The Shotgun Blog
« Alberta Chambers of Commerce backs province on its court challenge of national securities regulator | Main | How Big Government Destroyed Detroit »
Monday, December 21, 2009
Iran sanctions are precursor to war: Ron Paul
In his latest Texas Straight Talk column, Congressman Ron Paul looks at U.S. sanctions on Iran:
Last week the House overwhelmingly approved a measure to put a new round of sanctions on Iran.
If this measure passes the Senate, the United States could no longer do business with anyone who sold refined petroleum products to Iran or helped them develop their ability to refine their own petroleum.
The sad thing is that many of my colleagues voted for this measure because they felt it would deflect a military engagement with Iran. I would put the question to them, how would Congress react if another government threatened our critical trading partners in this way? Would we not view it as asking for war?
Click here to read the full article.
I too have explored this relationship between trade and peace in previous blog posts, with this basic conclusion:
Trade is the Trojan Horse of liberty. Once it passes through the protectionist gates of fortress economies, it quietly sneaks about destroying statism and poverty. Trade also creates the conditions for peace as nations learn to cooperate for mutual advantage and reject the winner-takes-all approach of war and mercantilism. 19th century French classical liberal theorist Frederick Bastiat wrote “When goods don’t cross borders, soldiers will.”
You can read my post here, if Paul isn't enough for you.
Posted by Matthew Johnston
Posted by westernstandard on December 21, 2009 | Permalink
Comments
On foreign relations, Ron Paul is totally and absolutely wrong. Iran has to be confronted. They're building nuclear weapons, which cannot be allowed. Placing sanctions on them will make that process more difficult, but only if all other nations agree to the same. Otherwise, they'll get away with it - like flawed sanctions on Italy in the 1930s after their war in Ethiopia. I hope too that it doesn't come to war - Iran hasn't been successfully conquered in hundreds of years, and then by two of the greatest conquerors in world history, Genghis Khan and Tamerlane. Obama just can't measure up to that. Hopefully regime change comes from inside.
Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2009-12-21 8:12:54 PM
Z pike, you're going to attack them because someone says they're building nkes? A 3rd world country with no navy, a small army and you're afraid of them? Stop and think about it for a minute, if they did build a nke and fired it, the missle wouldnt get very far. the ussr had thousands of missles pointed at us for how many years? Besides they have a right to defend themselves too. Quit being afraid.
Posted by: DennyND | 2009-12-21 8:33:46 PM
Iran hasn't been successfully conquered in hundreds of years,
Posted by: the black racist Zebulon Punk | 2009-12-21 8:12:54 PM
It was invaded and conquered by the British and Soviets in 1941. Google Operation Countenance, you might learn something.
Posted by: The Stig | 2009-12-21 8:39:07 PM
lol at Zeb. Isn't this the same BS they fed us before the Iraq invasion? Hows that working out?
Remember the claims that Iraq had the 3rd largest army in the world? What a laugh. It would be like flicking ants. Iran wouldn't stand a chance, much like Iraq. Do you work for the republican party in the States? You sound like their parrot. Keep making them bombs boys, gotta keep our war machine
economy going. And don't worry about the cost, the sheeple will pay for it. But pay for health care? Now we have a problem....
Posted by: Steve Bottrell | 2009-12-21 8:59:17 PM
Iran has not threatened anyone. Seems it is everyone else threatening Iran. Iran has not broken the International Law in spite of what many reports say. They have had over 25 inspections.
Israel has not had any inspection on their WMD even though there have been UN Resolutions requesting Israel to allow Inspectors in Israel. The US also refuses to allow inspectors in as well.
So who is the real problem?
Not Iran who is complying with International Laws.
Iran also has the right to pursue Nuclear Hydro and Medical Isotopes.
Posted by: Rose | 2009-12-21 9:20:25 PM
Is Iran putting in place the means to built nuclear weapons? The answer is probably. However, the truth is that most Canadians won't care as long as Toronto or Montreal are not hit. Iran has backed terrorists organizations that have launched attacks worldwide. The problem is that many libertarians don't want to take on terrorists because they feel that the end result(of even a successful operation) is an empowered state. They think that if you try to do business with terrorists enablers then they will leave you alone. Basically, its called buying off the terrorists and their friends. I still can't figure out how a President Ron Paul would react if terrorists launched an attack inside the U.S. Would Ron Paul even take military action? Would he hunt down and kill the terrorists or believe that such an action was not the purpose of the government? How would a libertarian Canadian government react to a terrorist attack in Canada? Would it take action against any country that aided and abetted the terrorists? I get the feeling that a libertarian government's defense policy pretty much comes down to me arming every member of my family and not expecting any help from authorities in the event of the attack. Seriously, what actions would libertarians to stop terrorists and their client states? Please, give me some solid ideas and not some b.s. about winning hearts and minds.
Posted by: Andy | 2009-12-21 10:18:34 PM
Well, I can't speak for all, but I guess I'm a small L libertarian, and I would hope that a Libertarian government would hunt down those responsible and make them pay. But we wouldn't invade countries on guesses and bad intel. Countries that supported such actions would be cut off from any trade with, at least, this country and I would hope all other countries of the western world. Unless they are homegrown terrorists, then we have the mighty RCMP, god help us.
Posted by: Steve Bottrell | 2009-12-21 10:37:13 PM
"Please, give me some solid ideas and not some b.s. about winning hearts and minds."
When you don't police the world, you're not the enemy.
Posted by: Marc | 2009-12-22 12:53:53 AM
A major contributing factor to the Japanese deciding to attack the U.S. in 1941 was the U.S. embargo on oil to Japan. Japan then was a more of a threat to others than Iran is now, but people still need to understand that embargos of irreplaceable commodities do lead to shooting wars. The abject failure in Afghanistan and Iraq (and for that matter Vietnam etc.) to accomplish anything worth the tens of thousands dead should be warning enough. This is yet another huge mistake in the making, esp. with all the signs that Iran has internal groups willing to work against the conservative theocrats who now control Iran.
Posted by: VMS | 2009-12-22 6:16:50 AM
Andy. I think it's safe to say libertarians are against most things preemptive. I know I support a strong army to protect the country. If terrorists decide to attack, we should be ready to thwart that attack and respond in kind.
Posted by: Charles | 2009-12-22 6:59:46 AM
These wars will end up being the downfall of America. Afghanistan is the graveyard that all Empires go to and a headstone with our name on it awaits. It is the height of arrogance to believe we will be the ones to defeat terrorism, considering it's ultimately a perpetual war to fight.
Hated by most of the world, we'll be remembered as paranoid war-mongers who profited from the occupation of other countries and the death of others; known as people so ignorant, so fat and full of apathy, that they allowed their own representatives to rob, rape, and deceive them from both sides of the political duopoly that continues to have a strangle hold on America.
No president will extricate the US from these wars of aggression, only sweet platitudes or imminent fear and death will they present to the public, while behind doors they serve the Corporate Oligarchy. Short of a revolution, Americans must kick the criminals out of DC, once and for all, either by running for office or voting for those who believe in real peace and freedom. That is the only way we will ever find a day in our lives where we are not at war against a person, place... or thing.
Posted by: War is Peace | 2009-12-22 7:03:06 AM
An overt hostility to Iran is the best gift for this desperate government.
United States is a world power; they are heavily engaged directly in both left and right of Iran borders, indirectly in the whole of Middle East. U.S can not ignore Iran.
But foreign policy must have a balance. A despotic Iran with nuclear weapon is a threat to the world peace, but not a clear present danger, by most intelligence agencies, Iran is many years away.
The Green Protest Movement is real and present. Six months after the election millions gathered in a funeral in Qom for the dissent cleric Ayatollah Montazari, despite risks facing them. They have remained peaceful despite the brutal crackdown by the regime. A vanguard that the change will lead to regime which tolerant and democratic.
The west must not focus on a tree of Iran nuclear programme, and miss the forest of green movement. There are many ways to be engaged positively without giving ammunition to the regime. Mr Obama can reach his hand to the Green Movement activists outside Iran to bring about an effective policy to support them, worthy of his Noble peace price.
Posted by: Makan Sabz | 2009-12-22 7:52:40 AM
Ron Paul is 100% correct. Sanctions and embargoes constitute an act of war against innocent civilians. The rulers do not miss any meals or want for heat or gasoline. War against the civilian population naturally antagonizes them, increasing support for their local tyrants to confront the foreign ones.
There is only one antidote for war, but fortunately it works every time. It is called "trade." "When goods do not cross borders, troops will" - and conversely.
Posted by: Jive Dadson | 2009-12-22 8:02:31 AM
Paul is wrong, as usual. Sanctions and embargoes were designed to avert war, not cause it. If Iran will give up their nuclear weapons program, then all will be better. Military action would only be a last resort or if Iran fired the first shot, as was the case with Japan.
The British and Soviets did not conquer Iran - they occupied it with the intention of keeping the Persian Gulf Corridor open for Western supplies to the Soviets. Local resistance was extremely limited and the Shah's government (such as it was) gave its permission for the Allies to operate there. H. Norman Schwarzkopf Sr was one of the US generals in charge. Small world.
Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2009-12-22 8:54:30 AM
Ron Paul is an idiot. His "blame American first" ideology and "give the benefit of the doubt" to radicals is dangerous.
And you can't compare this to the Soviet Union that had nukes. AT least they had "people" in charge. We have theocrats in Iran that believe in Jihad and Martyrdom. A very dangerous combination and deadly ideology.
Wiping out a million people would be a glorous act of getting into paradise.
Sorry Ron Paul. The year isn't 1776, where it takes a month for the British to cross the Atlantic and a weapon of mass destruction was a cannon. We live in a different world... a smaller world. We live in a world where a million people could be killed in the time it takes me to tie my shoes.
Posted by: Chris | 2009-12-22 9:29:51 AM
It won't be an invasion.
It will be strategic hits against nuclear infrastructure conducted by Israel with US support.
If those hits extend to political infrastructure so much the better. This may be enough for a barely contained opposition to overwhelm the current regime seeing as how internal security there is pretty much ready to capitulate anyway.
Only a relatively small force of religious nutbar security is holding things together.
I would expect strategic discussions with Iranian opposition and corporate operatives have been underway for some time (years) about this.
Posted by: snowgirl | 2009-12-22 9:33:16 AM
We have become a belligerent broke nation that has fueled the hatred now holding us in the cross hairs. Iran hasn't attacked anyone in 100 years or so. The US attacks somebody new every other year or so oftentimes preemptively. We don't want Iran to have nukes because they threaten Israel, a nation that herds Palestinians between fences, all the while expanding settlements, cutting off food, energy and water, etc. Maybe we should arm the Palestinians and give our nukes to Iran. I am proud of what our nation was, not what it has become - a corrupt cesspool of warfarism and welfarism. Of course Ron Paul is right, and for those that don't think so, wait a few more years. Merry Christmas.
Posted by: Ben | 2009-12-22 9:39:12 AM
A nuclear weapon will have safe guards as in Pakistan- a far more dangerous country; it would be existential threat for Iran and the regime if they fire first. Theocrats believe in Martyrdom for their followers not suicide for themselves.
Posted by: Makan Sabz | 2009-12-22 9:49:31 AM
Why does it take Ron Paul to tell most here what the state of affairs are in our world?
How could anyone consider themself a lucid person when they are simply reorganizing what the media misinforms them of.
How is Iran a threat to North America or anybody?
Why is Iran not encouraged with their nuclear program in regards to whatever their desires are?
If you are for the US having nuclear weapons but not Iran, what does that infer about one's personal desires to be in control of the world in a disproportionate manner?
Are nuclear weapons not a detourant from invading armies?
Are we more civialized or socially advanced than the people of Iran? ( use broad terms when pondering, opression has to do with who rules the people, not the people at large)
What is foreign policy?
Is it anybodies business what anybody else does, regardless of how we view it, or considerate it?
Is not all of this " Iranian threat" precursor hyperbole which I see many hear believe, not the main reason our modern wars happen? This constant protracted US war effort needs people the are easily fooled and too lazy to look beyond what has been relayed to them, Ie, the public at large so as to constantly sell it.
I am the only one here who admires Mahmoud Ahmajinedad?
I do not admire his politics or his personal beliefs, because many of his beliefs disgust me.
What I do admire is his fight against world opression directed at the nation of Iran.
Forget the drums of war and listen to the mans arguments,if you can't hear them it is because you are brainwashed biased. I saw MA's interview with the yellow of journalists Diane Sawyer, the retard kept saying to him " have you read the report, have you read the report" like it was some kind of infallable accurate information from a trusted source. Most people are far too stupid to be able to watch that and understand her lack of journalistic integrity or understand that what she was presenting amounts to garbage, fabircations. She is just another shill by default which sad and alrming and is representitve of media in almost all forms. Not very many genuine news source exists any longer , they are all subjective, and full of bullshit, everything expressed has to questioned as to its validity, again sad and alarming, but indicative of a public that doesn't care about the truth.
Mahmoud and the Mullahs are already losing the grip on power, and a new revolution is in the works. Time will only tell how long it take for "will" to conquer the sword as it always does, but it in time it will happen.
If the US goes to war with Iran in a physical way,it is my guess that it will be the most interesting warfare perpitrated on the US that we have ever seen.
Posted by: Almost all journalists are Yellow | 2009-12-22 9:58:48 AM
"We live in a world where a million people could be killed in the time it takes me to tie my shoes."
Posted by: Chris | 2009-12-22 9:29:51 AM"
SO WHAT! Are you reserving the right for the US to do it first? Oh thats right the this side of the world has a history of using nukes....more than once,losing them, nuclear accidents via sub reactors and land reactors, but we should be the judge? Nice biased brain you have, you need a brick to fall on your head while tying your shoes in order to knock some common, and reasonable sense into you.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-12-22 10:06:48 AM
"It won't be an invasion.
It will be strategic hits against nuclear infrastructure conducted by Israel with US support."
Posted by: snowgirl | 2009-12-22 9:33:16 AM
No Media hyperbole belief there, just solid intelligence from someone who knows what the media tells them to know.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-12-22 10:11:15 AM
Almost all journalists are Yellow - Well said. You are not alone in your beliefs. Recent polls show that Americans are moving towards non-interventionalism in droves. The politicians have yet to reflect the wishes of the people in their arrogant policies towards other nations, but that will change if the people vote honorable people into office like Ron Paul, Dennis Kucinich, Ralph Nader, etc.
Posted by: Ron Paul is correct | 2009-12-22 10:11:16 AM
"We have become a belligerent broke nation that has fueled the hatred now holding us in the cross hairs. Iran hasn't attacked anyone in 100 years or so. The US attacks somebody new every other year or so oftentimes preemptively. We don't want Iran to have nukes because they threaten Israel, a nation that herds Palestinians between fences, all the while expanding settlements, cutting off food, energy and water, etc. Maybe we should arm the Palestinians and give our nukes to Iran. I am proud of what our nation was, not what it has become - a corrupt cesspool of warfarism and welfarism. Of course Ron Paul is right, and for those that don't think so, wait a few more years. Merry Christmas. "
Posted by: Ben | 2009-12-22 9:39:12 AM
Well said Ben and others who against control and scapegoating.
Posted by: Atheist | 2009-12-22 10:14:21 AM
"We live in a world where a million people could be killed in the time it takes me to tie my shoes."
True, lots of Japanese were probably tying their shoes. The best thing about our nation going bankrupt is the change in foreign policy that will result. We can use the young men we send overseas here to help rebuild America's infrastructure and absent manufacturing base as well as sealing our borders.
Posted by: Ben | 2009-12-22 10:14:38 AM
Atheist - Thanks hope you don't mind the Christmas bit! I believe strongly in the "Golden Rule". I fear that with our economy imploding, the cruelty that we have spread throughout the world in recent decades (since the Carter Doctrine) will come full circle. I love this country, but our leaders have been awful as of late.
Posted by: Ben | 2009-12-22 10:17:56 AM
now its not even question of rights-its a question of the serious threat for all world.
Iran has occupied a waiting position - the slightest fluctuation or long-awaited s-300 can become an occasion to start war with israel but if they get nuclear weapon they will destroy half of the world.
Posted by: ilona@israel | 2009-12-22 10:39:32 AM
Z Pike,
As a military officer and student of Tsun Tsu I would ask the following questions about our strategy in the middle east.
1) How much are these sanctions, particularly if they become military in nature, cost the US Treasury? How do you intend to pay for it? I agree that nuclear weapons in Iran are a problem particularly with their propensity to deal with terrorists. But you dont burn your house down to get rid of termites.
2) What if the trade sanctions dont work? Will you deploy military forces to Iran? Will you get a declaration of war as required by the Constitution?
"rogue" nations are a difficult problem when looked with the full picture in mind, but bankrupting the nation with yet another T dollar adventure is clearly not a strategy for success, so perhaps we might want to look for other strategies than the simple knee jerk "lets get em" approach.
Posted by: Neil | 2009-12-22 10:40:54 AM
ilona@israel-Ya, sure. When are you guys going to stop diverting water away from the Palestinians to your illegal settlements?
Posted by: Ben | 2009-12-22 10:43:10 AM
"I am the only one here who admires Mahmoud Ahmajinedad?"
Hopefully.
Posted by: VMS | 2009-12-22 10:43:47 AM
VMS-I think you missed his point. Mahmoud has guts to stand against the arrogant western states trying to force their doctrines upon his nation. That aside, the theocracy over there is terrible, and I hope the people there overthrow it for a more representative government that meets the will of the people. Of course our sanctions could drive them towards the hardliners. Man are we dumb.
Posted by: Ben | 2009-12-22 10:50:40 AM
Operation Ajax....nuff said. It is no wonder Iran is defiant towards us.
Posted by: Huh | 2009-12-22 11:01:06 AM
Hi Ben , I do not take offense at the Christmas remark, but I do think if you researched the origins of Christ and how the bibles were translated and re-written to reflect cultural views,then in time you would change your remark to Happy Holidays.
My belief is to never scapegoat the problem, I find it more interesting to find the root cause of failure. The problems in the US has to do more with the people, then who leads them.
You live in a democracy by one definition where you get to elect your officials but rarely are involved democratically in any decision making.
To me this is pseudo democracy and it is why our interests are rarely consdered first, or without a great effort that invloves a movement of the masses.
Understanding our current position should make us demand change, but it doesn't, for the most part the people wrongly do not want to know how the butcher makes the sausage, so we ignore leadership decisions.
Until we desire to only understand the truth, comments like "we are fighting for freedom" , and "we are fighting them there so we don't have to fight them here" will be plausible arguments for the stupid.
America it seems has about an 80% idiocy rate where they believe what ever is presented, and it almost always has nothing to do with governmental leadership, it has to do with their own mental laziness. The human condition which consists Sheeps and wolves, leaders and followers is why the America leadership has been able to perpitrate crimes against humanity on a constantly on going basis for at least 50 of the past years. From where I sit, it does not appear Ameirca is getting any smarter, because they show no evidence of this other than on the fringe.
Religion or merry christmas is all evil controlling scapegoating garbage for the mentally challenged to cling to. I am against this economic holiday because it is based in fear. Your religion is all about fear and it is disgusting harmfull to the well being of its indoctrinated believers. Much of the depressions humans walk around with stem from the man made fable called the bible. The book is written in a way so as to subject you to failure by making you fight what comes naturally.
It is the most damaging piece of literature ever written and in time this will be understood, although not in my life time.
I think it should be illegal for anyone under the age of 18 to read any of the re translated and slanted bibles. Impressionable young minds should not be subjected to indoctination on this level until they can understand what the re translated book of dangerous fiction represent.
Nothing has caused more problems on this earth other than religion, money is second religion first, how could I or anybody support something so detrimental.
:))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
Posted by: Atheist | 2009-12-22 11:24:35 AM
Iran having nuclear weapon will not be an existential threat to Israel, if Iran fires first; Iran will face the full nuclear might of United Sates in addition to hundreds owned by Israel. Theocrats believe in Martyrdom for their followers not suicide for themselves. However a nuclear first strike by Israel will be portrayed as an act of defence in face of terrorism threat and white-washed in the UN. Iran with nuclear weapon will change the geopolitical balance of Middle East- Israel will lose its military dominance. A bi-polar Middle East will change the Israel peace terms to Palestine’s “My way or imprisoning Palestinians between the fences, expanding settlements, cutting off food, energy and water ”, Israel will need to seek peace terms with respect and balance to Palestinians, good for people of Israel and middle east horrible for war mongers.
Posted by: Makan Sabz | 2009-12-22 11:26:45 AM
Atheist-I have researched it, and I have come to the conclusion that I don't know what the truth is nor do I care. I choose to believe because I like hoping for something beyond this world, and I like the traditions of my Catholic faith. Just personal preference, really. I suppose I am mentally challenged in that way. Apart from that, I think we are on the same page with regard many things, especially politically. Happy holidays to ya.
Posted by: Huh | 2009-12-22 11:30:43 AM
"now its not even question of rights-its a question of the serious threat for all world.
Iran has occupied a waiting position - the slightest fluctuation or long-awaited s-300 can become an occasion to start war with israel but if they get nuclear weapon they will destroy half of the world."
Posted by: ilona@israel | 2009-12-22 10:39:32 AM
Nice try Ilona many others possess nuclear delivery methods and the world is still here.
That was a wonderful FALLACY argument, how about trying some facts and stead of unfounded fallacy fear mongering?
I live I Canada and I see Israel as a bigger threat to security here then Iran. Israel is far more involved in espionage and clandestine military operation than almost any other nation.
It time for Israel to defend itself and if Iran wipes you off the map so be it , it was meant to happen, who cares about F'n Israel anyways, what have they ever done for us? Any country can produce high end CNC tooling, it was only politics why much is produced in a country with resources.
I am not anti israeli, but at this point you should produce what you need to protect it self of die. I AM NOT FOR PROTECTING ISRAEL FOR PURPOSES OF THE RAPTURE. Let it crumble in the sand like civilizations before it.
Posted by: Atheist | 2009-12-22 11:34:35 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Atheist-I have researched it, and I have come to the conclusion that I don't know what the truth is nor do I care. I choose to believe because I like hoping for something beyond this world, and I like the traditions of my Catholic faith. Just personal preference, really. I suppose I am mentally challenged in that way. Apart from that, I think we are on the same page with regard many things, especially politically. Happy holidays to ya.
Posted by: Huh | 2009-12-22 11:30:43 AM
There you have it admittedly and purposely choosing to be stupid, isn't that just like an American
Posted by: Atheist | 2009-12-22 11:36:57 AM
"I am the only one here who admires Mahmoud Ahmajinedad?"
Hopefully.
Posted by: VMS | 2009-12-22 10:43:47 AM
Only a fool doesn't find something admirable in everyone, are you a fool Vaginal Massage Sensor?
Libertarian.ca.... as if you are a libertarian you cannot see past the end of your nose, like most who lable themselves
Posted by: Atheist | 2009-12-22 11:40:45 AM
Atheist-Yep I proved your point, but I choose to be stupid in this sense. However, it should be noted that I don't go around telling others how to conduct themselves, including yourself. I think I differ from many Americans in the fact that I don't force it down you throat. I keep it to myself as it should be. If I do see injustice based on my Christian beliefs I may speak up, but I don't expect anyone to follow my lead.
Posted by: Huh | 2009-12-22 11:45:17 AM
Atheist, Ben==Huh, sorry about the confusion. Should also say I have many agnostic/atheist friends, and I am much closer to them idea-wise than any neoconservative type that have hijacked the republican party and much of the democratic party here in America.
Posted by: Ben | 2009-12-22 11:51:13 AM
Shane Matthews. How about you stop calling people names and make a valid criticism.
Oh, has your boss told you to try to get some work done instead of posting to Western Standard all day?
Or do you even have a job?
Posted by: snowgirl | 2009-12-22 11:59:42 AM
The British and Soviets did not conquer Iran - they occupied it with the intention of keeping the Persian Gulf Corridor open for Western supplies to the Soviets.
Posted by: the black racist Zebulon Punk | 2009-12-22 8:54:30 AM
Bwahahahahaha. The British and Soviets occupied the whole country but didn't conquer it. They ejected the Shah and put his son on the throne but didn't conquer it. The Iranians signed a surrender treaty but weren't conquered. The new Shah was forced to sign the Treaty of Alliance but his country wasn't conquered. Bwahahahahahaha
Posted by: The Stig | 2009-12-22 12:04:10 PM
Over 1,000,000 men, women, and children (thousands and thousands of families) killed in Iraq.
Need I say more?
What if, just what if, they were American children, wives, husbands, fathers, brothers, sisters? Would this change the pro war folks' minds?
"Do unto others as ye would have them do unto you," is a simple Biblical teaching from the Prince of Peace that gets completely ignored by the good, smart Americans out there who support pre-emptive war. They are deceived. They are wrong.
It sickens me.
Posted by: Joe | 2009-12-22 12:33:35 PM
"Atheist-Yep I proved your point, but I choose to be stupid in this sense. However, it should be noted that I don't go around telling others how to conduct themselves, including yourself. I think I differ from many Americans in the fact that I don't force it down you throat. I keep it to myself as it should be. If I do see injustice based on my Christian beliefs I may speak up, but I don't expect anyone to follow my lead."
Posted by: Huh | 2009-12-22 11:45:17 AM
Bullshit, you proved nothing, you don't you live your life as a solidier of the christian army whether or not you are willing to admit this to your self? I have to live in your Christian indoctrinated world which you are oblivious to. Your money has god on it. You nation is one nation under god(truly delusional but with purpose)
I live in the camp of god next to you, which has many restrictions because of your rediculous Catholic beliefs indoctrinated into our civil laws.
Your beliefs which you won't question makes you intellectually a weakling becuase it proves with out a doubt that causation, or facts are not of any real importance when coming to a conclusion. Blind faith is not perception becoming reality in absence of fact, it is ignoring what is not rational in order to create the answer you want.
You should go around telling others about your religion instead of being ashmed of it and hiding your beleifs like you are currently doing. Being in the closet about this as well only makes it appear that you are unsure of your beliefs that anonomously you are now defending, all be it ever so slightly.
In the US dogma moulds many of you, the US government knows this, and has become masters at capitalising from dogmatic beliefs. It is a controlling thing of beauty, but a brainwashed fool cannot know this with out understanding and removing him or herself from what they were indoctrinated into.
Until religion does not dictate what goes on in our society, I will continue to point out that what you know is only what someone else who did not know better, relayed to you.
Posted by: Atheist | 2009-12-22 12:36:04 PM
Are they taking odds in Vegas on when we attack Iran? It will happen.
Posted by: Rafer Janders | 2009-12-22 12:39:06 PM
Shane Matthews. How about you stop calling people names and make a valid criticism.
Or do you even have a job?
Posted by: snowgirl | 2009-12-22 11:59:42 AM
Sweetie, I miss you. Why don't you ever come by anymore or answer the phone when i call after striking out at the bar.
Yes I have a job and its keeping you pleased. I am however as of late, failing miserably in that respect. Please share with me what it is I can do to make it better?
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-12-22 12:50:23 PM
Posted by: Neil | 2009-12-22 10:40:54 AM
1) Sanctions cost very little in this case because trade with Iran is extremely limited for North America. For Europe, Russia and China, on the other hand, it is larger and hence their reluctance. So it won't cost the US Treasury much at all. Hence the reason for imposing sanctions. Certainly it is far less costly than going to war with Iran over their nuclear weapons.
Sanctions are designed to disturb the target nation's ability to trade in various goods, be they consumer products or specific technology. At least, it makes people uncomfortable because they cannot acquire the latest DVDs or cars from the West. This targets the politically active middle class, who may (it is hoped) turn towards the dissenters. At most, their atomic scientists cannot get a device necessary to refine uranium. This would delay their program by years. Hopefully it does both.
2) If there is no other choice, or if Iran struck the first blow, then military force may have to be used. A declaration of war is not necessary - simply authorization from Congress for action beyond 90 days. It was done for Afghanistan and Iraq (both times). Getting a UN resolution would be more complicated but not impossible, especially if Iran attacked first.
Hopefully this is not necessary. Iran is a big country which would be difficult to attack and occupy against a diligent foe. It's a long march from Bandar Abbas to Teheran. Previous powers only needed to take the central government. Iran's government knows this - that's why they're taking on the world now. The world is divided against them, and the US and the West are too occupied in Iraq and Afghanistan to do anything about them. SO this will go on for a while.
Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2009-12-22 1:07:18 PM
Sounds like Atheist is trying to change Ben to be a disbeliever through name calling and hostility. Atheist is more forthright in his conversion practices than Christians are on the flipside. Ridiculous. Completely counterproductive nonbeliever dude. Go crawl back in your sad little hole until the holidays are over.
Aside from Atheist's anti-Christmas spirit, Ron Paul is obviously correct in his statement.
Posted by: Jacob | 2009-12-22 1:12:44 PM
@ Jacob "dude"
You can be as stupid as the rest of the non thinkers, and you are that, a complete and utter non thinker, a pawn. You do yourself a favour and dig your own hole, instead of being a misinformation parasite who crawls into a hole designed for you by your agenda driven manupulative superiors.
You are a mental weakling Jacob, your disgusting parents named you a "progenitor", as if a retard "Dude" like you could be sire a slug never mind twelve sons, which would become the twelve tribes or Israel(fable)( my fallacy argument).
Christianity is a curse, but you have to remove yourself from it in order to be able to see it for what it is. I realize that getting your head around independence seems impossible but it is not.
Posted by: Call'n them as I see'm | 2009-12-22 1:56:47 PM
Zebulon Pike talks about war strategy like he took it all from TV new channel pundants, WEAK!
He clearly has that America ingrained war mentality because he thinks it an amercians right to constantly wage war. His cavalier comments regarding congressional support, supports my claim that amercans are Nuts.(fallacy argument) It is also fact that a fat body like Zeb would never be brave enough to be a mudering plunderer, or more precisely a world wide war criminal, so what gives him the right to pound the drums of illegitimate war?
Posted by: Christmas, the economy tool | 2009-12-22 2:11:41 PM
Does Ron Paul have any solutions? If so, then why does he bother running? No wonder that he has been such a failure. He's little better than a climate scientist.
Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2009-12-22 3:33:48 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.