Paul says friendship best way to deal with Iran

[vminfla]

Source: MSNBC

WASHINGTON — GOP presidential hopeful Ron Paul says "offering friendship" to Iran, not sanctions, would be a more fruitful to achieving peace with Tehran.

The Texas congressman says fears about Iran's nuclear program have been "blown out of proportion." He says tough penalties are a mistake because, as he says was the case in Iraq, they only hurt the local population and still paved a path to war.


Read more: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/45182043#.TrcMqbKEH1A

---

I am astounded by the simpletons that the Republican Party has assembled to become 2012. Ron Pauls' plans to defund any government program that he does not understand and isolationist views quite frankly make him the most dangerous of the bunch.

[bluestateguy]

1. And Henry Wallace said we should offer friendship to the Soviet Union in 1948

And then Harry Truman called Wallace a communist.

[AtheistCrusader]

23. It might have even worked..

[harun]

51. It may have worked but it wouldn't have been as profitable for the 1%'rs.

[msongs]

2. the us has treated iran like scum since 1980. that shuts out all positive possibilities nt

[Vidar]

61. A lot longer than that. We toppled their leftist democratic government and installed

our puppet, the Shah. The further irony is that the officer orchestrating the coup was unfortunately a Roosevelt.

[AverageJoe90]

74. Sadly, that is 100% true.

Mossadegh seemed to have been a leader who genuinely tried to get things done. One must wonder.........could Tehran have been a social democracy by now?

[Little Tich]

3. Ron Paul is too dovish when it comes to Iran.

He dismisses the whole idea that Iran may enrich uranium for nefarious purposes. If Iran wants to enrich uranium for peaceful purposes, fine. But as long as the clandestine nuclear facilities are there the suspicions remain, and hence the santions. No country should have undeclared nuclear activities, they are a threat to world peace.

[harmonicon]

5. bull shit.

As long as one single country has nuclear weapons, any other country might as well. If we honestly gave a damn about Iran not having nukes, the first step would be to get rid of our own. Until we do that, we have no business judging another country for doing so.

[Little Tich]

9. Of course.

But preventing rogues and unresponsible actors from having the Bomb is the first step. The next step is to decrease the nuclear arsenals as much as possible and not develop any new ones. As long as the US is responsible and open with its nukes, it can reasonably demand the same from others. A world without nuclear weapons is possible.

[harmonicon]

18. Which is it then?

Either it's ok for a country to have nukes, or it's not. I don't see how you can have it both ways. Either it's ok for every country, or it's ok for no country. I say it's ok for no country.

[Little Tich]

24. The issue of having nukes is not necessarily a dichotomy.

Some countries are better at having nukes than others. While I don't like the US having nukes, it's actually the nuke(s) of the DPRK that keep me awake at night. Iran is not serious enough to handle a nuclear arsenal responsibly, therefore I oppose their attempts at getting one more vigourously than I do the US's already existing one.

[harmonicon]

26. "responsibly"?

The US is the only country to ever use these weapons. Therefore, as for a track record, we are the least responsible of any country with nuclear weapons. There would be no need - or interest - for the DPRK to have nukes if it weren't for countries having them who are their sworn enemies. How many soldiers do we have on their border? We've been to war with them before, and we've used nuclear weapons on a country which neighbours them. If any other country should want such weapons, I can see why it would be them. Nothing will be done to stop nuclear proliferation until the US abandons these weapons.

[Little Tich]

30. When the US bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki they were the only one having nukes,

and civilian (japanese) casualties was not a big issue. Things have changed considerably since, and killing a few hundred thousands enemy civilians like that is just not possible today. Also, the US has a law prohibing nuclear strikes on a country without nuclear weapons. All in all, the threshold for the US to start a nuclear war is high. If all nuclear-armed states were so responsible the chance for nuclear weapons being used is next to nil. If the weapons cannot be used, then there is no reason keeping them. They are expensive and a security risk.

As for the peaceful pursuits of the DPRK i totally disagree. South Korea was overrun by the North once already, and the DPRK has been preparing for a new invasion ever since. The US military presence is to prevent that invasion from ever happening. The DPRK using a nuclear weapon in an attack is more than just a possiblity. Actually, I think that Kim Jong-il &co are crazy and able to do anything.

[harmonicon]

31. wow.... I don't know how to respond.

Call when you wake up from this fantastic dream-world you live in.

[Little Tich]

33. My views maybe kooky, but I'm still very anti-war.

I don't like nuclear warfare one bit, and I hope it will never happen.

[AtheistCrusader]

39. I think his apprehension was more in reference to some clerical errors in your statement.

Conventional warfare arguably* holds the 'record' for kill count in any single military operation. The March 10th firebombing of Tokyo.. well, they found the ashes of about 105 thousand people. Who knows how many more actually died.


I say 'arguably' because while the bombing of Nagasaki was clearly lower in casualties, Hiroshima's death toll is estimated anywhere from 70,000 to 160,000. Higher estimates do beat Tokyo. But then again, I have used the 'lower' threshold number for Tokyo as well.

[AtheistCrusader]

35. Are you kidding?

We killed more people in 4 hours of 'conventional' incendiary bombing over 5 square miles in Tokyo, than we killed in either hiroshima or nagasaki.

We still keep the Grey Lady on payroll, and I fucking guarantee we can not only meet, but beat that kill count today. So can the Russians and several other nations, with entirely conventional weapons.

I think you misunderstand our weapons policy as well. We have a 'no first use' policy for any nation that is a member of the non-proliferation treaty. That is all.

[Little Tich]

41. The US firebombing cities is a thing of the past.

There are many uses for bombs and delivery systems that don't cause massacres. However, the presence of a weapon makes it usable by definition. That's why weapons should have rules of use that prevent the endangering of civilians and excessive danger to combatants. In spite of my apprehension of the growing US military, they are the good guys.

I think the new US doctrine is more complex than that. Here is a link to a good article on what the doctrine means. Despite the obvious bias, it highlights the risks of this new doctrine:

World Socialist web site: New US nuclear doctrine targets Iran, North Korea
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2010/apr2010/nucl-a08.shtml

[AtheistCrusader]

42. Well, we didn't firebomb Fallujah, but I'm not sure if the locals could tell the difference.

Smaller town, we still managed to kill in excess of 800 civilians, on top of the 1500+ insurgents.

The AC-130h & U is a fairly indiscriminate thing.

[Little Tich]

43. I think we may derail this thread if we continue.

Nice talking with you. kthxbai.

[AtheistCrusader]

58. Not particularly.

If you wish to retreat, that's your choice.

Paul's foreign policy is spot on. All of your fears about Iranian belligerence stem from American and British intervention in the area. We broke it, it's time we fix it. And I don't mean Bush's way of 'fixing' it.

We kill, and kill and kill some more. We act unilaterally whenever everyone else takes pause for a moment to think things through. We kill democratic leaders that fail to support us in various ways. We install despotic overlords and keep them propped up for decades, where it suits us.

I don't blame Iran for seeking Nuclear Weapons. Indeed it seems the only thing that keeps the United States out of your backyard.

[LanternWaste]

68. I believe the fundamental cause most from whence most of the strategic differences

"stem from American and British intervention in the area..."

I believe the fundamental cause most from whence most of the strategic Geo-political differences was borne from (i.e., stems from) was the Sikes-Picot Accord-- French and British, rather than British and American.

[AtheistCrusader]

22. How many countries has Iran invaded?

How many countries has Iran used weapons of mass destruction against?
How many countries did Iran install puppet dictatorships into?

[Little Tich]

32. Admittedly, Iran doesn't want to invade any country, except for maybe Bahrain.

Its national mythos is however molded in the crucible of war with Iraq. Armed and unregulated conflict is seen as legitimate for a number of causes, like protecting fellow shias from oppression or keeping the revolution going. This is where most of the world see Iran's attempts at helping shias as aiding terrorism rather than resistance. Also, Iranian weapons tend to end up in the hands of those who shouldn't have them.

Btw, Hezbollah in Lebanon would almost qualify as a puppet dictatorship.

[AtheistCrusader]

21. You know what else is a threat to world peace?

Us barging in and telling other countries what they can and cannot do, who they can and cannot elect, and killing anyone who won't sell oil to us.

[Nelson Tondreau]

48. I agree with you here

Iran is a threat to the world. Ron Paul is a complete idiot. They are a religious-right regime which discriminates against women, minorities and gays. I don't care if they have nuclear weapons or not; the right-wing orientation of the Iranian leadership ALONE should be enough to declare war on them. They are friendly towards Syria (another insane right-wing regime) and have links to North Korea and China. Not to mention that Iran is a huge existential threat to Israel, the only democracy and our best ally in the Middle East.

Ron Paul is either completely insane to say that we should have a "friendship" with Iran. I hate to agree with the Republicans that war might be necessary, but you know as they say "even a stopped clock is right twice a day". On the other hand Ron Paul is like a digitial clock without batteries lol.

If Obama declares war I will support it completely and without question.

[14thColony]

53. "I will support it completely and without question"

So will you enlist then?

Because war with Iran will make Iraq look like a minor scuffle by comparison.

Actually nevermind. Doesn't matter if you enlist. You'll be drafted.

[jakeXT]

4. wrong answer.... "glass parking lot" gets the crowd going /nt

[harmonicon]

6. Even a stopped clock is right twice a day. nt.

[Arctic Dave]

7. I have to agree with Paul on this.

What has acting like douchebag to Iran done for us? Nothing.

[freshstart]

8. Ron Paul is an idiot

His fellow Republicans sell materials to Iran.
http://www.cnbc.com/id/34113945/Group_Asks_Huntsman_to_Cease_Operations_in_Iran

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O0giXvhEWMo

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/06/15/876031/-Halliburton-Sold-Nuclear-Tech-To-Iran

I'd like to hear his explanation on this:
http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=bgFaAAAAIBAJ&sjid=ukoNAAAAIBAJ&pg=6913,1208676&dq=shadow+government+ron+paul&hl=en

He said in the 70s that he was qualified to be the secretary of Labor of the "shadow cabinet" because he was an obstetrician.
http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=u4ksAAAAIBAJ&sjid=AM0EAAAAIBAJ&pg=6887,3659648&dq=ron+paul+shadow+government&hl=en

[kestrel91316]

10. Ron Paul just lost whatever chance HE had of being elected.

The RW wants a nuclear conflict w/ Iran to fulfill biblical prophecy.

[freshstart]

12. Ron Paul is trying

to get attention from the "left." I see it all of the time in the comments of on-line news articles. His followers ask Dems to switch parties and vote for him in the Republican primaries.

[kestrel91316]

13. Isn't he anti-abortion in the extreme? Besides, Libertarianism is the

political manifestation of Objectivism and satanism, IMHO, lol.

[freshstart]

15. He thinks he get away with....his horrible stands on

other issues by playing the anti-war card.

[stockholmer]

25. nice broad-brush attack on libertarianism, of which there is many, many different types

Plus, what is up with the sky-people (religious) reference? satanism? really?..............

What the thuggish corporate US media calls libertarian (Teabaggers, Sarah Palin, Neal Boortz, et al) is about as 'libertarian' in reality as John Maynard Keynes. This tactic of simply lumping in neo-con war mongers into the libertarian camp is very problematic, as is the number of right-wing statists who self-describe as libertarian.


Go back and do some basic political ideological reading. Here are some links for libertarian-socialism, anarcho-socialism, left libertarianism, etc.


Peter Vallentyne http://philpapers.org/s/Peter%20Vallentyne (left libertarian),

Michael Otsuka http://www.ucl.ac.uk/~uctymio (left libertarian), even much of Noam Chomsky (he has called his libertarian socialism an anarchist philosophy)

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Political rights do not originate in parliaments; they are, rather, forced upon parliaments from without. And even their enactment into law has for a long time been no guarantee of their security. Just as the employers always try to nullify every concession they had made to labor as soon as opportunity offered, as soon as any signs of weakness were observable in the workers' organizations, so governments also are always inclined to restrict or to abrogate completely rights and freedoms that have been achieved if they imagine that the people will put up no resistance.

Even in those countries where such things as freedom of the press, right of assembly, right of combination, and the like have long existed, governments are constantly trying to restrict those rights or to reinterpret them by juridical hair-splitting. Political rights do not exist because they have been legally set down on a piece of paper, but only when they have become the ingrown habit of a people, and when any attempt to impair them will meet with the violent resistance of the populace .

Where this is not the case, there is no help in any parliamentary Opposition or any Platonic appeals to the constitution."


– Rudolf Rocker, Anarcho-Syndicalism: Theory & Practice, 1947


http://www.iwa-ait.org /

http://www.iww.org /

http://workersolidarity.org /



other links to left forms of democratic workplaces and social structuring


"The Democratic Worker-Owned Firm" by David Ellerman

http://www.ellerman.org/Davids-Stuff/Books/demofirm.doc



"Libertarianism Without Inequality" by Michael Otsuka (free PDF)

http://ebookee.org/go/?u=http://depositfiles.com/files/m0uj43n84


Why Left-Libertarianism Is Not Incoherent, Indeterminate, or Irrelevant: A Reply to Fried

PETER VALLENTYNE,
HILLEL STEINER, AND
MICHAEL OTSUKA
http://www.ucl.ac.uk/~uctymio/leftlibP&PA.pdf



http://newpol.org /
New Politics, published since 1986 as a semi-annual, follows in the tradition established in its first series (1961-1978) as an independent socialist forum for dialogue and debate on the left. It is committed to the advancement of the peace and anti-intervention movements. It stands in opposition to all forms of imperialism, and is uncompromising in its defense of feminism and affirmative action. In our pages there is broad coverage of labor and social movements, the international scene, as well as emphasis on cultural and intellectual history.

Above all, New Politics insists on the centrality of democracy to socialism and on the need to rely on mass movements from below for progressive social transformation.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


One variant of contemporary left-libertarianism affirms the classical liberal and libertarian idea of self-ownership, while rooting a robust version of economic egalitarianism in this idea. It combines the conventional libertarian idea of self-ownership with unconventional views regarding the ownership of land and natural resources (e.g. those of Henry George), residual claimancy vis-à-vis the firm, or both.

http://praxeology.net/all-left.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-libertarianism

here are some more new left scholars that do not fall into the camp of easy-labeling

Hillel Steiner http://philpapers.org/profile/2771

Philippe Van Parijs http://www.uclouvain.be/en-11688.html

David Ellerman http://philpapers.org/s/David%20Ellerman

Antonio Negri http://www.egs.edu/faculty/antonio-negri/biography /
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Autonomism http://www.autonomism.com/autonomism /


"A government that can at pleasure accuse, shoot, and hang men, as traitors, for the one general offence of refusing to surrender themselves and their property unreservedly to its arbitrary will, can practice any and all special and particular oppressions it pleases. The result -- and a natural one -- has been that we have had governments, State and national, devoted to nearly every grade and species of crime that governments have ever practised upon their victims; and these crimes have culminated in a war that has cost a million of lives; a war carried on, upon one side, for chattel slavery, and on the other for political slavery; upon neither for liberty, justice, or truth. And these crimes have been committed, and this war waged, by men, and the descendants of men, who, less than a hundred years ago, said that all men were equal, and could owe neither service to individuals, nor allegiance to governments, except with their own consent."

Lysander Spooner



------------------------------------------------------------------------


cheers

[kestrel91316]

27. Are you not aware that Libertarianism is the political party most enamored of

Ayn Rand? And are you also unaware that Anton LeVay, founder of the Church of Satan, had in mind Ayn Rand's Objectivism as the core belief system of his religion, with satan thrown in for the heck of it?

Seriously. You gotta read up more on your philosophy.

Oh, and this is NOT Libertarian Underground. I'll paint Libertarians with any kind of brush I want to.

[AtheistCrusader]

38. You are describing a small minority.

Probably the an-caps. There are anarcho-communists in the 'libertarian' party as well. In fact, there's a wide diveristy of libertarians.

There are quite likely people who identify as libertarian that are also members of DU, as the ancoms are left-libertarian in nature. Maybe you should put the brush down, entirely.


Ron Paul is the only credible 'humble foreign policy' republican you will ever see, and in fact, barely qualifies as a Republican. He's a 'republican' like Kucinich is a 'democrat'. You'll note both at odds with their own declared parties, often on the same issues. War-wise, the two are identical. (and I understand, friends, even if they disagree on much social policy.)

As an aside, the An-Coms have just about defined the An-Caps out of existance on Wikipedia. :)

[stockholmer]

50. NONE of the philosophers/political theorists I posted have anything to do with what you are saying

Ayn Rand (a fraud at the end of the day, and someone who would not be held up as viable by any of the people in my reply) and Anton LeVay (hard to take anything linked to a crackpot religion seriously in terms of political theory)? Really? Really? Furthermore, I was not speaking of any party named 'Libertarian'.

Much of the underlying thought espoused by the intellectuals in my post has a great deal in common with the core beliefs of many on this board.

Not only do you use a broad brush, but the only two colours you apparently favour are the oh-too-common American standbys - simplistic BLACK and WHITE, with a twist of tabloid sensationalism (LaVay).

Philosophical endeavours are not made up of 'neatly-packaged' 30 second sound bites designed for a false left-right dichotomous paradigm as projected through corporate mainstream media.

[freshstart]

52. Is your assumption that Ron Paul

isn't tied to the neo-con war mongers? Check his ties over the years. You'll find that he is.

The co-author of his book, The Case for Gold, Lewis Lehrman invested in George Bush's Arbusto Oil. He's got someone that is closely tied to Jack Abramoff on his campaign, and lots of ties to the Iran Contra crew.

[Name removed]

56. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Ter]

37. Define "in the exteme"

He supports rape, incest, and life of the mother exceptions. He wants Roe repealed, but does not favor a Constitutional Amendment banning it federally. While that's pro-life, it also make him less pro-life than everyone in that primary, and to the left of McCain, Bush II, Dole, Bush I, and Reagan (every nominee of the past 30 years on their side) on that issue.

[Volaris]

19. That's because they (the RW) actually believe that they are important enough

to the Cosmic functioning of the Universe that they have the power to bring about the end of the world and initiate the return of the Messiah. What they fail to realize is that an All-Knowing and All-Loving God would not (by definitions) be nearly so stupid and hateful as to make an (admitted) sinner like Michele Bachmann responsible for any such kind of action. Its a kind of narcissism on their part that says "I'm Cosmically Important" but the truth is that until you let that go, and realize that you're actually NOT, you won't ever be capable of doing anything Humanly Significant.

Just my 2 cents on the mindset of the "saved", from someone who has been there, done that, and then gotten over it.

[lib2DaBone]

11. The Banksters will need a monumental event to divert attention from the coming collapse..

A nuclear attack on Iran would create WW-III and give the Banksters the complete smoke screen they desire.

[Ghost Dog]

16. Very true. n/t

[UTUSN]

14. K&R #2 for, bwah-HAH wingnut/Bagger heads 'sploding!1 n/t

[golfguru]

17. Paul should travel to Iran first and try to make friends n/t

[bigworld]

57. Americans who have travelled there are universally impressed with the kindness of everyday Iranians

They are usually quite friendly, admire Americans, and can differentiate between us and our government.

[golfguru]

60. My roommate at the University was from Iran back in the 60's

in fact his last name was Pahlavi...might have been related to the Shah. and I agree about Iranians in general. Not so sure about the Mullah's running the country now.

[JackRiddler]

72. Better than bombing strangers.

[walerosco]

20. I agree with him

The problem is that after what we did to Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya, it would be pretty hard to play nice with them now. What am saying is that if I was in the Iranian shoes, I would be doing everything humanly possible to create as many nuclear weapons as possible.

If Ahmadenajad doesnt want to end up like Gaddafi and Saddam, he better speed up his weapons program asap and get something live

[think]

28. I hope people can give Ron Paul some credit when he says the right thing

You can disagree with him profusely on other issues but on some issues like our foreign policy Ron Paul tells it like it is and he makes sense!

Fuck all the military might shit. Be friendly damn it!

[freshstart]

73. I hear what you are saying....

however....you've got to look at who is advising Ron Paul on foreign policy. One of them is Cato's Doug Bandow:
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?108392-Ron-Paul-Campaign-Announces-Addition-of-New-Policy-Advisors

Who is Doug Bandow?
http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/dec2005/nf20051216_1037_db016.htm

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/s_405491.html

Someone with ties to Jack Abramoff...that took money from Abramoff to write op-eds intended to influence Congress. Per Businessweek,
"A former Abramoff associate says Bandow and at least one other think-tank expert were typically paid $2,000 per column to address specific topics of interest to Abramoff's clients. Bandow's standing as a columnist and think-tank analyst provided a seemingly independent validation of the arguments the Abramoff team were using to try to sway Congressional action.

Bandow confirms that he received $2,000 for some pieces, but says it was "usually less than that amount." He says he wrote all the pieces himself, though with topics and information provided by Abramoff."

And, Bandow has history with Ron Paul, here he is on Ron Paul's Freeman website calling Social Security as a Ponzi scheme - in 2002, before the Abramoff Scandal:
http://www.thefreemanonline.org/columns/uncle-sams-retirement-scam/

And here he is in 2011, spreading the cut taxes lie on Ron Paul's Freeman website:
http://www.thefreemanonline.org/columns/cut-taxes-not-the-debt/

So, listen to Ron Paul if you will....but understand the big picture. This guy is all over the place pimping the Pauls:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/dougbandow/2011/05/30/standing-for-individual-liberty-and-limited-government-ron-and-rand-paul/

My mom always told me that the company you keep says a lot about you....and I agree with her.

[Zorro]

29. Iran does not want friendship with the US

[MurrayDelph]

34. The guys at the top don't

but the average guy on the street does.

[vminfla]

65. Which one has the keys to the button?

The guys at the top or the guys on the street?

[vminfla]

54. I think many of the posters here think that you can hug the evil out of people

They are just poor, misunderstood American hating Persians, if we give them enough hugs all that will go away.

[Zorro]

59. You've got that right

Iran has portrayed the US as "the Great Satan" for decades now.

That is not a sign they would welcome an overture to establish a normal relationship.

[Ter]

36. Unrec because Ron Paul is correct

We don't need another war!

[closeupready]

66. Also, I unrecced.

:)

[pam4water]

40. You know he think the should move there right now and start work on that plan! XD

[CrackersMcGee]

44. Ron Paul...my mortal enemy.

Just kidding, lighten up people.

I hear Ron Paul likes hot baths as well.
Doesn't mean I'm going to stop taking 'em.

Plenty of other stuff RP says that disqualify him from
serious presidential consideration...even Noam Chomsky says
they agree on some things.

I think.

[Sherman A1]

45. I agree

with Mr. Paul on this issue. I believe Mr. Lincoln said something similar many years ago.

[Douglas Carpenter]

46. everything else has been tried and everything else has failed,,Mr, Paul might be right

Of course there is no guarantee that Ron Paul's suggestion will work. But there is a guarantee the current approach will fail and may very well result in catastrophe for ourselves, the Middle East and the whole world. Yes I know Ron Paul has many views particularly on domestic social policy that are utterly reactionary. That goes without saying, But Iranian hostility toward the U.S. did not come out of nowhere. I recall in 1979 during the hostage crisis the cover of Sojourners magazine (a left-wing Evangelical publication) - "Maybe we should start by asking them to forgive us"

[Celefin]

47. So in the unlikely event of a Ron Paul presidency...

...and a democratic congress, would a 'do nothing congress' then be what most people commenting here so far would wish for?

No matter what the guy wants to do, we have to block any attempt at progress because hes got an 'R' attached to his name. This is pathetic.

Are you jealous that Obama hasn't said anything even close to as sensible as this on the matter of Iran?
If Obama said 'tone down the hype and drop the threats against Iran'... somehow I don't believe he'd get trashed for that on here.
Especially since this would probably save a few trillion $ along the way.

Seriously. Paul may be a complete nutcase on a million other issues, but how do you ever expect to get people to change if you only
have derision for them no matter what they are saying? What, a Republican calling for peaceful relations, even friendship? Can't have that.
Ripping my style and all that. Must show him that not being a warmonger will make him unelectable to BOTH parties.

Weird.

[Prometheus Bound]

49. Good sense from Ron Paul. Silly comment from the poster. Do I rec or unrec?

What message do I send?

Edit: How would being on good terms with another country instead of bombing them be isolationist? And what's wrong with it?

I have no doubt the Iranian government would love to be on friendly terms with the US.

[USA_1]

55. ''achieving peace with Tehran'' ???

Since when have we been at war with Iran?

Have any Iranian troops crossed our borders and caused problems?

Of course not. It is the far right extremists of BOTH (and I stress BOTH) parties who want a war that will generate billions in profits for them. Naturally, they will send the bill for that war to the taxpayers who are just too blind to see that this is where all the talk of war is going.

[vminfla]

69. Yes, Iran has attacked the sovereign soil of the United States

Caused all sorts of problems, especially for these people


Thomas L. Ahern, Jr., 48, McLean, VA. Narcotics control officer.
Clair Cortland Barnes, 35, Falls Church, VA. Communications specialist.
William E. Belk, 44, West Columbia, SC. Communications and records officer.
Robert O. Blucker, 54, North Little Rock, AR. Economics officer specializing in oil.
Donald J. Cooke, 26, Memphis, TN. Vice consul.
William J. Daugherty, 33, Tulsa, OK. Third secretary of U.S. mission.
Lt. Cmdr. Robert Englemann, 34, Hurst, TX. Naval attaché.
Sgt. William Gallegos, 22, Pueblo, CO. Marine guard.
Bruce W. German, 44, Rockville, MD. Budget officer.
Duane L. Gillette, 24, Columbia, PA. Navy communications and intelligence specialist.
Alan B. Golancinksi, 30, Silver Spring, MD. Security officer.
John E. Graves, 53, Reston, VA. Public affairs officer.
Joseph M. Hall, 32, Elyria, OH. Military attaché with warrant officer rank.
Sgt. Kevin J. Hermening, 21, Oak Creek, WI. Marine guard.
Sgt. 1st Class Donald R. Hohman, 38, Frankfurt, West Germany. Army medic.
Col. Leland J. Holland, 53, Laurel, MD. Military attaché.
Michael Howland, 34, Alexandria, VA. Security aide, one of three held in Iranian Foreign Ministry.
Charles A. Jones, Jr., 40, Communications specialist and teletype operator. Only African-American hostage not released in November 1979.
Malcolm Kalp, 42, Fairfax, VA. Position unknown.
Moorhead C. Kennedy Jr., 50, Washington, DC. Economic and commercial officer.
William F. Keough, Jr., 50, Brookline, MA. Superintendent of American School in Islamabad, Pakistan, visiting Tehran at time of embassy seizure.
Cpl. Steven W. Kirtley, 22, Little Rock, AR. Marine guard.
Kathryn L. Koob, 42, Fairfax, VA. Embassy cultural officer; one of two women hostages.
Frederick Lee Kupke, 34, Francesville, IN. Communications officer and electronics specialist.
L. Bruce Laingen, 58, Bethesda, MD. Chargé d'affaires. One of three held in Iranian Foreign Ministry.
Steven Lauterbach, 29, North Dayton, OH. Administrative officer.
Gary E. Lee, 37, Falls Church, VA. Administrative officer.
Sgt. Paul Edward Lewis, 23, Homer, IL. Marine guard.
John W. Limbert, Jr., 37, Washington, DC. Political officer.
Sgt. James M. Lopez, 22, Globe, AZ. Marine guard.
Sgt. John D. McKeel, Jr., 27, Balch Springs, TX. Marine guard.
Michael J. Metrinko, 34, Olyphant, PA. Political officer.
Jerry J. Miele, 42, Mt. Pleasant, PA. Communications officer.
Staff Sgt. Michael E. Moeller, 31, Quantico, VA. Head of Marine guard unit.
Bert C. Moore, 45, Mount Vernon, OH. Counselor for administration.
Richard H. Morefield, 51, San Diego, CA. U.S. Consul General in Tehran.
Capt. Paul M. Needham, Jr., 30, Bellevue, NE. Air Force logistics staff officer.
Robert C. Ode, 65, Sun City, AZ. Retired Foreign Service officer on temporary duty in Tehran.
Sgt. Gregory A. Persinger, 23, Seaford, DE. Marine guard.
Jerry Plotkin, 45, Sherman Oaks, CA. Private businessman visiting Tehran.
MSgt. Regis Ragan, 38, Johnstown, PA. Army noncom, assigned to defense attaché's officer.
Lt. Col. David M. Roeder, 41, Alexandria, VA. Deputy Air Force attaché.
Barry M. Rosen, 36, Brooklyn, NY. Press attaché.
William B. Royer, Jr., 49, Houston, TX. Assistant director of Iran-American Society.
Col. Thomas E. Schaefer, 50, Tacoma, WA. Air Force attaché.
Col. Charles W. Scott, 48, Stone Mountain, GA. Army officer, military attaché.
Cmdr. Donald A. Sharer, 40, Chesapeake, VA. Naval air attaché.
Sgt. Rodney V. (Rocky) Sickmann, 22, Krakow, MO. Marine Guard.
Staff Sgt. Joseph Subic, Jr., 23, Redford Township, MI. Military policeman (Army) on defense attaché's staff.
Elizabeth Ann Swift, 40, Washington, DC. Chief of embassy's political section; one of two women hostages.
Victor L. Tomseth, 39, Springfield, OR. Senior political officer; one of three held in Iranian Foreign Ministry.
Phillip R. Ward, 40, Culpeper, VA. Administrative officer.
Richard I. Queen, 28, New York, NY. Vice consul.
Robert Anders, 34, Port Charlotte, FL. Consular officer.
Mark J. Lijek, 29, Falls Church, VA. Consular officer.
Cora A. Lijek, 25, Falls Church, VA. Consular assistant.
Henry L. Schatz, 31, Coeur d'Alene, ID. Agriculture attaché.
Joseph D. Stafford, 29, Crossville, TN. Consular officer.
Kathleen F. Stafford, 28, Crossville, TN. Consular assistant.
Kathy Gross, 22, Cambridge Springs, PA. Secretary.
Sgt. James Hughes, 30, Langley Air Force Base, VA. Air Force administrative manager.
Lillian Johnson, 32, Elmont, NY. Secretary.
Sgt. Ladell Maples, 23, Earle, AR. Marine guard.
Elizabeth Montagne, 42, Calumet City, IL. Secretary.
Sgt. William Quarles, 23, Washington, DC. Marine guard.
Lloyd Rollins, 40, Alexandria, VA. Administrative officer.
Capt. Neal (Terry) Robinson, 30, Houston, TX. Administrative officer.
Terri Tedford, 24, South San Francisco, CA. Secretary.
Sgt. Joseph Vincent, 42, New Orleans, LA. Air Force administrative manager.
Sgt. David Walker, 25, Prairie View, TX. Marine guard.
Joan Walsh, 33, Ogden, UT. Secretary.
Cpl. Wesley Williams, 24, Albany, NY. Marine guard.
Capt. Richard L. Bakke, 34, Long Beach, CA. Air Force.
Sgt. John D. Harvey, 21, Roanoke, VA. Marine Corps.
Cpl. George N. Holmes, Jr., 22, Pine Bluff, AR. Marine Corps.
Staff Sgt. Dewey L. Johnson, 32, Jacksonville, NC. Marine Corps.
Capt. Harold L. Lewis, 35, Mansfield, CT. Air Force.
Tech. Sgt. Joel C. Mayo, 34, Bonifay, FL. Air Force.
Capt. Lynn D. McIntosh, 33, Valdosta, GA. Air Force.
Capt. Charles T. McMillan II, 28, Corrytown, TN. Air Force.

[ProSense]

62. Ron Paul is a racist moron. Anyone

who listened to the President knows his position on Iran:

•Diplomacy: Barack Obama supports tough and direct diplomacy with Iran without preconditions. Now is the time to use the power of American diplomacy to pressure Iran to stop their illicit nuclear program, support for terrorism, and threats toward Israel. Obama and Biden will offer the Iranian regime a choice. If Iran abandons its nuclear program and support for terrorism, we will offer incentives like membership in the World Trade Organization, economic investments, and a move toward normal diplomatic relations. If Iran continues its troubling behavior, we will step up our economic pressure and political isolation. In carrying out this diplomacy, we will coordinate closely with our allies and proceed with careful preparation. Seeking this kind of comprehensive settlement with Iran is our best way to make progress.

Whether it's John McCain or the lunatic Ron Paul, there is absolutely no reason for the President to listen to these morons.

Maybe Paul would like Obama to prop up an oppressive Regime like Bush did with Gaddafi. Who knows, that may lead to the eventual discovery of photo album of Hillary Clinton like the one Gaddafi kept of Condi Rice.

It's a good thing Obama, and not the armchair quarterbacks, is the President.

[Name removed]

63. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ProSense]

64. No

"BehindtheAegis, is that you?"

I'm just not willing to prop up a racist moronic fuck and his stupid ideas.

[totodeinhere]

67. I agree with Ron Paul on this. I disagree with him on many other issues, but can't we give him

credit for a sensible position on this issue even if we disagree with him on other things?

[JackRiddler]

70. Excuse me, you're complaining because he doesn't want to start another bloody war for nothing?

[krabigirl]

71. I like that idea. Reminds me of candidate Obama on this issue.