The Neocon's Goofy Policy on Iran

Which U.N. report would that be, that showed HARD EVIDENCE...(not the war mongers in Washington going, "We saw them rubbing two sticks together out in the desert...they'll get a nuclear bomb any time now!")

The FACTS (I know you are allergic to that word...you prefer "spin"), is that there is NO EVIDENCE that Iran is working on, or is anywhere close to developing, nuclear weapons.

 

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204190704577026103201770154.html

 

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/11/08/us-nuclear-iran-iaea-idUSTRE7A75N420111108

 

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4520926...n-work-specific-nuclear-weapons/#.TvFBkNVkjyo

 

Hmmm......

 

I never said they were. I simply told the truth about whose hands their lives would be on.

2 things: 1. If my family of five is in danger of being killed by a group of thugs trying to break into my home, I am not going to count how many there are. I am going to kill all of them, be it 2, 3, 7, etc. I know that this is slightly different, as you are referring to innocents, but again, it is the aggressive nation's people vs the threatened nation's people.

2. We aren't talking about ratios of 200,000:200. We are talking ratios of thousands : possible tens of thousands. If they get a nuclear warhead, one missile would kill thousands, if not tens of thousands of Israelis, which as we know are their most hated enemies.

How about believing the "lie" that has been confirmed by several reports from the UN? If Iran is developing nuclear weapons, then we can be sure that it isn't for defense. Attaching them to medium range missiles shows their intentions of using them offensively.

 

In case you missed it, the report was heavily criticized because it contained no new evidence...only speculation.

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2011/1...ter-says-un-report-on-iran-shows-nothing-new/

But the fact is, again, EVEN a nuclear Iran does not pose a threat to US> They might pose a threat to Israel, and as Ron Paul has stated, Israel is free to do what it feels is necessary to protect themselves. As the FOURTH most powerful country in the world, with an enormous array of missiles, ground forces and air forces containing equipment similar (or according to some, improved/superior to) our own, they should have no trouble dealing with Iran if they feel they need to.

It is the height of stupidity to spend hundreds of billions of dollars a year, keeping troops overseas, and pushing ourselves to the point where we aren't even going to have the money to fund our OWN defense...

 

My friend, the fact is that we started it, back in the cold war, trying to position ourselves against the Soviet Union. We have killed countless thousands of innocent civilians, involving them in a war that was not theirs to begin with.

Right. Tell me, if your neighbors next door broke into your house, with guns, and told you that you didn't have the right to own a gun yourself, and started killing your family, what would be your reaction? Would you go, "Thank you, my liberators!" or would you start shooting?

We are talking about the CERTAINTY of thousands of people dying, verses the POSSIBILITY sometime far in the future, of thousands of people dying.

Israel is a powerful nation. They can handle it; they have weaponry equal to our own (not in terms of numbers, but in terms of technology...). They are by some estimates the fourth most powerful nation in the world. They could, with one push of the button, wipe Iran completely off the map. Since Iran is a "possible" threat to them, let Israel handle it.

As cited above, their has been criticism of the UN report, because it does not contain any new evidence. If Israel feels that Iran is a threat to them, they are more than welcome to do something. Its not our business. They are not a threat to us.

 

In case other readers were lazy and didn't click on the link provided, here is the "heavy criticism" the report received (quoted in its entirety):

MOSCOW – Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov on Monday criticized the U.N. nuclear agency's report on Iran, saying it "contains nothing new" and provides no further evidence that Tehran is developing nuclear weapons.

Lavrov spoke to journalists from Russian news agencies traveling back with him from an international summit in Hawaii.

They quote him as saying that last week's report by the International Atomic Energy Agency report seemed intended to "stir up passions in public opinion and prepare the ground for imposing some kind of unilateral sanctions" against Iran.

Lavrov repeated Russia's opposition to any new U.N. sanctions.The IAEA report strongly suggested that Iran is using the cover of a peaceful nuclear program to produce atomic weapons.


Really, now? You are appealing to the Russian foreign minister? A defacto ally of Iran and a country that has been selling weapons to Iran. Seriously, that's all you got?

Reminds me of the Iraqi Information Minister during the Iraqi war: "There are no American troops in Baghdad." LOL!

 

Rosenberg is a favorite writer of mine:


American Enterprise Institute Admits The Problem With Iran Is Not That It Would Use Nukes

December 02, 2011 3:13 pm ET — MJ Rosenberg

Suddenly the struggle to stop Iran is not about saving Israel from nuclear annihilation. After a decade of scare-mongering about the second coming of Nazi Germany, the Iran hawks are admitting that they have other reasons for wanting to take out Iran, and saving Israeli lives may not be one of them. Suddenly the neoconservatives have discovered the concept of truth-telling, although, no doubt, the shift will be ephemeral.

The shift in the rationale for war was kicked off this week when Danielle Pletka, head of the American Enterprise Institute's (AEI) foreign policy shop and one of the most prominent neoconservatives in Washington, explained what the current obsession with Iran's nuclear program is all about.

The biggest problem for the United States is not Iran getting a nuclear weapon and testing it, it's Iran getting a nuclear weapon and not using it. Because the second that they have one and they don't do anything bad, all of the naysayers are going to come back and say, "See, we told you Iran is a responsible power. We told you Iran wasn't getting nuclear weapons in order to use them immediately." ... And they will eventually define Iran with nuclear weapons as not a problem.

Watch: [video included at link]

Hold on. The "biggest problem" with Iran getting a nuclear weapon is not that Iranians will use it but that they won't use it and that they might behave like a "responsible power"? But what about the hysteria about a second Holocaust? What about Prime Minister Netanyahu's assertion that this is 1938 and Hitler is on the march? What about all of these pronouncements that Iran must be prevented from developing a nuclear weapons because the apocalyptic mullahs would happily commit national suicide in order to destroy Israel? And what about AIPAC and its satellites, which produce one sanctions bill after another (all dutifully passed by Congress) because of the "existential threat" that Iran poses to Israel? Did Pletka lose her talking points?

Apparently not.

Pletka's "never mind" about the imminent danger of an Iranian bomb seems to be the new line from the bastion of neoconservativism.

Earlier this week, one of Pletka's colleagues at AEI said pretty much the same thing. Writing in the Weekly Standard, Thomas Donnelly explained that we've got the Iran problem all wrong and that we need to "understand the nature of the conflict." He continued:

We're fixated on the Iranian nuclear program while the Tehran regime has its eyes on the real prize: the balance of power in the Persian Gulf and the greater Middle East.

This admission that the problem with a nuclear Iran is not that it would attack Israel but that it would alter the regional balance of power is incredibly significant. The American Enterprise Institute is not Commentary, the Republican Jewish Coalition, or the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, which are not exactly known for their intellectual heft.

It is, along with the Heritage Foundation, the most influential conservative think tank. That is why it was able to play such an influential role in promoting the invasion of Iraq. Take a look at this page from the AEI website from January 2002 (featuring, no surprise, a head shot of Richard Perle). It is announcing one of an almost endless series of events designed to instigate war with Iraq, a war that did not begin for another 14 months. (Perle himself famously began promoting a war with Iraq within days of 9/11, according to former CIA director George Tenet.) AEI's drumbeat for war was incessant, finally meeting with success in March 2003.

And now they are doing it again. On Monday, Sen. Mark Kirk (R-IL) — AIPAC's favorite senator — will keynote an event at AEI, with Pletka and Donnelly offering responses. It will be moderated by Fred Kagan, another AEI fellow and Iraq (now Iran) war hawk. The event is built on the premise that "ongoing efforts to stop Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons have failed." We all know what that means. AEI will, no doubt, continue to host these "it's time for war" events through 2012 and beyond, or until President Obama or his successor announces either that the United States has attacked Iran or that Israel has attacked and we are at her side.

If you didn't know any better, you might ask why — given that Pletka and Donnelly are downgrading the Iranian nuclear threat — AEI is still hell-bent on war. If its determination to stop Iran is not about defending Israel from an "existential threat," what is it truly about?

Fortunately, Pletka and Donnelly don't leave us guessing. It is about preserving the regional balance of power, which means ensuring that Israel remains the region's military powerhouse, with Saudi Arabia playing a supporting role. That requires overthrowing the Iranian regime and replacing it with one that will do our bidding (like the Shah) and will not, in any way, prevent Israel from operating with a free reign throughout the region.

This goal can only be achieved through outside intervention (war) because virtually the entire Iranian population — from the hardliners in the reactionary regime to reformists in the Green Movement working for a more open society — are united in support of Iran's right to develop its nuclear potential and to be free of outside interference. What the neoconservatives want is a pliant government in Tehran, just like we used to have, and the only way to achieve this, they believe, is through war.

At this point, it appears that they may get their wish. The only alternative to war is diplomacy, and diplomacy, unlike war, seems to be no longer on the table.

At a fascinating Israel Policy Forum (IPF) symposium this week, Barbara Slavin, a senior fellow at the Atlantic Council and a longtime journalist and author who specializes on Iran, noted that the Obama administration has spent a grand total of 45 minutes in direct engagement with the Iranians. Forty-five minutes! Just as bad, the administration no longer makes any effort to engage.

This is crazy. Of course, there is no way of knowing if the Iranian regime wants to talk, but what is the harm of trying? If they say no, they say no. If we talk and the talks go nowhere, then at least we tried. But we won't try out of fear of antagonizing campaign donors who have been told that the alternative to war is the destruction of Israel. (Thanks to those same donors, Congress is utterly hopeless on this issue.)

So, instead of pursuing diplomacy, we are inching closer toward war.At IPF, Slavin predicted what the collateral results of an attack on Iran would be:

What's the collateral damage? Oh my lord. Well, you destroy the reform movement in Iran for another generation because people will rally around the government; inevitably they do when country is attacked.

People always talk about the Iranians being so irrational and wanting martyrdom. That's bull. They're perfectly happy to fight to the last Arab suicide bomber. But they don't put their own lives on the line unless their country is attacked.

So, you know, they would rally around the government and that would destroy the reform movement. And of course the price of oil would spike. The Iranians will find ways to retaliate through their partners like Hezbollah and Hamas. I think the Israelis would have to attack Lebanon first, to take out Hezbollah's 40,000 rockets. It's not just a matter of a quick few hops over Saudi Arabia and you hit Natanz, you know, and a few other places.

That's why the Israelis want the United States to do it, because they can't do it, frankly. U.S. does it? Okay, the remaining U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan are sitting ducks. Iran is already playing footsie with the Taliban in Afghanistan. That will become much more pronounced. They will perhaps attack the Saudi oil fields.

Slavin continues, but the point is clear. An Iran war would make the Iraq war look like the "cake walk" neoconservatives promised it would be.

And for what? To preserve the regional balance of power? How many American lives is that worth? Or Israeli lives? Or Iranian? (It is worth noting that this week, Max Boot, the Council on Foreign Relations' main neocon, wrote that an attack on Iran, which he advocates, would only delay development of an Iranian bomb.)

Nonetheless, at this point war looks likely. Under our political system, the side that can pay for election campaigns invariably gets what it wants. There is, simply put, no group of donors who are supporting candidates for president and Congress based on their opposition to war, while millions of organized dollars are available to those who support the neocon agenda. Pundits used to say: As Maine goes, so goes the country. It's just as simple today: As the money goes, so goes our policy.

 

Really? You want to quote media matters? :laugh: next you will be quoting Al Jazeera like infowars does.

 

All you dispy neocon warmongers infected with 'last day dementia', just remember, it will be our act of agression that starts this conflict with yet another sovereign nation that's going to cause so much suffering for untold millions, and I'm talking about folks here in the U.S. also.

You thirst after Armageddon, you're probably gonna get something real close to it in the long run. It's real close to outright contempt that I have for you people. You claim to be Christians yet 'Blessed are the peacemakers' means absolutely nothing to you.

 

And your continued exaggeration and dishonesty about our position (fed by infowars) that continues to discredit you. But I imagine that this is all about a devotion for RP than a concern for the false suffering of untold millions that is at the root of your deception.

 

Yes a common writer for inforwars and apparently a supporter of AlJazeera

http://www.infowars.com/the-supposed-iran-plot-immunized-by-neocons/

 

You should be the 'first in' Iran if it comes to war.

 

Again, you misrepresent anyone who does not worship RP. Where did I say anything about supporting going into Iran? If you want to hold contempt for anyone who does not run to RP that is your choice. But you should work to at least hold more honesty in the midst.

 

Wow, take a chill pill.

I find lumping me into the group as a warmonger as offensive. For the record, I'm not in favor of invading Iran, bombing Iran, or flying drones over Iran. I'd prefer to get intel from spies on the ground.

However, I must say this constant denial that Iran is not attempting to build a nuclear weapon (love the source--the Russian Foreign Minister), that we are at fault if they are, that we are going to bomb them causing them to close the Straits of Hormuz, that we are going to bomb them because they won't give back our drone, that we should open a dialogue with them, etc. IS GOOFY!

So far no one in the Ron Paul camp has addressed these off the wall statements of his, except for a flaccid attempt to 'prove' the UN report and IAEA reports were false. Mandym posted irrefutable proof that the UN report and the IAEA report do indeed say that Iran is developing a nuclear weapon.

So, RP apologists:

1. Please post links showing that anyone in the Obama administration or anyone in Republican leadership has suggested that the U.S. bomb Iran because they won't return our drone.

2. Please post links showing that Iran has suggested they would close the Straits of Hormuz in retaliation for the U.S. bombing them.

3. Please explain how/why diplomatic dialogue with Iran would accomplish anything.

4. Please explain why the fact that radical Muslims have not (yet) attacked Switzerland or Sweden is proof that they have attacked the U.S. because we have a military presence in the area.