• Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Avoiding War With Iran

KenH

Well-Known Member
Sage comments by Congressman Ron Paul.


Avoiding War with Iran
by Congressman Ron Paul

May 22, 2006

In recent weeks the Bush administration has stated its willingness to use diplomacy in dealing with Iran, which is a welcome change from previous policy. Let’s hope it’s more than just a change in tone. With ongoing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan costing more than $5 billion per week, record levels of federal spending and debt, and oil hovering around $70 per barrel, American taxpayers certainly cannot afford another war.

Iran, like Iraq, is a major source of global oil. For all our posturing, the truth is that worldwide crude prices would spike rapidly if we attacked Iran. With summer coming, demand will increase and gas prices at the pump will be over $3 for most of the nation. Airlines are raising ticket prices to compensate for jet fuel prices that have nearly doubled in a year. A strike on Iran in coming months would create serious trouble for an American economy that is already struggling with high energy prices.

It’s time for a foreign policy based on reality, a foreign policy that serves the interests of ordinary Americans. The reality is that we will continue to use oil as a major source of energy in this country for the foreseeable future, and therefore the health of our economy will be affected by the price of oil. Like it or not, some of that oil will continue to come from the Middle East even if we get serious about tapping domestic sources.

The US has not used diplomacy with Iran for nearly 26 years, since the hostage crisis of the Carter era. But this “no negotiation” stance hasn’t worked: Iran’s defiant behavior continues, and its uranium enrichment program has not been dismantled.

Is Iran a nuclear threat? Not according to our own CIA, which says Iran is years away from developing nuclear weapons. This is not to say we should sit back as nuclear weapons proliferate in the Middle East. But we shouldn’t allow war hawks to wildly overstate the threat posed by Iran, as they did with Iraq.

Since 2001 we have spent over $300 billion occupying Afghanistan and Iraq. We’re poorer but certainly not safer for it. We removed the Taliban from power in Afghanistan-- much to the delight of the Iranians, who consider the Taliban an arch enemy. Warlords now control the country, operating a larger drug trade than ever before.

Similarly in Iraq, our ouster of Saddam Hussein will allow the majority Shia to claim leadership title if Iraq’s election actually leads to an organized government. This delights the Iranians, who are close allies of the Iraqi Shia.

Talk about unintended consequences! This war has produced chaos, civil war, death and destruction, and huge financial costs. It has eliminated two of Iran’s worst enemies, and placed power in Iraq with Iran’s best friends. Even this apparent failure of policy does nothing to restrain the current march toward a similar confrontation with Iran. What will it take for us to learn from our failures?

Government power in Iran is divided, and President Ahmadinejad—the man responsible for hateful comments about Israel- does not control their nuclear policy. We should ignore him as a pariah, and deal instead with Ali Larijani, head of Iran’s National Security Council, who has made several reasonable statements about the US and shows a desire to have direct diplomatic talks.

Discussions with Iran are not appeasement. On the contrary, dialogue is needed to explain clearly that America’s objectives of non-proliferation and peace in the Middle East will not be compromised. 25 years of isolating Iran has moved us farther from, not closer to, achieving those objectives.

- www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2006/tst052206.htm
 

FollowMeHome

New Member
Sorry Ken but, I have a pet peeve. That is, someone posting an article and not making any commets as to their opinion or a lead off to the discussion.

As for me, I think the US is over it's head as it is. Let Iran and China be. Leave it God's hand.
 

Joseph_Botwinick

<img src=/532.jpg>Banned
Ken has a short memory. He forgets that we had about 12 years of diplomacy with Iraq and Saddam that failed mainly because the do nothing cowards in the isolationist camp turned the job over to the failed UN. It didn't work, Saddam took a gamble that he could snub his nose at the post 9-11 America and he lost. Too bad for him.

Joseph Botwinick
 

carpro

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Joseph_Botwinick said:
Ken has a short memory. He forgets that we had about 12 years of diplomacy with Iraq and Saddam that failed mainly because the do nothing cowards in the isolationist camp turned the job over to the failed UN. It didn't work, Saddam took a gamble that he could snub his nose at the post 9-11 America and he lost. Too bad for him.

Joseph Botwinick

:thumbs:

Good point!
 

poncho

Well-Known Member
Joseph_Botwinick said:
Ken has a short memory. He forgets that we had about 12 years of diplomacy with Iraq and Saddam that failed mainly because the do nothing cowards in the isolationist camp turned the job over to the failed UN. It didn't work, Saddam took a gamble that he could snub his nose at the post 9-11 America and he lost. Too bad for him.

Joseph Botwinick
Joseph forgets we also had years of know everything interventionists creating, supporting and arming Saddam and turning a blind eye to his war crimes, just as we had the democratically elected government of Mosedegh ousted and a puppet government installed by working with certain Iranians that used a false flag terror campaign on their own people by posing as communists and blowing things up for us in Iran in 1953.

If you are as much opposed to terrorism and tyranny as you say Joseph then you should be condeming it's use by "our own people" through out much of the world also. A terrorists bomb is still a terrorists bomb whether it be used for the red white and blue or red white and green.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Joseph_Botwinick

<img src=/532.jpg>Banned
Ward Churchill, is that you? Our people are, by and large, not terrorists. When our people do commit acts of terrorism, as was the case with Tim McVeigh, I condemned it. Prosecuting a war against terrorism where innocent civilians are accidentally killed is not terrorism. It is just more stupid anti-American rhetoric. If the Marines in Haditha are convicted, they will recieve justice for their actions by us...yet another difference between us and an actual terrorist state that you conveniently glossed over in your hatred of America.

Joseph Botwinick
 

poncho

Well-Known Member
Ward Churchill, is that you?
Nope, it's Underdog.

Our people are, by and large, not terrorists.
I agree.

When our people do commit acts of terrorism, as was the case with Tim McVeigh, I condemned it.
Me too.


Prosecuting a war against terrorism where innocent civilians are accidentally killed is not terrorism.
I agree. Well, as far as fighting a real war for ligit purposes goes. The GWOT aka The Long War doesn't quite fit that definition. Imperialism? Now that's alot closer.

It is just more stupid anti-American rhetoric.

Matter of opinion.


If the Marines in Haditha are convicted, they will recieve justice for their actions by us...
As they should.


yet another difference between us and an actual terrorist state
You left out the part about the Americans (and possibly/probably the British) working for the CIA that worked with Iranians posing as communists that intentionally ran a false flag terror campaign against their own people including the bombing of a clerics home in 1953. To "secure" U.S. and British interests.
What ever happened to them?

The Soviet Union was caught completely off-guard. Even as the Mossadegh government was falling, the Moscow radio was broadcasting a story on "the failure of the American adventure in Iran." But C.I.A. headquarters was as surprised as Moscow. When news of the coup's success arrived, it "seemed to be a bad joke, in view of the depression that Throughout the day, Washington got most of its information from news agencies, receiving only two cablegrams from the station. Mr. Roosevelt later explained that if he had told headquarters what was going on, "London and Washington would have thought they were crazy and told them to stop immediately," the history states. Still, the C.I.A. took full credit inside the government. The following year it overthrew the government of Guatemala, and a myth developed that the agency could topple governments anywhere in the world.

Iran proved that third world king-making could be heady. "It was a day that should never have ended," the C.I.A.'s secret history said, describing Aug. 19, 1953. "For it carried with it such a sense of excitement, of satisfaction and of jubilation that it is doubtful whether any other can come up to it."

http://www.globalpolicy.org/empire/history/2000/0416ciairan.htm

http://www.nytimes.com/library/world/mideast/041600iran-cia-index.html

http://www.nytimes.com/library/world/mideast/iran-cia-intro.pdf (CIA document)

Imagine the thrill of working for the U.S. government, blowing things up, blaming it on other people in another country and then being able to duplictate it again and again! All under the guise of "national security" no less, yep, heady days indeed.

Operation Northwoods, or Northwoods, was a 1962 plan to generate U.S. public support for military action against the Cuban government of Fidel Castro as part of the U.S. government's Operation Mongoose anti-Castro initiative. The plan, which was not implemented, called for various false flag actions, including simulated or real state sponsored terrorism (such as hijacked planes) on U.S. and Cuban soil. The plan was proposed by senior U.S. Department of Defense leaders, including the highest ranking member of the U.S. military, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Lyman Louis Lemnitzer.
The proposal was presented in a document entitled "Justification for US Military Intervention in Cuba," a collection of draft memoranda (PDF) written by the Department of Defense (DoD) and the Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS) representative to the Caribbean Survey Group. The document was presented by the JCS to Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara on March 13 with one paragraph approved, as a preliminary submission for planning purposes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods

Making a pretext for war and manufacturing public consent. Sound familiar? Mushroom clouds over Manhatten, Nigerian yellowcake, forged documents, Downing Street memos ring any bells?




that you conveniently glossed over in your hatred of America.
I glossed over what now? You confuse my love of country with the inability to distinguish between "good terrorism" that is acceptable because our side uses it "to protect vital interests" or "evil terrorism" because their side uses it "becuase they hate us".

Sorry Joseph I just can't bring myself to accept terrorism on any level. (or for any "reason")
 
Last edited by a moderator:

fromtheright

<img src =/2844.JPG>
FMH,

Sorry Ken but, I have a pet peeve. That is, someone posting an article and not making any commets as to their opinion or a lead off to the discussion.

It's his MO. That and his lack of response to your post tell me it's a sign of not having any thoughts of his own sometimes except what Ron Paul, Chuckie Baldwin, and the libertarians tell him to think. He may be in trouble if they disagree on something.
 

poncho

Well-Known Member
fromtheright said:
FMH,



It's his MO. That and his lack of response to your post tell me it's a sign of not having any thoughts of his own sometimes except what Ron Paul, Chuckie Baldwin, and the libertarians tell him to think. He may be in trouble if they disagree on something.

Why not just throw dirt in his face?
 

fromtheright

<img src =/2844.JPG>
It's his pattern, poncho. He's done it countless times and had to be prodded on occasion to even discuss his links. Sure he and anyone can post whenever on whatever thread they want, but he might at least give a post on his own thread giving his thoughts about links that he posts. We've probably all done it here and there, but, as I said, it's his regular practice.
 

poncho

Well-Known Member
fromtheright said:
It's his pattern, poncho. He's done it countless times and had to be prodded on occasion to even discuss his links. Sure he and anyone can post whenever on whatever thread they want, but he might at least give a post on his own thread giving his thoughts about links that he posts. We've probably all done it here and there, but, as I said, it's his regular practice.

not having any thoughts of his own sometimes except what Ron Paul, Chuckie Baldwin, and the libertarians tell him to think

Maybe Ronny, Chuckie and the libertarians didn't tell him to give his thoughts about the links he's posted, ever think of that. :smilewinkgrin:
 

KenH

Well-Known Member
fromtheright said:
That and his lack of response to your post tell me it's a sign of not having any thoughts of his own sometimes except what Ron Paul, Chuckie Baldwin, and the libertarians tell him to think.

I see no reason to reinvent the wheel. :smilewinkgrin:
 
Top