Y
Yerusalyim
Guest
Chamberlain advocated peace too.
- Status
D
Darryl1958
Guest
I certainly would be against America entering in a war with Iran at this moment. American people just aren’t ready for that.
Where the foolishness lies is in not even recognizing that Iran as a very real threat to any peaceful coexistence in the ME. There are enough of them in the theocracy with apocalyptic designs and see the coming twelfth imam as about to enter the end times scene that there is a clear and present danger emanating from that theocracy.
Islamism is a force to be reckoned with, and the first and most established Islamist state is Iran. Blessed are the peacemakers for sure, and we want clever leaders on our side working to build a peace of sorts—and not leaders who are blinded to the true nature of Iran as a result of defining the world in terms of an ideology rather than in terms of what the nature of geopolitical reality is.
What is dangerous is not an aversion for war by any future American president. The denial that a country like Iran even poses a threat is where the danger lies. It is wishful thinking. It borders on magical thinking, the same kind of magical thinking that Obama engaged in, to think that if only an American preisdent was nicer than the Bushes, if only they would sit down and talk over a tea or a really strong cup of coffee, that all differences will simply vanish.
The mea culpa attitude that the belligerence of America’s enemies is a direct result of American belligerence, and that it will disappear with a winning smile and a handshake, is the exact course that Obama took when first coming into office, and as a result, Iran’s ‘Persian’ Spring ended in a bloodbath, where the only anti-Islamist democrats of the region were left hanging by their necks in the wind.
Literally.
It was an opportunity lost, where support of the internal dissidence movement may well have overthrown a treacherous government without any shots being fired by external forces.
What is dangerous is the denial of the nature of America’s enemy, and a denial of the great good that America has performed for this world since WWII.
Iran is not a threat because some neocon Republicans say so. They are a threat because they say so. This is who they are, who they have been since 1979 and their talk of America and Israel being the Great Satan and the Little Satan, that need to be erased from the pages of time, as the Persian saying goes we are told.
K
kslat
Guest
Yes, he can, and it would help if people would stop saying he’s unelectable. That’s clearly untrue, as he’s been elected 12 times.
Y
Yerusalyim
Guest
Jingoism? Me? Hardly. I believe in peace, just not peace at any cost. If reasonable people were in charge in Iran I’d say we don’t have to worry…reasonable people are not in charge in Iran.
Iran’s “conventional military force” has been responsible for the deaths of a lot of US soldiers. Iran is a state sponsor of terrorists. My fear is that if they get a nuke they will use it…they will (have) destabalize the region.
Again, I’m not advocating war with Iran…just a much harder line than we’ve taken thus far.
Y
Yerusalyim
Guest
D
Darryl1958
Guest
And WWI was entered in with a single shot.
The forces of asymmetrical warfare have only gotten stronger and more sophisticated since then.
All’s that an apocalypse in that volatile region needs to set itself off is a spark, and that is what Iran understands so well.
R
Rascalking
Guest
In his district in Texas. I really don’t think he stands a chance in the mainstream political world.
B
bbarrick8383
Guest
Are you trying to tell me that Chamberlain was a non-interventionist libertarian?
B
bbarrick8383
Guest
Where did Paul advocate for peace at any cost?
He advocates peace unless American interests are in danger and then an agreement with congress on war. Not send troops in at the whim of the President and ask questions later. What’s dangerous is this idea that one man in our government can send troops anywhere in the world he wants whether or not Congress approves of it or not.
Y
Yerusalyim
Guest
No, what I’m saying is that advocating peace doesn’t necessarily make a nation safe…that there are worse things than confronting evil.
Y
Yerusalyim
Guest
Paul’s idea of what is American interests and those of the vast majority of US citizens differ greatly. Please don’t start the tired argument…the US CONGRESS declared war on Iraq…not Bush.
B
bbarrick8383
Guest
I understand, but comparing Chamberlain to Paul is like comparing Bush to Obama. Paul would not go for appeasement. He would defend our country’s interests at all costs if necessary and that the way to peace is through diplomacy first and war should be the last option on the table. Sanctions on a government can be devastating to the people of the country and can actually do more harm for the cause than good.
Bachmann calls Paul dangerous and then makes it sound like she’s got a bomb with Iran’s name on it waiting for her to be sworn into office.
B
bbarrick8383
Guest
Personally, I don’t think the vast majority of US citizens know what American interests are and could care less to take the time and find out.
I know exactly who declared war on Iraq.
How many times have we sent troops before getting congressional approval?
Y
Yerusalyim
Guest
I’m not supporting Bachmann either.
No, the “Chamberlain” comment was to make the point to another poster that advocacy for peace doesn’t make us safe. I am NOT an isolationist, nor am I a libertarian…I’m a conservative. Every time Paul speaks on foriegn affairs I’m glad he’ll never get the nomination…the isolationism advocated by him and those like him are what made WWII so bad…they didn’t want to confront the evil that faced us until it was at our door step.
Diplomacy works with reasonable people…the people in charge in Iran are not reasonable…that’s the point Paul won’t concede. That delusion is dangerous. And again, his definition of US interests is at odds with mine…and most people in the US.
B
bbarrick8383
Guest
BTW, he never said Israel must be wiped off the map.
B
bbarrick8383
Guest
Another misunderstanding. He does not advocate isolationism, that is completely different than non-interventionism.
The people in charge are not the only people in Iran. You must be careful that you don’t make more enemies than necessary when dealing with other nations. You must also allow other nations to be as sovereign as possible without our intervention into their internal affairs. This seems to be something our country finds hard to do. Yet we get mad when NATO starts telling us they don’t like our laws.
Y
Yerusalyim
Guest
Essentially, he did. He was speaking of the Israeli government…you can’t get rid of the Israeli government without getting rid of Israel as a nation.
He’s a holocaust denier…a jew hater…please don’t try to minimize the threat of Ahmadinejad…people minimized the rantings of Hitler too.
Y
Yerusalyim
Guest
Non-intervention is a form of isolation. And just as dangerous. The people in charge in Iran are the people in charge…they have the money, the weapons, direct the policy. A jew hating holocaust denier runs the country…that’s a problem.
Again, I’m not saying go to war…not yet…but I am saying they have to be dealt with and the diplomacy thus far has been an abject failure. Ron Paul did great as a congressman…he should remain just that. As President he’d be just as dangerous as Obama has been. We obviously disagree on that. Look, Paul has some attractive ideas…I won’t deny that…but some of his ideas are dangerous.
I
ishii
Guest
That’s a good point. The leadership of Iran (as opposed to the people, whom I’ve heard many of which actually are pretty western in their thinking) is not reasonable. To not understand the nature those who we deal with is a dangerous thing. Its like back in the Cold War when the liberals though “Gee, the Soviets are reasonable, all we have to do is negotiate and show them we mean no harm and they’ll respond.” In the end, evil regimes only respect force, or the threat of force. The difference between Iran and the Soviets is that there are martyrs in Iran willing to die for a religion - the Soviets were happy to wait for the inevitable end of capitalism.
The idea that Romney, Gingrich and Obama are equally terrible is to not understand Obama. Obama is way worse. Any Catholic seriously interested in the sanctity of life ought to want to oust him in the next election. If that means electing a quirky, idealistic progressive conservative then so be it. If it means electing an establishment Republican who is a Mormon then so be it: ***I don’t want Obama to pick the next two supreme court justices. Do you? ***
Darryl, you make great points. We need to be realistic about Iran. Not jingoistic, not “neo-con” not “trigger happy” or “isolationist”. We need to be realistic and be ready to defend our interests when necessary. But we have to understand the nature of our enemies and not be naive.
Ishii
B
bbarrick8383
Guest
Essentially, no he didn’t.
Removing a regime and wiping a state off the map is two totally different statements.
I’m not minimizing anything.
Let’s deal with the facts and not hysterics.
- Status