, he started bribing members of parliament and leaders of small political parties that were a part of Mossadegh 's political coalition. Pretty soon the public started to see the Mossadegh ’s coalition splitting apart and people denouncing him on the floor of parliament. The next thing Roosevelt did was start bribing newspaper editors, owners and columnists and reporters. Within a couple of weeks, he had 80% of the newspapers in Tehran on his payroll and they were grinding out every kind of lie attacking Mossadegh . The next thing Roosevelt did was start bribing religious leaders. Soon, at Friday prayers, the Mullahs were denouncing Mossadegh as an atheist enemy of Islam. Roosevelt also bribed members of police units and low-ranking military officers to be ready with their units on the crucial day. In what I think was really his master stroke, he hired the leaders of a bunch of street gangs in Tehran, and he used them to help create the impression that the rule of law had totally disintegrated in Iran. He actually at one point hired a gang to run through the streets of Tehran, beating up any pedestrian they found, breaking shop windows, firing their guns into mosques, and yelling -- "We love Mossadegh and communism." This would naturally turn any decent citizen against him. He didn't stop there. He tired a second mob to attack the first mob, to give people the impression that there was no police presence and order had completely disintegrated. So, within just a few weeks, this one agent operating with a large sum of cash and a network of contacts and various elements of society, had taken what was a fairly stable country and thrown it into complete upheaval.


After the Shah was installed, with the help of the US and Israel, SAVAK (http://www.fas.org/irp/world/iran/savak/index.html) was founded (secret police):

SAVAK increasingly symbolized the Shah's rule from 1963-79, a period of corruption in the royal family, one-party rule, the torture and execution of thousands of political prisoners, suppression of dissent, and alienation of the religious masses.

So, it's not like we overthrew their elected government in 1953 life when on, everyone was happy, and then in '79 everyone revolted. People were tortured and killed for speaking out against a government that was forcibly installed upon them by the US and Israel. Wouldn't you be a little pissed if China or some other country did that to us?





So I think it may be a bit naive to think that once we leave Iran alone, everything will be all better again. Things may get a little better, but are we going to to take that risk?
The right thing to do is to leave the whole middle east alone unless of course our interests and security is threathened....
We wouldnt be so threathened if we had left Iran alone in the first place, but what's done is done and we have to be prepared for the consequences.

Are we going to take that risk or are we going to continue killing people based on speculation? I'll run with the over-blown risk. How come since the end of the USSR with all of their missing nukes there hasn't been a terrorist nuclear attack with our wide open borders? It's been a decade since the USSR collapsed and their economy was in shambles. You don't think they didn't sell nukes to terrorist organizations? Why don't we invade them too?

We wouldn't be so threatened by Iran if we weren't in Iraq and also trying to defend Israel at the same time. Remember, most of this Iran paranioa comes from the Neo-Conservatives, some of whom are dual Israeli-Americans. American foreign-policy is at the behest of AIPIC (http://www.antiwar.com/cole/?articleid=3467)(google for more information).


dont see how leaving Israel alone and hoping they can somehow bring peace to the middle east will be a solution. If Israel becomes very agressive in the region, wouldnt that just motivate Iran to develop nuclear weapons faster? ANd if for some reason Israel did invade Iran, shouldnt we help, because we have invested interest in making sure Iran doesnt get nukes?

The Zionist Israelis (most of those in government Israeli government) don't want peace in the Middle East. They feel that the land of Palestine belongs to them. Check out this map and see how they aren't even following the the UN Partition Plan here (http://www.teeth.com.pk/blog/wp-content/uploads/2006/06/israel-palestine%20map.jpg)



Even if we do somehow repair our relationship with iran, there will still be radical terrorist groups that could get their hands on a nuclear bomb and Iran might have no problem giving them one.
I hope for peace with Iran, but at the sometime, I realize how radical they are and I think Ron Paul and others should recognize the threat...
Hopefully, we use diplomatic, economic and trade efforts to stop Iran from making nukes. But if Iran refuses and they continue on their course, we should be prepared along with Ron Paul.
And Im not sure if we can live with a nuclear iran....perhaps we can....

I think we should just listen to Ron Paul on Iraq and just pull out...

Again, you are speculating. Implement stringent security protocols at points of ingress to our country and you can minimize the risk to almost nil. The only thing that makes the Iranian government stronger is the radicals who are inflamed when we keep threatening them and getting involved in their business. If you think attacking them is going to make them less radical, you have another thing coming. I have friends in Iran and it is not some crazy, backwards ass country. Western cultural-influence is great there and their people want to live in PEACE! They have every right to nuclear energy and, as a matter of fact, we gave them their first nuclear research reactor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_program_of_Iran#U.S.-Iran_nuclear_co-operation_in_the_1950s_and_60s) in 1967.

Respect,
Denny

[cjhowe]

Thats a very good point. Your saying that Iran is making nuclear power so they can prepare to the inevitable collapse of oil usage. That is possibly true and I hope that is true. When Ron Paul becomes president, hopefully we can investigate Iran and make sure this is the case. If we later find out that all Iran is doing is making nuclear power for themselves, that great.
However, there is a great danger, even if they are just making power for themselves, we wont know for sure if wont take the opportunity to use spent fuel rods to make nuclear weapons. And if we accept that Iran has no bad intentions when they secretly do, it may become too late for us to prevent a possible nuclear war with Iran....

The argument here is to stop holding Israel's hand. They can (and have) defend themselves. Even if the Jack Bauer scenario occurs where Iran passes off a nuke to a terrorist organization, Israel has proven that it will hold the parent country responsible. Last summer Hezbollah kidnapped Israeli soldiers and brought them into Lebanon. Israel responded by bombing the holy hell out of Lebanon. If Iran were to give a nuke to Hezbollah, Israel would hold Iran responsible, concluding with the Mutually Assured Destruction scenario. The entire Middle East is a result of failed British Colonialism, I don't think present day U.S. can make that a soft landing. It has to work itself out. The U.S. being the mediator, only breeds anti-American terrorists as a result of our occupation in the region. As it is, the only threat to our national security is oil and our unsecured borders. Nuclear energy will help impede the former, bringing our troops home will impede the latter.

[JimDude]

You made my head spin there...

First, you can't compare Hitler to the U.S. because Hitler is a man and the US is a country and/or government. I'm assuming you mean that Nazi-Germany can't be compared to the present day United States.

However, you go on to draw parrelles between Hitler and Bush in the very next sentence, "Hitler used propaganda, subdued reason, logic and he lied and manipulated the German people kinda like Bush did for the Iraq war."
:confused:

Next, you say that we didn't fight a pre-emptive war due to the fact that it entails a credible and imminent threat. Is this not what Bush and the Neocons accomplished through cherry-picking intelligence and propaganda via the media? Now in hind-sight we can say it was preventitive, however, you can say the same thing about any of the wars that Nazi-Germany engaged in.

You logic here as to preventing a terrorist attack through preemptive/preventive warfare is seriously flawed. First, you are wanting to engage in the killing of innocents, as it's a natural by-product of war, in order to prevent something based purely upon speculation, or, as your article states, "something that could, or could not happen in the future".
My neighbor has a gun; he also gives me dirty looks sometimes. Does that give me the right to go next door and kill him? I would hope your answer is no. Liberty comes inherintly with risks and if we took the proper pre-cautions we could certainly minimize the risk to almost zero of anyone sneaking a nuke in here given the proper security protocols at points of entry, which includes making our borders more secure. It also avoids taking the moral low-road. What if our President or government was wrong? How do you justify dead children and grandmas based on your wild fantasies of suitcase nukes when all they wanted the nukes for was for protection from invasion from the United States of America? That's even IF they have nukes at all like those WMDs we were so sure Iraq had (because we sold them the WMD during the Iran-Iraq War and beyond (http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/0908-08.htm), athough most all of them were destroyed in Desert Storm and by the UN).
This gets at the transparency of government and why secretive intelligence agencies need to be disbanded. The CIA has been responsible for the overthrow of countless governments, assassinations, and all sorts of dirty tricks that have only served the aims of corporations, financers, and bankers.
Don't let your fears dicatate your logic. If anything, we should fear the secretive nature of American government, and especially the Neo-Conservatieves, more than we should some external enemy: Operation Northwoods (http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=92662)
So, is the Iraq War justified? Certainly seemed to be when we went in to a majority of Americans, including myself, due to massive brainwashing. Do we just go around and kill people on a hunch and then apologize for dead children and grandmas afterwards when we find out it was not, after all, justified?

Lol Dude, we overthew the democratically elected Mossadeque in 1953 during Operation Ajax (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Ajax)(also see the footnotes at the bottom of link)

From this source: (http://www.democracynow.org/print.pl?sid=04/03/05/1542249)
Kermit Roosevelt set about trying to create chaos in Iran. He was able to do that very quickly by a series of means. The first thing he did was, he started bribing members of parliament and leaders of small political parties that were a part of Mossadegh 's political coalition. Pretty soon the public started to see the Mossadegh ’s coalition splitting apart and people denouncing him on the floor of parliament. The next thing Roosevelt did was start bribing newspaper editors, owners and columnists and reporters. Within a couple of weeks, he had 80% of the newspapers in Tehran on his payroll and they were grinding out every kind of lie attacking Mossadegh . The next thing Roosevelt did was start bribing religious leaders. Soon, at Friday prayers, the Mullahs were denouncing Mossadegh as an atheist enemy of Islam. Roosevelt also bribed members of police units and low-ranking military officers to be ready with their units on the crucial day. In what I think was really his master stroke, he hired the leaders of a bunch of street gangs in Tehran, and he used them to help create the impression that the rule of law had totally disintegrated in Iran. He actually at one point hired a gang to run through the streets of Tehran, beating up any pedestrian they found, breaking shop windows, firing their guns into mosques, and yelling -- "We love Mossadegh and communism." This would naturally turn any decent citizen against him. He didn't stop there. He tired a second mob to attack the first mob, to give people the impression that there was no police presence and order had completely disintegrated. So, within just a few weeks, this one agent operating with a large sum of cash and a network of contacts and various elements of society, had taken what was a fairly stable country and thrown it into complete upheaval.

After the Shah was installed, with the help of the US and Israel, SAVAK (http://www.fas.org/irp/world/iran/savak/index.html) was founded (secret police):
SAVAK increasingly symbolized the Shah's rule from 1963-79, a period of corruption in the royal family, one-party rule, the torture and execution of thousands of political prisoners, suppression of dissent, and alienation of the religious masses.
So, it's not like we overthrew their elected government in 1953 life when on, everyone was happy, and then in '79 everyone revolted. People were tortured and killed for speaking out against a government that was forcibly installed upon them by the US and Israel. Wouldn't you be a little pissed if China or some other country did that to us?
Are we going to take that risk or are we going to continue killing people based on speculation? I'll run with the over-blown risk. How come since the end of the USSR with all of their missing nukes there hasn't been a terrorist nuclear attack with our wide open borders? It's been a decade since the USSR collapsed and their economy was in shambles. You don't think they didn't sell nukes to terrorist organizations? Why don't we invade them too?

We wouldn't be so threatened by Iran if we weren't in Iraq and also trying to defend Israel at the same time. Remember, most of this Iran paranioa comes from the Neo-Conservatives, some of whom are dual Israeli-Americans. American foreign-policy is at the behest of AIPIC (http://www.antiwar.com/cole/?articleid=3467)(google for more information).

The Zionist Israelis (most of those in government Israeli government) don't want peace in the Middle East. They feel that the land of Palestine belongs to them. Check out this map and see how they aren't even following the the UN Partition Plan here (http://www.teeth.com.pk/blog/wp-content/uploads/2006/06/israel-palestine%20map.jpg)
Again, you are speculating. Implement stringent security protocols at points of ingress to our country and you can minimize the risk to almost nil. The only thing that makes the Iranian government stronger is the radicals who are inflamed when we keep threatening them and getting involved in their business. If you think attacking them is going to make them less radical, you have another thing coming. I have friends in Iran and it is not some crazy, backwards ass country. Western cultural-influence is great there and their people want to live in PEACE! They have every right to nuclear energy and, as a matter of fact, we gave them their first nuclear research reactor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_program_of_Iran#U.S.-Iran_nuclear_co-operation_in_the_1950s_and_60s) in 1967.
Respect,
Denny

man, i got pwned.
Your right derdy, and im wrong.
I would like to apologize to everyone for my deceitful and wrongful accusations. I apologize to everyone that I might of hurt.
I now understand the irrationality of middle eastern politics.
Hopefully we can all work towards a better tomorrow and build a new America. "We can achieve much more in peace than we ever could in war."-Ron Paul

All of you were right and I was wrong. I admit that I am wrong and everything I have said is misleading or false.
You guys win and I lose. This is the end. fin.

[buffalokid777]

Look, Hitler was a very very evil man. You can't even compare Hitler to the United States. Hitler used propaganda, subdued reason, logic and he lied and manipulated the German people kinda like Bush did for the Iraq war.

First you say I can't compare Hitler to the United States....than contradict yourself by noting that Hitler used propaganda. subdued reason, logic and he lied and maniupulated the German people kinda like Bush did for the Iraq war...

????

Looks like you made the argument for me...

But I have others....

Those who weren't for going into Iraq, they were labeled as unpatriotic...

I still here the dolts calling Ron Paul a surrender monkey...

In case you don't know....that's one from the Nazi playbook also....

“Why of course the people don’t want war. Why should some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece? Naturally, the common people don’t want war: neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But after all it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship…Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger.”

— Leading Nazi leader, Hermann Goering, at the Nuremberg Trials before he was sentenced to death

Apparently most of the American people didn't realize it either before we into Iraq.


What Bush actually did in the Iraq war was not a pre-emptive war but a preventive war. Bush lied and tricked us. A pre-emptive war is when you strike a threat that shows a imminent and credible threat. A preventive war is when you attack a country because you suspect they might attack you in the future in some way, but you dont know for sure. Please read this article for more info: http://www.sunysb.edu/globalhistory/PreventiveWar.shtml

As far as I'm concerned, that's splitting hairs....but for the sake of argument....Iran has no nuclear weapons....yet the war drums are being beaten for a "Preventive war" at this moment to stop them from ever having one....Cheney has the propaganda machine (At least those that will still go along with it) trying to sell Iran needs to be bombed now. I pray the American people aren't foolish enough to fall for it again.


You can speculate all you want on whether or not Iran or a terrorist group can sneak a nuke into here, but would you want the president or our government to take such a risk and simply hope they dont sneak a bomb into our country? The american people probably wouldnt want their government to take such risk especially if they know about it!

I wouldn't wish for the government to HOPE they couldn't sneak one in here....

I would expect them to do what it takes to make sure they couldn't get one in here.

Start with the borders and ports, if you stop people from coming in the country illegally....well that's a huge step....

Don't even try to tell me you can't protect the borders...spend the 1 trillion we've blown on the Red Herring known as the Iraq war and occupation and I bet we could protect them borders where they would NEVER sneak a nuke in here.


I dont think any of us want to reach the point where a nuke goes off in our country, but if you had the power to prevent that, wouldn't you at least consider taking action? And c'mon, there are dozens of scenarios that could happen. Its the very unpredictability of a nuclear explosion that should cause us great alarm. ANd maybe just maybe, we should consider a invasion of Iran, and I think it would do Ron Paul some good to keep it on the table and to emphasize how he would do it the correct way by way of the consitution...

Well, I am not saying we should go off to war, but just that Ron Paul keeps it on the table. We all hate pre-emptive wars, but just because the war isnt in response to a direct attack doesnt mean its not justified.

None of us ever want that to happen. But your logic is very flawed. The only reason your scenario would ever happen is because of unsecure borders and ports.

If we truly knew via intelligence that an attack from Iran via nuke was imminent by terrorist handoff....we would be able to intercept it, because of the intelligence.

I don't see with secure ports and borders how it could happen other than loading it on a plane or missle and dropping it on us.

The problem with your argument is that this administration REFUSES to secure our ports and borders, for the very purpose IMO to create this scenario, so to allow us the only option of yet another preventive war against Iran.....

Until they secure our borders and ports, at very least by spending what has been wasted in Iraq, their arguments have no merit.

[buffalokid777]

Jim Dude, looks like me and someone else were writing replys at the same time....

I just got my post a bit later in....

No need to alert me to the post you made before this one...

Best Wishes

[derdy]

I just want to be clear to new users that I was not trying to PWN anyone. If I was then I would just reply like so:



http://i41.photobucket.com/albums/e284/litterussell/tha52c3951.gif

:D :D

I've already told JimDude in a PM there's no need to apologize to me. From 09/11/01-10/18/05 I was a hard-core preemptive war, bring democracy to the Middle East, go USA type person. I was NEOCONNED!. We've all be fed a lot of bullcrap and I don't think anyone should have to apologize for being brainwashed except for the people that are responsible for said brainwashing.

I think it's important to be able to have cordial debate w/o being rude or impolite so we can educate each other and reach some common ground. If I came across sounding condescending that wasn't my intention. :D

Peace,
Denny

[Mesogen]

Im not saying we should go on a preemptive war with Iran. If we do go to war with Iran, we should only do so if were very sure that Iran is planning on making nuclear weapons.

That's pre-emptive war.

[Mesogen]

Not to detract from the discussion, I'm enjoying it. However, the reason why Iran wants Nuclear power plants is because while it may have gobs of oil, they do not have refinery capacity.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/31/AR2006053101464.html

Also, what happens to Iran's economy if we decide to smartly build nuclear power plants? If the demand for oil drops, they have nothing. Since they have very few other natural resources, they need to build up their intellectual resources otherwise they will retreat into the forgotten halls of history if the world ever wakes up and obtains other reliable energy sources. What better intellectual endeavour than physics?

It's also better for them to sell oil rather than use it for power. It makes more economic sense for them. It made more economic sense in 1976 when Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and others said that it was a great idea for Iran to have nuclear power plants.

http://www.infowars.net/pictures/dec06/121206ShahNuclearPlants488.jpg

HA HA! 30 years of safety. :) Just wait until Chernobyl!

And the demand for oil will never drop.

[Mesogen]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A3983-2005Mar26.html


Past Arguments Don't Square With Current Iran Policy

By Dafna Linzer
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, March 27, 2005; Page A15

Lacking direct evidence, Bush administration officials argue that Iran's nuclear program must be a cover for bomb-making. Vice President Cheney recently said, "They're already sitting on an awful lot of oil and gas. Nobody can figure why they need nuclear as well to generate energy."

Yet Cheney, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and outgoing Deputy Secretary Paul Wolfowitz held key national security posts when the Ford administration made the opposite argument 30 years ago.

Ford's team endorsed Iranian plans to build a massive nuclear energy industry, but also worked hard to complete a multibillion-dollar deal that would have given Tehran control of large quantities of plutonium and enriched uranium -- the two pathways to a nuclear bomb. Either can be shaped into the core of a nuclear warhead, and obtaining one or the other is generally considered the most significant obstacle to would-be weapons builders.

Iran, a U.S. ally then, had deep pockets and close ties to Washington. U.S. companies, including Westinghouse and General Electric, scrambled to do business there.

"I don't think the issue of proliferation came up," Henry A. Kissinger, who was Ford's secretary of state, said in an interview for this article.

[Ozwest]

For Fucks Sake! Some of you need to get past the Kool-Aid stage regarding the Middle East! Get yourself a World Map, study History and culture of the Middle East, examine their Art, Architecture, and Science. Stop freaking out about a nuclear powered falafel.

[Ozwest]

Let's worry about Iran now. Next week let's worry about Syria. Of course we can't forget North Korea. Then there's Pakistan. And who knows what India has up its sleeve.Then there's all those Russian Nukes in the hands of rogue Countries. The government will never run out of Booga Booga. Elect Ron Paul and be done with this shit!