[BJWilliams]

Postie makes a fair point. The only thing Iran can do to us at this point (much like Iraq) is blow a lot of hot air. If we dont do anything to them (and this of course coming from someone who would rather carpet bomb the place and then drop a couple dozen bunker busters for good measure) thats all they can do. Talk is cheap but taking my mode of doing things isnt the proper course either. Now if terrorists come and pull another 9/11 and they are linked to the government, well then bring the rain...and leave no doubt we arent to be messed with. We dont need another long drawn out situation like Vietnam or even Iraq.

[LUconn]

My opinion is that Paul's view, and apparently yours as well, on Iran is incredibly shortsighted. Nobody has an irrational fear of Muslims. We have a rational fear of certain Muslims. Iran being the latter. Iraq in this argument is a straw man. It was a mistake to go in there and unfortunately has muddied up everyone's understanding of Iran and used up our credibility (if you care about that sort of thing). As if it's the same situation. Iran is the polar opposite of Iraq, and it's why they were continually at war with one another. An unfortunate consequence of Saddam's ousting is that Iran goes on unchecked in the region. If you don't believe they have the capability to produce a nuclear weapon or will gain it shortly, you're not paying attention to anybody but Paul. If you don't believe they have the desire and the will to use such a weapon on us or Israel, than you're fooling yourself and maybe are not aware of their stated constitutional goals. Now, do they have the capability to deliver such a weapon? I doubt through conventional means. But as a state sponsor of terrorist groups, since when would they need an ICBM? You would be insane to not do everything in your power, short of militarily intervening (that can be debated I suppose), to stop this. Paul says they have a right to it. Just let them. I guess our possession of nukes keeps them in check? Not really a staring contest I want to play.

[thepostman]

I never, EVER said that Iran doesn't or will not ever have nuclear weapons.

I am just unsure as to if it is financially responsible to go after a country that may have nukes simply because we are scared they might use them. We have been the police for the world for too long and have neglected too much in our own back yard.

We aren't ever going agree on this issue but I do at least appreciate you stating your opinion. I also am not completely on board with Paul's defense plan, but a lot of things about it make sense. What doesn't make sense is completely closing every single base around the world. A lot of them are pointless bases but there are many that have a very real mission that directly impacts our national security. It would be irresponsible to completely close down international operations.

[RubberMallet]

My opinion is that Paul's view, and apparently yours as well, on Iran is incredibly shortsighted. Nobody has an irrational fear of Muslims. We have a rational fear of certain Muslims. Iran being the latter. Iraq in this argument is a straw man. It was a mistake to go in there and unfortunately has muddied up everyone's understanding of Iran and used up our credibility (if you care about that sort of thing). As if it's the same situation. Iran is the polar opposite of Iraq, and it's why they were continually at war with one another. An unfortunate consequence of Saddam's ousting is that Iran goes on unchecked in the region. If you don't believe they have the capability to produce a nuclear weapon or will gain it shortly, you're not paying attention to anybody but Paul. If you don't believe they have the desire and the will to use such a weapon on us or Israel, than you're fooling yourself and maybe are not aware of their stated constitutional goals. Now, do they have the capability to deliver such a weapon? I doubt through conventional means. But as a state sponsor of terrorist groups, since when would they need an ICBM? You would be insane to not do everything in your power, short of militarily intervening (that can be debated I suppose), to stop this. Paul says they have a right to it. Just let them. I guess our possession of nukes keeps them in check? Not really a staring contest I want to play.

so instead lets go in there and overextend ourselves causing economical and sociological mayhem on our country and i guess theirs? when was the last time iran started a war, again? per my big ole book o wars. http://www.amazon.com/Encyclopedia-Wars ... 0816028516
not many in the last little while. they support hamas and hezbella? its amazing we forget we sell them everything under the sun as well.

noble as you somehow believe the intentions of the GOP is to save the people and keep us safe, its all hilariously mistaken. if i may borrow, "if you believe" thats what they are trying to do, "then your kidding yourself" its purely money driven will be paid for with countless lives needlessly. sanctions are essentially acts of war and Iran is acting on that.

iraq isn't the "straw man" you make it out to be. the only difference is iran is "allegedly" supporting terrorist organizations that hate israel. iraq was the terrorist organization that hated everyone.

why aren't we clamouring for the invasion of north korea? let me guess its different. probably because there isn't much money to be made on rice.

[RubberMallet]

and i'm totally talking out my as.s by the way. i do have the encyclopedia of wars books however and they are WIKKED AHHSUM

[LUconn]

We've sanctioned NK into a desolate wasteland of nothingness. Why would we go after them? Not to mention we can't because of China. I don't care if you think the GOP is using security as a ruse to bring us into illuminati domination. A nukeless Iran keeps Iranian nukes out of the US. It just doesn't make sense to not use our resources (behind the scenes, using the UN as a puppet, whatever) to do what we can to stop them. Why just allow it? To keep them from getting mad at us?

You don't have to be for military interventionism to think the "golden rule" policy making is the stupid idea you've ever heard. Not to mention naive and dangerous.

[jbock13]

We've sanctioned NK into a desolate wasteland of nothingness. Why would we go after them? Not to mention we can't because of China.

Why not? Isn't America a force for good in the world? Wouldn't it be better if we took them out and established a democracy? Isn't it our goal to spread democracy throughout the world, even to places who have no prior experience with democracy ever?

Iran is nothing but a bunch of theocratic birdbrains. Even half of the Iranian population knows this, and as we saw the Green Revolution occur, the regime holds a weak spot in the overall play of things. THE LAST THING we need to do is to bomb them, and thus reunite the disgruntled population against us. This happened in Afghanistan, and I still am not sure what we're doing there.

What amazes me is you really give the Iranians credit that they haven't deserved. Even if Iran had nukes, they are nowhere close at all to launching them here. Let's say they nuke Israel. Well, we're not Israel. And Israel is more than capable of nuking them 350 times.

Better yet, the question ultimately is, how will you stop Iran for getting a missile? There's really only one sure fire way to do that, and many thousands of young Americans will lose their lives fighting for something we know very little nothing about.

And what's funny (actually not so much), when Leon Penetta was asked how many troops are stationed in conflicts abroad, he not only did not know the answer, but he laughed. As if young American soldiers dying for who knows what is funny. It's not funny. It's an utter disgrace, and it's time for America to worry about its own business here at home, rather than trying to teach and backward and ignorant, primitive people to let women learn to read when its gone against their culture since it began thousands of years ago. Do you believe American soldiers can come in and change an entire culture?

[Purple Haize]

Regardless of US intentions ask yourself this. Is the work a better place if Iran gets nukes? Is the world a better place without Sadaam Hussein? As for the oil argument it is I'll informed. CHINA came out the big winner with Iraqi oil contracts because the Bush administration didn't want to play into the stupidass Blood For Oil mantra.
We don't need to invade yet. We seem to be getting a lot done covertly. Somehow scientist keep accidentally ending up dead. And their software keeps getting virus'. I hate it when that happens! Iran will be able to exert even more influence if it becomes a nuclear power. Think Pakistan with clear headed evil men behind the button. At least we have India to counter balance Pakistan, and to provide technical support!

Oh and Leon Pennetta is a dork

[RubberMallet]

As for the oil argument it is I'll informed. CHINA came out the big winner with Iraqi oil contracts because the Bush administration didn't want to play into the stupidass Blood For Oil mantra.

our relationship with China is a somewhat odd one. i think allowing them to be the big winner in the oil helped us more than didn't.

[Purple Haize]

I can see that. Not so much with the Panama Canal but I think in Iraq it might turn out ok for us. I would rather had BP or another western oil Compny though

[RubberMallet]

We've sanctioned NK into a desolate wasteland of nothingness. Why would we go after them? Not to mention we can't because of China. I don't care if you think the GOP is using security as a ruse to bring us into illuminati domination. A nukeless Iran keeps Iranian nukes out of the US. It just doesn't make sense to not use our resources (behind the scenes, using the UN as a puppet, whatever) to do what we can to stop them. Why just allow it? To keep them from getting mad at us?

You don't have to be for military interventionism to think the "golden rule" policy making is the stupid idea you've ever heard. Not to mention naive and dangerous.

#1. NK is still a threat. they have nukes.
#2. you give iran way too much credit.
#3. ron paul isn't "just give them nukes". to think so is totally crazy. as you said, there are other ways of taking care of the problem other than invading and sanctioning.. things we've found don't seem to work well.

[RubberMallet]

I can see that. Not so much with the Panama Canal but I think in Iraq it might turn out ok for us. I would rather had BP or another western oil Compny though

my fil works runs a huge pipeline construction company. they are starting to get work for chinese refineries.

[LUconn]

Why not? Isn't America a force for good in the world? Wouldn't it be better if we took them out and established a democracy? Isn't it our goal to spread democracy throughout the world, even to places who have no prior experience with democracy ever?

Thanks for your patronizing Olberman, but no. And this has nothing to do with what I was talking about. It's just another way of interjecting the emotions of Iraq.

Iran is nothing but a bunch of theocratic birdbrains. Even half of the Iranian population knows this, and as we saw the Green Revolution occur, the regime holds a weak spot in the overall play of things. THE LAST THING we need to do is to bomb them, and thus reunite the disgruntled population against us. This happened in Afghanistan, and I still am not sure what we're doing there.

You're not sure what we're doing in Afghanistan? Oh I don't know. There was this whole al-queada thing with them flying some planes into some buildings and they were based in Afghanistan. Footnote in history I'm sure.

What amazes me is you really give the Iranians credit that they haven't deserved. Even if Iran had nukes, they are nowhere close at all to launching them here. Let's say they nuke Israel. Well, we're not Israel. And Israel is more than capable of nuking them 350 times.

Better yet, the question ultimately is, how will you stop Iran for getting a missile? There's really only one sure fire way to do that, and many thousands of young Americans will lose their lives fighting for something we know very little nothing about.

You're falsely claiming that there are only 2 options. Do nothing or invade. That's a scare tactic. Somebody has been killing Iranian nuclear scientists lately. Seems to me like that would be pretty effective. Their nuke program was set back years by a mysterious virus, stuxnet, that caused their centrifuges to destroy their uranium all the while telling them everything was fine. That's hilarious and took them forever to figure out. This is modern warfare that I'm sure we haven't even begun to tap into.

[ATrain]

In regards to Afghanistan, Bin Laden is dead and the top chiefs of Al-Qaeda are now in Pakistan and Yemen. Afghanistan has been a fool's mission for centuries.

As for Iran, if Iraq hadn't become a major quagmire I'm sure Bush would've gone in there already, and if Obama hadn't driven up the national debt we'd probably have gone in shortly after leaving Iraq. Israel is taking action on its own w/ the killing of Iranian nuclear scientists, and we've also had some doings there with Stuxnet.

[jbock13]

Haha no Afghanistan is Taliban, not al-Qaeda. The two don't even get along, and it is widely known that around 200 members of al-Qaeda were ever in Afghanistan. 200!

What I said isn't a scare tactic. It just proves the absurdity of invading every country just because they may not like us. You said sanctions and diplomacy won't work, neither does ignoring them so essentially you're ready for war with Iran. Sign up today with the military today in that case.

[LUconn]

What I said isn't a scare tactic. It just proves the absurdity of invading every country just because they may not like us. You said sanctions and diplomacy won't work, neither does ignoring them so essentially you're ready for war with Iran. Sign up today with the military today in that case.

When did I say sanctions and diplomacy won't work? It's exactly what I'm advocating among other things. I think I've said that in every single post. In fact, I see no reason to ever invade Iran. There are countless ways to prevent them from gaining a nuclear bomb without putting a single soldier on Iranian soil. From simply supporting freedom movements from within Iran to a last resort of a few cruise missiles and everything in between. Leave them alone and they'll leave us alone is a stupid and myopic agenda. It shows a lack of understanding that the world is not big enough to not in some way affect each other. It's also ignoring the fact that countries that already abide by that rule are not "left alone".

Give me some reasons why you would just do nothing?

[RubberMallet]

Leave them alone

wait, who wants this to happen again?

[LUconn]

Ron Paul and his supporters. He has said they have every right to pursue a nuclear bomb and that our foreign policy should be that of the golden rule, do to others as you would have them do to you. As if this world was one giant kindergarten class.

[RubberMallet]

Ron Paul and his supporters. He has said they have every right to pursue a nuclear bomb and that our foreign policy should be that of the golden rule, do to others as you would have them do to you. As if this world was one giant kindergarten class.

i don't think you understand why he's using the "golden rule" terminology and painting with a much broader stroke than you should be.

America is presently engaged in military operations in Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, and Iran (we aren'tfooling anyone). It may still be active in Libya.

We are bankrupt. we can't afford the wars we are in, let alone start new wars. because of our awful congressional decisions we HAVE to cut defense spending. we have to.

Lastly, our interventionist idealism has caused a massive influx of muslim people to the US. invade iraq, we now have more iraqi's, here than ever before. invade somalia? our somalian population in the state has doubled. the saudis that flew planes into buildings learned everything they needed to know here. we aren't keeping them out.

isolationism works. in periods when our country did this was when we say the greatest influx of wealth and prosperity in our nation. its steadily gone down hill ever since. we've lost our dominance on monetary markets. this has all happened before with the british and roman empires as they started becoming world police.

ron paul's beliefs may be a little naivete but the idealism is sound and you can look at the history books to see it so.

[R i]

LUConn and RubberM,

Thanks for putting this into perspective for the rest of us. Both of you have made good points that we all need to consider.

[RubberMallet]

eh. i don't really have much of a clue of what i'm talking about, i just like to argue.

[thepostman]

What I said isn't a scare tactic. It just proves the absurdity of invading every country just because they may not like us. You said sanctions and diplomacy won't work, neither does ignoring them so essentially you're ready for war with Iran. Sign up today with the military today in that case.

When did I say sanctions and diplomacy won't work? It's exactly what I'm advocating among other things. I think I've said that in every single post. In fact, I see no reason to ever invade Iran. There are countless ways to prevent them from gaining a nuclear bomb without putting a single soldier on Iranian soil. From simply supporting freedom movements from within Iran to a last resort of a few cruise missiles and everything in between. Leave them alone and they'll leave us alone is a stupid and myopic agenda. It shows a lack of understanding that the world is not big enough to not in some way affect each other. It's also ignoring the fact that countries that already abide by that rule are not "left alone".

Give me some reasons why you would just do nothing?

for the record I have never said we should ignore them, just not attack them. Just because someone supports Ron Paul does not mean they agree with every little thing. I also am not sure if Paul is actually saying we ignore them completely, but what many in the republican party want to do is attack and a lot of that has to do backdoor politics.

I am for a much smaller presence around the world, and even though Ron Paul's views on foreign policy are a bit out there I think he would get us closer to where we need to be. There is no way he could ever put in place what he wants to completely. Half way would be pretty dang good though.

[BJWilliams]

The way I see it, I agree that we dont need to be going into every country that "doesnt like us". That said, if we have an event on the level of 9/11 and it is found that either the act itself or the party behind the act is linked to a government like Iran or North Korea or one of those countries, then I dont see a problem with a display of military might so decisive (on the level of some of the firebombings in World War II) that it sends an abundantly clear message that the United States is still not a country to be messed with.

[RubberMallet]

The way I see it, I agree that we dont need to be going into every country that "doesnt like us". That said, if we have an event on the level of 9/11 and it is found that either the act itself or the party behind the act is linked to a government like Iran or North Korea or one of those countries, then I dont see a problem with a display of military might so decisive (on the level of some of the firebombings in World War II) that it sends an abundantly clear message that the United States is still not a country to be messed with.

until that is, we are messed with again.

[BJWilliams]

Thats why I said it needs to be something on the level of the firebombings in World War II if that sort of action is required. If you recall, that was almost 3 days days of basically being carpet bombed and laying a level of waste so severe it left an indelible mark. multiply that on a greater scale and that is what I was thinking...as I said, I dont think its something that should simply be done because they "dont like us".