Saturday, April 08, 2006

Ron Paul says we're gonna invade Iran

Whenever the local paper interviews Ron Paul, the US Congressman from the 14th District, he never has all that much interesting to say. Maybe they don't ask him the right questions. I'm not sure.

But when Paul (or his speechwriters) let loose on the printed Web page, it's Katy bar the door.

In his latest piece posted on antiwar.com, Paul asserts the USA is about to invade Iran.

It includes some of these bombshells:

Already the coordinating propaganda has galvanized the American people against Iran for the supposed threat it poses to us with weapons of mass destruction that are no more present than those Saddam Hussein was alleged to have had. It's amazing how soon after being thoroughly discredited over the charges levied against Saddam Hussein the neocons are willing to use the same arguments against Iran. It's frightening to see how easily Congress, the media, and the people accept many of the same arguments against Iran that were used to justify an invasion of Iraq.

=====
Our obsession with democracy– which is clearly conditional, when one looks at our response to the recent Palestinian elections– will allow the majority Shia to claim leadership title if Iraq's election actually leads to an organized government. This delights the Iranians, who are close allies of the Iraqi Shia.

Talk about unintended consequences! This war has produced chaos, civil war, death and destruction, and huge financial costs.

=====
Common sense tells us the war in Iraq soon will spread to Iran. Fear of imaginary nuclear weapons or an incident involving Iran – whether planned or accidental – will rally the support needed for us to move on Muslim country #3. All the past failures and unintended consequences will be forgotten.

Even with deteriorating support for the Iraq war, new information, well-planned propaganda, or a major incident will override the skepticism and heartache of our frustrating fight. Vocal opponents of an attack on Iran again will be labeled unpatriotic, unsupportive of the troops, and sympathetic to Iran's radicals.


=====
First, Iran doesn't have a nuke and is nowhere close to getting one, according to the CIA.

=====
If you're looking for a real kook with a bomb to worry about, North Korea would be high on the list.

=====
The moral imperative of not imposing our will on others, no matter how well intentioned, is a powerful argument for minding our own business.

=====
Conservatives, libertarians, constitutionalists, and many of today's liberals have all at one time or another endorsed a less interventionist foreign policy. There's no reason a coalition of these groups might not once again present the case for a pro-American, non-militant, noninterventionist foreign policy dealing with all nations. A policy of trade and peace, and a willingness to use diplomacy, is far superior to the foreign policy that has evolved over the past 60 years.

It's time for a change.

=====
I think he's gonna run for President.

4 comments:

JD Allen said...

And I would vote for him. But in my, admittedly more than superficial, knowledge of the man, I have my doubts as to his complete ability to do what I tell him to do.

Which, of course, is the right thing.

Taylor said...

Actually, I believe he already did run for President quite some time ago. Then he was a libertarian and only got on the ballot in this area but that still counts for something I suppose.

Banjo Jones said...

and i'm sure he appreciates your support, JD.

yes, Taylor, the congressman did run for president once on the Libertarian ticket, so he's not shy when it comes to aiming high.

JD Allen said...

I meant to say, of course, LESS than superficial, not more. 'Cause I don't know him at all, just some of his politics as reflected by his stances and rhetoric.

None of which may be true at all, and there is no way to know unless you know him.