The Presidential Candidates on Iran
By Leslie on November 20, 2007 at 12:31 AM in Current Affairs
The New York Times has compiled an easy-to-read guide on the positions of all the presidential candidates on Iran.
Here’s a list of reasons why attacking Iran would be a bad idea, from the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation:
Military Risks
Iran could attack U.S. naval forces and commercial oil tankers operating in the Persian Gulf, especially in the Strait of Hormuz.
Tehran could use mines, submarines, small surface vessels, and land-based anti-ship missiles in the narrow waterway of the Strait of Hormuz. Iran is also believed to possess roughly 100 HY-2/C-201 Silkworm or Seersucker missiles on 8-10 mobile launchers currently deployed near the Strait.Iran could attack U.S. forces stationed in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere.
Tehran could launch Shahab-3 medium-range missiles, possibly armed with chemical, biological, or radiological warheads, against American forces stationed in the Middle East. Iran could also persuade radical Iraqi cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, a Shia who has pledged support to Tehran in the event of a U.S. attack, to have his Mahdi Army attack American soldiers in Iraq.Iran could use its proxy forces such as Hezbollah to attack Israel, topple the fragile Lebanese government, or terrorize soft targets like embassies, commercial centers, or American citizens.
Iran could attack Israel directly using its Shahab-3 missiles or prod Hezbollah militants to launch short-range rockets from southern Lebanon. Other Iranian-influenced groups such as Palestine Islamic Jihad, the Hezbollah-financed al-Aqsa Brigades, or the Damascus-controlled Hamas militants could also attack Israel or destroy the nascent Palestinian national unity government.A truly effective military strike would be a time-consuming and extensive operation, thus increasing the risk of retaliation against American forces.
The Iranians have fortified their nuclear facilities with blastproof doors, extensive divider walls, hardened ceilings, 20 cm-thick concrete walls, and double concrete ceilings with earth-fill between layers. While American GBU-28 “bunker-buster” conventional weapons might be able to destroy these hardened targets, the U.S. would need to hit them many times to ensure total destruction. Retired Air Force Colonel Sam Gardiner, an expert in strategic war gaming, estimated that there are at least 400 “aim points” in Iran, 75 of which would require penetrating weapons to destroy.Any setback to the Iranian nuclear program would be only temporary.
Without a long-term diplomatic solution consistent with international nonproliferation standards, a military strike on Iran amounts to an open-ended military commitment. The Israeli attack against Iraq’s Osirak nuclear reactor in 1981 did not end Saddam Hussein’s WMD activity and an American attack against Iran would assuredly not end Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s nuclear aspirations.Economic Risks
Oil prices would go sky high–experts predict over $200 per barrel and $5 per gallon.
According to a tally by Oil and Gas Journal, Iran has the second-highest supply of untapped oil reserves in the world, an estimated 125.8 billion barrels. With these vast petroleum resources and its concurrent ability to disrupt shipments in the Strait of Hormuz–through which 40 percent of the world’s daily oil exports pass–Iran could severely destabilize global financial markets.A global economic recession could be triggered if Moqtada al-Sadr got involved.
Moqtada al-Sadr, a staunch Iranian ally, controls Iraq’s 140,000-member Facilities Protection Service responsible for guarding oil pipelines and refineries. He could easily cut the oil flow off from Iraq in response to an American military strike on Iran. The loss of exports from Iraq and Iran combined would cripple the global economy. This would not only harm the most industrialized countries but also hinder development efforts in critically impoverished areas of Africa, Asia, and Latin America.Humanitarian Risks
Conventional attacks would kill thousands of Iranian civilians.
Tehran purposefully built its nuclear facilities near population centers to deter potential attackers. Any claim that an attack on Iran could be accomplished in one day or that it would be “limited” or “surgical” ignores the enormity of the operation. There is no such thing as a “clean” strike on Iranian facilities located so close to population centers.Should the U.S. use nuclear “bunker busters,” civilian casualties would be incalculable and international condemnation would be universal.
The Bush administration has contemplated using B61-11 nuclear “bunker busters” against Iranian underground facilities to ensure absolute target destruction. Using a nuclear bunker buster would create massive clouds of radioactive fallout that could spread far from the site of the attack. More than a hundred thousand civilian casualties could easily result, according to nuclear experts.Political Risks
Global determination to build nuclear weapons would be reinforced, possibly leading to a renewed arms race.
The unmistakable message of a military strike would be that the U.S. is willing to attack countries that do not possess nuclear weapons. North Korea has clearly indicated that its revived plutonium reprocessing activity and its nuclear test are a reaction to the American invasion of Iraq and a strike against Iran would likely strengthen Pyongyang’s resolve.An attack on Iran would undoubtedly strengthen hard line extremists.
President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad would consolidate his power to the detriment of moderate reformers like former President Mohammad Khatami. Long sought-after opportunities to undermine the radical clerics and encourage Iranian democracy would be lost.The attacks would unite the Iranian population against the U.S.
The Iranian population, which remains generally pro-American, would vehemently turn against the U.S. following a military strike. The U.S. would lose a priceless opportunity to nurture a friendly ally in a troubled region.Unknown Variables
American intelligence about Iranian facilities is inconclusive.
The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has identified at least 18 Iranian nuclear facilities, but reliable sources suggest there may be more than 70. It is possible that Iran possesses buried nuclear facilities that have escaped detection by American intelligence. After all, the U.S. did not find out about North Korea’s underground facilities until much later, and Iranian nuclear activity at Esfahan, Natanz, and Arak was a secret until dissidents revealed it in 2002.American intelligence estimates that Iran is at least five to ten years away from building nuclear weapons.
Taking military action against Iran would be a repeat of the mistake the U.S. made in Iraq in response to misestimates of Saddam’s WMD program.
(Release: November 13)
on sale for only $16.95.
has a spatula.)
8% Off at $11.95, with a rare five-star ranking by 294 customers: 
And check out these: 
("This crazy redhead is on to something. Her pink Rambler story alone is worth the price of the book," writes 
- “Richard Sale’s reportage on Washington, the CIA, the American armed forces, and foreign intrigue has created a perfect background for this account of the steady growth of President Clinton as a master of the game of nations.”--W. Patrick Lang, former head of Middle East Operations, DIA
"Anne C. Heller's stunning biography of Ayn Rand" uses a "plethora of newly unearthed research and fresh insight."
Hello all. I’ve beeen a constant visitor to No Quarter for close to a year now. I enjoy the intelligent opinions of the people who post here. Until tonight, I’ve not felt there was much I could contribute.
However, between Larry and SusanUnPC’s recent posts on the costs of the war, the state of our economy and Leslie’s links to the candidates postions on Iran, I’m wondering how many of you who frequent this site have given a real close look at Ron Paul.
I’ve been a solid Democrat my entire life, but given the extremely vulnerable state of our country and the world, my wife and I whole heartedly support the one candidate we feel is truly honest, has integrity, and the interests of we the people, we as a nation, close to his heart, regardless of his party. Google Ron Paul. Listen to and/or read what he has to say. Party loyalty over the last several decades has gotten us into the mess we’re in today. We all want and deserve the chance to get our country back from more than just the neocons. For the first time I can remember, I don’t feel like it’s a choice of the lesser of two evils in a presidential race. Please people, check out his record, his views, and his ever growing grassroots support. I want my country back!
This blog publicly supports Hillary Clinton.
Well, I publicly do NOT support Hillary Clinton or anyone else who thinks or is willing to say that it is appropriate to bomb or invade or occupy another for any reason other than self defence against a direct, imminent threat.
I agree with Ron Paul on one thing and one thing only: We made a terrible mistake in going into Iraq and it is past time to rectify that error.
As for the rest of his “positions”, the paranoia and racism he embraces – the man is unworthy of the White House, even in its present debased state.
Could you be so kind as to cite any of Representative Paul’s racism and paranoia? Any facts to support your assertions about his character or mental state?
I like him as well. Ron Paul is the only sane one in the republican bunch. the MSM is unfortunately calling him a” fringe” candidate. Their version of Fringe means he is saying what % 80 of Americans are saying.
Orwell would be proud
It just makes me sick to see all those presidential candidates grabbing the Bush regime’s latest manufactured crisis and running with it.
The only ones who made any sense at all are Gravel, Kucinich, Richardson, and Paul.
There is no need to do ANYTHING about Iran. Iran is
WAY down the list of Countries that Threaten World Peace and Security. The Middle Eastern country that most egregiously violates international law and most habitually threatens the peace of the region is Israel.
And the clear winner in the “Greatest Threat To World Peace and Security” contest is the United States of America. So let’s try to deal with that first.
All absolutely true. Absolutely true.
In the sixties we were assured that the world as we knew it would end if the US ‘abandoned’ ‘democratic’ South Vietnam.
We stayed, a few million civilians – a million children – died under our bombs.
We left. And the Vietnamese did what people do when left alone – they went on with their lives, as well as they could.
No threat proposed by the national security state since 1945 has been real. None.
We need to stop letting the forces that would write us into their obscene scripts do so, and deal with the problems that actually matter.
Shirin…..
Exactly why I’m asking if anyone’s taken a serious look at Ron Paul.
At the end of one of the Republican debates Wolfe Blitzkrieg asks (and I paraphrase here) what’s the biggest moral question facing America today? All the candidates blathered on about abortion, gay marriage or other similar issues.
Ron Paul steps up and says (again I paraphrase) what we need to do in this country is reverse the policy of pre-emptive war. Every one of these guys (points at candidates) is talking about bombing a country, possibly with nuclear weapons, that poses NO threat to us and hasn’t attacked us.
He says a lot more however, I’m only willing to take paraphrasing so far. I urge everyone to go to youtube and watch it. It’s AWESOME!
It was his response to this question that got me taking a closer look at the man. He’s truly given me and my family hope for the USA & the world. Given the last line of your post, you would find his positions very interesting, I’m certain of it.
Forget Ron Paul. Stop shilling for Ron Paul. The guy is a reactionary, in the guise a Libertarian, and a Libertarian guise is sophomoric.
Or…if you think Ron Paul is so great, start a Libertarian Party Draft.
Put your money where your mouth is.
mudkitty,
My money is, has been, and will continue to be exactly where my mouth is. In fact, I’ve done something I find personally abhorrent; which is going down to the county clerks office and switching my party affiliation from Democratic to Republican. Only way to vote for the candidate I believe in in my states primary election.
Ever hear this saying? “Contempt prior to investigation will keep a person forever in ignorance.”
BTW, how many shillings to a dollar these days?
Maybe I have to break this up for it to show up
First part to Leslie.
Leslie,
I read an article the other day in the Jerusalem Post about our making plans to live with a nuclear Iran and had some hope.
New day. New reality.
The clowns seemed to have decided that we can attack another place…Pakistan.
Never forget this when trying to figure what these fuckers will do next.
“We’re an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you’re studying that reality – judiciously, as you will – we’ll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that’s how things will sort out. We’re history’s actors … and you, all of you, will be left to study what we do.”
Now regarding candidates
Btw…if anyone near a TV. Turn on CSPAN. They’re getting ready to talk about OPEC.
Joseph Cirincione was just on and I would be inclined to support the candidate that he is advising for office.
I like what Ron Paul is saying but Hersh makes a good point about what is needed now. Obama?
Barack Obama represents “the only hope for the US in the Muslim world,” according to Pulitzer-prize winning investigative reporter Seymour Hersh. Because Obama’s father was a Muslim, he “could lead a reconciliation between the Muslim countries and the US.” With any of the other candidates as president, Hersh said, “we’re facing two or three decades of problems in the Mideast, with 1.2 billion Muslims.”
“Barack Obama represents “the only hope for the US in the Muslim world”
WTF?!!!!!!
Seymour Hersch has taken leave of his senses.
You don’t think a Black man with a Muslim father will help us abroad?
I can’t dismiss this after thinking back on the world loving the first Black president Bill.
How about the US being led by a woman?
What has ANY of this to do with race, skin colour, gender or religion?
No, I don’t think just because someone is a black man and/or has a muslim father that means he will help you abroad or anywhere else, and I don’t understand that kind of mentality that would make that assumption.
I don’t think the U.S. being led by a woman would be better or worse than the U.S. being led by a man. I can’t think of a single reason that gender is the thing that would make a difference.
And by the way, anyone who would vote for Hillary because she is female, or for Obama because he is black should stay home on election day. Not only is that a blind and foolish basis on which to vote, it is an insult to women and to blacks.
Yes, Shirin, right on!! I was going to comment on your previous post when I read this one… I don’t understand that kind of mentality either, but I think that there are a whole lot of sheeple out there who do think and act that way. How else can we explain the war criminals who continue to ‘lead’ this country???
Cee,
Seymour Hersh said that about Obama…? Can you provide the link?
Now I’m sorry I brought him up. LOL!!!
I was trying to do that before but the posts wouldn’t show up.
http://www.thenation.com/blogs/notion/?pid=252300
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jon-wiener/seymour-hersh-obama-on_b_72675.html
Oh jeeeeez! I just read the first part of the Nation article, and Sy Hersch HAS taken leave of his senses.
Obama’s father was, according to Obama, a “confirmed atheist” by the time he met Obama’s mother. In that case, my dear Sy (and Cee) he was by definition NOT a Muslim at any time during Barak’s life no matter how he was born and raised.
Clearly Obama’s father did not impart to his son any particular knowledge, understanding, appreciation, or respect for Islam or Muslims – as if that were not obvious by Barak’s eagerness to assure everyone that he is not now, nor ever was, a Muslim.
How in the name of all that is rational would anyone think for one nanosecond that having a father who gave up Islam for atheism makes Barak Obama particularly qualified as the “hope for the U.S. in the Muslim world”?! On the contrary, it is more apt to harm than to enhance his credibility with the kinds of Muslims that need most to be influenced. Most religious Muslims would have more respect for the son (or daughter) of a religiously observant Christian or Jew than a non-believer.
Based on what I have heard from Obama so far, he does not understand or appreciate Islam, Muslims, or the Muslim world at all, and really does not seem to grasp the real reasons for Muslim’s concern and anger. In fact, he seems to lack sophistication in general when it comes to foreign relations.
The best way to change U.S. relations with the Muslim world is to change U.S. foreign policy, as well as the way the U.S. treats Muslim individuals and institutions both abroad and domestically. Based on the naive and superficial ideas I have heard so far from Obama, which consist entirely of empty (and empty-headed), meaningless P.R. efforts similar to Bush’s failed P.R. extravaganzas, I would not count on Obama to have any positive effect there. U.S. leaders simply have to get over the notion that you can convince third world people that a pound of shit is really a dozen roses simply by putting it into a pretty box, tying a fancy ribbon around it and telling them it is a rose bouquet.
Harold
Representative Paul is not in favour of killing.
Representative Paul is not in favour of theft.
Representative Paul is not in favour of meddling in people’s lives.
To be not in favour of murder, theft and meddlesomeness is reactionary and sophomoric.
Representative Paul is in favour of letting each of us find our own hell or heaven without anyone else’s by your leave. To allow people to live as they wish and do as they are able is reactionary and sophmoric.
Representative Paul is a registered republican and has said at least ten times in the last month that he will not be running as a third party candidate. If he fails in his attempt to earn the presidential nomination, he will continue to pursue an 11th term in congress. Given that we have available 30 years of his views, votes and actions and that they are consistent and non contradictory, it is only right to determine that he is a sophomoric reationary masquerading for 30 years as a Taft/Goldwater republican.
America was a constitutional republic, the framework is still there but the structure has been twisted and mangled so that it is no longer recognizable. We are one presidential directive away from becoming Pakistan. One decree of marital law by the president and elections will be called off and all police powers will devolve into the hands of our current president. But Ron Paul is a sophomoric reactionary and therefore much more dangerous.
And what is Paul for? Certainly not the US Constitution, as he claims.
But yes, he’s head and shoulder’s better than anyone else the rightwingers have.
You have some proof, some citations, some facts to support your contention that Representative Paul does not support or does not believe in the constitution as she was writ.
So to tell you what he if for:
Peace, open trade and commerce with the world, no taxation, non inflated currency, less centralized meddling in individuals lives and choices, removal of our death offerings in Korea and other nations ( 700+ bases ), reduced debt, freedom.
I know these are not serious things but you did ask what he stands for; you could have read them yourself but I am happy to supply you with this synopsis.
It is possibly unfair; I voted for him in 88. I worked for Goldwater in 64, in between I threw up a lot. It is nice to be able to support a gentleman again for national office.
Figures you voted for Goldwater. No matter how far back you go, and I go far back too, this no-tax, anti-tax bullshit of Paul’s and your’s proves that you both need to re-read the constitution which specifically provides for the levying of taxes (and mandates that government sees to the “welfare” of it’s citizens. This nation doesn’t run itself, nor does it fund itself. It’s a big country, and it takes a lot of money to run. A housewife know’s better than Ron Paul about this.
Paul wants to leave abortion up to the states – which is insane – hardly about smaller government.
As for reduced debt…you only get that under democrats, never republicans. Republicans pay lip service to balanced budgets, but never, and I mean never, deliver.
As for Paul wanting to get out of Iraq, well he’s the broken clock who’s right twice a day.
It’s become quite apparrent why you call yourself mudkitty. If you want to fling something, how about mixing some accurate statements in with all that poop.
You need to buy yourself a copy of the US Constitution and read it. Don’t worry, it’s a slim volume.
The US Constitution gives power to the Congress to levy taxes. Are you denying that? The preamble to the Constitution states that government exists to see to the “welfare of the people.” Do you deny that? If you do, and it seems you are, it is you who are ignorant, and it is you who doesn’t know his US Constitution.
Name one Republican president who ever balanced a budget. Name one.
Clinton balanced his budget, and held out for it in the face of Newtie’s shutting down of the government.
Mudkitty,
You’re right. I am acting ignorant…..
by letting you goad me into responding to you in kind. You’ve been nothing if not obnoxious and rude to me in direct responses to anything I’ve posted. Since you react this way to most anyone who supports Ron Paul, I suppose I shouldn’t take it personally. Actually, it’s more correct to say you react this way to anyone who supports Ron Paul AND addresses me by name. So maybe it is personal. I’m really sorry if some other guy named Harold screwed you over royally at some point in your life and now the name makes you crazy when you see it or hear it. But what really makes it so damn hard to resist goading you right back is the maddening fact that you don’t know your ass from your elbow in regard to Dr. Paul’s positions on issues. But I’m reverting already aren’t I ?
Regarding the Constitution, I’m well aware that the right to levy taxes is addressed in the actual text of the document. However, it’s not till we get to the 16 th amendment that levying a tax on income comes into play.
And this is the tax Ron Paul talks about doing away with. He admits it may not be possible to do away with it entirely, but it can at least be seriously reduced. He also clearly states that the only way to do away with an income tax is to seriously cut spending first. He has his targets, none of which are current programs like social security and medicare which people are dependant on. He does want to come up with alternatives to both of these.
Which leads nicely right into “promote the general welfare”. Back in the days the Constitution was written, welfare obviously did not mean food stamps and section 8 housing. What’s your fixation on promote the general welfare and why do you feel it’s threatened? Ron Paul has stated over and over that he doesn’t want to put people in the street or take away programs that people are dependant on. What’s needed is a transformation period, where bloated government programs will be pared down and expenses thereby cut.
In support of an earlier post citing a great answer to the question what’s the greatest moral challenge facing America today, here’s a link to the New Hampshire debate. It’s edited down to the Q&A of Dr. Paul and runs just under 7 minutes. You may not care to watch it, but what do you have to lose?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8_BjK1QqDOo
Prior to Roe v Wade, abortion was a states matter and there were 52 different sets of rules. 52 options vs no options.
I said I worked for Goldwater, you do jump to conclusions. Agreed the constitution set out the proper means of funding the limited power of the central government, the dem pols in 1913 found ways to amend the republic away. The preamble to the constitution says …, promote the general Welfare,…
The general welfare is again mentioned in section 8 on the laying of UNIFORM taxes. There are no other mentions of welfare in the document.
If you insist on a large bureaucracy and a neverending series of wars and forced donations to foreign governments, if you insist on having government do things that are “nice” today you will need to steal a lot of the productive wealth to support those insistences. If you insist that the government has no right to speak to abortion but every right to speak to what you smoke, drink, read, think or see you will get what we have — a rogue state with a huge deficit and fiat money taxing away your value at 10% a year in inflation.
Now for myself, I think the USA made a huge mistake when it did away with the articles of confederation that predated the constitution, the writers knew that if you give disease an opening it will encompass the whole eventually but they gave it the opening anyhow. Damn shame that.
CK – 52 options? That means, in translation, that rich women could travel anywhere to get an abortion, but a poor middle aged, rural woman with 8 kids as it is, from Alabama, can’t.
Even when abortion was illegal, rich women traveled to other countries to get them.
As for the multiple mentions of Welfare in the constitution…you act as if it’s nothing. The U.S. Constitution is actually a rather slim volume.
As for me, I’ll stick with the founding fathers, and let you twist in the wind, CK.
Now tell the truth. Are you a Southerner? Do you long for the “good ole days?”
52 options is better than none.
Given the huge number of abortion providers in Ala today ( 1 ) that poor lady is not any better served, she will still have to travel some serious distance to achieve your desire.
I point out that the only two mentions of the word welfare in the constitution are as part of the phrase The General Welfare, once in the preamble and once in the section on Uniform Taxation.
As for the attempted ad hominem, I am certain you can do better.
It certainly does seem that the only candidates with rational views on Iran are those given no chance of winning the nomination by the mainstream media and the punditocracy. Paul, Kucinich and Gravel are far and away the best on this issue.
Americans need to learn that “wasting your vote” means voting for someone whose policy ideas are dangerous and counterproductive because you have been told they are the likely winner. I have yet to discover what reward awaits a voter who casts their vote for the winner of the primary or general election.
Richardson seems pretty reasonable too, although he does not seem to understand fully that there IS no crisis regarding Iran.
I agree with you completely regarding “wasting your vote”.
I took a political quiz. Gravel was my top candidate. Kucinich was second. Oh well. Hold your nose and vote.
Postcard From Peshwar – 1987
How is it that a country with a love of flying kites and a country that has been called the cradle of civilization and a country that was born out of hopes and dreams of being free, can’t find something more in common besides the barrel of a gun?
When the Iraq war started, my daughter was 12 and this has been in her life all through her teen years. I can only contrast that to of a child of 12 in Iraq or Afghanistan. I can not compare them.
On about day 2 CNN was showing a US Marine platoon just north of Basra, firing a javelin into a building after taking fire. I recall an ambulance attempting to flee with some of the occupants…. Several days later as most of the opposing forces shed their uniforms; we started to hear the phrase “asymmetrical war”.
To educate myself, being ignorant about what that meant, has been all about learning from others. That endeavor by itself, looking back, is not enough. With so many conflicting interests, either direct or by proxy, the war is not about Iraq or Afghanistan nor Pakistan or Iran for that matter. It is about America and how fast history can catch up with us when it is ignored.
To extricate our country from this, we are obligated to fight on so many different fronts and dimensions. While the current president might be considered “irrelevant” by some, the office of the president can never be. We lack the political leadership to do this.
I think the question of an attack on Iran is going to be the decider in the Democratic primaries regardless of whether the MSM grills the candidates on it. People have lost all confidence in the media because of their sycophancy over the invasion of Iraq.
Hillary Clinton needs to come out strongly and repeatedly against a US attack (the Brits won’t be involved in this one; Brown would be out on his ass within 48 hours if he participated). If she doesn’t then my money’s on Obama.
Why would you imagine that either Hillary OR Obama to come out strongly against an attack on Iran. On the contrary, they have been the most eager among the Democratic candidates to jump on Bush’s Iran-as-bad-guy-du-jour bandwagon and to assure everyone that attacking Iran will never EVER be off the table.
What I would like to understand is why they are so enthusiastically buying into Bush’s latest manufactured crisis. A look at Iran’s history quickly reveals that it has never been a military threat to anyone who has not attacked it first, and there is no reason to believe that is about to change. A look at reports from credible sources regarding Iran’s nuclear program reveals no evidence whatever that they are pursuing, or planning to pursue nuclear weapon at this time. A look at Iran’s political system quickly reveals that Ahmadi Najad does not run Iran and has nothing to say about its foreign policy or its military, and that therefore his rantings are irrelevant in assessing whether Iran is or is not a threat.
A look at the Bush regime’s history quickly reveals their habit of creating crises based on exaggeration, fabrication, and cherry-picked information in order to justify acts of aggression against other countries.
So, why don’t these candidates take a look at a few things, apply a bit of logic and rational thought to the situation, and base their positions on that instead?
I gave Ron Paul a serious look, and stopped after saw his social policy stances. I won’t support anti abortion, anti gay rights candidates. I don’t like people telling me I’m somehow less deserving of protection under the law than others. I think it’s nice that Ron Paul is willing to step up and stand against an unnecessary and disastrous war, but he’s not getting my vote.
To be honest, I don’t like to see the dems referring to Iran as a crisis, but we do have to deal with them. They’ve got their hands in pretty much every dustup in the region on some level. Solving any of the major problems is going to require working with them diplomatically on a significant level.
Given that fact I sure as hell would trust the dems to such delicate foreign polciy work over the republicans.
Could you show me where Representative Paul is against any individual’s right to be whatever they wish to be?
As a person he is against abortion, as an obstretician he never performed one and according to him never faced a situation where one was necessary. As a constitutionalist he finds no specification within the constitution giving the central government the right to regulate one way or another the issue of abortion ( or of marriage or of sexuality). According to Amendment 10, what is not specifically given to the central government is restricted to the various states and the citizens of the USA.
Now it is true that Representative Paul is not a big believer in group rights. He does have a long and consistent record of supporting the rights of individual citizens.
CK,
Thanks for reassuring me that there are people looking at a candidates merits and not just their current spin on issues. Obviously No Quarter isn’t a Hillary for president site based on the comments here.
I also disagree with Dr. Paul’s “percieved” anti-abortion views. However, in all fairness to the man, while he personally is against it, he feels it’s up to each state to rule on the issue and not up to the Feds to decree one way or the other.
It also would seem that a pro-life stance would equate to a strong anti-war and anti-military intervention stance. The lives of living and breathing men women and children in foreign countries should be just as sacred as than of an unborn American fetus and therefore not subjected to bombing or the threat thereof. Too bad this doesn’t seem to be true in the “real world” of our politics. Unless you pay atention to what Dr. Paul is saying to us.
I haven’t seen any of his views as anti-gay. When asked a question from the floor (during a Google interview) about gays in the military his answer was decidedly FOR allowing gays to serve without discrimination based on sexual orientation. Also conceded that while “don’t ask, don’t tell” sounds good on the surface, it’s implementation has been horrific.
So far Ron Paul is the only candidate I’ve heard say:
1> We should be talking to Iran AND we need to bring our navy home and away from their shoreline so they know we’re serious about negotiations.
It’s the second half of this statement that stands out above anyone else. How many people in America are even aware of what our government is doing in regard to Iran that can trigger a disaster for the entire world. This man tells the truth, the whole truth as it really is.
2> We need to stop the move toward a North American Union & the Amero currency. (google Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America. It’s not a “conspiracy theory”.)
3> America is headed toward bankruptcy and huge financial crisis. We need to bring about significant foreign and domestic policy changes before we collapse from within.
Happened to the Soviet Union. It can happen here too.
Most of the posters on this site are intelligent and thoughtful people. Which is why I brought the whole subject of Ron Paul up. Hillary, Obama…. They may be Democrats, but what are they really saying about the direction they’ll take our country in. Richardson is the only other candidate of merit, but his chances are pretty slim.
I hope people reading these posts will do some of their own research and come to their own conclusions about what candidates are really saying to us. Who would be best to begin reversing the damage done and serve we the people, not special interests and militarism?
Never mind the smaller, divisive issues, what about the most good for the most people…. And having a positive influence throughout the entire world. Seems like a pretty reasonable thing to ask.
Number 2 is alot like PNAC was. It takes about 10 years of no adults in the room to make someone think this way. No matter which candidate gets the keys, the situation they will encounter at Motel 1600 may not be with the lights on….I have not decided one way or the other but I do know what is at stake.
It is reasonable to ask; kind alike “whoville” and the tiny voice heard from a far.
Kucinich has a very clear idea for a moral foreign policy and moral trade policies.
My interest now is in trying to determine who Representative Paul will pick as his running mate. I think Judge Andrew Napolitano would be a superb choice. What I can guarantee is that no one from PNAC will be anywhere in a Paul administration; nor will any Carvilles Mr or Mrs., nor any of the various fools rogues and charlatans from the Chalabi wing of the Republican and Democratic parties.
Of course since the PNACers and neocons are variously working for Senator Clinton and Governor Guiliani and have kicked their ex champion McCain to the curb … it will be no great loss.
There are many miles and many words to go between now and the Ron Paul inaguaration. In my happy dreams I see Kucinich vs Paul and a nation that would actually get to decide based upon philosophy and thought or at least get a civil and engaging set of debates and an intellectual dialogue worthy of what once was a great country.
It always amuses me to find people who are adamantly pro abortion but anti war and anti death penalty; almost as much as it amuses me when I meet those who are adamantly anti abortion but pro death penalty and pro war. War and the death penalty are merely remedial abortions.
That’s BS – Paul is not the only candidate saying those things.
With all due respect, “That’s BS” is not a complete answer. Name some names. Provide some links if you can. I’d sincerely like to know. I can locate and provide the links to Paul’s statements.
Name ONE candidate of either party who has stated in any debate, speech, or interview that we need to bring our carrier groups home. That we need to bring our navy home and away from the Iranian coastline so that they know we’re serious when we talk to them and we’re not about to attack them. I’d sincerely like to know. I want to vote for a President that doesn’t advocate an attack on Iran and tells the truth about what is going on in regard to the non-situation there.
Name ONE candidate of either party who has stated in any debate, speech, or interview that we need to stop the North American Union. Name one who’s even dared mention it. Bush has already signed documents and has been involved in meetings related to the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America for quite some time now. I want to vote for a President that doesn’t advocate this bullshit and will stop it dead in it’s tracks. And yes, I’d sincerely like to be exposed to more candidates opposed to it and honest enough with us to admit it’s been happening behind our backs.
Hillary has used the buzz words “fiscal responsibility”. She also quite often brings up the fact that Bill Clinton left office with a budget surplus. That was her husbands achievement. What has she stated that SHE will actually DO to drastically cut spending. And what candidate has had the stones to speak out about the fact that America is on the brink of bankruptcy. Those words, not some non-threatening, soft pedaled crap, real honest to goodness talk about a very real and very serious problem. The Soviet Union freakin’ imploded! And it’s getting pretty scary in the USA nowadays.
The United States is the the one that has its hands in every “dustup” in the region, and is all or part of the cause of most of them. What the Middle East needs is for the U.S. to keep its bloody imperialist hands out of the business there and let the people of the region run their affairs.
There is no need to do anything about Iran except behave as one country to another country is supposed to behave.
Great job, Leslie.
America First
Have we become a victim of Israel insecurity among Arabs going back over two thousands year?
Have we replaced the Persian protection of Israel with our American might? Have we been an Israeli proxy by invading Iraq? Why Israeli Lobby urging the United States to invade Iran?
We spend our precious tax money to bribe the regional nations by giving them “foreign aids”, please spare me! We arm these nations, all of them. Some of the same arms have been use to kill our people. Except for Iran, not a single American has been killed by Iranian people.
Should we spend our money and expertise in our hemisphere rather than 7500 miles from home? Our national interests must be our first imperative. If you would travel in out of places, for example, in Southern Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Virginia, Alabama, Oklahoma, etc. you see population in dire needs, poverty similar to poverty in third world nations. If you would travel to most regions in Mexico, our neighbor to the south, you see abject poverty.
Should we spend our national resources in these areas, rather than as bribe money to some ungrateful nations? Charity starts at home, our own USA, then to the nearest neighbor Mexico.
Our nationhas paid a huge price following AIPAC the Israeli Lobby. Our representative should hear our people, America First, please.
Which Israeli lobby are you referring to? There are more than one; many lobbies in fact, you know, with conflicting interests, no less. Or are you just talking about Jews?
Please name the Israeli lobbies that you are referring to. Please enumerate them.
“Have we become a victim of Israel insecurity among Arabs going back over two thousands year?”
Huh?! WHAT two thousand years? Israel has only been in existence “among Arabs” for 59 years, and the Zionist-Arab conflict only began about a century ago as a result of the Zionist colonization and plans to take over Palestine. There is no two thousand years here.
Regarding Ron Paul.
It seems to me that the problems we face, generally categorized, in order of importance, are 1) War 2) Global Warming 3) Environmental degradation, pollution, destruction of rescources 4) Healthcare 5) Social justice 6) Gay rights, choice and other personal issues.
The greatest threat is global warming. But war precludes meaningful efforts to address it. We may already have lost too much time, and exhausted too many of our rescources, in Iraq, Afghanistan and the ‘war on terror’. War with Iran, the clash of civilizations and war with Islam will certainly end all chance of preventing climate catastrophe.
The other issues, however important in themselves, will not matter if climate change is not addressed.
Now the founders were very clear on the issue of war. The constitution is clear. And Paul’s position is clearly based on the ideas of the founders and on the constitution.
Except Kucinich, the democrat’s positions are not:
From: http://www.pastpeak.com/archives/2007/10/dems_suck_too.htm
“The game’s rigged. Democrats and Republicans pretend to be different by having different positions on abortion and gay marriage. But on issues of war and peace, military spending, government surveillance, and even torture, they’re peas in a pod. Fraternal twins. Coke and Pepsi. An exquisite scam: keep people excited about abortion and gay marriage to make them feel like they have a meaningful choice, then ignore what they want on everything that really matters to the Big Money that drives the system.
What’s the difference between Democrats and Republicans? Democrats tell different lies to get elected. A pox on both their houses.”
It is clear to me that a principled conservative with whom I disagree on many issues but who will follow the constitution and tell the truth is a far better choice than any mainstream politician.
Regarding Dennis Kucinich:
http://www.pastpeak.com/archives/2007/11/what_kucinich_s.htm
Dear MudKitty,
There are several Jewish lobbies in the United States; they have different interests and some are not politically in agreement with each other. The activity if Israeli Lobby in general is detailed in “The Israel Lobby”
By John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt (http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n06/mear01_.html). Please also look under AIPAC, Pro-Israel Lobby working to strengthen relations between the United States and Israel through political and student activism in campaigns and elections. The book by Professors John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt discuss the activities of Israel Lobby. It is an eye opening book.
Dear Shirin,
What a sweet name. Modern Israel was created On November 29, 1947; the United Nations General Assembly voted 33 to 13, with 10 abstentions, in favor of a Partition Plan that created the State of Israel. But, the nation-states existed under different names at the time of Assyrians and the Babylonians. Iran (Persia, Media) contribution to protection of Jewish people of these nation-states is documented well. It is known that the seven missing tribes of Israel at the time of Assyrians were relocated to Iran. Talmud, the book of laws, was written in Iran about 2500 years ago and reflects many of the Old Iranian culture. The Iranian version of Talmud still is being used today.
There are more than several…so which one, or ones are YOU referring to?
St Michael Traveler:
Thanks. I am very well acquainted with the history of ancient and modern Israel, and in particular with the Babylonian exile, and the descendants of those exiles. None of that justifies the Zionists’ claims on Palestinian land, however.
And the modern day State of Israel did not come into being with the signing of UNGA 181, aka the Partition Resolution. It came into being on May 14, 1948 with the Declaration of Statehood by David Ben Gurion.
That aside, I was responding specifically to this: “…Israel insecurity among Arabs going back over two thousands year?” Israel’s “insecurity among Arabs” does not go back two thousand years, it goes back 59 years. The conflict between the Zionists and the Arabs goes back only about one hundred years. It is unconnected with anything that happened prior to the Zionist colonization efforts that began in the late nineteenth century.
Also, Mr. Traveler, don’t call me “Dear.” You don’t know me well enough. It’s condescending.
MudKitty,
AIPAC, generally is the organization with the greatest influence on the government of the United States.
And your saying this one lobby rules over US foreign policy?
Shirin,
You said: “The conflict between the Zionists and the Arabs goes back only about one hundred years. It is unconnected with anything that happened prior to the Zionist colonization efforts that began in the late nineteenth century.”
I said: “Have we become a victim of Israel insecurity among Arabs going back over two thousands year?”
Would we examine the issue of Zionist colonization of the region, it started way before 2500 years ago. If I am retelling the story correctly, migration and occupation of Palestinian land started when the Hebrew tribes migrated from some place in Iraq lead by Ibrahim; this was way before it was recorded by historians. The Old Testament indicates that the Hebrew tribes were commended by some god to invade and occupy Palestinian land. Again, Moses was told by the same god to take his Hebrew tribe to the promise land, some other non-Hebrew land. Take it; god said I will help you.
It has been said that Zionist as occupier they have never felt secure. Even when there is not a real danger for them, they look for the worst scenario, or create a bogy man. At this time, Iran is the bogy man. But, Iran has never been a bogy man for Israel.
The modern Zionist is not any different than our own occupation of the Native American land. It has happened! What can be done to create peace for all Semitic people, Palestinians and Hebrews?
Your argument lacks factual and logical merit. There is no continuity between the Hebrew conquest (not colonization) of the Land of Canaan and the European Zionist colonization of Palestine.
Further, when the Hebrews conquered (not colonized) the Land of Canaan, the Arabs were not there.
Israeli “insecurity with Arabs” did not begin until the creation of the modern day State of Israel in May of 1948. Even Zionist “insecurity with Arabs” could not have existed for much more than a century, since political Zionism did not exist until a bit over a century ago.
Attempts to present the Arab-Zionist/Arab-Israel conflict as based on a two thousand year old grudge are completely and demonstrably fallacious.
“It has been said that Zionist as occupier they have never felt secure.”
They should not feel secure as long as they are violating the rights of others. They should never feel secure as long as they value the acquisition of land more than they value living at peace with their neighbors, as has been the case starting with Ben Gurion, who made it explicitly clear that expanding Israel’s territory was more important than peace.
“Even when there is not a real danger for them, they look for the worst scenario, or create a bogy man.”
And this serves very well the agenda of a sixty year succession of Israeli governments beginning with Ben Gurion.
“At this time, Iran is the bogy man. But, Iran has never been a bogy man for Israel.”
Israel creates a bogey man, Iran is the bogey man, Iran has never been the bogey man for Israel? Sorry, this statement is confusing to me. Could you please clarify?
“The modern Zionist is not any different than our own occupation of the Native American land.”
I understand what you are getting at here, but it is in fact different in a number of significant ways.
“It has happened! What can be done to create peace for all Semitic people, Palestinians and Hebrews?”
First, not all Palestinians are Semitic people. Second, Israelis are not Hebrews. They are mostly European Jews who cannot trace a single ancestor back to the Hebrews.
As for what can be done to create peace, Israel could comply with international law, show respect for the international community and honour its signature on its international treaties and agreements, stop violating the rights of Palestinians, stop its incessant attacks on its neighbors, stop its ethnic cleansing and illegal colonization of the Golan Heights and the Occupied Palestinian territories, give up its expansionist ambitions and withdraw to the 1949 armistice boundary, declare its borders, and become a state for all its citizens. That would be a good start.
Huuum, this again. Now just what year did Iraq become a country? Don’t you ever tire of these bogus legitamacy arguments?
Oh, while I’m at it don’t forget Palestine is the name the Romans give to Israel after they occupied it, so maybe the Italians ought to run it. The reasoning here is outrageous. Let’s just invent a whole new ethnology…Kosovar-ethnic-Albanians, that was a good one…Chiconos governing Atzlan…ethnic Chicagoeans colonizing central Florida…the possibilities are endless. Show me one sq ft of land that’s never been conquered.
…..Oh, while I’m at it don’t forget Palestine is the name the Romans give to Israel after they occupied it, so maybe the Italians ought to run it…..
Excellent point. I have said many times that as an Italian with Roman roots, I have more right to live in Palestine, along with other Mediterranean peoples, than do Jews from Eastern Europe and especially American Jews from Eastern Europe, who have no connection, whatsoever, to the land.
To paraphrase Netanyahu, “is war with Iran and Iraq good for the Americans?” $3.5 trillion depreciated fiat dollars so far (including the long term medical expenses for the currently wounded and interest on the borrowed monies ) amazingly the costs are going up faster than the fiat dollar is depreciating. On top of this set of expenses to be carried on the backs of the few remaining productive Americans, the democrats are proposing a new tax bill that would add another $3.5 trillion on your backs and that does not address the current war cost at all.
Now let me digress for a moment to the more local, property taxes, as the mortgage crisis leaves more and more homes in foreclosure and with walk-away owners, where do the localities get the money to pay for their local expenditures? If you guessed by raising taxes instead of cutting expenditures you guessed correctly. And if some of you think that holding gold or siver will insulate you from any part of these forthcoming wonders, I urge you to remember that the first thing every government does in times of worry is confiscate those things of real value that people believe in more than they believe in the promises of thieves and brigands.
The European Union, and in particular Italy, came to the assistance of thousands of Italian-Argentinians when the Argentine currency collapsed. Italian-Americans who meet the requirement for EU citizenship and want a future for their kids should be in line at their nearest consulate, family paperwork in hand, so they can get over here quick.
Shirin,
You said: “Attempts to present the Arab-Zionist/Arab-Israel conflict as based on a two thousand year old grudge are completely and demonstrably fallacious.”
I did not mean to indicate that the present insecurity of Israeli people is a consequence of two thousand year old grudge. Israeli people, as Jewish people feel insecure because of their experience throughout the history where ever they have lived. They have migrated or forced to migrate in every corner of the glob. Perhaps, they are not unique in this aspect. Some Israelis argue that they have been discriminated against in every country. This point is a questionable argument. They have stood out of the main stream societies to keep their Jewish identies. This is not true of many other people! In Israel marriage between a Jew and a non-Jew is not recognized.
If any group of people deserves special rights, should be the Native Americans.
Non-Hebrew Semitic people have not always been called Arabs. The regional population is a mixture of Aryan (Iranian, Greeks, Romans, French and Africans)-Semitic people, mixing throughout the history. “European Zionist colonization of Palestine” has been indicated as a reward for Jewish support against Germany during the World War II. Stalin offered Zionist a homeland in Balkans, but based on their history, they wanted the present land.
What can be done now? Peace conference on November 27 conference in Annapolis has already started with a continuous issues. Rifts between Israel and Palestinians ahead of a US peace meeting are such that the sides can’t even agree on what to call their joint declaration. The conference has excluded Iran; this is a great strategic mistake!
Correction:
Non-Hebrew Semitic people have not always been called Arabs. The regional population is a mixture of many people, such as Aryan (Iranian, Greeks, Romans, French)Africans)and Semitic people, mixing throughout the history.
What can be done now? Peace conference on November 27 conference in Annapolis has already started with contentious issues. Rifts between Israel and Palestinians ahead of a US peace meeting are such that the sides can’t even agree on what to call their joint declaration. The conference has excluded Iran; this is a great strategic mistake!
democrats hate ron paul because he is pro life. republicans hate him because he is anti war.
the rest is just stuff. seriously.
and the main reason people are leaving the dems to go over to pauls side is the stalinist groupthink at places like DU and daily kos. it’s no wonder that dems have blown it already with a base that behaves like that.
paul and kucinich voted AGAINST the war. what more information do you need? Why would you even consider voting for someone who voted us into this quagmire?
mudkitty- yes AIPAC is by their own admission largely unopposed in lobbying for foreign policy stuff. look at any of their press releases from the time of the iraq war, they read like a bush speech.
Whatever anyones interprettation of the history of that region, israels problems are israels. ours are ours and they are not the same.
st michael traveler- “The modern Zionist is not any different than our own occupation of the Native American land. It has happened!”
we fought the native americans for hundreds of years. I doubt anyone here begrudges them for wanting to hold on to their land. if they decided to mount another war we would have to fight them once again. law of the jungle is the only law that counts. the israeli “pilgrims” are surrounded by abillion angry “native americans”. our ancestors wouldn’t have survived those odds and i seriously doubt the israelis will.
Lester,
I agree with your message “Israel’s problems are Israelis. Ours are ours and they are not the same.”
America, please come back home.
I said earlier: “Should we spend our national resources in these areas, rather than as bribe money to some ungrateful nations? Charity starts at home, our own USA, then to the nearest neighbor Mexico.
Our nation has paid a huge price following AIPAC, the Israeli Lobby, going to war in Iraq. Our representative should hear our people, America First, please.
We have great national problems: large educational loans, lack of technical professional jobs (Who can make a living on working at fast food places?), losing our industrial base, unmaintained infrastructures. Politicians who only can survive if they follow the rules of AIPAC or not get elected! Our printed press, TV and radio being owned by “profit” only corporations, some not American, and healthcare that leave many untreated.
Walk through the back places in our America, poverty, uninsured, and then decide who you are going to vote for.
America, please come back home.
“the government isn’t the solution, the govermment is the problem” -Ronald Reagan
st michael- I agree about the need to be free from AIPACS evil clutches, but the there is no one part of the government that is good as opposed to another. they are all beaurocrats unaccounatable to the things you and I are accountable for at our jobs. things like competency and , yes, turning a profit. all the politicians and pundits should go get real jobs.
and don’t tell me about “we need the government for…” the government is simply spending OUR money. WE are paying for the things we have not them. they are just spending it usually in the most insane mismanaged way possible like fighting countries that arne’t a threat to us and subsidizing thing s we don’t use.
Shirin,
“At this time, Iran is the bogy man. But, Iran has never been a bogy man for Israel.”
Isreal creates the bogy man. It is the figment of her imagination. Since creation of Isreal in the modern time, Iran has used back doord to support Israel. Even today, Israel owes Iranian people over 2.5 bilion dollars and some interests.
Leslie, thankyou for your article. All kinds of plausible outcomes, be it some fantastic.
What happens is all important and it is that which is devoid of reason, honour and morality. Though your arguments are compelling, I wonder if anyone is listening in corridors of power. The voice of sanity has become a hollow echo of what could have been.