Throwback280s
12-16-2011, 09:28 AM
I watch the debates extremely frustrated that Ron Paul misses the opportunity to slam the arguments of the neocons back down their throats by turning the tables on them. He argues his position from a moral lecturing anti-war standpoint. Can't win Republican majorities when you always frame it like that. The campaign must show how their position on Iran is the only position strategically designed to crush terrorism, neutralize Iran's regime, and save American from bankruptcy. He must sound muscular because the foreign policy is muscular. Below is an article which rips the neocon argument for War with Iran to shreds. It eviscerates it leaving their position weak, pro-terrorism, and pathetic. And it shows how a foreign policy of freedom is muscular, tough, and proactive in crushing enemies.
THE CAMPAIGN MUST USE THIS LANGUAGE!!
Republican liberalism enables Iran's regime
Exclusive: David Hanson advocates founders' foreign policy of 'strategic independence'
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: October 14, 2011
4:01 pm Eastern
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As a conservative, I find recent Republican statements on Iran troubling. Not only is mainline Republican doctrine on Iran rooted in liberalism, it endangers America and enables foreign nationalists such as Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
Republicans rightly criticize liberals for avoiding sober policy analysis in favor of knee-jerk emotional appeals. Take health care. Opponents of further federal medical intervention are deemed insensitive to sick people. Unfortunately, many Republican candidates and commentators use this same tactic when discussing Iran. Anyone who opposes sanctions or military threats against Iran must be against national defense. Honest debate is stifled by fear. For example, one candidate at a recent debate suggested, "Iran will not get a nuclear weapon because the world as we know it will be no more."
Perhaps this should be expected. After all, those drum-beating for sanctions and attacks on Iran owe their intellectual heritage to the iconic liberal president Woodrow Wilson. He believed federal intervention was the answer to both foreign and domestic problems. After creating the income tax and Federal Reserve System, Wilson wanted to use Washington's newfound revenue to police the world against threats to democracy. Subsequent administrations have often adopted his vision.
Today, the Wilsonian tradition continues with liberal atheists like Christopher Hitchens calling for an invasion of Iran. Hitchens doesn't believe in God. Instead, he believes Washington should police the world. Many so-called "faith-based" candidates echo this belief.
Iran interventionists ignore crucial political realities in the country they seek to police. Ahmadinejad is not the powerful modern-day Hitler the media suggest. Rather, he is an opportunistic politician who feeds empty rhetoric to an ever-shrinking nationalistic base. His administration is highly unpopular with most Iranians. Internal resistance springs from two sources: a growing pro-West reform movement and an entrenched ruling class beholden to pragmatic financial interests. Both groups have nothing to gain in attacking the U.S.
Iran has one of the most pro-American populations in the Middle East. (It is a telling contrast to nations we subsidize or occupy such as Pakistan, Iraq and Afghanistan – populations that harbor growing resentment towards us.) Sanctions have a consistent historical track record of impoverishing and killing civilians while leaving targeted regimes politically empowered. Indeed, the surest way the U.S. can revive Ahmadinejad's power is to starve and scare pro-West Iranians back into his camp. That is precisely what sanctions and threats do.
Interventionists often cite fear for Israel's safety as another reason to confront Iran. Yet On March 10, 2011, Lt. Gen. Ronald Burgess, head of the U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency, said Iran was "unlikely to initiate or intentionally provoke" a conflict. There is no evidence Iran even has a nuclear weapon. Israel reportedly has hundreds of nukes. To suggest Israel is incapable of handling Iran only undermines Israeli defense.
Furthermore, even if Iran did acquire a nuclear weapon, why would they strike Israel? Such a strike would kill thousands of Palestinians and potentially destroy the Dome of the Rock, the second holiest site in Islam.
Sanctions lead to war or aid in radicalizing populations against America, both of which we cannot afford. The debt necessary to wage war in Iran could cripple our national defense. Ironically, this scenario is exactly what Osama bin Laden envisioned. His writings reveal a long-term plan to bait America into endless wars until we are brought down internally by debt. Moreover, al-Qaida has long viewed Shiites in Iran as mortal enemies. A U.S.-Iran conflict would be the ultimate strategic gift to the terrorist network: two birds with one stone.
Fortunately, there is a foreign policy that can turn the tables on both al-Qaida and Ahmadinejad. It is rooted in the Founding Fathers' vision of strategic independence. George Washington criticized entangling alliances. John Quincy Adams was clear: "America goes not abroad in search of monsters to destroy." James Madison warned that "no nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare." Instead, he advocated "sincere neutrality toward belligerent nations." These founders recognized that perpetual warfare was the gravest threat to America's freedom and prosperity.
(Column continues below)
By ending our Mideast police efforts, America can use freedom to defeat tyranny. Replacing sanctions with offers of free trade would embolden Iranians to replace Ahmadinejad with pro-West reformists.
Strategic independence would save us billions if not trillions of dollars. These savings could help solve our debt crisis and save programs like Social Security and Medicare. With America protecting its own borders, al-Qaida would lose a major recruiting tool. They would be forced to resume sporadic fights with Shia extremists. Our enemies would be neutralized. Most importantly, bin Laden's debt trap would be foiled.
Some interventionists may mock this strategy as "blaming America first." In doing so, they are blaming America's first: the Founding Fathers whose foreign policy they have unwisely abandoned.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Hanson is a writer and public speaker. He is the founder of Hanson & Associates, a political communications firm in Florida. He is a fellow of the Moving Picture Institute. Contact him at david@hansonwins.com.
THE CAMPAIGN MUST USE THIS LANGUAGE!!
Republican liberalism enables Iran's regime
Exclusive: David Hanson advocates founders' foreign policy of 'strategic independence'
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: October 14, 2011
4:01 pm Eastern
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As a conservative, I find recent Republican statements on Iran troubling. Not only is mainline Republican doctrine on Iran rooted in liberalism, it endangers America and enables foreign nationalists such as Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
Republicans rightly criticize liberals for avoiding sober policy analysis in favor of knee-jerk emotional appeals. Take health care. Opponents of further federal medical intervention are deemed insensitive to sick people. Unfortunately, many Republican candidates and commentators use this same tactic when discussing Iran. Anyone who opposes sanctions or military threats against Iran must be against national defense. Honest debate is stifled by fear. For example, one candidate at a recent debate suggested, "Iran will not get a nuclear weapon because the world as we know it will be no more."
Perhaps this should be expected. After all, those drum-beating for sanctions and attacks on Iran owe their intellectual heritage to the iconic liberal president Woodrow Wilson. He believed federal intervention was the answer to both foreign and domestic problems. After creating the income tax and Federal Reserve System, Wilson wanted to use Washington's newfound revenue to police the world against threats to democracy. Subsequent administrations have often adopted his vision.
Today, the Wilsonian tradition continues with liberal atheists like Christopher Hitchens calling for an invasion of Iran. Hitchens doesn't believe in God. Instead, he believes Washington should police the world. Many so-called "faith-based" candidates echo this belief.
Iran interventionists ignore crucial political realities in the country they seek to police. Ahmadinejad is not the powerful modern-day Hitler the media suggest. Rather, he is an opportunistic politician who feeds empty rhetoric to an ever-shrinking nationalistic base. His administration is highly unpopular with most Iranians. Internal resistance springs from two sources: a growing pro-West reform movement and an entrenched ruling class beholden to pragmatic financial interests. Both groups have nothing to gain in attacking the U.S.
Iran has one of the most pro-American populations in the Middle East. (It is a telling contrast to nations we subsidize or occupy such as Pakistan, Iraq and Afghanistan – populations that harbor growing resentment towards us.) Sanctions have a consistent historical track record of impoverishing and killing civilians while leaving targeted regimes politically empowered. Indeed, the surest way the U.S. can revive Ahmadinejad's power is to starve and scare pro-West Iranians back into his camp. That is precisely what sanctions and threats do.
Interventionists often cite fear for Israel's safety as another reason to confront Iran. Yet On March 10, 2011, Lt. Gen. Ronald Burgess, head of the U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency, said Iran was "unlikely to initiate or intentionally provoke" a conflict. There is no evidence Iran even has a nuclear weapon. Israel reportedly has hundreds of nukes. To suggest Israel is incapable of handling Iran only undermines Israeli defense.
Furthermore, even if Iran did acquire a nuclear weapon, why would they strike Israel? Such a strike would kill thousands of Palestinians and potentially destroy the Dome of the Rock, the second holiest site in Islam.
Sanctions lead to war or aid in radicalizing populations against America, both of which we cannot afford. The debt necessary to wage war in Iran could cripple our national defense. Ironically, this scenario is exactly what Osama bin Laden envisioned. His writings reveal a long-term plan to bait America into endless wars until we are brought down internally by debt. Moreover, al-Qaida has long viewed Shiites in Iran as mortal enemies. A U.S.-Iran conflict would be the ultimate strategic gift to the terrorist network: two birds with one stone.
Fortunately, there is a foreign policy that can turn the tables on both al-Qaida and Ahmadinejad. It is rooted in the Founding Fathers' vision of strategic independence. George Washington criticized entangling alliances. John Quincy Adams was clear: "America goes not abroad in search of monsters to destroy." James Madison warned that "no nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare." Instead, he advocated "sincere neutrality toward belligerent nations." These founders recognized that perpetual warfare was the gravest threat to America's freedom and prosperity.
(Column continues below)
By ending our Mideast police efforts, America can use freedom to defeat tyranny. Replacing sanctions with offers of free trade would embolden Iranians to replace Ahmadinejad with pro-West reformists.
Strategic independence would save us billions if not trillions of dollars. These savings could help solve our debt crisis and save programs like Social Security and Medicare. With America protecting its own borders, al-Qaida would lose a major recruiting tool. They would be forced to resume sporadic fights with Shia extremists. Our enemies would be neutralized. Most importantly, bin Laden's debt trap would be foiled.
Some interventionists may mock this strategy as "blaming America first." In doing so, they are blaming America's first: the Founding Fathers whose foreign policy they have unwisely abandoned.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Hanson is a writer and public speaker. He is the founder of Hanson & Associates, a political communications firm in Florida. He is a fellow of the Moving Picture Institute. Contact him at david@hansonwins.com.