1. 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

Discussion in 'Political Debate & Discussion' started by KenH, May 22, 2006.

Top Posters
  1. KenH

    KenH Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    41,995
    Likes Received:
    1,488
    Faith:
    Baptist
    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
     
    #1 KenH, May 22, 2006
  2. FollowMeHome

    FollowMeHome New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2006
    Messages:
    46
    Likes Received:
    0
    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.
     
    #2 FollowMeHome, Jun 4, 2006
  3. Joseph_Botwinick

    Joseph_Botwinick <img src=/532.jpg>Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2000
    Messages:
    17,527
    Likes Received:
    0
    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
     
    #3 Joseph_Botwinick, Jun 4, 2006
  4. billwald

    billwald New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2000
    Messages:
    11,414
    Likes Received:
    2
    Bush wants a war with Iran because it will help his friends, the Saudis, to control the oil market.
     
    #4 billwald, Jun 4, 2006
  5. carpro

    carpro Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    Messages:
    25,823
    Likes Received:
    1,167
    Faith:
    Baptist
    :thumbs:

    Good point!
     
    #5 carpro, Jun 4, 2006
  6. LadyEagle

    LadyEagle <b>Moderator</b> <img src =/israel.gif>

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2002
    Messages:
    22,028
    Likes Received:
    1
    You are probably correct.
     
    #6 LadyEagle, Jun 4, 2006
  7. poncho

    poncho Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2004
    Messages:
    19,657
    Likes Received:
    128
    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.
     
    #7 poncho, Jun 4, 2006
    Last edited by a moderator: Jun 4, 2006
  8. Joseph_Botwinick

    Joseph_Botwinick <img src=/532.jpg>Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2000
    Messages:
    17,527
    Likes Received:
    0
    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
     
    #8 Joseph_Botwinick, Jun 4, 2006
  9. poncho

    poncho Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2004
    Messages:
    19,657
    Likes Received:
    128
    Nope, it's Underdog.

    I agree.

    Me too.


    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.

    Matter of opinion.


    As they should.


    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?

    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.

    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?




    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")
     
    #9 poncho, Jun 4, 2006
    Last edited by a moderator: Jun 4, 2006
  10. fromtheright

    fromtheright <img src =/2844.JPG>

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2002
    Messages:
    2,772
    Likes Received:
    0
    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.
     
    #10 fromtheright, Jun 5, 2006
  11. poncho

    poncho Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2004
    Messages:
    19,657
    Likes Received:
    128
    Why not just throw dirt in his face?
     
    #11 poncho, Jun 5, 2006
  12. fromtheright

    fromtheright <img src =/2844.JPG>

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2002
    Messages:
    2,772
    Likes Received:
    0
    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.
     
    #12 fromtheright, Jun 6, 2006
  13. poncho

    poncho Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2004
    Messages:
    19,657
    Likes Received:
    128
    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:
     
    #13 poncho, Jun 6, 2006
  14. fromtheright

    fromtheright <img src =/2844.JPG>

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2002
    Messages:
    2,772
    Likes Received:
    0
    Even more sinister, maybe they told him not to. :smilewinkgrin:
     
    #14 fromtheright, Jun 7, 2006
  15. KenH

    KenH Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    41,995
    Likes Received:
    1,488
    Faith:
    Baptist
    I see no reason to reinvent the wheel. :smilewinkgrin:
     
    #15 KenH, Jun 7, 2006
(You must log in or sign up to post here.)
Loading...