Saturday, December 31, 2011

Ron Paul and The Pending Invasion of Iran

Dear C,

Thanks for your email.

The first statement by the U.N.'s new "nuclear watchdog" is "deja vu all over again." 

Amano's view that 'evidence does not demonstrate Iran's intent to develop nuclear weaponry' is doubly surprising since he's Uncle Sam's favorite.

Perhaps "the Feds" are so spooked by the prospect of yet another war that they want some "third party" to downplay Iranian risk. 

In addition to the human horror of the upcoming war on Iran - and the alienation of Iran's remarkably progressive people -- such belligerence would propel the price of gas price past $4.00 ("the breaking point") and perhaps beyond $5 or even $6. 

Then, "the double dip." 

And then -- speaking of deja vu -- it's The Great Depression all over. (The phrase, "The Great Depression," was coined to refer to the twenty year period book-ended by The Panic of 1873 and The Panic of 1893

Concerning the planet's economic fragility, check out "The Big Lie: Wall Street has destroyed the wonder that was America." Penned by former Lehman Brothers' partner, Michael M. Thomas, "The Big Lie" is featured in the current edition of Newsweek

Have you seen "Why We Fight?"

The "hero" - and "keynote speaker" - is Dwight Eisenhower. 

Consider the following (year old) poll concerning Americans' willingness to wage war on Iran. (How long will it take to "manufacture consent" this time?) -

Excerpt: Laura Rozen at Politico sums up the answers:
25% of respondents said “only if Iran attacks U.S. soil;” 25% said “If Iran attacks the U.S. fleet in the Persian Gulf;” 11% said “If Iran tests a nuclear bomb;” and 10% said “If Iran attacks Israel.” 24% of respondents said they would never support a war with Iran.
While half of respondents said that they would support a war if Iran directly attacked United States ships or soil, only one in ten said they’d be willing to jump into a war if Iran attacked Israel.
Only 11 percent of respondents said they would support war if Iran tested a nuclear bomb. One might interpret this to mean most Americans would support a containment policy against Iran rather than attack as a “last resort” to prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear armed state. Top military officials themselves acknowledge such “military option” is fraught with potentially devastating consequences."
From now on, "all" wars are pyrrhic. 
Surveying the wreckage of modern warfare, Marshall McLuhan observed: "To the spoils belongs the victor." 
Pax on both houses
PS Several years ago, Arthur confided - and this is nearly verbatim - "It seems we haven't fought a good war since World War II."
PPS The Wall Street Journal just chose the Iranian movie "A Separation" as the year's best -
On Sat, Dec 31, 2011 at 10:04 AM, C. C. wrote:

I agree with you, and I will vote for Paul.

Would Arab unity, in solidarity with a muscular Iran, in the oil and waterway rich Middle East threaten the "national security" of an military-projectionist, oil-dependent failing economy in North America?

On Dec 31, 2011, at 12:52 AM, Alan Archibald wrote:
Dear C,
Paul's got this one right.
Do you expect Israel to attack Iran in 2012?
Pax on both houses

Ron Paul: Iran Does Not Threaten Our 

National Security

gty ron paul jef 111230 wblog Ron Paul: Iran Does Not Threaten Our National Security
Justin Sullivan/Getty Images
SIOUX CITY, IOWA: Ron Paul told Iowa voters on Friday that he would not launch a preemptive strike on Iran because “they don’t threaten our national security.”
“If some other country thought they had to go to war with them, that is their business,” he said, adding there is no proof Iran is building a nuclear weapon.
A recent IAEA report said that Iran’s pursuit of nuclear technology over several years could be consistent with the building of a bomb. And Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta gave Iran “about a year, perhaps a little less” before it could have a nuclear weapon.
Paul’s position on Iran is one that has drawn criticism from his GOP rivals.
On Friday, Paul was responding to a question from an Iowa voter who asked the Texas Congressman whether he could conceive of a situation where he would preemptively declare war on a country.
Paul admitted that the president does need the consent of Congress to declare war, but did say, “If battleships are off our shore, an imminent attack, the president has an obligation to respond.”
But in the case of Iran, Paul provoked his rivals and exclaimed, “they can’t even produce enough gasoline for their automobiles.”
With his bump in the polls, Paul’s GOP opponents, who see national defense as his weakness, have hit hard this week.
“Ron Paul thinks it would be fine if the Iranians obtained nuclear weapons,” Michele Bachmann said.
“You don’t have to vote for a candidate who will allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon to wipe Israel off the face of the earth,” echoed Rick Perry.
“One of the people running for president thinks it’s O.K. for Iran to have a nuclear weapon. I don’t,” said Mitt Romney.
Paul admitted on Friday that the criticism “baffles me a whole lot,” adding what is dangerous is endless wars and expanding government.
The Texas congressman rarely attacks his rivals at campaign stops, instead using campaign ads and interviews.
He told Bloomberg News on Friday that he might not be able to support any of his rivals because they embraced the status quo in Washington, admitting that his rivals don’t want to cut anything, audit the fed or bring significant change in government, and “that’s a problem for me,” Paul said.
Ron Paul placed second in support among Iowa voters in the latest NBC News-Marist University polls; he came in at 21%, with Romney at 23%.
Paul has drawn several hundred people at all three campaign stops today and has 500 college students canvassing for him in Iowa and New Hampshire.
Paul will be back on the campaign trail on Monday, stumping with son Rand as they make five campaign stops across Iowa.
In the meantime, the Texas congressman will be spending the weekend with his wife in Texas.
When asked by a reporter if that’s an indication that he’s feeling confident, a visibly smiling Paul looked up and replied, “I never talk in those terms.”

No comments:

Post a Comment