PDA

View Full Version : Bombed if you do, bombed if you don't


Taco John
12-10-2007, 04:12 PM
Bombed if you do, Bombed if you Don't
by Ron Paul


The latest National Intelligence Estimate has been greeted by a mixture of relief and alarm. As I have been saying all along, Iran indeed poses no quantifiable imminent nuclear threat to us or her neighbors. It is with much alarm, however, that we see the administration continue to ratchet up the war rhetoric as if nothing has changed.

Indeed nothing has changed from the administration's perspective, as they have had this latest intelligence report for some time. Only this week has it been made known to the public. They want it both ways with Iran. On the one hand, they discredit the report entirely, despite it being one of the most comprehensive intelligence reports on the subject, with over 1,000 source notes in the document. On the other hand, when discrediting it fails, they claim that the timing of the abandonment of the weapons program, just as we were invading Iraq, means our pressure must have worked, so we must keep it up with a new round of even tougher sanctions. Russia and China are not buying this, apparently, and again we are finding ourselves on a lonely tenuous platform on the world stage.

The truth is Iran is being asked to do the logically impossible feat of proving a negative. They are being presumed guilty until proven innocent because there is no evidence with which to indict them. There is still no evidence that Iran, a signatory of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, has ever violated the treaty's terms and the terms clearly state that Iran is allowed to pursue nuclear energy for peaceful, civilian energy needs. The United States cannot unilaterally change the terms of the treaty, and it is unfair and unwise diplomatically to impose sanctions for no legitimate reason.

Are we to think that Iran hasn't noticed the duplicitous treatment being received by so-called nuclear threats around the globe? If they have been paying attention, and I think they have, they would see that if countries do have a nuclear weapon, they tend to be left alone, or possibly get a subsidy, but if they do not gain such a weapon then we threaten them. Why wouldn't they want to pursue a nuclear weapon if that is our current foreign policy? The fact remains, there is no evidence they actually have one, or could have one any time soon, even if they immediately resumed a weapons program.

Our badly misguided foreign policy has already driven this country's economy to the brink of bankruptcy with one war based on misinformation. It is unthinkable that despite lack of any evidence of a threat, some are still charging headstrong into yet another war in the Middle East when what we ought to be doing is coming home from Iraq, coming home from Korea, coming home from Germany and defending our own soil. We do not need to be interfering in the internal affairs of other countries and waging war when honest trade, friendship, and diplomacy are the true paths to peace and prosperity.


http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2007/tst120907.htm

patteeu
12-10-2007, 04:40 PM
Bombed if you do, Bombed if you Don't
by Ron Paul


The latest National Intelligence Estimate has been greeted by a mixture of relief and alarm. As I have been saying all along, Iran indeed poses no quantifiable imminent nuclear threat to us or her neighbors. It is with much alarm, however, that we see the administration continue to ratchet up the war rhetoric as if nothing has changed.

As Dick Cheney made clear in his Politico interview, nothing really has changed. The efforts underway to deter Iran have been aimed at their overt uranium enrichment program which continues unabated.

Indeed nothing has changed from the administration's perspective, as they have had this latest intelligence report for some time. Only this week has it been made known to the public. They want it both ways with Iran. On the one hand, they discredit the report entirely, despite it being one of the most comprehensive intelligence reports on the subject, with over 1,000 source notes in the document. On the other hand, when discrediting it fails, they claim that the timing of the abandonment of the weapons program, just as we were invading Iraq, means our pressure must have worked, so we must keep it up with a new round of even tougher sanctions. Russia and China are not buying this, apparently, and again we are finding ourselves on a lonely tenuous platform on the world stage.

The NIE was released with very little delay. What Ron Paul is misleadingly talking about is that the President was informed of some of the conflicting intelligence a while back. At the time he directed the CIA to fully develop the new intelligence and see how it fits into the entire intel picture. David Ignatius, on Hardball with Chris Matthews, suggested that this actually speaks well of Bush in that he let the intel community process the information methodically without trying to influence results and without reacting in a knee jerk way in terms of policy. He called it a non-story.

As for being lonely on a tenuous platform on the world stage, I don't really think that Russia and China are the end all be all of our world audience. I posted a thread earlier today that indicates that the British are upset with the NIE because they believe it's wrong and France has continued to express interest in pursuing more extensive sanctions.

The truth is Iran is being asked to do the logically impossible feat of proving a negative. They are being presumed guilty until proven innocent because there is no evidence with which to indict them. There is still no evidence that Iran, a signatory of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, has ever violated the treaty's terms and the terms clearly state that Iran is allowed to pursue nuclear energy for peaceful, civilian energy needs. The United States cannot unilaterally change the terms of the treaty, and it is unfair and unwise diplomatically to impose sanctions for no legitimate reason.

No, they are being asked to stop their uranium enrichment activities and open their books to inspectors to make sure that parallel programs are not in place. That the NPT is not necessarily being violated by these enrichment activities is irrelevant. As far as I'm concerned, they violated the NPT with their weapons program that our NIE says was probably halted in 2003 so we have no reason to be comfortable with the original agreement.

Are we to think that Iran hasn't noticed the duplicitous treatment being received by so-called nuclear threats around the globe? If they have been paying attention, and I think they have, they would see that if countries do have a nuclear weapon, they tend to be left alone, or possibly get a subsidy, but if they do not gain such a weapon then we threaten them. Why wouldn't they want to pursue a nuclear weapon if that is our current foreign policy? The fact remains, there is no evidence they actually have one, or could have one any time soon, even if they immediately resumed a weapons program.

The same reason applies to why it's important that we don't allow them to get nuclear weapons. Once they do, the game changes and it doesn't change to our advantage.

HonestChieffan
12-10-2007, 04:49 PM
More proof that Rons idea of reality is somewhere between Lubbock and Levelland. The good news is he can still get back to the mothership for the weekend.

Iowanian
12-10-2007, 05:09 PM
Israel will take care of it when the threat is great enough...and since they've been outright threatened with a Nuke by the Iranian pres, they're within they're right to do so.

Iran sucks....almost as much as ronpaul fanbois

Chocolate Hog
12-10-2007, 05:12 PM
More proof that Rons idea of reality is somewhere between Lubbock and Levelland. The good news is he can still get back to the mothership for the weekend.


Yea back in 2002 his view of Iraq would have been considered crazy by most too.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=OenXhQvgYwo

Cochise
12-10-2007, 05:29 PM
Israel will take care of it when the threat is great enough...and since they've been outright threatened with a Nuke by the Iranian pres, they're within they're right to do so.

Iran sucks....almost as much as ronpaul fanbois

Hopefully so. I'd be all in favor of us assisting them in whatever way possible - intelligence, resources - if they were willing to do it.

I halfway wonder if we were the ones who blew up that nuclear facility in Syria and Israel just agreed to say it was them.

wazu
12-11-2007, 12:04 AM
Yea back in 2002 his view of Iraq would have been considered crazy by most too.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=OenXhQvgYwo

Great video. It's embarrassing to me to think I probably would have been throwing rotten tomatoes at the T.V. if I had watched this in 2002. (Note: that's just an expression. I don't keep rotten tomatoes lying around my T.V. room for such occassions.)