It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Ron Paul Warns Congress on Iran: A Vote For Sanctions is a Vote For War

page: 1
4

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 22 2010 @ 09:56 PM
link   

Ron Paul Warns Congress on Iran: A Vote For Sanctions is a Vote For War


www.ethiopianreview.com

I object to this entire push for war on Iran, however it is disguised. Listening to the debate on the Floor on this motion and the underlying bill it feels as if we are back in 2002 all over again: the same falsehoods and distortions used to push the United States into a disastrous and unnecessary one trillion dollar war on Iraq are being trotted out again to lead us to what will likely be an even more disastrous and costly war onIran. The parallels are astonishing.
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Apr, 22 2010 @ 09:56 PM
link   
GO DR.PAUL! He is absolutely right, the U.S. scare-mongering... releasing reports that Iran will be a direct threat to us within a year and so on. Just stalling enough time and hyping it up to make it seem we must strike now or it will be too late.


When will they realize that the Americans and the other citizens of allies, know better now and won't be able to shove another war down our throats.


www.ethiopianreview.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

[edit on 22-4-2010 by Rentor]

[edit on 22-4-2010 by Rentor]



posted on Apr, 22 2010 @ 10:10 PM
link   
This situation is not like quite like iraq.

For starters, pushing for sanctions is a diplomatic approach to an international problem. In 2002, most of the world was content to apply diplomatic pressure against Sadam Hussein, they were divided on whether to use force.

Second, Sadam Hussein did not have any nuclear or chemical capabilities. Iran on the other hand is boasting of its progress in enriching uranium.

Finally, in 2002 Sadam Hussein was contained. He may have not been the most benevolent leader in the history of the world, but in 2002 he was not a threat to the greater Middle East. Iran on the other hand is exerting influence all over the Middle East. Iran is arming Hezbollah in Lebanon and Shi'ite insurgents in Iraq.



posted on Apr, 22 2010 @ 10:25 PM
link   
reply to post by hotpinkurinalmint
 


Well that is indeed true, but can this just be propaganda or really be true? How would we know
Its not like we were there.When was the last time Iran invaded a country? I mean don't get me wrong, it might be correct to strike Iran. But I wouldn't do it,unless were 100% that Iran WILL STRIKE OR CAUSE CHAOS IN THE MIDDLE EAST. Same as a person in a fight, someone will say "I am gonna kill ya" but doesn't really mean they meant it. Well okay sometimes it can


[edit on 22-4-2010 by Rentor]



posted on Apr, 22 2010 @ 11:13 PM
link   
Dr.Paul has consistently demonstrated common sense and wisdom. I wish more American politicians would emulate him and actually pay attention to what he has to say. It doesn't matter what kind of posturing Iran may be doing right now, what really matters is that we do not need World War 3. I've said this before. Israel should be held accountable for its possession of WMD and be sanctioned to reduce and sign the NPT. That is the only acceptable solution to signal everyone involved that they have peaceful intentions. Any other course of action only indicates that they are not just protecting themselves from what happened in World War 2 but indeed are planning to cause World War 3.



posted on Apr, 22 2010 @ 11:17 PM
link   
He got a lot of support......

















[edit on 23-4-2010 by CanadianDream420]



posted on Apr, 22 2010 @ 11:20 PM
link   



For starters, pushing for sanctions is a diplomatic approach to an international problem.


Stiff sanctions put onto ANY country is most certainly considered an act of war. Crippling a nation's economy through blockades or sanctions is considered an act of war. Japan bombed the US for it and also North Korea has even stated publicly, sanctions were to be considered an act of war when they were under fire.



Second, Sadam Hussein did not have any nuclear or chemical capabilities.


Irrelevent... The Bush admin touted day and night that Saddam had "weapons of mass destruction" and or chemical weapons. Once the invasion had occurred, they found no such weapons and just stated the war was against Al Qaeda who had infiltrated Iraq.


[edit on 22-4-2010 by AzoriaCorp]



new topics

top topics



 
4

log in

join