General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsAndrew Sullivan: "Why Ron Paul is right and Obama is wrong about Iran"
http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2012/01/why-ron-paul-is-right-and-president-obama-is-wrong-about-iran.htmlWhy Ron Paul Is Right And Barack Obama Is Wrong About Iran
6 Jan 2012 12:45 PM
One of the key things that Ron Paul has contributed to our discourse is the notion that we should try and look at conflict from the point of view of our foe. You'd think this would be obvious if we are attempting to influence, say, Iran's behavior, to understand their fears, their baseline interests and their ideology. So far, all we hear about is their ideology. But let's broaden our moral imagination in ways not allowed in the Washington Post.
Imagine that three scientists working on the US nuclear arsenal were assassinated in the streets of Chicago or Washington or Los Angeles by agents of Iran. Now imagine that an explosion took place at one of our nuclear facilities - also engineered by Iran. Also imagine that Iran was capable of blockading US ports to cripple the US economy. Imagine the dollar collapsing because of this and a new depression initiated. What do you think Mitt Romney would be saying? I suspect he would be saying that Iran has already declared war on the US.
But all these things have happened in Iran, probably by the hands of Israeli intelligence, perhaps by the US, or some combo of the two. Is it surprising that the Iranians are throwing rhetoric around, even if much of it is empty? Of course not. Vali Nasr argues that Iran is already on a war-footing because of this:
Who alone among the presidential candidates gets this? Only Ron Paul. Bob Wright has a must-read on the potential president's lonely sanity on this question. Jon Rauch also notes that the debate we're having about Iran is very very similar to the debate we once had about China's nuclear capacity:
(...)
Saving Hawaii
(441 posts)Please no. Please. I beg you.
WorseBeforeBetter
(11,441 posts)and is now considered "brilliant" by some DUers?
I'm not big on smilies, but:
ProSense
(116,464 posts)on Ron Paul on Iran.
Ron Paul, still loony
http://www.salon.com/2012/01/05/ron_paul_still_loony/singleton/
Pauls damning effect on foreign policy
http://politics.dada.salon.com/2012/01/12/pauls_damning_effect_on_foreign_policy/singleton/
cpwm17
(3,829 posts)Last edited Tue Jan 17, 2012, 11:00 AM - Edit history (1)
This isn't about Ron Paul (or Andrew Sullivan: who was out for blood against Iraq, calling for nuclear annihilation), except to mention he is the only candidate that is talking about these issues. Ron Paul is only a vehicle to talk about what's really important: our obscene foreign policy. Neither Ron Paul nor Andrew Sullivan should be trusted, except for where they are objectively correct.
Frankly, we can just talk about the Golden Rule and basic morality. It basically gets back to the Golden Rule: one should treat others as one would like others to treat oneself. How difficult is that to understand?
If you think that we can behave like we do because the Iranians are inferior to us and deserve this treatment; well then, you're a racist asshole. Unfortunately our government is filled with racist assholes, and many Americans are racist assholes for supporting our government's outrageous behavior.
Objectively, our government can't be trusted with its large military. It has consistently abused its power. Any time that our government's abuse of power and waste of resources is challenged, it should be welcomed.
joeybee12
(56,177 posts)at least to some...let's see how quickly they turn on him.
kenny blankenship
(15,689 posts)Enrique
(27,461 posts)in case it's not clear, my OP is a parody of that tactic. Some people did that here to defend Obama from Glenn Greenwald, I'm doing it here to bogusly discredit Andrew Sullivan after he wrote a positive cover story about Obama for Newsweek.