Iran: Nuke’m ’til They Glow, Says GOP

Ron Paul just predicted that Iran is the next target of the neoconservatives. We now know the weapons the neocons wish to use:

The administration of President George W. Bush is planning a massive bombing campaign against Iran, including use of bunker-buster nuclear bombs to destroy a key Iranian suspected nuclear weapons facility, The New Yorker magazine has reported in its April 17 issue.

The article by investigative journalist Seymour Hersh said that Bush and others in the White House have come to view Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as a potential Adolf Hitler.

“That’s the name they’re using,” the report quoted a former senior intelligence official as saying.

A senior unnamed Pentagon adviser is quoted in the article as saying that “this White House believes that the only way to solve the problem is to change the power structure in Iran, and that means war.”

I’m getting a bit confused. Are we currently at war with Eastasia or Eurasia?

79 Comments
  1. This administration is INSANE! They have jeopordized the security of the entire world. I was telling people the day after Bush took office the second time that in these next four years we will most likely invade Iran, Syria and any other middle eastern nation containing Oil. These are dangerous times we are entering into. Our world is on the verge………….

  2. The good news is simultaneously the worst news. And that is that economically, we will destroy our currency and suffer a financial implosion as a result of all these imperial military adventures and bread & circuses at home. Of course, this may well be by design as a means of exploiting that very situation. After all, in the depression people called for more of the problem to solve the problem. “I have cancer of the lungs and need a cure… guess I’ll inject some cancer in my bladder and brain.” The only hope is for people to come to their senses and it is our job to try and publicize these matters. I don’t beleive that’s likely to happen.

  3. We need to elect a Democratic congress in November so we can have a hope of stopping this madness. The Democratic Party isn’t perfect but at least it may be open to considering that we don’t want to destroy our country and the rest of the world.

  4. I’ve been looking at two online sources,
    the State Department
    and CIA World FACTBOOK
    and apparently in 1951
    the OIL INDUSTRY in IRAN
    was BRITISH OWNED.
    November 4, 1979 militants in Iran seized the U.S. Embassy in Iran.
    Now, the U.S.A. has not built or operated an Embassy in Iran since then, right?
    So, HOW is the U.S.A. going to get control
    of Iran
    when the U.S.A. is
    not even able
    to support and control
    even such a small place
    as one U.S. Embassy in Iran?
    From 1941 to 1979 the United Kingdom and the Soviet Union occupied western Iran.
    How many TREATIES does the U.S.A.
    have with the UNITED KINGDOM?
    Is this all about some treaty we don’t know about to take back the oil industry in Iran for UK?
    Why aren’t all treaties taught in highschools
    like the Declaration of Independence
    and the U.S. Constitution
    and Bill of Rights?
    AREN’T ALL TREATIES JUST AS IMPORTANT?

    DID LORETTA NALL WIN THE LIBERTARIAN GOVERNOR NOMINATION TODAY???????
    I HOPE SO!

  5. Jana

    I love the solution… The repubs suck… we need a democrat!

    No no no, the dems suck… we need a republican!

    Has it ever occurred to you that perhaps they both suck? What are you going to do, elect Hilary? Yeah, like that war hawk is going to pull out of Iraq anytime soon.

    Remember, old Bush and ole Clinton are butt buddies now. It’s the same oligarchy, just with different affiliations to make you think there is a choice.

  6. Didnt Iran say they wanted to nuke us (and israel)? So, why dont we just nuke them first? (I dont know much about this situation, so dont flame me, but Iran seems like they are playing with fire, so I think that perhaps they should suffer accordingly)

  7. Iran isn’t capable of “nuking us.”

    Even if they get the bomb and plenty of them (say, a good four thousand) — they do not possess the capacity to guide ICBM’s sufficiently to get missiles on US soil. Israel on the other hand? Sure thing. But they all know that said weapons will destroy them and, in fact, the Nation of Islam in total.

    Suitcase bombs are the biggest threat there, and those are a covert/guerrila operative weapon. Not a standing army.

    What the GOP has in mind, it can keep. Sadly, there’s not much I can do to stop this nonsense… not that wouldn’t get me killed before being effective.

  8. Dennis Anthony Porto,

    Jeez. So US (and Israel) decide they want to take out Iran. So they make up a story that Iran has nukes. In order to defend against said (imaginary) nukes, we then have to attack first to prevent the (imaginary) nukes from destroying our country.

    Repeat that line of logic for any other country you want to take out for no reason. Lather, rinse, repeat.

  9. But Rick! Iran is sitting on a massive enrichable uranium field! Almost as large as THE WHOLE COUNTRY!

    You darn Traitor! Just you wait ’till I tell the NSA to get the FedGov Disloyalty & Thoughtcrime Containment Commision on you!!!!

  10. DID LORETTA NALL WIN THE LIBERTARIAN GOVERNOR NOMINATION TODAY???????
    I HOPE SO!

    why ya yellin? Just talked to Dick Clark (Citizen Clark, not new year’s rockin eve) and he said yes she did, and he is the new state chair. Congrats to both of them.

  11. Loretta did win. I didn’t catch the actual vote total, but she got about 3/4 of the vote (the rest for NOTA and one abstention). The usual suspects (for those who know the Alabama players) didn’t play along.

    I nominated Dick Clark for Chair, BTW. He got 100% of his vote, not even one for NOTA (unusual for Alabama).

  12. I have supported the Bush administration in the war on terror. I am not ashamed of that position. But if these reports are true, and I’ve read several not just here, then it is not only wrong but must be prevented from happening if at all possible.

    I understand from British press that some members of the Joint Chiefs are trying to remove the tactical nuclear option from the table. I hope they succeed.

    Our security is extremely important. A man that wants to wipe a free nation like Isreal off the face of the earth should be stopped, (Iran’s President) but becoming terrorists ourselves and by breaking the first rule of having a nuclear arsenal (i.e. NEVER SHOOT FIRST!) is more unnacceptable to me than waiting to be attacked again.

    God help us.

    Frank

  13. Ricky, did you seriously just ask a political body dedicated to nothing short of maximizing the freedom of every single person in the United States if they do not believe in freedom?

    We do not — and have not *ever* — exist in a democracy. Our country is a republic. A “Representative democracy” is a republic. And there is no possible way in which one can *force* democracy down the point of a gunbarrel. So we’re not “spreading democracy” either.

    I posit you this; by increasing the amount of hatred towards America, those whom support, for example, the continued occupation of Iraq are the ones who most hate the United States.

    After all; if one knowingly commits an act which will have the end result of leading to United States Citizens being killed, then that person is at least in part responsible for their deaths.

    None of this, however, will sink into you, Ricky, if you genuinely agree with the material on the link you provided on your post.

  14. Steve

    I nominated Dick Clark for Chair, BTW.

    Good call. Best chair since I’ve been down there, IMO. Are you still in charge of vice?

    Frank

    I have supported the Bush administration in the war on terror. I am not ashamed of that position.

    The “war on terror” has been cooked up by the real masters of terror.

    http://www.911truth.org/index.php

    Just like the “war on drugs” is being waged by the biggest dope pushers around.

    Just like the “war on poverty” being waged by those who make a living of the poverty of others and plutocrats who benefit from socioeconomic polarization.

    Just like those who have lobbied for a perpetual war against fascism and communism through the military-industrial-espionage complex have turned America more fascist and communist and were behind supplying fascists and communists all over the world with money and supplies.

    They play both sides of the game, and we’re the field of play.

  15. I have supported the Bush administration in the war on terror. I am not ashamed of that position.

    The real object of the war on terror is to terrorize the people into giving the government more money, more power over us….and it’s a permanent war, since terror is not going to disappear….only be encouraged into an escalating cycle of retaliation.

    Our security is extremely important.

    I agree that we should take measures to protect ourselves against the gangsters who call themselves our government.

    A man that wants to wipe a free nation like Isreal off the face of the earth should be stopped

    Israel is a nuclear power with tremendous military capacity, way ahead of Iran. In event Iran ever posed a real threat to them, Israel would have the motive and opportunity to strike first. Why the taxpayers of America should be supporting either side is beyond me; and whether it is a free nation is a whole other question.

  16. Of course we will nuke Iran:

    http://…/Nuclear_attacks_on_america.htm

    “We”? And while the link makes some good points, the excessive ranting about Zionists kinda spoils it.

    So you people don’t belive in freedom and democracy? Why do you hate America? (-Boortz)

    Freedom and democracy are unlikely to coincide. Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what’s for dinner. America isn’t the problem; it’s the gangster regime which claims America as its turf. Boortz is a reich winger and not a real libertarian. To understand what a real libertarian is, take the time to explore

    http://www.lewrockwell.com/long/left-and-right.html

    But if that’s too complicated, start here

    http://isil.org/resources/introduction.swf

  17. Does anybody know what victory means for a war on terror? Is the USA trying to protect itself 100 percent from terrorist or trying to be just reasonably safe from terrorist? It is immposible to be 100 percent safe from terrorist and still keep freedom in the USA. An anology would be trying to keep your PC 100 percent clean from viruses and malware. The only sure way to do so is to unplug the computer from the internet and electricity then bury the computer in your backyard.

    Who wants the USA to uplug itself from the world and bury itself in the backyard of the world?

    Another aspect of 100 percent prevention is that the government must have total control of all citizens. All it takes is one citizen to become a terrorist by making and setting off a bomb to have a failed 100 percent safe environment.

    If you want freedom, you must accept that people will die protecting freedom as well as die living free.

  18. I don’t dispute the past “wars” our government has fought are somewhat dubious. I strongly oppose the war on drugs, I think the war on poverty is a joke. But when it comes to national defense issues, I tend to take a hawkish stance. that’s just me. Call it a charecter flaw if you must. It won’t change.

    However, I believe it (defense) must be done in delicate balance with the basic concepts this nation is supposed to stand for, and I would hope a healthy does of personal ethics. Perhaps I’m naive, having believed the words of people like Patrick Henry and T. Jefferson. I still believe the nation stands for liberty, and for doing what is “right.” I also believe we have lost our way (and that is an understatment.)

    Iran has been at war with us for decades, we neglected to deal with it earlier and now are faced with a nightmare senario. Who really believes it is a good thing for Iran to get nukes? But again, which was my first point, we shouldn’t nuke first EVER.

    Frank

  19. An anarchist’s (claiming to be a libertarian) foreign policy utopia

    1. Bring the troops home and disband the military
    2. Encourage all other nations to possess nuclear weapons
    3. Destroy Israel (don’t stop there, destroy all Jews)
    4. Eliminate immigration laws, our border and ICE
    5. Open immigration to anyone with no questions asked
    6. Implement a total isolationist policy
    7. Accept worldwide genocide as a human endeavor
    8. Allow brutal regimes to exist everywhere except in U.S.
    9. Adhere to “we are not our brothers keeper” philosophy
    10. Lastly – we don’t care about the rest of the world

    This attitude should serve us well. We will save money and won’t have to be concerned about a global economy. We can be totally isolated and not trade with any other nation. If we do not have the natural resources to produce the goods or services, hell, we don’t need the stuff anyway. This will be like stepping back into the stone age. I’m ready. Are you a survivalist?

  20. What will it take for you purist (anarchist) so called libertarians to begin to believe there are regimes in the world intent on destroying the U.S. and any other nation of people that are reasonably free when compared to other nations?

    Maybe we need to do nothing and allow us to be “hammered to truth” by our enemies on our own soil with millions of us slaughtered before you anarchists disguised as libertarians wake up.

    What if it is your family or you that does not survive? I am pragmatic and have no problem destroying our enemies with whatever we can use to protect us. Better to kill millions, even billions of those assholes than lose even one of us. That is my position.

    Apparently most of you believe the opposite, that this country is not worth saving and you are willing to go down without a fight or maybe you prefer to fight here than there. Are you people crazy or what? Do you not understand the repercussions of your positions?

  21. Perhaps I am over simplifying every issue we will ever face, but I’d like some input on my “philosophy”.

    I believe that we can always come up with the “right” solution or course of action by applying both the ZAP and GR. (ZAP being the “Zero Aggression Principle” and GR being the “Golden Rule – Do Unto Others As You Would Have Them Do Unto You”)

    If anyone sees a potential problem with applying my “ZAP/GR” I would be interested in comments.

    With respect to my motivations for commenting here… I personally believe that any and/or all sovereign nations, (those we consider “friends” and/or “enemies”) have the “right” to develop as they wish and this includes nuclear capabilities. I have a problem with individuals/groups/governments who HAVE nuclear and other technologies, telling other individuals/groups/governments what THEY CAN HAVE AND CAN’T…

    Our world situation seems very complicated, but it all boils down to imperialism and the attempts, by some, to dominate others.

  22. I know the personal attacks to expect to what I have written. I will answer the standard attacks before you begin them against me.

    1. I am not a Republican or Democrat.
    2. I am a libertarian and support the LRC.
    3. I am not a neo-conservative.
    4. I have historical conservative tendencies.
    5. I have taken the libertarian test and passed.
    6. I do support our troops and our Irag engagement.
    7. Anarchists have no place in the libertarian movement.
    8. I am libertarian politically active at local level.
    9. I am not the hijacker of the Party, leftists are.
    10. I am not antiwar.
    11. I am not a racist.
    12. If you participate in a demonstration, do not wear your libertarian party affiliation on your arm sleeve as all of us do not support your position.
    13. Your accusations and name calling against me will not run me out of the LP. However, I will work diligently to run you out of the Party if you are an anarchist or leftist in disguise.

  23. Julian’s brilliant distortions of libertarian philosophy are always entertaining.

    2. Encourage all other nations to possess nuclear weapons

    An anarchist (true libertarian) by definition opposes all nation states. We don’t encourage them to do anything. We especially don’t like the one that claims to reprsent us engaging in “first strikes” to prevent other regimes from doing the same things “our” regime does.

    3. Destroy Israel (don’t stop there, destroy all Jews)

    What? I’m Jewish (by ancestry, not religion). You haven’t been paying attention, have you?

    6. Implement a total isolationist policy

    A total isolationist policy would include regime barriers to free trade, which would be impossible if there is no regime.

    7. Accept worldwide genocide as a human endeavor

    That would be the job of government, which Julian supports.
    Julian is fond of claiming positions for people which they don’t hold at all.

  24. 8. Allow brutal regimes to exist everywhere except in U.S.

    That’s incorrect. We oppose all brutal regimes everywhere, but don’t believe one brutal regime is the solution to another.

    10. Lastly – we don’t care about the rest of the world

    Wrong again. We just don’t care to have your regime as its police state.

    “We will save money and won’t have to be concerned about a global economy. We can be totally isolated and not trade with any other nation.”

    What nonsense. In the absence of a regime, how would you prevent intercontinental trade?

  25. I don’t think ZAP can be applied universily and that is why I call my self a moderate Libertarian. It is because in the world there are these curious things called human beings, and they have certain historical habits including conquest, and an apparent need to have a government of some kind. This is especially true of people who are starving. They tend not to care about principals for some funny reason at that point and will elect or support A fairy tale if it will feed them.

    Now that is a REAL oversimplification. But so be it.

    Believing in the concept of self ownership is what makes me a libertarian, recognizing that humanity is inherantly “human” is what makes me a pragmatist.

    Yes, foreign policy and defense are complicated issues. Yes, it is hypocritical for nations with nukes to try to keep others from getting them, but if you read and understand the quirkyness of humans. Its really not that complicated.

    Frank

  26. And yes I think we need allies (like Isreal) and we should help defend them if and when needed.

    The understanding being that should we need help, they will help us.

    Frank

  27. And yes I think we need allies (like Isreal) and we should help defend them if and when needed.

    By all means, go fight for Israel all you want. Leave me and my money out of it. You say “Believing in the concept of self ownership is what makes me a libertarian,” yet you want to entangle me in your alliances whether I agree with them or not.

  28. All of Julian’s arguments rest of the (unproven) assumption that everyone else truly is out to “get us”.

    Please please please pull out the 9/11 card and tell us how this changed everything!

    Paranoia that all others are out to kill us… but extreme indignation for others pointing at the government for the source of all the terrorism… calling them paranoid tin-foil hatters.

    Anyway, I digress.

  29. Julian further distorts,

    2. I am a libertarian and support the LRC.

    I don’t have access to the membership database, so I can’t say whether Julian is a big L libertarian. He’s not a small l libertarian, as outlined by Long’s article referenced above, or even something as simple as the Introduction to the Philosophy of Liberty which I linked from ISIL.

    If Julian is a big L, he commited fraud when he signed the pledge.

  30. Angel Nicholas

    Suppose the family living down the street from you begins threatening your family. As time goes by, even though you own plenty of weapons, they begin buying weapons to use against your family. You find an arbriter (the UN) to negotiate but they tell the negotiator to go to hell because they are going to kill your neighborhood friends (the neighborhood Jews) and then they are going to kill you when the time is right.

    You decide to give up your weapons and become vunerable because you live by the golden rule and expect them to do the same. However, they do not believe in the golden rule but want to force their way of life including utter disregard for women’s rights on you and your female children. What do you do now, submit? I bet that will be your choice. It would not be mine. I will kill the bastards before they harm my family (country).

    I guess it is a good thing you have neighbors that will protect your pacifist ass. I will save your children.

  31. Julian bloviates,

    “3. I am not a neo-conservative.
    4. I have historical conservative tendencies.
    5. I have taken the libertarian test and passed.”

    This fundamental misunderstanding of what constitutes a libertarian is addressed in great detail by Long’s article referenced above. Julian might have some libertarian tendencies, but he is a long way from being a libertarian.

    “7. Anarchists have no place in the libertarian movement.”

    This is historically and logically inaccurate.

    “9. I am not the hijacker of the Party, leftists are.”

    Wrong again. Again, see Long’s article.

    “12. If you participate in a demonstration, do not wear your libertarian party affiliation on your arm sleeve as all of us do not support your position.”

    Waiting for “all of us” to support a position is the mark of a collectivist, not a libertarian. Besides, those who oppose the party’s position on the most important issues of the day commited fraud when they signed the pledge.

  32. “However, I will work diligently to run you out of the Party if you are an anarchist or leftist in disguise. ”

    I’m not in disguise.

  33. Paulie Cannoli

    Your arguments are so lame. You still insist on attacking me. Now, tit for tat. I will work diligently to make sure your anarchist ass has no power within the Party. You light my fire to become even more active within the Party so you are serving a purpose even though it may be the demise of you and your kind within the movement. Thank God for the LRC. It is long overdue. It will succeed in establishing a truly viable Libertarian Party.

    This is like a family fight or might I say a civil war. Let the winners take all.

  34. LOL. Julian, I’m not attacking you. I even said I might back you for Sheriff. You’re the only one who has attacked me and claimed I believe things I manifestly don’t believe.

    You’ve refused to answer in what ways specifically you are not a conservative.

    You don’t scare me, and if you were to succeed in hijacking the party we built on our principles – don’t count on it – we’ll find other avenues to fight tyranny.

    Why you would insist on taking over and “reforming” OUR party rather than starting your own or joining one which you obviously agree with more is another question you haven’t answered.

    You’re final solution to the anarchist “problem” will fail.

    You are not a member of our family, you are a pretender to the inheritance and you will continue to be exposed as a conservative who commited fraud if and when you signed the pledge.

  35. Paulie Cannoli

    Why do you hate your Jewish heritage so much? I respect and embrace the Jewish heritage, traditions and teachings. I am even studying Judiasm formally even though I have no plans to convert. It is so sad you are a Jew and deny your own great heritage. Why do you not give a crap about your own people, the Jews worldwide or in Israel? I do believe that is the promised land for Jews and they have a historical right to the land.

    I bet you do not even acknowledge the holocaust took place or that Stalin managed to exterminate many of you. You are vunerable as a Jew in this world. Is that why you are denying your Judiasm? I do feel sorry for you because you should be fighting like hell to preserve you and your people. You must make all other Jews cringe when they meet you.

  36. PC,

    Yep, still vice chair. Also, Vice Admiral (Ret.) Colley was one of the speakers, and he made it clear that he wasn’t in charge of Navy vice.

    Better yet, Colley came out with some strong non-interventionist statements, and I’ll try to get the video on the net.

  37. “Why do you hate your Jewish heritage so much? ”

    Where did you get such a silly notion? I don’t. Pretty proud of it actually.

    I was never of the Jewish religion, although I’ve studied it. I oppose all nation states, and that includes Israel. Why is that hard to understand?

    As for the holocaust, I don’t deny it and I expressly addressed both Stalin and Hitler’s role in detail in an earlier thread in which you participated, so once again you weren’t paying attention.

  38. I think if Iran nukes the Jews and the Jews nuke back it is kind of like a twofer.

    Or am I sounding too much like the guys who blame drugs on the Jews?

    Well any way. A conventional war now would be very bad. We should mind our own business. A nuclear war later when passions are more inflamed will be much better.

    Libertarians are SOOOO RATIONAL. It is why I love them.

  39. I believe we should apply the ZAP to the situation:

    Iran has threatened America. Open season (for America) on Iran.

    Also satisfies the real rule: do unto others before they do unto you. Check your Sun Tzu.

  40. M. Simon,

    (not being a jerk, I really want these questions answered)

    So if a country openly threatens America, we should attack them or just have the option to attack them?

    Should we attack/pre-emptively attack 100% of the time, or just the ones we really don’t like?

  41. M. Simon, I am a non-interventionist, and your ZAP policy still sounds most reasonable to me. If iran threatens America, why should we wait to get hit?

  42. Dennis Anthony Porto,

    Same questions then,

    So if a country openly threatens America, we should attack them or just have the option to attack them?

    Should we attack/pre-emptively attack 100% of the time, or just the ones we really don’t like?

  43. M. Simon, I am a non-interventionist, and your ZAP policy still sounds most reasonable to me. If iran threatens America, why should we wait to get hit?

    If a four year old points his finger at you and goes “bang bang” are you justified in smashing his head in with a sledgehammer?

  44. Paulie, for once, I suppose you are right. However, if it becomes a possibility that Iran might pose some threat, not necessarily even a nuclear threat–just any threat at all, then I would be all for taking them out.

  45. Instead of waiting for a threat from Iran, why don’t you provoke the fight by calling Iranians whimps. That way, when Iran throws a verbal threat of killing every American, the USA can justify its big ass war machine. Why not spend 70 percent of the budget on the military?

    Has anyone did any research on what governments actually have the capability to send a big enough military force over oceans and air to destroy the USA? Probably not. At the present time, the only way another country can do the USA harm is by missles or by small groups of soldiers.

    If any one of those options can actually destroy the USA then the Amercan people are not getting their money worth out of the military.

    These so called Chicken-Littles that are trying to scare everyone do not think so highly of the American military.

    The USA may sustain some bloddy noses but I do not think a couple of bombs will be able to kill the USA. You can not prevent 100 percent of the bombs that may be used against the USA.

  46. The best thing you can do to make America safer is to get rid of the regime. The second-best thing is to quit provoking foreign regimes and citizens.

  47. bac

    You are a real work. By bloody noses, I assume you mean that some American losses on our soil is acceptable. Are you suggesting that we must get bloodied and turn the other cheek to prevent an all out war? Are we to spot our enemies some victories against us? How many bloody noses do we allow? What if it is your nose, or those of your family or children? I’ll bet you would be yelling foul.

    When I was in school, the kids that refused to fight back or allowed themselves to be bullied were cowards. Are you?

    I found the best defense in school yard bullying was a planned offense. Just ambush the bastard. I say be preemptive and take out Iran, even using nukes if necessary. Better all of them than even one American life.

  48. I found the best defense in school yard bullying was a planned offense. Just ambush the bastard. I say be preemptive and take out Iran, even using nukes if necessary. Better all of them than even one American life.

    There’s this weak little bald guy down the street from me who smacks his wife around. She’s actually bigger than him but as she has only known life with him, she tolerates it. One day he kicks my friend’s dog so I go and punch him in the nose, figuring it will be enough to ensure that he won’t mess with me or my friends. He’s pretty bitter and curses me whenever he can, but he knows I can kick his ass any time. However there’s a possibility he could go out and buy a gun and kill me.

    Bush gets elected and I whig out and kill this dude because that’s the only way to make sure he won’t kill me first. Plus I did his wife a favor, but now she’s trying to kill me and I don’t understand. The police don’t understand either.

    Do you think George Bush will understand?

  49. bac said (#53):
    “Has anyone did any research on what governments actually have the capability to send a big enough military force over oceans and air to destroy the USA? Probably not. At the present time, the only way another country can do the USA harm is by missles or by small groups of soldiers.

    If any one of those options can actually destroy the USA then the Amercan people are not getting their money worth out of the military.

    These so called Chicken-Littles that are trying to scare everyone do not think so highly of the American military.

    Bruce says:
    You just made a great argument for Libertarianism: since no one can really do us any harm, let’s just sit back, have a potent DEFENSIVE military, and let the despots of the world alone. Why should we go looking for a fight that will cost us billions of dollars and tens of thousands of casulties? We don’t need to go beyond our borders to find lots of things to fix.

  50. But Julian, what about our friends, who attack us and get away with it? Should we take them out too?

  51. I think Julian’s advice is good.

    On the off chance the regime in DC might turn tyrannical in some distant, hard to imagine future, we should strike first.

    Right?

  52. But paulie, that would be unpatriotic.

    Now nuking the towel heads… that’s what good Americans support!

    But my quesiton remains, what if an Ally has already attacked us? Why worry about who could when our “friends” already have?

  53. In 1936, Hitler marched into the Rhineland in violation of the Versailles Treaty. Both the French and the Germans didn’t want any trouble so they decided to appease Hitler. The appeasement lasted three years and after Hitler invaded Poland it became obvious that he had been lying all the time during his negotiations. Similarly, the United States didn’t want any trouble either and waited until Japan attacked Pearl Harbor. The President of Iran has declared his intention to annihilate Israel and the United States. In addition, he is a Holocaust Denier. People who believe that diplomacy will alter Iran’s intention of obtaining nuclear weapons are sadly mistaken. The United States was already attacked on 9/11. We can wait to we’re attacked again but next time it will be far worse (suitcase bombs with nuclear weapons set off simultaneously in different US cities). The option of destroying Iran’s nuclear weapon’s capacity and military infrastructure should and must be considered.

  54. Turfseer: Pray tell… when do we get to nuke nations that still have access to box-cutters of mass hijacking? Once again, a barking moonbat that addresses the symptoms and not the source of terrorism.

    Take out Al Qaida, then stop fucking around with the Middle East!

  55. Stephen — I have to interject here for just a moment:

    I feel that once a body or organization has declared open hostilities with us, regardless of wether they have in fact made a strike at us already, we are justified in retaliating in a measured manner designed to remove their capacity or desire to affect us.

    I draw the line at eliminating an entire nation simply because a few people dislike us.

    This puts me in a quandary with Iran. Nuclear weaponry is not a solution. Neither is the elimination of the government, when the government isn’t the part of Iran that hates America.

    We need to eliminate the hatred towards the US infesting the heart of the Nation of Islam. The only way we can do that is to cease our wars of aggression upon them.

    We’re nowhere near that, today.

  56. “bac” in post #53 wants to know what people/society/government/nation currently has the ABILITY to bring aggression to the several united states. China not only currently has the capability to do the several united states great harm… They currently have port access and port control on both coasts (and they control the Panama Canal, incidentally), they currently have known and unknown military operatives WITHIN the several united states, they currently bring thousands upon thousands of containers to the several united states with less than 5 percent being physically checked by customs, their military/industrial complex is state owned, AND they currently have both known and unknown NUCLEAR capabilities including all imaginable methods of delivery. Not to mention their immense population, which could be used via all those “container” ships, as an instant invasion force.

    Perhaps we should fear China much more than any potential middle eastern threat.

    Angel

  57. To Julian. American losses are inevitable. I am a realist. I know that somewhere and sometime someone will bloody my nose. Does this mean I will turn tail? No. It means that I can not be 100 percent safe without locking myself in a box and hide from the world. Once a bloody nose does occur, find the people involved and deal with accordingly.

    We all know that America has a great military. High tech weapons and well trained soldiers. But when some terrorist does sneak through our best defense and bombs{nukes} a city, do you think spending more money on the military and restricting citizens freedoms will help make America 100 percent safe?

    It is good to have a strong military but not an overbearing one. It is good to spread freedom but not becoming dictators in doing so. It is good to protect yourself but not be paranoid about it.

  58. Also, addressing those with concerns about ZAP and GR…

    Neither ZAP nor GR advocate remaining or being weak with respect to pure DEFENSE. Nor do they smell of pacifism.

    Walk softly and silently, but ALWAYS carry a BIG stick.

    In Angel’s America we would entangle with none, but trade with all. We would have the cutting edge in all areas of defense including space. We would have the cutting edge in all technologies. We would be self-sufficient in our wants and needs and have plenty to sell to the world. Our private charities would operate worldwide and America would be a brightly shining beacon to all.

    Well, gotta go save the world…

    Blog you later…

    Angel

  59. But my quesiton remains, what if an Ally has already attacked us? Why worry about who could when our “friends” already have?

    I don’t count the regime in DC as an ally, although it’s true they’ve already attacked us.

    In 1936, Hitler marched into the Rhineland in violation of the Versailles Treaty. Both the French and the Germans didn’t want any trouble so they decided to appease Hitler. The appeasement lasted three years and after Hitler invaded Poland it became obvious that he had been lying all the time during his negotiations.

    Before that happened, the US foolishly intervened in WWI, making both Hitler and Stalin possible.

    Similarly, the United States didn’t want any trouble either and waited until Japan attacked Pearl Harbor.

    Not true at all. The US regime wanted a war with Japan and goated them into it. They knew exactly when and where the attack would be coming and welcomed it as an excuse to get into the war.

  60. The President of Iran has declared his intention to annihilate Israel and the United States. In addition, he is a Holocaust Denier.

    He has no capacity to do either, and he can believe in the tooth fairy for all I care.

    People who believe that diplomacy will alter Iran’s intention of obtaining nuclear weapons are sadly mistaken.

    We heard this same nonsense about Iraq. It was BS then and it is BS now. When will some people learn?

    The United States was already attacked on 9/11.

    By its own regime, just as Hitler burned his own Reichstag (parliament) as an excuse to become a dictator.

    option of destroying Iran’s nuclear weapon’s capacity and military infrastructure should and must be considered.

    How about the option of destroying the USSA regime’s nuclear weapons capacity and military infrastructure?

  61. Paulie Cannoli

    Was WWII an unjust war? Were we wrong to have become involved? I think I know your answer.

  62. Stephen Van Dyke

    Are you an active participant in the antiwar movement? Are you a pacifist? Do you support the ACLU? Are you pro open borders?

  63. Was WWII an unjust war? Were we wrong to have become involved? I think I know your answer.

    The best way to have avoided WWII would have been to stay out of WWI. Julian, what’s your opinion of America’s involvement in WWI? (I notice you like to pose questions, but rarely answer them).

    America’s entry into WWII was sold to the American people as a response to a “sneak attack” by Japan. This was a lie; the attack was provoked by American regime’s protectionist trade policy and imperialism, and was known about by the American regime ahead of time. They let it happen so as to have an excuse to get into the war.

    In Europe, it would have been better to let Stalin and Hitler fight each other. Both were monsters, so it’s not automatically true that we should have sided with Stalin.

    In the aftermath of the war, Roosevelt gave away half of Europe to Stalin, and another holocaust followed against Catholics. Actually part of a greater Eurasian holocaust, 1914-55.

  64. Are you an active participant in the antiwar movement?
    Not as far as attending protests. I don’t think there is much point to them other than to express discontent, and the Internet is much better geared towards freedom of expression where you can actually express your views in more space than a 3×5 poster.

    Are you a pacifist?
    Not at all, which is why I am a strong advocate of killing Osama Bin Laden and dismantling his base of operations in Afghanistan as a retaliation (and issuing a promise that if we are attacked, we will retaliate swiftly and with great vengence). Our troops should be used to defend our borders from foreign invaders instead of spreading democracy. War is not benevolence no matter how hard some people may wish it.

    Do you support the ACLU?
    I think they have a place in defending liberties, but that they are very weak on gun issues no matter how they spin it as a collective right. They clearly have a knack for picking cases that make them look really stupid as well (defending someone who wants to wear a veil for their driver’s license photo… um, stupid).

    Are you pro open borders?
    I am pro open immigration. Anyone of good character who wants to come to this country and become an upstanding citizen should be able to. However, our border policy is a complete wreck and is leaving us completely open to illegal immigration as well as anyone with sinister intentions who wanted to come in. This is why we should be using our military to secure our borders and provide national security… not adventurism to spread democracy and freedom.

  65. Paulie stated

    I don’t count the regime in DC as an ally, although it’s true they’ve already attacked us.

    Thanks, but I was talking about a different set of people, who killed members our own Navy. http://www.ussliberty.org/

    Let’s see how the “War solves everything” crowd deals with this conundrum.

  66. Paulie Cannoli and Rick Rajter

    Your positions and radicalism will be proved wrong over time. I just hope there are enough people willing and able to fight to save even your asses.

    If I were placed in a situation where I had to make choices on whom to ally with to save my ass and their asses, you both would not even make the list.

  67. I’m certain that Julian, always the consistent one, would have supported our immediate destruction of Israel as soon as they attacked the USS Liberty.

  68. Artus Register

    I agree there are many unanswered questions about the attack on the USS Liberty. What should we do now, 38 years later? Maybe we should attack Israel today or tomorrow over something that happened that long ago.

    I bet that would make the Jew haters happy. While we are at it, why not nuke them? I believe Paulie Cannoli will agree with this.

    How about we pay billions of dollars to Vietnam for our unprovoked aggression during the Vietnam police action, or was it a conflict? Would that suit you? Get your check book out. Your taxes are about to go up.

    We live in an imperfect world and according to some of you, the USA if just a bunch of imperialists. Jeez, sounds like the same rhetoric used by USSR and China against the US. By the way, imperialist bullies was also used all the time by the far left (anarchist and communist hippies) during the Vietnam war. Again, same old rhetoric by the children of my generation, just a different war.

  69. Julian,

    As you have never met a war you didn’t like, you are all for any military action, be it imperialistic or not. But please note: just because a bunch of communist thugs use a word, that doesn’t mean the term is forever invalidated. And it isn’t rhetoric, it is factual: We are currently in an empire-building occupation of a sovereign, foreign nation and we aren’t leaving until they are westernized to the satisfaction of our Emperor and his Praetorian Guard.

    All I was asking is if you think we should have invaded Israel at that time, as they clearly did attack us. You have no problem invading or nuking nations who have not attacked us, so I was just wondering if your position is consistent.

%d bloggers like this: