Re: Iran the Next Battlefield - Thread Renamed
No, no, nothing at all to worry about. No National Security interests for the United States could be found in the previous posts....
but, oh well. Americans should continue on with "The Voice", "American Idol" or whatever other (idiotic) TV show has captured their limited attention span this week, or next.
Don't worry about anything. It's all being cared for in the background by our leaders.
We shouldn't worry, we should shut up and work. We should pull our troops home and put them to work painting rocks and cutting grass. We should go back to isolationism and ignore the rest of the world and "let them work out their problems themselves!"
Yup, that's the ticket.
Re: Iran the Next Battlefield - Thread Renamed
Quote:
Originally Posted by
michael2
They can't, so they'd be happy if someone else would take the risks and do the fighting and dying for them.
All this talk of war with Iran is US election-year bullshit, catering to the contingent of Israel-firsters and Arab Sheikdom Oil-firsters in both parties, because Iran already has the Nukes that Iran bought, and soon the clock will run out on stopping their ability to make their own.
Youre a simple minded fool. at BEST. You clearly do NOT understand Ahmedinejahd. Do you know what he did after 'graduating' college? or why he is a professor at Tehran University?? clearly you dont know the story. The pictures of his college days sure are interesting, especially the ones where he's holding a G3 and forcing blind-folded marine guards captured from the embassy, around. I guess you missed that memo. OR the memo about his time leading a hit team in europe. or about his time as interrogator and executioner at Evan prison in Tehran.
I guess you dont understand the relationship hezbollah has with America, and who created, directs, arms, trains, funds them. You need to do a little research into Imad Fayez Mugniyah. Coincidentally you seem to think the Israelis arent anyone special and there is no special relationship or common interest with them. When you note who Mugniyah is, finally, and figure out why he is important, pay special note to who killed him.
You are simply out of your depth. To think that iran should be left to its own devices to obtain ballistic missiles capable of reaching US shores, and acquiring nuclear weapons is stupid. theres no other word for it, and your viewpoint is reckless and homicidally negligent in the extreme. im not willing to bet tens of millions of US Lives on a hunch that iran will just play nice once they have those tools. Give a NATION of suicide bombers Nukes and ICBM's. clearly you have no real world experience in foreign affairs.
Ever been to sandbox Michael? ever interrogated a Hezbollah operative who was assisting Al Qaeda? Something else i want to make crystal clear to you: Where do you think the mid level planners and military council of Al Qaeda is living? has been since they fled Khandahar??? hint, they share a zipcode with A-jahd.
Youre a fool. ou are so naive to the reality of what iran is really doing, has done for30 years, you are incapable of seeing what needs to be done. thats the kindest thing i can say about you. you want to change our involvement in the mid east? drill for oil here and cut our dependance on theirs, and cut off their money stream. Every US President has kicked the can of dealing with iran down the road for two reasons: none of them ever though terrorism was a game changer, and no one ever thought iran would get a bomb. Both assumptions were wrong. Continuing the same failed policy is a stupid and foolish mistake from a hopelessly naive person's viewpoint.
Ev
Re: Iran the Next Battlefield - Thread Renamed
I'll break it down real nice for you, Michael, since you are too intellectually lazy to go find the proper facts on your own. For 30 years, iran and the extremists who run the country have been targeting us and openly calling for war with us, and openly proclaiming they would kill us whenever they could. I present as exhibit A the hijacking of TWA flight 847. Mugniyah, on orders from IRGC did that hijacking and personally ran it. US Navy diver Robert Stetham was beaten to death, and countless others tortured aboard.
Lets talk about what happened to US Army Col Bill Buckley, Ret, CIA Station Chief for Beirut. Mugniyah abducted him, and personally tortured him to death. thats exhibit B
Lets not forget about the US Embassy bombing, the first real effective use of car bombs. Mugniyah masterminded and commanded that op, at the order of IRGC and Hezbollah. He also was commander and planner of the attack on the marine corps barracks and the french para's barracks. Those are exhibit C and D.
You're almost certainly sitting there making excuses about why those are irrelevant, to you. I dont care. there's more, thats just the first little bits of the long trail of hostilities, in the ongoing, undeclared, open war with iran.
More you say? yeah. lots more. fast forward to the 93. who do you think taugh al qaeda to use RPGs against helicopters? Hezbollah. thats who. Saif Al Adel and others trainied at the Shabatt Farms Hezbollah camp, and went to somalia to help fight Task Force Ranger. They took those skills and taught them to the habr gadir clan, run by Aidid. Thats right, aiding al qaeda. Doesnt end there. This is exhibit E.
Lets talk about the embassy bombings. How did those crews learn how to conduct Truck bombings? that isnt taught in most curricula and tim mcviegh found out the hard way the internet stuff is bunk. Some one taught em. Who? Hezbollah. On orders from IRGC and Irans Supreme Leader. Yeah, the bombings of our embassies in Africa were because Hezbollah made sure they knew how. And, they knew in advance what the targets were and who was conducting the op.
Did you know most of the hijackers on sept 11, 2001 made it to the US courtesy of fresh papers and documents provided just before they left iran for travel the US? IRGC supplied those documents.
Now, you stand there and tell me iran isnt a threat. you stand there and say they are OK to have a Nuclear weapon, and ICBMs, and its none of our business. Your !@#$%^&* right its our business. Pull your head out of the sand, and let the people who really understand foreign policy do what needs to be done. Sit down, Shut Up, and thank us for keeping you safe.
Ev
Re: Iran the Next Battlefield - Thread Renamed
Michael...
you are just a Ron Paulian... nothing more. I suggest you stop being brainwashed by him and start thinking for yourself.
Let me explain... while the belief of a majority of the Founding Fathers certainly was "non-interventionism" - times have also most certainly changed.
Israel is not there because they built their country. They are there because the UN put them there, and as a member of the UN, it is up to each of those countries to protect and aid Israel to prevent the Islamic bozos from trying to destroy them.
Here's MY evidence.... look at the things Paul is saying. Listen to yourself. Now you are welcome to believe what you like, BUT YOU'RE WRONG.
Quote:
Were the Founding Fathers Wrong about Foreign Affairs?
Last week I appeared on a national television news show to discuss recent events in the Middle East. During the show I merely suggested that there are two sides to the dispute, and that the focus of American foreign policy should be the best interests of America — not Palestine or Israel. I argued that American interests are best served by not taking either side in this ancient and deadly conflict, as Washington and Jefferson counseled when they warned against entangling alliances. I argued against our crazy policy of giving hundred of billions of dollars in unconstitutional foreign aid and military weapons to both sides, which only intensifies the conflict and never buys peace. My point was simple: we should follow the Constitution and stay out of foreign wars.
I was immediately attacked for offering such heresy. We've reached the point where virtually everyone in Congress, the administration, and the media blindly accepts that America must become involved (financially and militarily) in every conflict around the globe. To even suggest otherwise in today's political climate is to be accused of "aiding terrorists." It's particularly ironic that so many conservatives in America, who normally adopt an "America first" position, cannot see the obvious harm that results from our being dragged time and time again into an intractable and endless Middle East war. The empty justification is always that America is the global superpower, and thus has no choice but to police the world.
The Founding Fathers saw it otherwise. Jefferson summed up the noninterventionist foreign policy position perfectly in his 1801 inaugural address: "Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations — entangling alliances with none." How many times have we all heard these wise words without taking them to heart? How many champion Jefferson and the Constitution, but conveniently ignore both when it comes to American foreign policy? Washington similarly urged that the US must "Act for ourselves and not for others," by forming an "American character wholly free of foreign attachments." Since so many on Capitol Hill apparently now believe Washington was wrong, they should at least have the intellectual honesty to admit it next time his name is being celebrated.
In fact, when I mentioned Washington the other guest on the show quickly repeated the tired cliche that "We don't live in George Washington's times." Yet if we accept this argument, what other principles from that era should we discard? Should we give up the First amendment because times have changed? How about the rest of the Bill of Rights? It's hypocritical and childish to dismiss certain founding principles simply because a convenient rationale is needed to justify foolishpolicies today. The principles enshrined in the Constitution do not change. If anything, today's more complex world cries out for the moral clarity provided by a noninterventionist foreign policy.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/photos/ronpaul.jpgIt's easy to dismiss the noninterventionist view as the quaint aspiration of men who lived in a less complicated world, but it's not so easy to demonstrate how our current policies serve any national interest at all. Perhaps an honest examination of the history of American interventionism in the 20th century, from Korea to Vietnam to Kosovo to the Middle East, would reveal that the Founding Fathers foresaw more than we think.
April 17, 2002
Dr. Ron Paul is a Republican member of Congress from Texas.
Re: Iran the Next Battlefield - Thread Renamed
One more thing Michael...
Ev gave you some very specific issues that DO concern National Security.
it's sad you just don't see them and refuse to believe they have anything to do with National Security.
I guess your arguments have gone down in flames - because you don't HAVE one except to "return to the principles of the Founding Fathers". The truth is, while they BELIEVED in non-intervention, they did what was necessary. And for that matter it's not a matter intervention when the security of Israel is tied to the security of the entire Western Civilization against the Muslims. And tied to our own by default.
Re: Iran the Next Battlefield - Thread Renamed
This is huge! The fact that Iran's leaders believe thatthe Mahdi is coming soon... Bigtime huge. It means, at least to me, that they will be willing to do just about anything to facilitate the Mahdi's arrival.
Re: Iran the Next Battlefield - Thread Renamed
No, Michael, you do not understand the information i gave you. it went right over your head. As i said, you are clearly out of your depth, in over your head. Bury that head in the sand some more. Fortunately there are level headed common sense oriented Men like Rick, Ryan and I to take care of things for Naive Simpletons like you. You completely missed it. I guess no one taught you about Pearl Harbor and how isolationism worked out in that case, and ignoring the front in Europe too. That worked out awesome (sarcasm). And a very recent reminder was 9-11, but i realize you believe that was an inside job, not the work of an external threat so its no surprise that lesson was lost on you too. Go back to being the sheep that you are, and take care of the day to day stuff while the grown ups discuss important matters that are clearly beyond you.
Ev
Re: Iran the Next Battlefield - Thread Renamed
Here it is in black and white: no entanglements means no forewarning. No forewarning means dead Americans at home. How many have to die before you f'ing figure that out? it isnt the entanglements, silly rabbit. Its the enemies who hate us because we are different. its the enemies who hate us because of demagogues like A-jahd who egg them on. its terrorists who are funded by regimes we prop up by doing business with them. thats not a foreign entanglement. its a national policy issue, where the side effects are National Security related. Let me ask you this, genuis: since you dont seem to address any national security issues, when iran gets the bomb under your plan of events, and when Iran wipes New York off the map, then what? whats your plan, then?
Gonna wait for Ron Paul to get on TV and say, Im sorry! My bad! i was wrong! lets ask them to be nice and maybe they wont do LA next. is that the plan?
When Al Qaeda reconstitutes itself because we didnt pay any attention to Afghanistan after leaving, and the taliban helps them hit America again, what will be your plan, then?
When Iran sees we are weak and not paying attention and Hezbollah acts, what are you gonna tell the families of all the dead Americans?
Answer: you wont tell them anything, your head will still be in the sand, leaving the mess to someone smarter, and not afraid to face up to reality. People like you, and your psychological make up are dangerous.
I just LOVE Americans who think that if we just took our toys and went home, that it'll all be ok, and everyone will start liking us. that if we just cover our ears and eyes and hum loudly enough, the evil deeds and bad men of the world will just go away. right. sure. It must be nice living in your dream world, Michael, the rest of us live in reality. I dont give a ratfuck if you risk your life, but your policies and stupidity put millions of others at risk. Thats unacceptable.
You're right Michael, you dont know me. And you're right Michael, i dont post often. I'm busy working in the national security field, keeping YOU safe from the threats you keep telling yourself dont exist.
Ev
Re: Iran the Next Battlefield - Thread Renamed
Quote:
Originally Posted by
michael2
And I said that if we had no entanglements and alliances with particular nations, the threats would be greatly reduced, because there would be no reason to attack us. If anybody did, we'd reduce their nations to radioactive rubble in minutes, problem solved. Eventually even the most stupid of them would either grow a brain or be dead. How can you with all your experiences miss making the connection with picking an 'Ally' meaning picking that 'Ally's' enemies?
With all your rabid vitriol, I guess you missed the points I made about making the price of attacks ON US so high that everybody learns not to bother trying it. Nobody attacks Switzerland, and nobody attacked us, until after we decided to fight everybody else's battles for them. I know Islam and other forces out there want to rule the World...But I also know that historically speaking, over-extended and debt-ridden superpowers collapse quickly under threats to their Hegemony.
If you think insulting me is going to help you make an intelligent case for your position, you are mistaken. If have have a point that you wish I'd understand, chest-thumping and flinging poo isn't working towards that goal. Take a deep breath, step back from this, and think. I don't have my Ego involved in these kinds of debates-how I wish I was proven wrong and others right! My life would be alot easier.
point number 1: you live in the world. ignoring rest of world and having no alliances makes you vulnerable, not safe. Thats why even the founding fathers had alliances. i guess you forgot that France was a big reason America got started.
point number 2: your wishful thinking about 'avoiding entanglements' making things all better is foolish. simply foolish. over 200 years of history proves it. that idea has come and gone.
point number 3: upping the ante with those that already do attack us should already be happening, regardless of how many or little alliances we have. duh. thats part of the problem, thats why this is a BIG problem NOW, not just because of oil, or terrorism but because we isolated ourselves from dealing with the problem. these are all effects, effects of failing to deal with problems when they are little problems. now ithis problem is a BIG problem.
point number 4: you fail to grasp that 'staying home and out of other peoples business', what ron paul espouses, caused this mess. We stayed out of iran's business for 30 years. This mess is the result of that flawed, naive policy.
ISOLATIONISM DOES NOT WORK. it makes problems WORSE. FAR worse.
Example: if you get a toothache, and ignore it, what happens? it gets worse, potentially much worse.
Example 2: if you have a problem with a bully, and you do nothing about it, it gets worse. until you deal with the bully.
Example 3: Criminals. If you let them rape and murder and keep letting them out on parole, they will keep raping and murdering. keep em in forever or kill em. fix the problem, instead of ignoring it.
Example 4: if you oil light in the car comes on, do you keep driving? let me know how that works out for you.
You think we should ignore the world, until that comes home to roost, then react heavy handidly. That is again, a poor choice lacking intelligence, and taking risks with other peoples' lives. i cant condone or support that.
You can bitch and piss and moan all you want about my 'rhetoric' and 'vitriol', i dont care. as long as you keep talking foreign affairs at a grade school understanding level, I will keep treating you like someone who espouses a childish, naive view of the world.
You want to ignore my posts? go ahead. Not like any wisdom will ever make it through your head anyway. You suffer from the "dont bother me with facts, my mind is made up!" syndrome. You think you have all the answers, until reality slaps you. Ron Paul means well, and i'm sure you do too. But, its kind of like someone who doesnt know anything about electrical work trying to wire his own house. wont be long before the fire department shows up. You are out of your depth.
Ev
Re: Iran the Next Battlefield - Thread Renamed
I am laughing out loud. Right, France should not have helped us, that was their downfall. I'm sure it had nothing to do with mismanagement of anything at home.... right...
Lots of anti-semites on the board, i see. Thats a new development from when i was last here. Peterle, we can talk about broken resolutions all day long. Especially by countries against Israel. You anti-semites love the idea of hanging Israel out to dry. I hope that policy never comes to fruition. The idea of throwing away the only friend we have in the middle east is naive and foolish, but speaking knowledge to village idiots wasted breath.
Peterle and Michael can believe what they want. its a good thing you two, and those like you, are in the minority, and its an even better thing that men like Ron Paul will never be making those decisions.
-Ev