They Overplayed Their Bluff and the Time is NOW

[acptulsa]

Santorum and Bachmann, with this business of every single Iranian down to the last babe in arms being some kind of kamikaze hell bent on putting a dent in one of our thousands of cities even if it means the destruction of their entire nation, is pure insanity.

No, it's worse than your everyday, run of the mill insanity. It's more insidious. It's the kind of every last one of 'them' down to the last babe in arms must die because they're inherently evil talk upon which Hitler built the Holocaust. The same damned thing. It's over the top, it's beneath contempt, and its just the overplayed bluff we need to put this thing over by helping people to see how they're being played. The bluffer has no cards; the emperor has no clothes.

And if we don't move on this, Romney's going to paint his warmongering position as some kind of sane middle ground, not because it's really different from the Santorum/Bachmann insanity, but because he didn't bluff as hard trying to sell the same crappy cards.

When we say nineteen Saudis attacked us and if we leave Iran the hell alone they'll spend their time keeping Saudi Arabia in check because Iran and Saudi Arabia don't like each other and Saudi Arabia is a much closer threat to Iran than we are (unless we're beating the war drums), then people will start asking the questions they need to ask. Questions like, is Iran the only threat in the region, can we afford to get wrapped up in one threat to the point where we're too tied up to defend our flank against another proven threat, where was the yellowcake uranium they said was in Iraq, and why do none of these warmongers even mention Saudi Arabia from whence those nineteen hijackers came?

And even if these questions never get answers, they are still the right questions.

Then, maybe just maybe, when we get this boogieman talk established as the bluff hand that it is, because in the end Iran still doesn't have an intercontinental missile and no one is saying that they do (they don't even have a missile that can hit Israel without interception), maybe we can get back to talking about our real problem which is the economy and the seven point seven trillion dollars that was stolen from us and given to the banksters. No?

The time is now. Do we define the debate or don't we?

[bronxboy10]

True that.

Plus, apparently Bachmann is as pro-life as they come, but the one million dead Iraqi's since the beginning of the 2nd Iraq War is no big deal.

:mad:

[acptulsa]

Plus, apparently Bachmann is as pro-life as they come, but the one million dead Iraqi's since the beginning of the 2nd Iraq War is no big deal.

Us counts. Them doesn't count.

She's not listening to my mom. Mom says, ask not if God is on your side, ask if your nation walks with God. Bachmann and Santorum seem to find it more profitable to make certain assumptions. And judging from the speech he gave at the Citadel, Romney isn't one bit different. As for Newt, well, we all know the degree by now to which religion is a conveninece--a source of loopholes--to that one...

[acptulsa]

Do we define the debate or don't we?

Are we going to let them get away with Final Solution talk or are we going to call it out? Is eliminating rivals for Saudi Arabia, the nation which gave us nineteen of the 9/11 terrorists, the business of the United States or do we have a different purpose?

Are we going to give up our liberties and put up with indefinite detention out of fear or are we red-blooded Americans? Do we kick ass with weapons or was American built on kicking ass economically instead?

Do we define this debate or don't we?

[acptulsa]

I suggest we remember this...


The wise in heart are called discerning, and pleasant words promote instruction.--Proverbs 16:21

...and repeat these things:

Understanding is a fountain of life to those who have it, but folly brings punishment to fools.--Proverbs 16:22

Pride goes before destruction; a haughty spirit before a fall.--Proverbs 16:18

[acptulsa]

I think Saudi Arabia is the key to stopping this outrage. To wit:

While we're next door beating up Saudi Arabia's rival, how do we protect our flank from Saudi Arabia itself? Now, you may think that wouldn't be necessary. But nineteen Saudi hijackers led by a member of the Royal House of Saud provided us evidence, ten years and two months ago, that you're wrong. So, how do we protect the flank we expose to the Saudis?

Why would we owe the Saudis this favor? After all they've done for us, ten years and two months ago, and given how little we have in common with their witch-beheading society, why would we beat up their biggest rival for prestige and power in the Middle East and thus tilt the balance of power in the region so heavily in their direction?

Given that if Iran manages to develop a nuke, they couldn't deliver it to Israel, and they sure couldn't land it on U.S. territory. So, who has the most to fear from it? An invading army and, perhaps Saudi Arabia. Well, unless we absolutely insist that we'll invade sooner or later, we don't have to worry about tripping over their nuclear land mine, and if they just want to use it against Saudi Arabia, well, that's terrible and they shouldn't but what do we owe the Saudis that we should be the ones to stop it?

[Todd38]

In theory Iran could deliver a nuke to Israel by putting it in the warhead of one of their long range North Korean missiles. However, North Korean's missiles are considered by the CIA to be highly inaccurate and might not even reach the target. More importantly though, Iran does not want to nuke Israel, the whole purpose of Iran's nuclear program is to achieve a great propaganda victory for the ruling regime because the economic performance there has been such a disgrace for the last 15 years.

[eok321]

The campaign really need a 2 minute infomercial to point out some of this stuff and preferably a week or so in advance of the voting to give some information a chance to be absorbed.

Anybody who understands that the establishment candidates foreign policy is insane is a Ron Paul Supporter and there is no way they can support any of the rest of the blood thirsty warmongers.

Our problem is can we shake enough average voters out of their slumber before January 3rd.

[acptulsa]

In theory Iran could deliver a nuke to Israel by putting it in the warhead of one of their long range North Korean missiles. However, North Korean's missiles are considered by the CIA to be highly inaccurate and might not even reach the target.

And what's more, the ballistic course the missile would have to take would take it right over a few countries who have anti-ballistic missile systems and would love to have Israel owe them a huge favor. So, the chance of that nuke reaching Israel is as close to zero as the chance that Iran could deliver it to Manhattan by parcel post.

Which is about their only hope of delivering it to Manhattan.

Iran wants a nuke because we treated North Korea like dirt until they got a nuke, and we treated Pakistan like dirt until they got one, and now we're treating them like dirt. Pretty simple stuff, really.


Our problem is can we shake enough average voters out of their slumber before January 3rd.

I think we can. But in order to do it, I think all of us, phone bankers, bloggers, office politicos and all, need to remember two words to pull out and bandy around when the neocon-aid drinkers start in: Saudi Arabia. Because Iran and Saudi Arabia are too close, too intertwined, and too busy being rivals to each other to ever be apples and oranges. Do harm to one, you aid and abet the other. Period.

And I still say we don't owe Saudi Arabia the favor. The Neocon Elite might. But We the People don't.

[acptulsa]

Do we define the debate or don't we?

[Steve-in-NY]

So Iran is going to launch a nuke at Israel and kill all the Palestinians as well as destroy the Al Aqsa Mosque and the Dome of the Rock before having their country and people completely obliterated for doing so?
Riiiight.
Even if I was completely wasted I dont buy into that.
Sorry?

[puppetmaster]

In theory Iran could deliver a nuke to Israel by putting it in the warhead of one of their long range North Korean missiles. However, North Korean's missiles are considered by the CIA to be highly inaccurate and might not even reach the target. More importantly though, Iran does not want to nuke Israel, the whole purpose of Iran's nuclear program is to achieve a great propaganda victory for the ruling regime because the economic performance there has been such a disgrace for the last 15 years.


What program?....you assume they have a program. What if they just want to generate electricity?

[Todd38]

What program?....you assume they have a program. What if they just want to generate electricity?

What does Ron Paul say?

[acptulsa]

So Iran is going to launch a nuke at Israel and kill all the Palestinians as well as destroy the Al Aqsa Mosque and the Dome of the Rock before having their country and people completely obliterated for doing so?
Riiiight.
Even if I was completely wasted I dont buy into that.
Sorry?

But--you don't believe Rick Santorum? But his commercial says he understands the radical Islamic threat! Don't you believe commercials?

Here--drink some more Everclear Koolaid and we'll try again...

[LibertyEagle]

That Santorum can still say that they hate us for our freedoms, is beyond belief. I mean, do people even stop for a second and wonder why they don't hate Switzerland, Canada, etc.?

I think it also needs to be brought up that China and Russia have made it pretty clear that they are standing on the side of Iran. Do they really want to start WWIII?

[acptulsa]

That Santorum can still say that they hate us for our freedoms, is beyond belief. I mean, do people even stop for a second and wonder why they don't hate Switzerland, Canada, etc.?

Never mind that. Indefinite detentions are almost here. Who's still free? Ain't us...

All those people who died preserving, protecting and defending our Constitution are about to roll over in their graves again. I believe this will cause another earthquake in D.C., epicenter Arlington. Bad time to stand under the Washington Monument.


I think it also needs to be brought up that China and Russia have made it pretty clear that they are standing on the side of Iran. Do they really want to start WWIII?

Yes, of course they do. Should be very profitable.

[1stAmendguy]

"It's the kind of every last one of 'them' down to the last babe in arms must die because they're inherently evil talk upon which Hitler built the Holocaust. The same damned thing. It's over the top, it's beneath contempt, and its just the overplayed bluff we need to put this thing over by helping people to see how they're being played."

I recommend watching a documentary called "The Wave". The average less aware American is being herded like cattle by the war propoganda media into this dangerous groupthink mindset. I agree, good analogy there.

[clint4liberty]

I think we need to remind traditional conservatives, moderates, social conservatives, and independents that oppose Iran building a
nuclear weapon that US and Israel already have so many. Also, he many times do we have to point out Dr. Paul has tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands Jewish supporters? Ron Paul is way more hawkish on Iran than Obama. Other than Rick Perry no other
Republican candidate wants to cut off foreign aid to Israel enemies. Is Mitt Romney or Newt Gingrich or some of the other candidates
anti Jewish or Israel because they support giving seven times more aid to Israel's sworn enemies? Even neo cons should be worried
by the strain on the US military being stretched too thin, but Dr. Paul is the only one pointing this fact. Republicans need to realize
that 900 bases around the globe cannot and will not be shut down in first days or months of a Paul Presidency. These people
need to wake up and pay attention to the reality of the US economy and national debt.