Originally posted by apodictic
reply to post by CaptChaos
How many bong hits did that one take?
Originally posted by TupacShakur
reply to post by MrWendal
Ron Pauls ideas are "dangerous"....what's dangerous is going to war over delusions that Iran is going to nuke us because they're trying to develop some energy. What's dangerous is not following the Constitution, and passing Orwellian legislation like the NDAA, Patriot Act, and having TSA checkpoints, all of which violate the Constitution. What's dangerous is allowing drug cartels to continue to rake in billions each year. What's dangerous is letting a central bank operate in total secrecy, and manipulate our currency from behind the scenes.
Following the Constitution and using common sense? That's only dangerous if you're brainwashed into believing whatever propaganda the TV tells you.
You got me now. Ron Paul is an idiot. He's not a general, never was. I was. I don't talk too much. I don't write well. I was a general once. Some of the things he says I can agree with, but for the most part he's a buffoon. He' just some thing to distract a third of the people. He's succeeding. Ron Paul doesn't have a chance. If he could get some military people to come up alongside him, maybe he'd do better. I clean a local American Legion, it's one of my side jobs.
Then my Mom made me come in the house because it was getting dark out. Mom's just don't understand military
leadership.
Why cant' it be avoided by Iran looking at how the situation looks from the USA and Europe??
Originally posted by jonnywhite
reply to post by MrWendal
This link (about system justification) backs up some of the assertions in the OPs linked article:
www.psychologicalscience.o rg ...
Namely that, by threatening Iran, we're actually emboldening them to be strong and defeat any internal dissent. It encourages them to defend themselves. The article I linked actually gave Operation Iraqi Freedom as an example when it compares how 9/11 emboldened americans and strengthened their resolve to unite in defense of the country (the system). The danger of this is that the Iranian hardliners could use these sanctions and the (supposedly incoming?) oil embargo to support their anti-israel and war-friendly plans. So it could all explode in our faces.
The problem is that appeasement, generally, doesn't work. So what do we do? Justice has to have a bite. Iran can't just build nuclear weapons and at the same time declare that Israel must be wiped off the map. Nor can they fight a proxy war in Iraq against the US. Nor they can they fight a proxy war via Hamas/Hezbollah against Israel. Iran must join the international community on friendly terms. Otherwise, they will be bitten. Sadly, we might not be able to prevent this war because of the information given by the OP and clarified further in the linked article I posted.
Here's how it works folks:
1) We impose sanctions and cause Iran to unite and ignite a war in defiance. Result: War.
2) We do nothing and sit back until Iran builds nukes and attacks Israel. Result: War.
We have seen no indication of the 3rd option:
1) Iran stops building nukes, stops fighting proxy wars against Israel and the west, stops supporting organizations that have performed terrorism, and joins the international community.
We're forced to impose sanctions, basically. We cannot escape war.
Both cases result in war. Get it? It seems to be this whole issue is being distorted by Ron Paul. Mark my word, if we had not imposed sanctions and allowed Iran to continue its plans then Ron Paul would be saying we should sanction Iran, otherwise war will break out! He'd turn all of this around to claim the administration is wrong! He's right! Ron Paul is about Ron Paul.edit on 5-1-2012 by jonnywhite because: (no reason given)
