This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Ron Paul: "I Think Sanctions Give Iran Motivation To Want A Nuclear Weapon"
There are those who say that while they agree completely with Ron Paul's economic policy of fixing the #1 issue that ails America (as a reminder, total US debt/GDP would only decline under a Ron Paul presidency) they disagree with Paul on his foreign policy. We wonder why when all he does is instead of appealing to the jingoism of warmongers and patronizing the basest of herd instincts, he simply tells the truth. Such as on Today's State of the Union show on CNN when asked if Obama has done "enough" to force Iran to stop its nuclear development via sanctions and others, his reply was spot on: "I think he gets too much involved. I think sanctions gives the motivation for them to want a nuclear weapon. We have 45 bases around them, we can demolish them within hours. And the worst thing the sanctions do, and Republicans and Democrats both support it and the other GOP candidates want war even more, the whole thing is there is a lot of dissension in Iran and we should encourage it by not interfering, once we get involve and threaten to bomb them, it becomes nationalistic - everyone joins the Ayataollah and Ahmedinejad. So there is a blowback - unusual circumstances and unintended consequences. So yes, our people are well-intended, but they don't realize how much damage they do by not accomplishing what they want and causing more harm to us. So our military personnel right now are very adamant not to be involved in a bombing of Iran, it makes no sense whatsoever to our military personnel, to the CIA, even though they are much more interventionist than I am."
And probably even more important in light of Obama's apology for burning down Korans (but not for pictures of torture), Paul had this to say: "I thought McNamara was rather astute when he they asked him about the mess he caused in Vietnam: "don't you think you should apologize to the American people and to the world" he said: "what good is an apology: if you make mistakes and you see this and you stir enough trouble, why don't we change our policy. That's what he said: "we should change our policy." So if we have a policy going on in the middle east that is begging that we apologize now and then and others condemning it, I think we should reassess our foreign policy, and that is what I think we are not doing, and that is why I am quite different than the other candidates - the American people are sick and tired of the wars going on over there, we are going broke fighting these wars that are not legitimate in that we were not attacked, they were not declared, and the American people in their majority want us out of there."
»
- 21458 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -
No sense in letting history stop a rant.
Exactly mkhs. If you can lasso a trendy vibe and get your rant on, catch a few up arrows from the sheople, who cares how factually idiotically wrong you are?
Looking at old man seer here....
The point is not whether or not you are quilty of doing anything, but do they just perhaps have some reason to think we're jerks.
No, the point was they have long memories, that is, the crusasdes. Conveniently, they forget the three centuries of religion at the point of a sword prior to said crusades. Just another case of selective amnesia.
Which grade was the one that was too hard?
If you are so easily embarrassed,we can talk about albigensian crusades.
He is so logical. How can anyone believe those poll numbers with him at 13%.
Common sense is about as popular as holding PMs.
So you are saying 1% of the population has common sense, and only 1% of their brains are allocated to common sense. I'd say that adds up.
Polls are eye candy for slaves. Election fraud is rampant in this age of technological tomfoolery.
Proof - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mq9WVuKGwOM
It's time for us to admit that our election system "putts from the rough"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ftl_ckcpZgY
http://www.pcworld.com/article/251187/hackers_elect_futuramas_bender_to_...
lookatthisshit,fuckmydaughterfuckedthespacekey,sorry!theyarepreparingthesheeplementality....
http://www.economist.com/world/us-elections-2012
Republican race:
Romney 29% Santorum 28% Gingrich 19% Paul 12% Other 7%Head to head:
Obama 49% Romney 40%
Obama 50% Santorum 41%
Obama 52% Gingrich 38%
Obama 48% Paul 39%Approval:
Obama 45% Congress 7%All figure provided by the Economist, a dicredited magazine from it's former haughty status 15 years ago. A Miles Davis song; "So What" Milestones
fuck-em'
At the moment, Ron Paul bests President Obama in a head-to-head matchup by 43 to 41 percent, according to a Rasmussen Reports poll released Tuesday.
By Peter Grier, Staff writer / February 28, 2012
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/The-Vote/2012/0228/Ron-Paul-poll-s...
"How can anyone believe those poll numbers"
Depends on who is being polled :-(
Ron Paul, bitchez
he is my president. i hope to be going to tampa to elect him
Nothing to be criticized on that opinion!
Everyone thinking differently here should also relate to the key point
detonating an H-bomb at high altitude over iRan does not take that long. it takes just seconds.
"Seconds"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DwpvHJN3QvI
"the shot that was heard all around the world"...
Ron Pal victim of vote fraud counting-falsifying. There is no American who dont want him as President except, 1 % of population they do all to prevent him taking office.
I wish I could agree with you, but I hear plenty of idiots every day talking about Obama getting re-elected (in a good way).
... or lifer republitards smirking in my face while throwing accusations of Paul, and Rombot working together to discredit the oh-so pious Saint-orum.
In my neck of the woods I see Sanitarium signs up. And this is why I no longer vote- perpetuating a system that "empowers" people like this is NOT a good thing.
Seer, each man takes his own path, good luck with yours.
For some years now, my path has been one of freeing myself from the social, religious, and political programming associated with my... background.
I decided to support RP because he is unlike any other politician I've seen. His consistency in pointing out the flaws in our system, and educating the people about solutions set him apart.
Is it too late? Probably so, and by at least twenty years depending on one's perspective... yet I think I would be remiss not to engage the system in one more (last?) attempt to effect a positive outcome when so little is required to do so.
Or, just as bad, how Newt is the best candidate. Jeebus, doesn't anyone remember what a fucking scumbag that guy is? If you checked him for an integrity pulse, you'd find he's flatlined. I guess I'm old school, but I still think integrity means something. Ron Paul is the only one with a shred of integrity. Fuck the rest of them, all of them, red and blue.
again, are you aware of how much you sound like an obama fan of just 4 years ago?
but, hey! maybe you're right!
sorry, but one couldn't tell it from this, imo
foreignPolicy, ya know?
LOL That's some funny shit. Equating me with an Obama fan because I'm sick of the bullshit mainstream status quo owned-by-the-highest-bidder sociopathic egocentric crooked motherfucking bankster-cock-sucking politicians. Good stuff.
i didn't mean to "equate you" dawg!
but i'm glad you appreciated it! Hahaha!
i just "heard" the "sick-of-the-fuking-bullshit" theme again, here, as was so prevalent 4 years ago, too
newt told me he was counting on you, btw!
Bring home the troops. We need them to help throw off the banksters and politicians that wish to see their blood spilled for profit. The DC/NY Axis of Evil is the greatest threat to mankind.
May 1st, 2012 - http://pastebin.com/iTx8RA2P
Throw in London for Trifecta sake.
Let's go for the quadrella ... throw in Rome, too!
Omnes viae Romam ducunt
We need?
There are 300 million of us, and we can't manage a decent protest. America is done. Your best hope is to buy a gun, PMs, and support Ron Paul while he does the heavy lifting so that at least after the economy crashes people can point to Ron Paul and say, "See!!!!????".
The people of America are frozen in time, and barring a trigger point, they will not thaw out.
I'm sure the troops will be brought home right after Iran is thrown into chaos like Libya and Iraq. Considering the way the economy is going, and the resultant $20 /gal gas that that fiasco will cause, the politicos and White Shoe Boyz will need the troops to defend DC and Manhattan from from the 99% of the Americans that they are financially tossing under the bus.
Great time to leave the country for better digs Imho.
I think the plan is to keep the troops pinned down in the Middle East. They will blame bankruptcy, $20/gal gas and Israel's latest false flag. The real reason will be that TPTB know that most of the troops support Ron Paul and therefore they can't be trusted to be within 3000 miles of DC or Manhattan. They need guaranteed sociopaths and soulless human robots for that job. NY and DC will probably be guarded by Blackwater, carefully selected special forces snipers, and Illuminati Lucifer Youth infiltrators. There will also be nukes planted below the city, in case it gets sacked. Destroy the evidence and the patriots.
I have said it before that in the back of my mind I can't believe that the MIC will stay quiet forever. Either there is a grand plan that the MIC is all-in on, or there is a line in the sand that when crossed means the banksters are going to have a whole new problem to deal with.
The other interesting fact is military contributions to RP. Sort of goes hand in hand with the notion of the line in the sand. Doesn't it?
The only line in the sand you are likely to see will be the unemployed former homeowners in Vegas queueing outside the FEMA camp for bennies and a bed.
You are so right! It takes 3 1/2 yrs. to win WWII & that is on a 2-front war (Japan/German) & now we don't win any wars since then.
Nixon gave us "Peace with Honor" in VietNam (and I'm a VN Vet) & that was just political talk for 'loss'.
My oldest son is in a war zone for the 3rd time in the last 5 years.
We are literally sacrificing our children for corporate profits and that is just wrong.
Need to read a book out about Americans who finally take a stand against corporat/govt. tyranny. It's a thriller and it's about each of us taking a stand & that is why I recommend it so much.
www.booksbyoliver.com
Bring our children/spouses home & keep them out of these 'no win' wars.
Wars and embargos don't work so maybe we should try Ron Paul's approach.
Morningstar,
I am sad that you could not keep your son out of war.
You have done more than your share
om
His son is going to come back after extensive training on how to stomp on sub-human's faces, join the police (no further training required) and kill you and me. Now go ahead and thank him for that in advance you sheep.
poor Ronny...victim of the mainstream media and dupe of the powers that be. In a saner world...and a saner republic...he would be the man....but alas.
Yeah, with Isreal, the US, and the EU all rattling their collective sabers, I could imagine Iran would like a nuke -- for freaking self-defense.
Ron Paul should distance himself from Alex Jones:
"Alex Jones and Infowars appear to be in damage control as damning information linking Alex Jones to the Israeli intelligence firm STRATFOR is spreading virally around the internet."
http://truthernews.wordpress.com/2012/03/02/alex-jones-stratfor-connection-and-the-murder-of-andrew-breitbart/
"Just like Alex Jones will do; he'll try to put words in my mouth... You try to put words in my mouth too, just like Alex Jones does." - Ron Paul
There is not one credible source used in your citation. It is all inuendo. Not saying it might not be true, but really?
"The Bogus Infowars News Story
On February 29, 2012, the exact same day the story regarding Jones and STRATFOR became and internet sensation, Alex Jones and Infowars released a new news story, with the words "STRATFOR" and "Israel" in the title of the story. The only problem with the Infowars story was that it was old news from November 13, 2011, packaged as new news for February 29, 2012.
The bogus Infowars news article was a calculated move by Alex Jones and his Infowars crew to muddy the waters in regards to the information linking Jones to STRATFOR. By creating a bogus news story with two key search terms in the headline, people searching online for information regarding Jones and STRATFOR would be led astray.
The bogus story by Infowars is now being carried by hundreds if not thousands of alternative news websites. Although the pathetic attempt by Jones did not work, as evidenced by the 3,000 plus websites currently carrying the Jones STRATFOR story, the fact that Alex Jones and Infowars published a bogus story shows they are in fact trying to block the story.
If the allegations linking Jones to STRATFOR were not true, why would they try to cover it up?"
http://truthernews.wordpress.com/2012/02/16/alex-jones-cancels-speaking-tour-after-exposure-as-stratfor-double-agent/
Like I said, inuendo. This is an opinion only. You need a source for the opinion- that is how it works.
Does the Wikileaks publication of Stratfor emails now mean that Julian Assange has been rehabilitated in the eyes of "truthers" or does it confirm his role as a double plus good agent of Mossad?
Meanwhile Bigfoot and his magic UFO remain at large...
That article looks like a typical disinfo snow-job to me (no hard facts, just innuendo) ... but ... nevertheless ... Alex Jones is a gatekeeper for the Jesuit wing of the NWO.
Ron Paul is right.
Problem is the audience is so brainwashed, they don't recognize the truth when they hear it.
The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter.
- Winston Churchill
Unintended consequences? What is that Dr. Paul talking about?
Unintended consequences of warmongering and feeding the military industrial complex? He and Eisenhower must have their thinking affected by age.
Unintended consequences of bailing out Wall Street and rescinding the rule of law? Surely, if we all just get along and agree that we must maintain the hegemony everything will work out fine.
(/sarc off)
oh you wound me up with that post! Nicely done
Ron Paul finished 2nd in WA yesterday with 25% and I heard exactly nothing about it.
Well, if it's anything like how he finished "second" in Maine or "third" in Nevada, we'll have to scourer the internet to find the news. The LA Times did post an article, but no numbers.
Ron Paul finished with 25% in a non-binding Caucus. How is that news?
Because the straw vote portion of the caucus is non-binding and the Ron Paul people have been trained to get their delegates selected in the secondary phase of the caucus it is likely that Ron will recieve more than 25% of the delegates.
And you're right. It's not news. Because ain't nobody talkin' bout it.
if you live in a dangerous neighborhood, you carry a gun. Ron Paul is right on this one.
All one needs to do is to put Dr. Ron Paul's words vs. Obama platitutes vs. Romney platitudes vs. Santorum platitutes and ask themselves about the country that would go crazy over the puppet show charade, a.k.a. Romney vs. Obama, and the fascist propaganda that would propel it.
Zombified boiled frogs do not deserve any better but the tragedy of their inability to utter a (real) croak of protest is that by voting for either Repulsive or Despicable party's puppet candiate they, in fact, condone American murderous exports: debt, destruction and death.
Whenever I see Ron Paul these days, he speaks like a normal human being (surrounded by madness), I think of this scene from Full Metal Jacket.
Pogue Colonel: Whose side are you on, son?
Private Joker: Our side, sir.
Pogue Colonel: Don't you love your country?
Private Joker: Yes, sir.
Pogue Colonel: Then how about getting with the program? Why don't you jump on the team and come on in for the big win?
Private Joker: Yes, sir.
Pogue Colonel: Son, all I've ever asked of my Marines is that they obey my orders as they would the word of God. We are here to help the Vietnamese, because inside every gook there is an American trying to get out. It's a hardball world, son. We've gotta keep our heads until this peace craze blows over.
because inside every gook there is an American trying to get out.
______________________________________________
The script writer was a Chinese? Because hey, he wrote about 'Americanism'.
The Chinese invented Americanism somewhere in between the fine work they did with spaghetti and gunpowder.
No.
US citizenism is not a product of China. Not even influenced as people, who invented US citizenism, knew very little about the chinese philosophies.
Have you ever heard of the Chinese philosophy of "Keep Silent, if you are an imbecile?"
I thought this would be appropriate....
http://xkcd.com/367/
"Truth is treason in the empire of lies." ~ R Paul
In our empire of lies, no one who knows the truth and speaks it will ever be elected.
Sanctions were hardly the motivation for Iran to get a nuclear weapon. Seriously, guys, how come none of you know history? Here's the Ayatollah Khomeini back in the early 80s in his little green book:
Do you honestly think they planned to do that using sabers? Get real. The Iranians have done everything they can to get a nuclear bomb, and this started long before Western sanctions.
There has to be a different word for trolls that have a female persona?
Oh, give it up, I'm hardly a troll and just because I post something that challenges your beliefs doesn't make me a troll. Ron Paul has some fine ideas and is a great American. I truly admire much of what he says. That does not, however, make him correct on everything. I believe he is wrong when it comes to Iran and I posted something to back up my belief.
You're nothing but an intolerant and uninformed person, Gene.
Fine. Trollette.
Irene's quote is from religious fanatic, we have them here in the US too, Christian fanatics who are on the wrong path.
Before Khomieni, Iran and Israel were friends and allies. They can be friends again. Many Israelis have business with Iran now.
"Ynet reported that trade between Israel and Iran totals tens of millions of dollars a year. Much of this trade is conducted through a third country. Israel supplies Iran with fertilizer, pipes, and hormones for food; Iran, meanwhile, provides Israel with cashews and marble.[29]"
Also recent poll shows Israelis not concerned with Iran, if ones who live there aren't concerned, why the fuck are you Irene, maybe you profit from war?
Irene is right about Islam "Jihad" in general, they understand that they will conquer infidel lands and spread Islam. Have you ever heard of Kosovo--- Excuse me, my mistake, (Kosovo was the Christian Heartland of Serbia. Like Christianity no longer exists) Kosova is now the new Islamic State in Europe. Thanks Uncle Allah and HATO great job!
But Irene's mind and all other sheople even on this blog are twisted if they think bombing Iran for Israel's pleasure is going to stop Jihad. "Our side" "Our NATO troops Uncle Allah's Air force etc" has a central theme and plan of exterminating Christendom at every opportunity... Yugo Wars, (we are on the Moslem side we kill the Christians) Iraq Invasions (Saddam was protector of Christians so we had to murder him) Syria (Assad's Syria is a sanctuary for Christians, the last Christian sanctuary in the ME so we will slaughter him too)
In Israel, Christians are untermensch just like in America.
Beam me up Scotty nobody here gives a fvck.....
I think it is good to challenge beliefs.
If they are never challenged, how would we ever know if they stand up to the measure of truth or not?
In that sense, I encourage challenges. More than once in my life I have changed course because someone brought something to my attention I was previously ignorant of. However this quote you presented doesn't cut it for me as the hot air on both sides of the fence has been thick and heavy. I just consider the population overall and don't think they should pay the price for the musings of a religious extremist.
In and out of Iran, Khomeini is hardly considered an extremist by Shi'ite muslims. He is the revered father of the Iranian Revolution. The entire Iranian society is ruled by his writings, so let's not denigrate them by calling them "musings".
First off, before you drag another mouthbreather into this nonsensical discussion, I have some bad news: Khomeini is dead. Yep, perished in the 80s or so. Now, today's politics in and around that region, is another category of discussion. By attempting to link him with present day Iran, you are not only claiming to understand Iranian history, but the political situation deriving therefrom.
Stop with the bullshit. You're a troll.
Are you saying the ayatollahs aren't ruling Iran today? Who knew?
Actually, sweetie, the official name of the country is the Islamic Republic of Iran. Care to guess why?
P.S. Seriously, Gene, I'm not a troll. Give it up already.
It doesn't sound like you are prepared to do unto Iran as you would have Iran do unto you. That's all Ron Paul is asking. And as he says, if they get out of line we can smash them in hours. Let's just not start bombing an entire nation of men, women and children over rhetoric. It makes Jesus weep.
Let us assume you are correct.
Iran has yet to invade a country.
Does your reasoning justify a preemptive strike by Israel, who has yet to see Iranian soldiers, tanks and airplanes on and over its soil? Does it justify the genocide of Iran's population by those who are so insecure and paranoid they shoot first and ask questions later.
Ron Paul was a doctor before a politician. His job was to save lives, not take them. I think that says a lot. A lot more than a lawyer who turns politician and is trained to twist truth to his or her client's advantage.
cherry picker
I didn't say anything about starting a war. I said the Iranians wanted to get the bomb long before Western sanctions kicked in.
Guys, reading comprehension. Did you FLUNK?
You are right, you didn't mention anything about war. I assumed it. Obama today mentioned "Got Israel's back", Hillary Clinton in 2008 also threatened Iran with obliteration should that country start something.
It appears just about anyone who provides information that tells us there are Iranians in power who have no love for non Muslim governments should be nuked before they get Israel.
cherry picker, my entire point leads to not underestimating the Iranians. By ignoring their history, or pretending it is irrelevant, we are not doing ourselves a favor.
The current leadership says that nuclear weapons are sinful. Let's not ignore that. And Iran has not started a war in over 200 years. Let's not consider that history to be irrelevant.
And the only people saying that Iran might be building a nuke have based their finding on documents provided by the mujahedin while the Pentagon and all US intelligence agencies say that Iran has no nuclear weapons programs. Let's not forget to consider that as well.
And ironic it all is... US was trying to shove nuclear on Iran back when they also shoved a dictator down their throats...
The bankers, religious nutcases and psycho warriors will do themselves on in. Best to just step back and let them find out that they're all wrong: and when they lie there in their own funeral pyre, POUR ON THE FUCKING GAS!
You did more than stating the Iranians wanted to get the bomb before, you added a large quotation showing that Iran looks for a nuclear weapon for other purpose than preservation of their power enclave.
Reading comprehension is as good as the written text is or...
Your words stand on their own.
His words only reflect on himself.
Irene,
Consider that sanctions, and sending our troops and warships to the Middle East to invade and meddle only add fuel to the Islamic extremists and Jihadists.
How would a moderate Muslim in the Middle East argue with an extremist or a person in the middle that the U.S. was not an Imperialist there to conquer the region and destroy their culture? Hard argument to make when inflation and food shortages are caused by sanctions and the news is full of drone attacks on civilians and Quran burnings by American troops.
Oh, give it up, I'm hardly a troll and just because I post something that challenges your beliefs doesn't make me a troll.
________________________________________________
What beliefs?
Apparently, you want to sell the idea that acquiring nuclear weapons would significantly help Iran to achieve the goal you underline, this over the rest of priorities.
Have you any example, any construction to help showing your beliefs are not fantasy?
Iran leadership are people of power and as such, before any other goal, they want to stay in power. That is their number one priority. Same for all people of power.
Some good examples to show nuclear weapons help.
North Korea is communist. How having nuclear weapons has helped them to spread communism is somehow difficult to see.
Them staying in power, much less difficult.
So if you could provide something to ground the idea that Iranian leader priority to remain in power is superceded by something else and that nuclear weapons would help that something else better than nuclear weapons help staying in power, please be free to provide.
US citizens should certainly not be scared to prove their US citizenism claims by the example.
Considering the nordic origin of the word "troll"
that should be a " trulla ".
Hey Gene,
Help me out, please.
How can you tell Irene is a woman???
And what does gender have to do with anything?
I'm just asken because I so often assume gender by looking at name and then realize that here at ZH who can tell who is what?
om
irene = 50 weeks, 5 days
less than 1 page of posts
fairly heavy activity the last week---5 posts coming to this page it looks like
s/he certainly hits this string early and hard and swinging, too! putting up the "jihad quote" so everybody will understand "islam", right off the bat, and then wondering what could be the matter here...
perhaps you have caught gene in a "gender assumption" here, om! but irene does not seem to know that the "jihad quote" which is offered as "proof" of who-knows what (!) is pretty standard fare here on zH from the "they're really different and can NOT be trusted and should probably just be exterminated" crowd
maybe in another few years, she'll start to catch on?
And for all you people giving me a thumbs down, how about you BE BRAVE and tell me why.
The goal should be to reduce power that religious fundamentalists like Khomeni have in Iran, yet sanctions and military threats have the exact opposite effect, which is what Ron Paul is trying to point out. Not really that complicated, I don't think...
Sorry Squid Vicious (great handle, BTW), but that is not what Ron Paul was trying to point out. What he said, and what the title of the article quotes is:
"I Think Sanctions Give Iran Motivation To Want A Nuclear Weapon"Not really that complicated....
In a recent debate Ron Paul made exactly the point Squid paraphrased in his post.
Irene,
I didn't give you a vote at all, but it is obvious why you have the reds: someone called you a troll, right?
Well, here at ZH this is like being called a commie, a muslim, a woman, a gay or lesbian in the US; you are guilty until proven innocent and all cast stones.
Not exactly true, but over the past six months each day a stronger case could be made for this being so
I'm only writing this to see how true it is
how many idiot rednecks/infiltrators/wackos are on tonight
I don't know a thing om
Gee, where have we heard something like this before?
Gee, Lore, I don't know. I was quoting from Khomeini's little green book. Why are you being sarcastic? Millions upon millions of Iranians follow that book. The whole fucking Iranian revolution was based on it.
Maybe you just don't know what it is like most other uninformed, stupid Americans.
I've read selections from both the Little Green Book and the Talmud. How about we let those fine folks work out their problems with each other and stay the hell out of it? It doesn't make much difference whether you're called a goy or an infidel when an extremist puts a target on your back.
Do you really think that every petty dictator is a real threat? Khomeini was a nut job, in a nation incapable of conducting war that is not in a contigous country. Religion is power, until it runs up against reality.
The communists said the same thing. Hitler said the same thing. Napoleon said the same thing. Heck, even the Brits said the sun never set on their "empire".
Dust in the wind.
Dust in the wind, alright. You must be referring to the 100 million corpses murdered by Hitler and the communists.
If you seriously believe that Iran is incapable of conducting war not on its own borders, you better learn a new definition of war otherwise you might easily become some of that dust in the wind you mentioned, sooner rather than later.
Nice hyperbole Irene, 100 million? The Stalin murders may have reached 35 million on the upper side. Hitler wasn't even close, but they, at least, had forces capable of conducting war. Iran needs a blue water navy to conduct war beyond it's sea lanes- and doesn't have one.
They haven't the capability to project power, except on foot. This makes it local. Are they capable of smuggling in a bomb somewhere? Sure- that is not war. Perhaps you need to learn a few definitions.
No hyperbole, Sean. I said communists and Hitler. Add in China. The total is easily 100 million, some say over 110 million.
Then you might want to provide a source? otherwise, it's hype.
LBJ introduced the socialist Great Society at the same time he was busy killing 4 million Vietnamese. Is there room on your tally sheet for him? Come on, give an American comrade a break.
Irene, you have incredible knowledge of 1st grade US public school history. Our ally, Stalin (FDR called hime Uncle Joe) made Hitler look like a Boy Scout (he directly or indirectly was responsible for between 35 to 65 million deaths). Have you no individual thought? You regurgitate "facts" fed to you on a nationalistic conveyor belt lined with pretty colorful flags. Regain your individual identity and stop posing for pictures with the "winning" team.
But Stalin had only killed about 1 million when FDR ganged up with him against Hitler , the latter just a mere thousand (including the Roehm affair) at the time...
I guess you can take this up with the ghosts of the millions of Ukrainians Stalin starved to death in the 30s.
Clearly, you don't seem to realize that Stalin was Hitler's ally before he was ours.
Molotov-Ribbentrop, anyone?
As for regurgitating "facts" - my family lived it. I think we know a lot more about what happened in the USSR than you could ever dream of.
Man that Ayatollah can sure speak good English!
What's the size of their Blue Water Navy?
How many landing craft do they have?
In Thousands, how many ICBMs do they have?
What is the size of their Air force?
How many refueling takers, and war support systems do they have?
REAL Threat there Irene,
samsara, even our military is considering that we might lose one of our carriers to their undersized navy. It's like David v. Goliath. I'm not saying the Iranians will win, but I am saying they can inflict heavy damages and casualties.
Don't forget, their population is willing to continue living in the medeival ages. Ours, not so much, ya know?
That would lower the carrier ratio to 10:0 instead of 11:0. There is also an instant savings to the bottom line from wages, upkeep, pensions, and benefits. If it's an older carrier that would be better. Plus the PR campaign would last 100 years, which would create jobs.
Irene I've been fair trying to give you thumbs up when applicable in your debate here but seriously using the "David v Goliath" example you do realize that Goliath would be the US in this instance and that David (I guess him being an Israelite is just coincidence here) would be Iran and that David was defending the "good" side.
Also, you are missing the point that the US in your scenario would be attacking them! So there would be a loss of a carrier, on the side of an aggressor, attacking a nation that hasn't attacked anyone, and you think that is the terrible outcome that the aggressor "could" have casualties.
And I quote "Who is this uncircumcised Philistine that he should defy the armies of God?"
I guess God wanted to stay on the sidelines just for shits and giggles.
Your premise that they are fundamentalists may well be true but then so are many religions. The Israelis are fighting among themselves as well for control of their state from internal fundamentalists.
Also if you want to reference religious documents you can't leave out the Bible right?
"However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way. (Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT)"
When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. And if the slave girl's owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter. If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife. If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment. (Exodus 21:7-11 NLT)
When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property. (Exodus 21:20-21 NAB)
When the LORD your God brings you into the land you are entering to possess and drives out before you many nations—the Hittites, Girgashites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites, seven nations larger and stronger than you— 2 and when the LORD your God has delivered them over to you and you have defeated them, then you must destroy them totally.[a] Make no treaty with them, and show them no mercy.
Deuteronomy 7:1-2For six days, work is to be done, but the seventh day shall be your holy day, a Sabbath of rest to the LORD. Whoever does any work on it must be put to death. Exodus 35:2
Don't forget, their population is willing to continue living in the medeival ages.
Do you know ANYTHING about what the level is of the culture there?
Is that a Limburger assessment?
And some people here believe that the world is only 10,000 years old, and people and dinosaurs lived at the same time, BUT, but still use Ipads and have color TVs, what does that tell you about 'Ours Not so much" ?
Care to supply some facts about the exalted level of Iranian culture since you seem to be such an admirer?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iQkkAkNwIDw
Sorry, your vid doesn't show anything exalted about Iranian culture. Maybe some Americans didn't know that Iranians drove cars and went skiing, but I'm not one of them.
If you're going to be sorry, be sorry for forgetting that you said that Iranians want to live in Medieval times. Now go back and look at the pictures again and make a list of things you see which were not available in the 9th century.
This is the last make up exam you will be permitted.
I guess if Iranians live in caves then Indians, Chinese, Africans, Micronesians, Iraqis, Afghanis, Saudis, Kurds, Mongols...all people that are poor and uneducated and live in dirt huts should be exterminated
It is kind of difficult to sum up one of the oldest civilizations on Earth - Persian (now contemporary Iran) -in a line or two; one could talk at lenght about Iranian philosophy, Iranian mathematic, iranian astrology... but I'd prefer to look at the Iran's neighbooring country the United States has already ravaged, killing hundreds of thousand innocent people and displacing millions, Iraq, and its cultural heritage, in fact one small morsel from their history is especially dear to me:
Kalif al-Ma’mun established Bait al-Hikmah (House of Wisdom) as a library center for translation. It was around A.D. 815 n Baghdad. Than, some 1187 years later, the most ignorant nation in the history of the world, at least the most ignorant when the foreign languages are in question, arrived with its hubris, lies and tools of death.
The United States of America is the true global tyrant and the true horror on Earth, for centuries. If you think of Iraq or Afghanistan today, My Lai Massacre in 1968 or the monstrocity called A-bomb in 1945 (out of wich the second one, savagely thrown on Nagasaki only three days after devastating Hiroshima, was for sure not justifiable, even if one would argue the first was) you'd think the murderous nation ("Christians" at that) would come to it senses. Alas!!
If we go back a bit further into the history of this monstrous nation we can find the excertps from Mr. John S. Smith’ Congresionall Testimony in Washington, March 14, 1865 (re: Sand Creek Massacre):
Question. Were the women and children slaughtered indiscriminately, or only so far as they were with the warriors?
Answer. Indiscriminately.
Question. Were there any acts of barbarity perpetrated there that came under your own observation?
Answer. Yes, sir; I saw the bodies of those lying there cut all to pieces, worse mutilated than any I ever saw before; the women cut all to pieces.
By Mr. Buckalew:
Question. How cut?
Answer. With knives; scalped; their brains knocked out; children two or three months old; all ages lying there, from sucking infants up to warriors.
By Mr. Gooch:
Question. Did you see it done?
Answer. Yes, sir; I saw them fall.
Question. Fall when they were killed?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. Did you see them when they were mutilated?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. By whom were they mutilated?
Answer. By the United States troops.
And now, in the second decade of the thrid millenia, the United States troops pee on the corpses, torture the prisoners and "our heroes" kill innocent ("a presumption of innocence," ha, that is so yesteryear) people from far, far away, using the drones to attack even the funerals of just murdered "suspect". Such is a country full of "Irenes" - willing to go and kill (have others go and kill) yet another million or so innocent people in yet another distant land that never harmed them.
I cannot think of anything more repulsive or less human than that.
Oh yes, the Persian culture is just so, so, so advanced. I mean, look where they are in the 21st century. Don't lecture me on past accomplishments - whoops! distant past accomplishments - in mathematics, poetry, or anything else. Present day Iranians who are in power still think it's okay to stone women to death for adultery (they may no longer do it, but they believe it should be allowed), or, whip them for adultery, etc. Genocide of non-Iranians is a-okay with Iranians today too. Want me to go on? Their religious/political system as practiced by the ayatollahs and their revolutionary guard is a disgrace.
I can think of plenty of things more repulsive than My Lai. At least the US people demanded an investigation into it and tried to do something about it. How about the Khmer Rouge, for example? Do you think My Lai was more repulsive than what the Khmer Rouge did in Cambodia? Yeah, right.
When you're in a hole, stop digging.
I think if the Iranians can defeat a battle group, the US loses its empire, the Iranian government loses its country, and the Russians win southwest Asia, eastern Europe, and a half-interest in western Europe.
They'll have to change the name of the game to American Roulette.
We could not lose the war...
only credibilty.
Moot point.
We could also lose a lot of lives.
USS Cole. How quickly they forget.
Yes, and don't forget what the Iranians did to the USS Liberty,
Oh, wait that was......
Yea those damned Cole bombing Ira...I mean Sudanese and Yemenis.
We could also lose a lot of lives.
If we cared about losing lives then the U.S. wouldn't be refueling naval vessels in Yemen (USS Cole) a country clearly hostile to U.S. foreign policy and agendas. BTW all defendants either escaped or were released by Yemen officials. We also wouldn't be conducting wars in Iraq under the false pretense of WMDs in order to control resources in that region. We wouldn't be in Afganistan waging war against the Taliban which weren't involved in the Alqaeda bombings, but they refused to give up Osama to the U.S. unless they produced evidence of his invovlement. The U.S. was not about to give in to this reasonable request. BTW Osama wasn't even wanted for the 911 bombings according to the FBI. Maybe because they didn't have any proof. Yet the most volatile Islamic country that has nuclear weapons (Pakistan) and harboured Osama as well as supported Alqaeda operations is not even mentioned as a threat??? You are right, How quickly they forget. The U.S. clearly doesn't mind the loss of lives!!!
Agreed about Yemin.
We went to war in Iraq on 23 counts, not just WMD.
I always thought Obama was hiding in Pakistan. But it's a good bet that the Taliban knew where he was too.
Maybe the US government doesn't mind the senseless loss of lives, but I do.
I still don't see what this has to do with my argument that Iran decided long before Western sanctions to acquire nuclear bomb capability. *sigh*
"I always thought Obama was hiding in Pakistan."
Well, I bet he comes out of hiding if he gets reelected...
Good catch, Bollixed. Brought a smile to my face.
This 1980 Bantam paperback has severely yellowed due to its cheap paper. It claims it was translated from the Persian by Jean-Marie Xaviere into French (1979) and then into English by Harold Salemson.t the top of the paperback cover it reads: "The Little Green Book". It has about 300+ one- or two- sentence "quotations" from Khomeini -- but none are attributed to any source(s).Great quotes, but no attributions.
http://www.amazon.com/Sayings-Ayatollah-Khomeini-Political-Philosophical/dp/0553140329
This book which has no sources? and was supposedly written right after the brutal ruler the Shah who was the U.S. puppet was overthrown. It is understandable that these people were very angry about the west's meddling in the ME affairs for many decades. There is no mention of nuclear weapons in this book as far as I know, but you can make the argument that he would accomplish Islamic dominance with these weapons. The problem is that you base it all on an out of date and suspiciously attributed book. Since 1980 how many countries have they conquered? You sound like a candidate for the next neocon presidential administration. The point is all these conflicts were started on false pretenses. Vietnam war (Gulf of Tonkin- false flag).
I read that book when I was 16. All I can remember for sure is that the Ayatollah recommended that a man should push on the skin between the scrotum and anus after ejaculating.
Okay, to sum up. I've been called a troll, attacked ad hominem by a bunch of closed-minded, ignoramuses who believe that the Iranians are not dangerous outside their borders, that the father of the Iranian revolution is not a force to be reckoned with, and who attribute thoughts to me that I never said. Did I miss anything?
Well, pretty good work for a Sunday afternoon, but I gotta run now. Ciao!
Don't trip on that tail between your legs...
Vaya con dios muchacha!
Right. Closed minded people never want to bomb anyone. A bunch of anti-social misfits.
Lol,Good one
The headline says "Ron Paul: I Think Sanctions Give Iran Motivation To Want A Nuclear Weapon" not "Ron Paul: I Don't Think Iran Wanted Nuclear Weapons Before The Sanctions" which is what your whole thing is about. That somehow the title is misleading or Ron Paul is wrong and anyone who doesn't understand that Iranians have wanted nukes since like forever is just a "bunch of closed-minded, ignoramuses who believe that the Iranians are not dangerous outside their borders, that the father of the Iranian revolution is not a force to be reckoned with, and who attribute thoughts to me that I never said."
Q1: so, do you think this "proves" iran, wanting a nuke for like forever, doesn't have one?
Q2: do you think ronPaul knows, for certain, whether iran may have gotten its hands on some warhead some somehow, or NOT?
Q3: if iran has a warhead and actually poses no more risk than any other responsible nukuler power, and ronPaul knows this, do you personally feel he might "need" to "play along" with the "official US story", here, and not say what he knows on MSM TV this morning around this "scripted" presentation?
ie: would this man lie to you about what he knows about foreign policy? i certainly would hope so!
again, you know i think this is a great big "straw man" for everyone to 'guess' about and pontificate about what "will happen about the iranian nukuler threat"
pssst: there is no "iranian nukuler threat" whether they have a fuking warhead or not, the way it looks to me
my point being, again, that we don't know shit about whether iran may have a warhead or not
and of course, i really don't care
this is about oil and moving into the future without too many more "hotspots" imo
but thePeople can't be told the truth about the libya/iran deal among the superpowers; so this bullshit keeps flowing into everybody's balding and fuzzy heads
i'm sorry if i'm not a good american! iran just doesn't scare me, fuu!
Nor does it scare me. I've been saying for a while that only countries that have nukes have a chance against the Military Machine.
not only that, more dentists say countries without nukes are terrists than patients who don't chew gum!
Stick around Irene and let's have a debate.
What would you do if you were Iran? The biggest global bully in the world just kicked the living sh*t out of your neighbor and has 45 military bases encircling your country. They can turn your entire nation into a smoking pile of rubble in a matter of minutes. In the past they overthrew your president and installed their puppet the Shah, who had the worst torturing secret police the world has seen (Savak). The hated Savak had entire rooms dedicated to piles of the severed limbs of their political enemies.
Your sworn enemy, the American puppet state of Israel, is armed to the teeth with >200 nukes and talks daily about how they are planning to use them on you. With one phone call America could stop any Israeli attack, but you know they won't.
In light of this if you were Iran you would probably be trying to arm yourself with nukes as quickly as possible. America's intelligence agencies have studied whether they are, or not. The summary report of America's top 16 intelligence agencies, the National Intelligence Estimate, however, says Iran does not possess and is not pursuing a nuclear weapon (look it up).
So all the war talk is about a country we completely encircle, can easily destroy, that has no credible way to attack our country, because we think they MIGHT produce a weapon in the future that MIGHT threaten us.
If that is really our foreign policy, then let's just bomb every other nation in the world, starting with the A's.
So let's debate...will await your reply.
In the meantime you might want to get to know the country of Iran a little bit with this excellent documentary by Rick Steves:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D61uriEGsIM
Yes, let's debate. In 1979-1980, the United States had not attacked Iraq, we did not have 45 military bases surrounding Iran, and therefore I repeat: Ayatollah Khomeini and his followers, as much as 30+ years ago, were interested in acquiring nuclear bomb capability for their religious/political purposes. They played long term then, they're playing long term now. So, I do not agree with Ron Paul that sanctions caused nuclear ambitions. Irans nuclear ambitions were planned long ago. This really should not be a contentious point.
I have not once mentioned declaring war against the Iranians, and the Iranians should be smart enough to figure out a way to end this stalemate without going to war or having war foisted on them, if that is what they want to do. They could even avoid Western sanctions pretty easily, again, if that is what they wanted to do. Perhaps you should consider whether the Iranians don't welcome all this sturm und drang.
Hated SAVAK? Yes, of course. I never defended SAVAK so why are you bringing them up? Would you care to compare them with the brutes who torture and murder under the ayatollahs? SAVAK might even be considered tame, comparatively speaking that is. Please explain to me why is it that everyone brings up SAVAK as if the ayatollahs haven't been at least as brutal, and from most reports, even more brutal? It's like all bad history stopped when the shah was deposed. Not true.
I don't recall the Israelis once threatening Iran with using nuclear weapons before Iran started threatening Israel's very right to exist. Care to supply a citation? As I recall, until Jimmy Carter recently revealed otherwise, the Israelis never even admitted to having nuclear weapons, so how could the Israelis threaten to bomb Iran with nuclear weapons if they didn't even admit to having them?
The US overthrew the Iranian government in 1953 and installed the Shah as dictator and supported his police state. When the Iranians finally overthrew the tyrant in 1979 they were naturally unhappy with the tyrant's allies.
I know that. You know that. We all know that. So why pretend it never happened?