War or Peace: Iran, the Straight of Hormuz and America’s Dilemma
- Posted on December 29, 2011 at 11:29am by
Becket Adams
- Print »
- Email »
War or peace?
When it comes to Iran and its threat to close the Strait of Hormuz, the United States might only have two options: war or higher oil prices. And while one analyst believes war may actually be cheaper, this hardly seems like a preferable alternative to an increase in oil prices.
But before we go any further, a brief review is in order. The following statement is from Agence France Presse:
No oil will be permitted to pass through the key oil transit Strait of Hormuz if the West applies sanctions on Iran’s oil exports, Iranian Vice President Mohammad Reza Rahimi warned on Tuesday.
The threat was reported by the state news agency IRNA as Iran conducted navy wargames near the Strait of Hormuz, at the entrance of the oil-rich Gulf.
“If sanctions are adopted against Iranian oil, not a drop of oil will pass through the Strait of Hormuz,” Rahimi was quoted as saying.
“We have no desire for hostilities or violence… but the West doesn’t want to go back on its plan” to impose sanctions, he said.
“The enemies will only drop their plots when we put them back in their place,” he said.
Translation: if the U.S. attempts to impose sanctions on Iran for advancing its nuclear program, Iran will sever a vital artery for transporting massive amounts of the world’s oil supply.
[Editor's note: Of course, if Iran abandoned the idea of annihilating Israel and discontinued its nuclear weapons programme, the U.S. wouldn't be threatening to impose sanctions. But keep in mind that it's not the aim of this article to discuss the "right" or "wrong" of American intervention in Iran's pursuit of nuclear power. We'll save that debate for a different day. The purpose of this article is to discuss the possibility of Iran closing a critical trading route and America's likely response.]
John Ransom of Townhall explains the implications of Iran closing the strait:
According to the Center for Strategic and International Studies, 40 percent of the world’s oil supply, or 17 million barrels per day, travels through the Strait of Hormuz. And while alternate routes can be found to ship oil, the alternate routes can only carry about one-third of the oil that would normally go through the Straits or about 5 million barrels per day. The supply deficit would be about 12 million barrels per day- or two thirds of the entire daily demand by the United States of about 18-19 million barrels.
If Iran keeps its promise and cuts off an estimated 12 million barrels of oil per day, don’t be surprised if the price of crude approaches (or surpasses) $250-300 per barrel.
Recall that because of the civil war in Libya, Brent North Sea Crude went from about $95 per barrel in February and peaked at about $125 before settling down to its current spot price of around $108. And that was only 1 million barrels of oil supply per day taken out of circulation
Now imagine if Iran actually closes the strait. What does this mean?
Ransom explains:
9 million barrels at $250 per barrel comes to about $2.2 billion per day. If you add a similar increase to domestic prices, you can add another $2 billion per day to the energy costs of the country or about 30 percent of our entire current GDP, which of course would shrink dramatically.
If oil prices rise even a fraction of the scenario that I have sketched out, that won’t just be economic stagflation as we witnessed starting in the spring, that’ll be economic implosion of the worst order. Think of inflation in the mid-to-high teens and unemployment shooting straight up past ten percent nationally.
That’s a best-case scenario. It could produce a world-wide Weimar Republic, with hyper-inflation; the last straw of the banking system that we have in place right now, which not coincidentally is made mostly of straw.
How can the U.S. avoid this type of economic disaster?
In the past, the U.S. has relied on the Navy’s 5th Fleet to keep the strait open rather than see the price of oil skyrocket. However, this may not be as easy or financially feasible as it was in the past.
“[This] isn’t 1987 or 1990. The stakes are pretty high with instability in the Gulf states…especially after America left Iraq with a power vacuum,” Ransom points out. “Look for Iran to press its advantage because they have boots on the ground and we do not.”
Indeed, if this is more than just saber-rattling and Iran is serious about closing the strait, it would seem the U.S. only has two options: take up arms against Iran or suffer the economic consequences.
If the U.S. decides to make a show of force, it could turn into a war on land in Syria, Lebanon and Egypt if not Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Kuwait “with the U.S. on one side and Iran on the other.” America is in no position to finance a military operation of this magnitude. Moreover, and most importantly, nobody wants to go to war for oil.
However, the apparent alternative to armed conflict — to allow Iran to close the strait — is wholly unacceptable. With global markets already precariously balanced on the edge of collapse, many national economies would not be able to endure the absence of the high-demand commodity.
A handful of analysts have mentioned that the United States could temporarily fulfill its energy needs, and possibly avoid economic implosion, by tapping into its oil reserves. Although this is a definite possibility, one must remember that Europe does not have the luxury of an oil reserve safety net.
“Many EU nations have few natural resources at all. This makes them net importers of expensive commodities, which include oil and agricultural products,” writes Douglas A. McIntyre of 24/7 Wall St. ”These resources are not just expensive, they are also subject to sharp price increases, as commodity inflation earlier this year showed.”
He explains further:
The U.S. ranks seventh in the world in proven oil reserves, with 98 billion barrels. The EU ranks 24th with 5.1 billion — and the top country in continental Europe, based on national reserves, is Italy with 476 million barrels…the U.S. has a much greater ability to weather periods of tight commodity supplies or rapidly rising prices than countries within the EU.
Therefore, while America’s economy might be able to cope — albeit temporarily — with a sharp decrease in global oil supply, the EU’s would not. Europe’s already disastrous economic situation would be further exacerbated by an energy crisis and it would most likely result in total economic breakdown. And as discussed earlier on The Blaze, if the eurozone suffers a collapse, the consequences for the U.S. economy could be severe.
What is to be done?
On the one hand, the U.S. cannot afford for Iran to put a chokehold on the world’s oil supply. But on the other hand, the U.S. is in no position to finance a multinational war (not to mention the fact that another war in that region, especially one fought over trade routes, would be remarkably unpopular).
There’s got to be another way.
It would seem that the solution lies in energy independence. More than ever before, the U.S. must look for ways to scale back its addiction to foreign oil. Unless the United States enjoys being subjected to the threats and whims of oftentimes hostile nations, especially ones that are feverishly engaged in what appears to be the development of nuclear weapons, it must invest in the cultivation of its own natural resources.
If America fails to do this, and the country continues to rely on belligerent sovereigns to fulfill its energy needs, it will keep getting itself into situations where it has to ask: “Would I rather stab myself in the eye or shoot myself in the foot?”
Read Ransom’s entire analysis here.
[Editor's note: This article, including its headline, has been updated for clarity.]
Popular Stories
Paper Details Obama Admin’s Alleged Secret Note Sent to Iran: If Israel Attacks, We Won’t Get Involved 591 Comments
This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 416 Comments
‘Made Up Religion’: TV Historian Enrages Muslims, Receives Threats After Producing UK Documentary Questioning Islam’s Beginnings 415 Comments
President Obama Issues Major ‘Green Energy’ Executive Order 379 Comments
Roseanne Barr: Most Billionaires ‘Violent Pedophiles’ & ‘Heartless’ Cocaine Addicts 376 Comments
Faith
- This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 416 Comments
Pakistani Muslim Cleric Accused of Framing Disabled Christian Girl in Koran-Burning Case Read More- ‘Made Up Religion’: TV Historian Enrages Muslims, Receives Threats After Producing UK Documentary Questioning Islam’s Beginnings 415 Comments
Meet the Controversial German Imam Accused of Brutally Beating His Wife & Pushing Sharia Law Read More
‘Self-Proclaimed Messiah’ & Unification Church Leader the Rev. Sun Myung Moon Has Died — Here’s His Life Story Read More
Business
- President Obama Issues Major ‘Green Energy’ Executive Order 379 Comments
- Germany’s Upcoming Court Ruling Will be Huge for the EU Read More
Ford Looks to Beat Toyota for Best-Selling Car in 2012 With This Model 151 Comments
Bernanke & QE3: Here’s What You Need to Know 100 Comments- ‘Extortion’: Why Did the Labor Department ‘Drop the Hammer’ on Oregon Farmers? 303 Comments
Technology
- This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 416 Comments
‘TaserDrone’: Hackers Weaponize Quadcopter With Actual ‘Shocking’ Technology Read More
Ever Heard of the Wild ‘Burning Man’ Festival in the Middle of the Nev. Desert? Here’s Your Primer Read More
Stanford Develops Technology ‘Better Than Steroids’ for Athlete Recovery Read More
Have You Pretended to Know What ‘the Cloud’ Is? You’re Not Alone Read More
Submitting your tip... please wait!
Comments (284)
cemerius
Posted on December 29, 2011 at 12:17pmThis middle east wide war has been overdue since the Ottoman empire collapsed!
The soldier, above all other people, prays for peace, for he must suffer and bear the deepest wounds and scars of war.” Douglas MacArthur
Report Post »Vechorik
Posted on December 29, 2011 at 12:21pmSince when was money taken into consideration before war?
Report Post »What are we up to in the Middle East? — 15 trillion or so?
Snowleopard {gallery of cat folks}
Posted on December 29, 2011 at 12:37pmCemerius — Obama wants any excuse to see us into another war for his own agenda. And now the Iranian govt is giving him the excuse for war and martial law and dictatorship at home.
Report Post »techengineer11
Posted on December 29, 2011 at 12:38pmAnd the cost of the Iranian women and children slaughtered by bombs dropped from the stratosphere? Or the cost of our loved ones that are taking out in one of our local malls by some Arab with anger in their heart due to what we’ve been doing in the Middle East over the past 60 years? Ah yes we all love War as long as the bombs are falling over there.. We are going to be outraged when there is a retalliation or blow back… It’s going to be like what?? These radical Islamist animals!! How dare they.. They are after us because they hate our freedom.. they hate our values.. they hate us because we defend little satan.. or they hate for hate’s sake? lol
You ignorant inbred anti American anti Constitution Israel first Neo-Cons make me sick to my stomach with all of your treachery!
Report Post »Bluefish49
Posted on December 29, 2011 at 12:39pmEveryone must remember…we have a president that said he wanted to see the cost of gasoline go off the charts….so he can push his “Green Energy Platform” full steam ahead.
Report Post »Obama_Sham
Posted on December 29, 2011 at 12:48pm@Techeng
Wow, you have really gobbled up the paul propaganda… “What we have done the last 60 years”?… Now that is funny… Do you really think that all of these problems started for us, a mere 60 years ago? No need to answer… I understand that your MESSIAH has said this, so it must be true…
I do not know why I am responding to you… You will not acknowledge anything other than what the RP bandwagon tells you to acknowledge… From certain point of view, you are exactly like the obamabots, the caininites, the bachmannesses, the romneytards, the gingricos, et. al.
Report Post »LibertariansUnite
Posted on December 29, 2011 at 12:51pmI like how we are not taking into consideration the lives of the Iranians who merely want to live day to day.
Of course, the blazers simply pulled out their Bible and thought, “what would Jesus do?”.
Duh, slaughter millions for more money.
This is a disgusting article coming from people who claim “Christianity”.
Report Post »carbonyes
Posted on December 29, 2011 at 1:06pmDo we not yet see the importance of energy independence after sitting on our hands for over 30 years. The suckers who have stood in the way of drilling and nuclear energy should be tried for treason, for their actions and inactions have now basically put us in a straight jacket and in grave danger. The EPA should be dismantled completely – immediately. If the Department of Energy gets in the way, they need to be dismantled too. Drilling operations should be implemented in the gulf, Alaska, Dakotas, etc. Nuclear power plant permits should be issued. Tell Obama to shove his green energy failed adventures where the sun doesn’t shine. No holds can be barred in seeing that not only is Obama sent home in November 2012, but full scale investigations commenced into him and his administration, including his perpetration of fraud upon the American people by sealing all his records, and further that he be prosecuted for whatever criminal and/or treasonous acts that he may have in any way been involved.
Report Post »Congress needs to get some balls and backbone. There are those in both Houses that have also been involved in criminal, and/or treasonous acts, and they also need to face justice.
iblvingd
Posted on December 29, 2011 at 1:07pmThe money monger Central Banks and Rothchilds have been the core of every war. When the economies aren‘t doing well or things don’t go as planned, they will still make money with a war. History just keeps repeating itself.
Report Post »FreedomPurveyor
Posted on December 29, 2011 at 1:08pm“From certain point of view, you are exactly like the obamabots, the caininites, the bachmannesses, the romneytards, the gingricos, et. al.”
So basically, if you support anyone, you are brainwashed in some manner? Interesting perspective.
Report Post »GhostOfJefferson
Posted on December 29, 2011 at 1:14pm@LibertariansUnite
Exactly. As I recall, a great many Iranians, especially the youth, are pro-Western Liberty and hate the Iranian government and were actively protesting it. They get bombed too, oh boy oh boy, aren’t we grand for killing people who have not attacked us first.
Report Post »carbonyes
Posted on December 29, 2011 at 1:14pm@OBAMA_SHAM, agree with you that TECHENGINEER is off the wall, but who do you suggest is going to help pull us out of this mess in November 2012?
Report Post »FreedomPurveyor
Posted on December 29, 2011 at 1:20pm“I like how we are not taking into consideration the lives of the Iranians who merely want to live day to day.”
Of course not. Citizens’ desire “to live day to day” does not excuse the actions of their nation.
I presume you think Neville Chamberlain was right to negotiate with Hitler, out of respect for the German and Japanese citizens who just wanted to “live day to day” (at the expense of the Jews, the French, the British, the Czechs, the Russians, and the Chinese)? Mark my words, Ahmadinejad will be the Hitler of our time.
Report Post »Buck Shane
Posted on December 29, 2011 at 1:23pmThis is a biased article. It’s predefined conclusion is that the US should drill here. While this article has an agenda, I agree that we should exploit our domestic oil and gas and complete the Keystone Pipeline.
Report Post »This article is incorrect about a number of things. The cost of oil will not go to $250 dollars per barrel.
We would not have to have a war with Iran to prevent them from closing the Straight. If we wanted to, we could break Iran at minimum cost. I am prepared to argue any of my points, but I will be away on business until late tomorrow. If you disagree with me, think it through. You might see things differently than the conclusions reached in this article.
techengineer11
Posted on December 29, 2011 at 1:24pmObama_Sham
Posted on December 29, 2011 at 12:48pm
@Techeng
I don‘t think I’ve been brainwashed. I‘m angry because I believe that many so called Conservatives are being led astray away from our Founder’s spirit and their Constitution. I’m willing to debate and reason with you over facts. Or even assertions. Justify your positions.
I’ll concede the point that I believe Islam is evil and that it has evil intentions. I can even go back to their prophet and the spread of Islam through by the sword… I’ll give you that. They started it in my opinion. But look we’ve got to have a modern day starting point you know and I say that should be the early 20th century.
When was the last time a Muslim country invaded a Western nation? I’m not that up on it but I suspect it was the Ottoman empire. Regardless we have not been in the Middle East out of fear of an Islamic invasion.. Hell our immigration policy since 1964 is invitin them to come live among us? Are you crazy? lol All of this fear of Islam by the Neo-Con but you back an immigration policy which invites your destruction?
Report Post »No, this is about oil. And it has been about oil since the end of WW1. We have been meddling non stop over their since the early 20th century and they have a right to be angry at us. We need to get the hell out of there and stay out. If we have energy problems we need to solve them ourselves. It’s not our place to force our values on anyone else whatever those values are today.
motonutt
Posted on December 29, 2011 at 1:26pmIn light of this we should be seeking and drilling for oil everywhere we can find it. Converting everything we can over to natural gas, etc., etc.
Report Post »But the sad truth of it will be the “green” movement will hamstring us with their fascist enviromentalist Godless agenda. We are putting up windmills all over the country at a time when we should be drilling, drilling, and more drilling.
I can remember as a kid growing up in Los Angeles in the 60′s, there were oil wells everywhere still pumping oil left over from the WWII era…..If we found oil we went after it, we didn’t depend on buying it from the rag heads. We need to get back to that way of thinking……and quickly
Captain77
Posted on December 29, 2011 at 1:30pmSo why don’t we just treat Iran as a sovereign nation and quit telling it what it can or cannot develop. We have thousands of nuclear weapons, Israel has over 400 nuclear weapons, should Iran try to do anything with one they may or may not develop, they would be turned to glass by Israel alone. We know this and Iran knows this. In Irans eyes, this just levels the playing field where right now Israel has an immense advantage. Don’t take this as an endorsement of Iran, more so an endorsement of America saving itself by not interfering with all the craziness of the world. We aren’t the worlds police!
Report Post »recoveringneocon
Posted on December 29, 2011 at 2:06pmI’m a little confused. If Iran closes the straights how will they import their gasoline. Do they have an army of “Volts” ?
Report Post »kaydeebeau
Posted on December 29, 2011 at 2:13pmOK, so let’s ask the aPaulogists to explain the diplomatic course that should be pursued with Iran. How exactly do all of those aPaulogists propose to negotiate with Iran? Don’t say sanctions ’cause Herr Dr already told us he wouldn’t impose any sanctions. Let’s bring this down to a practicle level – how do aPualogists negotiate proper behavior with your kids? Apparently you do not condone time outs or withdrawal of the XBox or cell phone or spanking or any other consequences. Apparently ignoring the behavior is the tact that should be taken. How does that work in the real world?
Report Post »FreedomPurveyor
Posted on December 29, 2011 at 2:18pm“So why don’t we just treat Iran as a sovereign nation and quit telling it what it can or cannot develop.”
The naivety of this new “let Iran have nukes” movement is palpable. Perhaps you have not read what Ahmadinejad has said, but he is absolutely committed to the destruction of Israel and the establishment of a world-wide Islamic Caliphate.
The thought process is flawed from the get go – “Maybe if we just let them have nukes and leave them alone, they won’t attack anyone. They really just want peace like everyone else.”
This is equivalent to Chamberlain’s thought process prior to WWII – “Maybe if we just let Hitler have the Sudentenland, he won’t attack anyone. He really just wants peace like everyone else.”
If he were President and let Iran get the nuke, I’m sure Dr. Paul would come out and infamously say, “I have achieved peace in our time,” just before Iran drops the big one right in the center of Jerusalem.
Report Post »Therightsofbilly
Posted on December 29, 2011 at 2:29pmRECOVERINGNEOCON Wrote:
Posted on December 29, 2011 at 2:06pm
“I’m a little confused. If Iran closes the straights how will they import their gasoline. Do they have an army of “Volts” ?”
They will let Gas Pass.
Report Post »FreedomPurveyor
Posted on December 29, 2011 at 2:35pm“I’m a little confused. If Iran closes the straights how will they import their gasoline. Do they have an army of “Volts” ?”
Iran, unlike us, has been working tirelessly to become energy independent. They were only importing 30% of their refined oil a few years ago, and now they claim to be 100% self-sufficient.
Report Post »kaydeebeau
Posted on December 29, 2011 at 2:40pm@ Tech…it is only about oil if you buy the left version of where the oil is (hint – we have more but aren’t allowed to use it) So if need for oil is the driving force I would suppose then that access to our own oil would eliminate all problems in the middle east that “we have caused” – so let’s test your little theory and just ignore the Iranian threat, drill our own oil, close all foregin military bases I will bet you my paycheck that not much changes exept that we are oil independant, ill-prepared for global calamity (how did having our whole fleet ensconced in one place ie Peal Harbor work) and will not have deterred the policies of Iran one little bit.
Report Post »ashestoashes
Posted on December 29, 2011 at 2:40pmI have a friend who is a former General..he told me that he regrets the wars that he was in..said the hardest part even now when he looks back on it and nearly cries because of all the young men who lost their lives..look at Viet Nam..58 thousand casualties and it turned out when said and done to be a blood money war in which Rockefellers sold weapons to the enemy and first Lady Bird Johnson made money selling medical supplies..also the Vietnamese didn’t want our interference and since getting out have become productive and trade with us.. Remember we have Christian brothers and sisters over there..a good number of Iranians are Christians..think the Christian pastor who was imprisoned because their school system forces Islam down the Christian school children’s throats..We need to go into prayer over this all..But we will not survive as a nation if we don’t stop this insane spending.God willing..we will find a way with our energy needs if we elect someone who is on our side this election..Ron Paul 2012!
Report Post »ashestoashes
Posted on December 29, 2011 at 2:53pmOBAMA_SHAM I resent you blaming Ron Paul for how Tech feels..Tech has always expressed contempt for the Jews.. I asked a German once why Germany hated the Jews and he said that it was because they got all the money..I don’t hate anyone..but I do see Tech’s point..There have been so many evil ones who came from that ethnicity..take for instance George Soros..who is an Atheist Jew but helped destroy his own brethren in Germany and said he enjoyed the power.. Then Elena Kegan who was I believe the head of the Harvard Law Review and promoting Sharia Law in the Middle East and was appointed by Obama as a Supreme Court Justice..the Rothchilds who are behind the federal reserve and for which men like John F Kennedy died for going against.. Cass Sunstein purportedly the most dangerous man in the US .The list goes on and on and they are in key points of our government and even the Vatican from my understanding..
Report Post »Don’t get me wrong..I will always stand with Israel..because they were God’s chosen..And I do hate Islam and Communism..that is why I stand by Constitution which was written by 5 or 6 men who had seminary or bible school degrees. It has the power to weed out the foreign theocracies…and that is why I will Vote Ron Paul 2012..
Obama_Sham
Posted on December 29, 2011 at 2:58pm@Carbonyes
I do not know who will pull us out of this mess… To me, NONE of the candidates are perfect… All of them have fatal flaws… I would like to be able to takes pieces of each candidate and make my own candidate…
I just find it humorous how people will regurgitate the talking points of their candidate while attacking every other candidate… At the same time, not acknowledging their own candidates inadequacies… Does anyone remember 2008? Does anyone remember the “tinkle up my leg” addicts? Well, the other candidates of 2012 have their own addicts as well…
Report Post »LibertariansUnite
Posted on December 29, 2011 at 2:59pm@FREEDOMPURVEYOR
This assumption is ridiculous.
So basically these people are expendable because Iranians live differently than Americans.
The US has multiple bases surrounding Iran, and daily we talk about “ensuring they do not have a nuclear weapon”.
Why is it hard to fathom, that they feel threatened?
Furthermore, considering the US is broke and we do not have resources, exactly how are we going to conduct this war? Also, if China and Russia side with Iran, who exactly would be starting World War III? Ron Paul and his “crazy naive diplomatic” stance? Or the warmongerers?
Of course, to add to all of these, I guarantee your an armchair patriot who has not seen one day in the US military let alone deployment. If you want a war with Iran, you go do so. Stop telling my brothers in service that they need to die so you can fill at the pump for less.
So no, deciding who gets to die for a resource advantage is not ethical by any means, and not something a free nation should be engaging in. Those are things Empires do.
Report Post »scheduler
Posted on December 29, 2011 at 3:02pmWell it gets us cheaper oil in the end.
http://politicalbowl.com – Political Videos
Report Post »ashestoashes
Posted on December 29, 2011 at 3:03pm@OBAMA_SHAM In case you didn’t get the memo ..Ron Paul is the ONLY Congressman to vote for Israel’s right to bomb Iran..
Report Post »Ron Paul does not support sending our tax dollars to anyone.
Our Presidents have sent ten times more of our tax dollars to Israel’s enemies than to Israel
The ones running against Paul still support
the UN
Intervention
policing the world
The Patriot Act
and crashing our economy with foreign nation building
Ron Paul recognizes Israel’s right to exist as a nation and will let her defend herself..Bush didn’t
In case you haven’t heard we are on the brink of being 17.5 trillion in the hole just to keep the gov running..Can you say UN? Can you say Marshall Law? Can you say FEMA CAMPS?
cemerius
Posted on December 29, 2011 at 3:10pmThe “middle east war” I was referencing wasn’t exactly the USA involved. I am talking about the TOTAL unrest of the Middle East, they have NEVER been happy with the British sectioning off territories like they did! Taken for example that if we went regionally North Eastern Iraq and half of Turkey would be Kurdistan! Of course my second sentence was ignored completely and no truer words were spoken by the late Gen Douglas McArthur….
Report Post »Obama_Sham
Posted on December 29, 2011 at 3:14pm@Ashes
Oh boy… You really need to put down the RP kool-aid… I’m not saying anything against him at all… I never have… I realize though, that he has fatal flaws as well… Concerning the rest of your RP talking point regurgitation, save it… I’ve heard it several times before… I know all about his good points… Do yourself a favor… Examine his bad points…
To the subject of the article… Answer me this Ashes… With our dependence upon foreign oil (I don‘t like it as much as you don’t like it), what happens to this country when the oil supply stops or is severely hindered? You want to bring this country to its knees virtually over night, that is how it would be done…
Report Post »FreedomPurveyor
Posted on December 29, 2011 at 4:36pm“So basically these people are expendable because Iranians live differently than Americans.”
I never said they were “expendable,” and it has nothing to do with the way they live. It has everything to do with their nation threatening our economy and our security.
“Why is it hard to fathom, that they feel threatened?”
There is a significant difference between “feeling threatened” and directly threatening others. Ahmadinejad has said, time and time again, that his goal is to wipe Israel off the map. He also *happens* to believe that he must initiate global chaos in order to usher in the Caliphate and the coming of the Twelfth Imam.
“Stop telling my brothers in service that they need to die so you can fill at the pump for less.”
I don’t want any of them to die. They are in the military to protect our nation’s interests here and abroad, and cutting off the Strait of Hormuz would be devastating to an already weakened world economy. If our President doesn’t troops to die, he should listen to the generals, give our forces the best equipment, and carry out operations intelligently – not make sure they never go into combat.
“So no, deciding who gets to die for a resource advantage is not ethical by any means, and not something a free nation should be engaging in.”
This is a position based on emotion, not logic. Nobody will die if nobody threatens our national interests. When they do, we crush them, not bow before them and ask forgiveness for being gr
Report Post »Libertarian
Posted on December 29, 2011 at 4:39pm@kaydeebeau,
Simple, as Ron Paul has stated – sanctions are an act of war. Prohibiting commerce among countries is an act of war and can be dealt with militarily, so congress has to convene, define the objective and make a declaration of war. Then go in and get the job done.
This is the constitutional way. It is not constitutional to be the police of the world, article 1 section 8 does not give that authority. His way is constitutional is yours?
Report Post »FreedomPurveyor
Posted on December 29, 2011 at 4:41pm*When they do, we crush them, not bow before them and ask forgiveness for being great.
Report Post »LibertariansUnite
Posted on December 29, 2011 at 5:06pm@INRESPONSE
People join the military to DEFEND this nation, not DEFEND the nation’s interests.
The term “nation’s interest” can be stretched and manipulated to mean anything. In your case you are suggesting that America needs to defend it’s cheap gasoline, by sacrificing soldiers.
That is not an argument based on “emotionalism”, that is logic, that is NOT what the soldiers were sworn to defend.
Furthermore, your accusations against the leaders of Iran are speculation. Ahmadinejad is a politician, who seeks power. He says things and panders to his people, just like Obama panders to our people. He is not going to attack Israel, it would be political suicide. The man obviously enjoys a good livelihood in his country, and attacking Israel would threaten that. He knows this, he is not stupid.
Regardless, Iran would not be nearly as hostile towards America, if America for once stopped being the bully on the street. Instead of beating the war drum and screaming “America”, let us reach out and just trade with Iran. If we treated them with respect, most of the Muslim nations would not have a problem with the US.
Don’t buy the end of the world propaganda that is spewed from pundits. There is no such thing as the Muslim Boogeyman.
Report Post »kaydeebeau
Posted on December 29, 2011 at 5:32pm@libertarian – so where does the diplomacy supported by Dr. Paul fit into this scenario? What exactly are to be the diplomatic avenues?
While I agree if we go in militarily we are to annihilate the enemy rather than try to fight a “nice” war, *and fyi – congress did approve action in Iraq and Afghanistan so I am pretty tired of those saying we did not get a congressional declaration to go in – Congress didn’t authorize a map making mission ie congress did declare war by authorizing troops –
Dr. Paul advocates diplomacy yet no sanctions? How does diplomacy work within those parameters? How do we “encourage” the reaction / behavior that we desire? So we go in with guns blazing instead of attempting sactions? Do we attempt diplomacy with no consequences? How does the Paul doctrine work in real life?
Report Post »rush_is_right
Posted on December 29, 2011 at 5:41pm“Regardless, Iran would not be nearly as hostile towards America, if America for once stopped being the bully on the street. Instead of beating the war drum and screaming “America”, let us reach out and just trade with Iran. If we treated them with respect, most of the Muslim nations would not have a problem with the US.”
this is delusional. they hate us because we are not muslims…islam has been at war with all that is not islam for 1,400 years now…its not going to stop until armageddon. we may not be at war with individual islamic nations at any given moment…and can even ally with them for a short time, but its like allying with stalin…sooner or later they’ll turn on you….see turkey for example.
iran has been at war with us for 30 years…and it wouldn’t matter if we traded with them or not…they’re preparing the way for the MAHDI to raise his wounded head….
“Don’t buy the end of the world propaganda that is spewed from pundits. There is no such thing as the Muslim Boogeyman.”
yeah tell that to Charles Martel
Report Post »LibertariansUnite
Posted on December 29, 2011 at 6:34pm@KAY
Fairly simple. If America reduced it’s presence in the middle east to zero, the “radical Muslims” would have no reason to fight, and would generally cease. Iran has made no threats against America, and the country would be stupid to do so. The political leaders in the country for sure, do not want anything done, because we would root them. If they are rooted, they are either destroyed or lose their power. Fairly simple reasoning. Since when did America adopt the “war first, diplomacy later” policy.
@RUSH
You know, I was a gunner deployed in Iraq at FOB Loyalty for about 15 months. I also did many dismounted as well as mounted patrols. One thing that I used to think about was, “wow these people are much less hostile than I thought they would be….”
This was true on many occasions, but don’t worry, our Unit was taught to hate them. In fact I was personally responsible for blinding an innocent. This of course, does not take in the fact of other various encounters we had with Iraqis, that were considered acts of war.
I did many things regrettable because I believed the propaganda, that they hated freedom. It always bothered me, because it seemed to me that these people, were ordinary people trying to live their daily lives. I only changed my perspective recently when I thought back to my actions, and how the people reacted. Then I realized, they were only acting how we would react.
Report Post »LibertariansUnite
Posted on December 29, 2011 at 6:39pmUltimately remember, that America decides to go to war, someone has to do the dirty work.
Someone with a mom, and a dad. Someone who has a wife and kids. Sometimes that someone doesn’t come home.
War should never be careless, as it has been the past couple decades. Also, to reiterate
@RUSH
Yes, I have had REAL contact with Muslims. In fact, I knew this one Muslim kid, who barely spoke english, I would chat with him when I could during guard rotation, and he happened to love American culture, and he liked “Shakira” at the time. Muslims are people, they are not evil suicidal bombers.
So no, again, the Muslim boogeyman does not exist.
Report Post »FreedomPurveyor
Posted on December 29, 2011 at 6:44pm“In your case you are suggesting that America needs to defend it’s cheap gasoline, by sacrificing soldiers.”
It is a lot more than “cheap gasoline.” Everything that this country’s economy runs on depends on oil. When oil’s price goes up, so does transportation‘s and petroleum based products’, making manufacturing and agriculture more expensive.
Add to that oppressive taxes and regulation, and you’ve got a dramatic increase in the cost of living combined with skyrocketing unemployment. Suggesting that is insignificant to our national interests is naive.
“He is not going to attack Israel, it would be political suicide.”
Learn from history. There were people like you in the 1930′s, who simply refused to believe that Hitler would attack anybody. There were many who foolishly underestimated Germany’s military machine. Similarly, it is foolish to underestimate a nuclear armed Iran.
“Instead of beating the war drum and screaming “America”, let us reach out and just trade with Iran. If we treated them with respect.”
You emulate Neville Chamberlain more and more with every passing sentence.
“Don’t buy the end of the world propaganda that is spewed from pundits. There is no such thing as the Muslim Boogeyman.”
I don’t have to buy anything from pundits, it comes directly from Ahmadinejad’s mouth.
“Anybody who recognizes Israel will burn in the fire of the Islamic nation’s fury.”
Report Post »LibertariansUnite
Posted on December 29, 2011 at 6:51pm@FREEDOMPURVEYOR
It is laughable that you are comparing Iran‘s military capabilities to Germany’s in the 30s.
You can paint it whichever way you want, but you are still arguing that our economic status, is much more important than the lives of innocents in Iran, and the lives of American troops. You can call that emotionalism, but personally I value life more than wealth.
We could just have both, embrace peace and free trade. We did so with the Soviets and China, I am sure we can do so with Iran.
Report Post »FreedomPurveyor
Posted on December 29, 2011 at 6:57pm“I would chat with him when I could during guard rotation, and he happened to love American culture, and he liked “Shakira” at the time. Muslims are people, they are not evil suicidal bombers.”
You’re trying to make people defend the position that all Muslims are evil and want to kill us, which is a straw man. The argument has nothing to do with Muslim boys who love Shakira.
Nazis were a minority in Germany, but that didn’t stop them from taking power and setting the world on fire. Even if 90% of Iranians love America and want to listen to Shakira every day, that doesn’t stop Ahmadinejad from obtaining nuclear weapons and setting Israel and the western world on fire.
Ignoring Iran and allowing him to obtain nuclear weapons is gambling with the future of the entire world. “Maybe” that goofy Ahmadinejad is just kidding, or just pandering to his radical constituency that just likes to hear silly stories about burning Israel. I, for one, take him seriously.
Report Post »rush_is_right
Posted on December 29, 2011 at 6:59pm“Yes, I have had REAL contact with Muslims. In fact, I knew this one Muslim kid, who barely spoke english, I would chat with him when I could during guard rotation, and he happened to love American culture, and he liked “Shakira” at the time. Muslims are people, they are not evil suicidal bombers.”
yeah isn’t that nice…why don’t you go have that chat in a predominantly muslim part of the world…and see how your ‘friend’ feels about you?
“So no, again, the Muslim boogeyman does not exist.”
oh of course not…the europeans invaded the muslims huh? right…you really need world history 101…instanbul used to be known as constantinople….and what know as spain the muslims invaded and called andalusia…I would say get a clue, but I don’t think its possible in your case…
yeah and of course its all the evil american fault the muslims don’t like us….since Jefferson invade those peaceful barbary pirates…..
laughable
Report Post »LibertariansUnite
Posted on December 29, 2011 at 7:02pm@FREEDOMPURVEYOR
Then YOU, go enlist, and volunteer to go fight Iran. If you are not willing to send you or your boys senselessly, don’t ask the rest of us to do it for you.
Report Post »rush_is_right
Posted on December 29, 2011 at 7:03pm“This was true on many occasions, but don’t worry, our Unit was taught to hate them. In fact I was personally responsible for blinding an innocent.”
really? so why don’t you turn yourself in for war crimes? hmm?? are you one of thoes people that John F Kerry talked about in winter soldiers?
“but don’t worry, our Unit was taught to hate them.”
yeah the military does that all the time…just like with Major Hasan…he was gunned down by those hate-filled racist americans, wasn’t he?? oh wait….
“I did many things regrettable because I believed the propaganda,”
oh yeah the american military is SO into propoganda…yeah like when Hasan murdered those 13 americans…the military denounced islam and declared a CRUSADE!! oh wait…they really said a few dead people won’t get in the way of diversity!!!
” that they hated freedom.”
yeah muslim nations are SO freedom luvin…just like egypt and libya prove….one man, one vote, one time…right.
are you for real? seriously.
Report Post »LibertariansUnite
Posted on December 29, 2011 at 7:08pm@RUSH
I am sharing a perspective with you. Demonize it how you wish, but people have to do the warmongerers dirty work. I am trying to tell you that when America entertains the idea of a “war” for economic purposes, that you are going to effect many peoples live, American and/or foreign.
The world is not the United States stomping ground, and if we choose to ignore this, we will fall just like all Empires before us.
Report Post »FreedomPurveyor
Posted on December 29, 2011 at 7:08pm“It is laughable that you are comparing Iran‘s military capabilities to Germany’s in the 30s.”
Tell me, what good are all of our tanks and jets and destroyers against a nuclear weapon in a briefcase? The most powerful military on the planet can do nothing to save millions of people from being burned alive.
“you are still arguing that our economic status, is much more important than the lives of innocents in Iran, and the lives of American troops. You can call that emotionalism, but personally I value life more than wealth.”
No, that is not my argument at all. My argument is that taking military action to block us from trading with other countries is an act of war, and should be responded to with force. Unless they are planning to block the Strait of Hormuz with cruise ships, this has nothing to do with innocent lives.
“We could just have both, embrace peace and free trade. We did so with the Soviets and China, I am sure we can do so with Iran.”
Did the Soviets and the Chinese ever say…
“We don’t shy away from declaring that Islam is ready to rule the world.”
“The Zionist regime is a rotten, dried tree that will be eliminated by one storm.”
“Do not doubt, Allah will prevail, and Islam will conquer mountain tops of the entire world.”
“Suicide is an invincible weapon. Suicide bombers in this land showed us the way, and they enlighten our future.”
?
Maybe we should just “talk.”
Report Post »LibertariansUnite
Posted on December 29, 2011 at 7:15pm@FREE
They have no capabilities of using a nuclear weapon. Period.
Even if they did (which they don’t) the current ruling class would be ousted. They do not want that obviously. So they will not make that move. Nice try.
The Soviets said “We Will Bury You”. And they had 10000+ nukes. Was that enough of a threat to go to war?
Yet we still did the whole diplomacy thing.
Report Post »Lord_Frostwind
Posted on December 29, 2011 at 7:18pmAre Libertarians so foolish as to cling to this “level the playing field” doctrine with Nuclear Weapons? Oh sure we have a few thousand, but what can one weapon do in the hands of a desperate regime clinging to life? Take a good hard look at Syria and Iraq and what they managed to accomplish with tanks and chemical weapons respectively.
You win wars by being the best. You stop wars from happening by having enough firepower to make the planet tremble, as Frederick the Great once said, “diplomacy without arms is like an orchestra without instruments.”
Report Post »rush_is_right
Posted on December 29, 2011 at 7:21pm“I am sharing a perspective with you. Demonize it how you wish, but people have to do the warmongerers dirty work. I am trying to tell you that when America entertains the idea of a “war” for economic purposes, that you are going to effect many peoples live, American and/or foreign.”
much more than economic purposes…get a clue, if Iran gets a nuke, their only problem will be deciding who to nuke first, us or israel…and MAD won’t work with them…they’re determined to bring their MAHDI into the world…..you might know him as the anti-christ…
“The world is not the United States stomping ground, and if we choose to ignore this, we will fall just like all Empires before us.”
yeah I’d rather go down fighting than bowing down and bending over like you want us to.
Report Post »FreedomPurveyor
Posted on December 29, 2011 at 7:22pm“Then YOU, go enlist, and volunteer to go fight Iran. If you are not willing to send you or your boys senselessly, don’t ask the rest of us to do it for you.”
Once again, you are playing the emotion card, and it is an irrelevant conclusion. Being a soldier does not make one automatically right about the situational propriety of using military force. A soldier does not specialize in foreign relations or economic terrorism. They specialize in defeating their nation’s enemies.
Report Post »rush_is_right
Posted on December 29, 2011 at 7:23pm“They have no capabilities of using a nuclear weapon. Period.”
yeah that missile test of theirs a year or so back was a terrible failure…blew up at 180 miles up….hahahaha…oh wait that just happens to be a nice altitude for an EMP…
yeah with our IMPREGNABLE borders we’re safe!!! LOL
Report Post »LibertariansUnite
Posted on December 29, 2011 at 7:28pm@FREE
I am going to guess I have a better grasp of foreign affairs than you. Considering your just a man behind a keyboard right now with no life experience.
However this is not a flawed argument, people enlist because they want to DEFEND America, not pursue America’s economic empire.
So yes, the troops should have a say if they are deemed to die because we want cheap gasoline.
If you feel the need to go fight another endless war, go do so. Do not try and drag the rest of America with you.
@RUSH
“I would rather go down fighting…”
No you wouldn’t. I bet your haven’t been in the military, therefore you obviously aren’t keen on “fighting”. However, when you make that statement, you do suggest that you value the “Team America” mentality (aka Pride) over the realistic approach, aka Diplomacy.
Report Post »FreedomPurveyor
Posted on December 29, 2011 at 7:32pm“Even if they did (which they don’t) the current ruling class would be ousted. They do not want that obviously. So they will not make that move. Nice try.”
Perhaps you are unfamiliar with the previous attempt at ousting the regime, after the last rigged election? It was met with… significant force.
“The Soviets said “We Will Bury You”. And they had 10000+ nukes. Was that enough of a threat to go to war?”
Mutually assured destruction kept both us and the Soviets from directly attacking one another. Our interests were in spreading democracy, theirs in spreading communism, and neither of us were intent on frying the landscape.
Ahmadinejad wants to spread destruction and chaos. Do you think he believes we have the ****** to nuke Iran if a dirty bomb goes off in Jerusalem? Do we?
“Yet we still did the whole diplomacy thing.”
Actually, we were on the brink of war for 40 years, during which we fought three wars vicariously against the Soviets and the Chinese. The cold war ended when the Soviet Union ran out of money. It had little to do with the perceived power of diplomacy.
Report Post »rush_is_right
Posted on December 29, 2011 at 7:35pm“No you wouldn’t. I bet your haven’t been in the military, therefore you obviously aren’t keen on “fighting”. However, when you make that statement, you do suggest that you value the “Team America” mentality (aka Pride) over the realistic approach, aka Diplomacy.”
oh yeah you’re a real hero…you war criminal…you should be ashamed of yourself….turn yourself in…or follow in Admiral Boorda….
and hows that diplomacy working out? after all your savior is doing the diplomacy….I can feel the love from iran, can’t you? especially with Hillary (thunder thighs) in charge of the diplomatin!!
Report Post »FreedomPurveyor
Posted on December 29, 2011 at 7:44pm“I am going to guess I have a better grasp of foreign affairs than you. Considering your just a man behind a keyboard right now with no life experience.”
You have no idea who I am, and that is an ad hominem argument. From my perspective, you are also just a man behind a keyboard, but I’m certainly not going to try to prove my point with that.
“So yes, the troops should have a say if they are deemed to die because we want cheap gasoline.”
Once again you are misrepresenting the position and understating the impact. The consequences of oil prices going up dramatically could actually throw the world into a depression. The consequences of letting Iran develop a nuclear weapon could be millions of deaths and immeasurable suffering. There is a lot more at stake than “cheap gas.”
You want to complete ignore what Ahmadinejad has said, as if he is just joking. If a man said to you, “I’m going to rape your wife and set her on fire,” would you be so dismissive? Would you be more likely to dismiss it if he were a powerful leader?
Report Post »LibertariansUnite
Posted on December 29, 2011 at 7:45pmAgain, for the 1 millionth time.
The rules in Iran want to stay that way, they eat better they sleep better and they enjoy life better.
They pander to their people just like our corrupt politicians do.
You have zero evidence to conclude that they are planning to take over the world, or whatever ridiculous end all scenario you have in mind.
Regardless of that, the only thing that it boils down to currently, is should we declare war on Iran? If we left Iran alone and released sanctions, and attempted to deal with them they may be less hostile. Their threats of blockades are only in response to our threats of “regime change”.
Ultimately, we cannot continue spending money (destroying currency) to support endless wars. Not only will it bring down America financially (just like the Soviets you mentioned…..hmmm) but it will not help our relations.
We have to be honest with ourselves. We do not get to dictate what the world does, they dictate that for themselves. We dictate what we do.
If you choose to disagree so be it, but if war breaks out and your the one screaming for it, just remember, ours boys blood is on your hands not mine.
Regardless, I am out, so this is my last response.
Report Post »FreedomPurveyor
Posted on December 29, 2011 at 8:07pm“You have zero evidence to conclude that they are planning to take over the world, or whatever ridiculous end all scenario you have in mind.”
What evidence is better than their own words? Do you know what the last world leader who expressed his goal to get rid of the Jews did? If we do not learn from history, we are doomed to repeat it.
“The rulers in Iran want to stay that way.”
Yes, and they do that by oppressing the people. You seem to have Iran confused with a functioning democracy.
“They pander to their people just like our corrupt politicians do.”
In what kind of place is telling everyone you want to destroy entire nations and take over the world “pandering?”
“Their threats of blockades are only in response to our threats of ‘regime change’.”
Incorrect. Their threats of blockades are in response to our threats of sanctions, which are in response to their expressed desire to develop and use nuclear weapons.
“Ultimately, we cannot continue spending money (destroying currency) to support endless wars.”
Ignoring an outspoken enemy is naive, and war does not destroy currency. Unlike almost everything else government spends money on, it stimulates manufacturing and creates jobs… though I’m sure you find that thought offensive.
“if war breaks out and your the one screaming for it, just remember…”
And if we ignore Iran and they burn millions alive, just remember…
Report Post »mashuser2
Posted on December 29, 2011 at 11:34pmThis is why I drive a Chevy Volt – because I actually understand the geopolitical and economic implications of gasoline, and refuse to be brainwashed by the LEFT or RIGHT wing media. Think for yourselves people. This article is proof positive that we’ve been sending money, blood, and back door deals to the middle east for the past 40 years so that you can splurge on that outdated, flammable islamic gas guzzler sitting out in your driveway.
Report Post »Obama_Sham
Posted on December 30, 2011 at 7:15am@Techeng
“and the WMD BS”
Those WMD’s did exist… As a matter of fact, about 60,000 tons of chemical agent was brought back to the U.S. from IRAQ… It is currently stored at the Newport Weapons facility in Indiana… Believe the false reports of no WMD’s all you want… I just know what I have seen with my own eyes… Which leads me to a couple of questions… Why was this covered up? Why are these chemical agents being stored here?
Is Iraq better off now than they were then? Most likely not… We do need to learn that we cannot change a countries identity… Only the people within the country can change the identity of that country… That change has to come from within and not be forced from outside interference…
We mostly agree on things… I just have a different perspective on some things…
Report Post »Obama_Sham
Posted on December 30, 2011 at 7:31am@Mash
“This is why I drive a Chevy Volt – because I actually understand the geopolitical and economic implications of gasoline, and refuse to be brainwashed by the LEFT or RIGHT wing media. Think for yourselves people. This article is proof positive that we’ve been sending money, blood, and back door deals to the middle east for the past 40 years so that you can splurge on that outdated, flammable islamic gas guzzler sitting out in your driveway.”
So, your answer is to buy an electric vehicle that you plug in to an outdated, inefficient delivery system (our current power grid) that is powered by fossil fuel plants… All the while, raising the costs of electricity in this country… Then you go on to talk about how bad gasoline is but yet do not think about diesel fuel or jet fuel? And to sum it all up, you also do not include the other products that are made out of crude oil? Just a little hint for ya… That precious Chevy Volt that you drive has a lot of “money, blood, and back door deals” in everything from the tires, to the rotating metal parts, to the electronics, and all of the plastic parts… Not to mention the PRODUCTION of those parts… But yet, because you don’t go to the gas station and fill it up, you feel justified in your decision…
And you tell others to “think for themselves”…. Now, that is funny…
Report Post »mikpowl
Posted on December 30, 2011 at 1:46pmAll of this is smoke and mirrors. It doesn’t matter if Iran decreased the supply of oil. We have plenty of it here. There are numerous oil fields in the US that have already been drilled into and caped off (for later use). Don’t assume that the US oil companies have a desire for easy to obtain oil from the Middle East. They want that oil supply to be suppressed. If the Middle East lets the oil run freely, there will be a surplus of oil, therefore making the US oil companies loose money. It’s simple supply and demand. THE OIL COMPANIES DO NOT WANT MORE OIL. IT’S ALL A LIE. MORE OIL MEANS LOWER PROFITS. Politicians also don’t want more oil. They will create scenarios that will limit the supply of oil to keep the oil companies happy. In turn, the oil companies give the politicians money. Please think beyond what the media tells you about oil ( the left and right media). Everything they tell you is to guide your mind in a direction off of the reality of the situation.
Report Post »FreedomPurveyor
Posted on December 30, 2011 at 5:00pm“It doesn’t matter if Iran decreased the supply of oil. We have plenty of it here. There are numerous oil fields in the US that have already been drilled into and caped off (for later use).”
The fact is that we produce 7 million barrels of oil a day, while we consume almost 19 million barrels a day. Saudi Arabia, the largest oil producer, produces 10 million barrels a day and has 10x as much oil as we do. I assure you, we do not currently have the capacity to produce the amount of oil that we consume.
“THE OIL COMPANIES DO NOT WANT MORE OIL. IT’S ALL A LIE. MORE OIL MEANS LOWER PROFITS. ”
Flawed logic. That is like Ford and GM saying, “we will conspire together to reduce the number of cars we produce, so that Toyota and Honda will sell more cars, thereby raising the price of cars so that we can enjoy higher profits.”
Report Post »Walkabout
Posted on December 30, 2011 at 10:11pmLibertarian
Some Ron Paul supporters must be very upset,because I said he was right on finances & wrong on foreign policy. I said he was so wrong on foreign policy that I felt that I might not be able to support him over Obama.
Is that so threatening to you Ron Paul supporters?
Per Libertarian, Ron Paul has stated – “sanctions are an act of war”
“Shortly after Japan invaded Indo-China (now Vietnam) in September of 1940, President Roosevelt used his new authority to impose a de facto embargo on scrap iron and steel to Japan. The embargo went into effect on October 16, 1940,”
Ohio History Project – Chinese Americans Picket Scrap Metal to Japan
We also embargoed oil starting in July 1941.
wiki/Pearl_Harbor_attack#Anticipating_war
I have to conclude that Ron Paul‘s position is that the Japan’s attack of December 7, 1941 at Pearl Harbor was not a sneak attack, because technically we were at war. We were at war with Japan since July 1941 when we refused to sell oil to Japan. So the United Stated owes an apology to Tojo.
I refuse to vote for Ron Paul.
I think some of his supported have a very thin skin because they erased my 1st entry.
“America wants to be your best customer”
For Barack to tell the Brazilians that “America wants to be your best customer” while simultaneously preventing oil from being produced in America is
Report Post »Micmac
Posted on December 29, 2011 at 12:17pmWhere is JFK when we need him. I see the 4th best president ever (ask him, he’ll tell ya) has this totally under control…fore!!!!
If they want to collapse the country this is one of those opportunities to not pass up. He said energy prices necessarily need to increase.
If we do attack these insane crazies it will turn the Middle East people against us…not at 1st but it eventually will.
Notice how NoBama is on TV everyday but when something like this is going on he’s on the golf course hiding from having to make hard decisions? Like his voting record in congress. He’s currently taking a chapter from Ron Paul.
Concluding, he has no plan, as all “his” other plans that came to fruition were just extensions of Bush’s actions. This guy has to go or there will NOT be a recognizable USA in 4 years.
NoBama 2012
Report Post »Reboot Washington
trolltrainer
Posted on December 29, 2011 at 12:13pmWhat is with the cover photo? Is that like supposed to be some kind of compare/contrast thingie? War/peace? How clever…not…
Report Post »AmericanStrega
Posted on December 29, 2011 at 12:13pmHere we go again.
Report Post »colt1860
Posted on December 29, 2011 at 1:24pmYep.
Huh, maybe sanctions are a precursor or declaration of war:
“‘No oil will be permitted to pass through the key oil transit Strait of Hormuz if the West applies sanctions on Iran’s oil exports’, Iranian Vice President Mohammad Reza Rahimi warned on Tuesday… ‘We have no desire for hostilities or violence… but the West doesn’t want to go back on its plan‘ to impose sanctions’, he said.”
Some other quotes to consider:
“History teaches that war begins when governments believe the price of aggression is cheap.” – Ronald Reagan
“No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warefare.” – James Madison
Report Post »6t5gto
Posted on December 29, 2011 at 12:08pmLet the people who think war is cheap get in a plane and go over there and fight. The leaders should be the first in line.
Report Post »Br@dley
Posted on December 29, 2011 at 12:12pmjesus, if y‘all can’t recognize this as pro-war propaganda, you can’t be saved….
Report Post »schroeder123
Posted on December 29, 2011 at 12:16pmamen !
Report Post »Vechorik
Posted on December 29, 2011 at 12:22pmditto
Report Post »smithclar3nc3
Posted on December 29, 2011 at 12:42pmThis is why we should pass an amendment that only people who served in our military can run for president. No one can appreciate or comprehend the horror of war more than someone whose served in one. Not to mention you should get to be a copmmander in chief if you haven’t serve under a commander or chief.
Report Post »tzion
Posted on December 29, 2011 at 12:57pm@smith
Report Post »How would that be different than saying “Only those of royal bloodline” should be allowed to run? Or maybe only those who own large businesses. The point of the constitution was to get away from government being controlled by a single power.
VRW Conspirator
Posted on December 29, 2011 at 1:16pmyeah..what you all said…
VOTE RON PAUL…let Iran be nuclear and control the world’s oil supply.. YEAH!!! You war mongering NEO-CON liberal Progressive Socialist anti-Constitution people are the problem…
If we weren’t over there, they would just play nice and not get nukes and let us have free oil… It is all the USA’s fault for being the global police force and not staying isolated on our own little piece of land…
IF you don’t KILL the FED, legalize all the drugs, allow gay marriage and abortion at any time, then you are anti Constitution and pro establishment tools.
9-11 was an inside job!!!
Report Post »colt1860
Posted on December 29, 2011 at 1:28pm@VRW Conspirator I see the MSM has wonderfully done it’s job to smear, misinform, distort and slander.
Report Post »JLGunner
Posted on December 29, 2011 at 1:55pmSMITH. Ron Paul would make a great Commander-in-Chief then right? He’s got all that Military Doctoring strategy, tactical esperience and knowledge right at his fingertips. Or so the Pauleis would like us to believe. Only problem is that Paul is a weak-kneed pacifist like most lefties. and Paulies.
Report Post »VRW Conspirator
Posted on December 29, 2011 at 1:56pmTZION – actually if you read the original notes of those at the Continental Congress and convention to create the Constitution…they actually DID intend that only those with a stake in the game so to speak be allowed to vote: namely landowners, farmers, merchants, and business owners. They even spoke to the affect that only a well educated and moral citizenry be allowed to make decisions and vote. They also said, before someone comes up with an idea they were elitist or racist, that it was the DUTY of all Citizens to BECOME educated, participate in the governing process, and hold themselves and their elected members to the morality taught in the Bible, mainly the New Testament, not the stoning as punishment part of the Old Testament.
This notion that they wanted the government to govern least and stay out of the way of the individual and States is predicated with the notion that ALL people in the States act with the morals, ethics, and values espoused by Jesus in the New Testament and obedience to the Ten Commandments.
Report Post »So for you Paulites out there…the Founders would NEVER have advocated for the States to be the center of decision on gay marriage, drug use, or abortion. They would have thought even the concepts of these things to be AGAINST the nature and intent of Jesus’ teachings and the Word of God written in the Bible, the supreme source of Law.
Oh..point of order..they also made it constitutional to enter into treaties, create currency, and tax.
smithclar3nc3
Posted on December 29, 2011 at 2:27pmHow would that be different than saying “Only those of royal bloodline” should be allowed to run? Or maybe only those who own large businesses. The point of the constitution was to get away from government being controlled by a single power.
It’s total different as anyone and everyone has the ability to serve. Soldiers are born soldiers like royalty soldiers decide to serve. And here a better question how it ethical for people who are on welfare,or work for the government should get a vote. It’s a conflict of interest as their concern is to keep their tax dollars incomes flowing. And by the way the founder knew this and only wanted landonwers,business onwers, and other who PAID TAXES to vote. If the tax payers are out voted by those who feed on the taxes we have taxation without representation…….SEEMS TO ME AMERICAN FACED THAT DILEMMIA BEFORE……IN THE 1700′S
Report Post »tzion
Posted on December 29, 2011 at 3:02pm@smith
Report Post »I agree that those who don‘t pay taxes shouldn’t vote for people who will determine how those taxes are used. That would be like people who own no share of a particular company getting a say in how that company was run as if they were shareholders. But military vets make up only one portion of the country. The founders believed that the more factions there were in government, the less likely it would be for one to subjugate the others. If military service is required, I would demand that all citizens capable of serving be required to dedicate a 3 year minimum service. If that’s too much than we would have to at least reinstatement of the national draft. Those are the conditions for my support of your idea.
colt1860
Posted on December 29, 2011 at 3:07pm@VRW Conspirator You’re absolutely right about your last post, except for one thing. The founders never expected that the federal Government would be the one responsible for all those things you mentioned. Most of the federal Government’s limited role was outlined in Article 1, Section 8. Most of these moral or social issues you mention were dealt with through the COMMON LAW, not through the statutory, Big Government is the Solution, man made, progressive Laws of today. I sincerely believe that we must return to the Common Law to resolve these issues nationwide, but not through the federal or national level OF Government. For, it has already been stated and made clear within the Common Law and its binding precepts and long established Judgements that abortion is an unlawful act, and gay marriage lawfully unacceptable. Our departure and current ignorance of that great bulwark of long standing precepts and protection of our ancient rights has been the demise and stunbling block for our States and federal Union. The Common Law had many decisions based on the principles of the Bible and our Christian heritage. Our new desire of wanting the federal or national Government to determine all these issues has been caused because of our abandonment of the only structure of Law that united the people and kept all the States bound together. The Common Law was the one unifying factor in all of English and American history.
Report Post »colt1860
Posted on December 29, 2011 at 3:15pmhttp://www.ronpaul2012.com/the-issues/statement-of-faith/
Report Post »FaithfulFriend
Posted on December 29, 2011 at 12:04pmIf this is what it takes to get us drilling and producing from our own land, then so be it and it’s 30 years past due. It’s time for the no-growth, flat-earth, progressive-fascist-eco-marxists to take a hike. No war with Iran over oil or the Strait when we have it and natural gas in abundance here. War with Iran only to protect Israel and only then melt them like candle wax. Think of Tehran as if it were Berlin and leave nothing standing.
Report Post »AMERICA4EVER
Posted on December 29, 2011 at 12:24pmThis has been right in front of us for years. If we didn’t have the libs cow-towing to the minority idiots of their base, we would have been energy independent. All this talk about alternative energy is b s. Where is this new energy? I cant’t run my car on a windmill mounted on the roof.
Report Post »Obama_Sham
Posted on December 29, 2011 at 12:42pmYa… With all of the oil here, we should never have to use middle east oil again… Even though, it will take approximately 10 years to get the U.S. up to its potential output and get us off of foreign oil completely… What to do until then? Do we keep paying ALL of the middle eastern countries in hopes to keep the peace and keep our oil supply flowing? Do we go all isolationist on them and allow them to “take care of themselves”? Do we wage war on a potentially troublesome country that has the potential to completely cripple the U.S. (yes, Iran has this potential, not directly to us, but indirectly by provoking Israel in to action thus causing the rest of the middle eastern countries to respond against Israel)?
These are the questions to be answered… Do we wage war to try to keep the U.S. afloat? Or, do we not wage war and let those countries do what they are going to do and hope for the best?
Report Post »JP16
Posted on December 29, 2011 at 12:01pmIran will not blockade the strait unless they are at war with the US or Israel. This article is almost using the fear of such an act as reasoning for war. In addition, how long would it take the US military to destroy the Iranian fleet? Maybe 6 hours? I’m sorry, Iran is just showing a little muscle to show some sort of stand against the US. Time to get over your obsession with fear and war mongering.
Report Post »Blazer123
Posted on December 29, 2011 at 12:07pmyeah, lets go to war to lower the price at the pump, that worked really well for us in Iraq 20 years ago…
Report Post »Idahosauce
Posted on December 29, 2011 at 11:58amDrill here, Drill now, to hell with our environmentalist extremists….this is the #1 National Security Issue and would also fix the economic worries we have.
Report Post »Soon as we elect an American to POTUS, we should get right on it.
V-MAN MACE
Posted on December 29, 2011 at 12:02pmThe Neocon’s arguments for war against Iran is getting more and more desperate and ridiculous.
These people are so dangerous. They’ll destroy the entire planet.
Report Post »GhostOfJefferson
Posted on December 29, 2011 at 12:10pm@V-Man
Agreed 100%.
They’ve been pushing for “war” with Iran for many years now. It‘s like they’re desperate to see human life taken and blood running everywhere.
Report Post »JLGunner
Posted on December 29, 2011 at 12:38pmDo we all agree that if we tap into our own resources to become totally independant of middle east oil, that we will not have to worry about war in the region? We could actually move to help develop the resources in Mexico.
Report Post »V-MAN MACE
Posted on December 29, 2011 at 1:04pmJLGunner
These warmongering liars already know that there’s billions of gallons of oil under the Rocky Mountain Range that has yet to be tapped, and they’ve known for decades. It’s perhaps the largest reservoir of oil on Earth.
The government also suppresses advanced energy technology or reserves it for the military industrial complex and the Shadow Government/Continuity of Government.
Report Post »motonutt
Posted on December 29, 2011 at 1:29pm@V-MAN………Agreed. We need to go after our own oil, and leave the rag heads to destroy themselves, not with our blood.
Report Post »JLGunner
Posted on December 29, 2011 at 2:24pmSo I’m going to say yes, we are all in agreement.
Report Post »EdGunz
Posted on December 29, 2011 at 2:29pmWhat does V-man mean? is that some kind of transgender post operation term? Why do you come to this site? Personally, I could care less about ANY muslim country, bomb the **** out of all of them and take the oil. Problem solved. You freaks who think you understand the minds of people who‘s religion tells them to kill anyone who doesn’t follow ala. YOU DON’T! come live in Dearborn for a year, go to the places that are over run with the roaches. I am more comfortable in the inner cities of Detroit, Chicago, LA, and DC. Keep spreading your BS from your secluded bubble of a life. When you have seen the way these creatures live, you wont see things the same way, or you are just a damn fool.
Report Post »V-MAN MACE
Posted on December 29, 2011 at 3:09pmEdGunz
V is for Victory against the New World Order, the Nazi Police State, the Eugenicist Scientific Dictatorship, Economic Dictatorship, and against all forms of tyranny against mankind.
I am a soldier in the Army of YHWH. I am a Conservative Libertarian, registered Independent, Tea Party member, supporter of the Oathkeepers, African American NIGHTMARE TO ALL FORMS OF TYRANNY ON THE FACE OF THE EARTH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
That includes Extremist Islamic Dictatorship (Islamic Caliphate) and Manifest Destiny World Domination through nation building!
Report Post »Luke21
Posted on December 29, 2011 at 11:54amThe love of money is the root of evil (1 Timothy 6:10). How many more bright, young, courageous American lives do we have to sacrifice for that cost avoidance? What price will be put on them, what will the balance sheet look like after that is factored in?
There are far more important issues in this life than $$$. In many respects its our love of money that has gotten us to this point. We spent over 8 yrs in Iraq & what do we have to show for it? We haven’t the will to win a war – haven’t had it since WWII. I fear we will never have it again. You go to war for one reason alone: to crush your enemy, not give him a bloody nose or save some $$$ – the cost is too great, the stakes too high. When you are forced to war, then you fight it w/out impunity.
Report Post »GhostOfJefferson
Posted on December 29, 2011 at 11:59amActually, the counter argument to that is that the love of money is little more than the love of free unfettered and peaceful trade with one’s fellow man, ergo, to be forced into war works counter to being able to do such a thing.
The war initiating states are and have always been fully anti-liberty and anti-free peaceful trade.
Report Post »V-MAN MACE
Posted on December 29, 2011 at 12:05pmThis is the stupidest argument while Obama uses the EPA to shut down our power plants, doubling our energy bills.
Absolutely ridiculous. These neocons have no value for human life. They’re disregarding the human loss and focusing only on monetary loss.
EVIL PERSONIFIED!!!!!!!
EVIL!!!
We have an Axis of Evil right here in our own country!
TREASONOUS SABOTEURS!!!
Report Post »cemerius
Posted on December 29, 2011 at 12:10pmYeah Luke gotta love the power of the protester!!! Look at HOW we won that thing called WW2 and apply it to today’s standards? They don’t even compare!!! When one infant or pregnant lady receives a splinter by running to their bomb shelter it is instantly shot around the world and how us barbaric Americans are commiting genocide!!! Yeah, we as a country run to our “binkies” and hide in a corner when one drop of innocent blood is shed!! War is HELL!! Of course, if you are a socialist/islamist/communist you have all the glory praised on you! Heck, they even will make T-shirts with your picture on it!
Report Post »lukerw
Posted on December 29, 2011 at 12:12pmActually… unknown to the uneducated of old… a Person’s Work & Skill of Labor is Stored as a form of Energy into Money… so rather being given Barter Good for Work, one receives Money, which allows a Choice of Goods or Services to be Purchased.
Hence, Your Money represents your Labor… and if you do not Love yourself, you cannot Love others!
Report Post »Luke21
Posted on December 29, 2011 at 12:21pmJefferson,
IF I understand you correctly, then you’re arguing w/ the word of God, not me. If we go to war for “cheap” & “free” trade, it is neither cheap nor free. Ask anyone who lost a loved one in Iraq, if after all is said & done “was it worth it”? We certainly didn’t get cheap oil out of it – have you gone to the pump lately? Before Iraq we were paying around $1.50/gal. When we pulled out it seemed completely arbitrary – we kicked Saddam’s can in a couple months & spent the next 8 yrs accomplishing what?
Report Post »If it was all about cheap & free trade, why didn’t we pay for the cost w/ the oil in the Iraqi fields? If our cause was just, then the spoils are the price. The nation that conquered & subdued Germany & Japan suddenly hasn’t the will to crush an enemy who is 50-100 yrs behind us technologically. Instead we sacrificed the precious blood of our greatest asset – the bravest amongst us. It’s shameful & the blood of our brightest & best are on the hands of our politicians – God have mercy on them.
Luke21
Posted on December 29, 2011 at 12:59pmLukerw,
Interesting proof. Labor = $, & Labor = self, there4 love of $= self-love = (proportional to) love-of-others. Ergo – Word of God contradicts itself…?
Jesus made it clear that man’s problem wasn’t that he didn’t love himself enough, rather that he loved himself too much (above all else) – including others. He commanded that we love our neighbor as ourselves (meaning He took for granted that you love yourself – now love your neighbor that much – as He did in giving Himself as a sacrifice). If you desire & believe you should receive mercy, then you give your neighbor the same.
Furthermore 1 Tim 6:10 is speaking to giving oneself over to riche$. If that is your “god”, if your passionate pursuit is riches, then it will lead to evil.
Then Jesus said to His disciples, “If anyone desires to come after Me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow Me. For whoever desires to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for My sake will find it. For what profit is it to a man if he gains the whole world, and loses his own soul? Or what will a man give in exchange for his soul? (Matthew 16:24-26)
Greater love has no one than this, than to lay down one’s life for his friends. (John 15:13)
Report Post »PlowMan
Posted on December 29, 2011 at 1:00pmHere’s the whole phrase: 9 Those who want to get rich fall into temptation and a trap and into many foolish and harmful desires that plunge people into ruin and destruction. 10 For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil. Some people, eager for money, have wandered from the faith and pierced themselves with many griefs.
I would agree with Luke21 that it seems that the love of money gets us into trouble. But I would argue that for the most part the USA has bettered the world since its inception. Furthermore our freedom has fostered inventions that have allowed the spread of the gospel like has never been seen upon this earth. If we fail to meet these problems head on we WILL be in a war like WWII again and we don’t want or need anything like that. If we stay strong throughout the world we will not have to sacrifice such a large number of people and treasure like we did in WWII. This is what I see wrong with your angle on this story Luke and what I see wrong with Ron Paul. Another way to put it is to say if we bury our head in the sand the problem doesn’t go away it just gets larger.
Report Post »V-MAN MACE
Posted on December 29, 2011 at 1:01pmlukerw
If the real wealth is the labor of your hands, then the real wealth is people themselves. This monetary argument of war with Iran being cheaper is not feasible because it doesn’t take into account the loss of labor potential of every single person killed.
Additionally, we’re still talking about earthly wealth. Life is priceless. Real wealth is giving in abundance and storing up your wealth in Heaven, where moth and rust don’t corrupt, and thieves cannot break in and steal.
Report Post »GhostOfJefferson
Posted on December 29, 2011 at 1:16pmWell, I am known to Question Boldly, you see. And yes, I am arguing with your quote. War is neither cheap nor does it lower costs. Never has, never will. It takes lives, money, resources and wastes them on battlefields, all the while denying free peaceful trade and interaction between consenting peaceful individuals. There is nothing wrong with loving the notion that free men should trade peacefully and consensually. In fact, it’s one of the best notions ever invented.
Report Post »Luke21
Posted on December 29, 2011 at 1:37pm@Plowman,
In principle I agree w/ you. Clearly, better to kill “hitler” before he gain power. However our going to war in this instance isn’t predicated on justice or, to protect the innocent , or to defeat an enemy, rather it’s the potential cost. Even if we were to war w/ Iran for the proper reason, where is the political (or even media) will to win it? We haven’t had it for over 60 yrs. If we are going to war w/ Iran, I’m w/ FaithfulFriend – one reason only: to protect the innocent & IF we do, we turn them to candle wax. No drawn out process.
I don’t know what Ron Paul has to do w/ this. If he’s against going to war w/ Iran simply for cost avoidance, then I’m in agreement w/ him. I have issues w/ Mr. Paul (I have issues w/ ALL of the candidates), however in his defense he is one of the few running that has not waivered on his principles (whether I agreed or not), he protects life, has not accepted political “bribes” in DC, and is the only one, as best I can tell, that understands the economic corruption in the federal gov’t & is taking a stand against it. So while I have concerns about some of his foreign policy, I place a higher value on national survival. If we implode as a nation there will be no “benevolent” USA to the rescue anyway. Bottom line: if he is nominated, I will have no problem voting for him.
Report Post »techengineer11
Posted on December 29, 2011 at 1:56pmPlowMan: Please allow me a little fun plowman. Tell me why America got involved in WW2 and why we chose the side of the Allies vs the Axis?
dare ya.
And if you have the courage to take the bait maybe you will even be so bold as to explain to me why we had to enter WW1.. Would we have entered WW1 without the Balfour agreement? How do you suppose Germany felt about the Balfour agreement? Weren‘t there some within the German gov’t that supported the Balfor agreement during WW1? lol Who were they?
And let me remind you that the population back then were entirely opposed to our involment in either of these Wars unlike today where the people are eager for War. Of course that’s a War in which they suffer no loss.. Only death and destruction for the other side… Yes we love those Wars.
Report Post »Luke21
Posted on December 29, 2011 at 2:09pmAMEN V-MAN!
The only thing that will put this mess right is “the Return of The King”.
Watch therefore, for you do not know what hour your Lord is coming. But know this, that if the master of the house had known what hour the thief would come, he would have watched and not allowed his house to be broken into. Therefore you also be ready, for the Son of Man is coming at an hour you do not expect. “Who then is a faithful and wise servant, whom his master made ruler over his household, to give them food in due season? Blessed is that servant whom his master, when he comes, will find so doing. Assuredly, I say to you that he will make him ruler over all his goods.
Report Post »(Matthew 24:42-47)
V-MAN MACE
Posted on December 29, 2011 at 3:00pmHey Luke, what about this one…
Israel asks for a King:
1 Samuel 8
10 Samuel told all the words of the LORD to the people who were asking him for a king. 11 He said, “This is what the king who will reign over you will claim as his rights: He will take your sons and make them serve with his chariots and horses, and they will run in front of his chariots. 12 Some he will assign to be commanders of thousands and commanders of fifties, and others to plow his ground and reap his harvest, and still others to make weapons of war and equipment for his chariots. 13 He will take your daughters to be perfumers and cooks and bakers. 14 He will take the best of your fields and vineyards and olive groves and give them to his attendants. 15 He will take a tenth of your grain and of your vintage and give it to his officials and attendants. 16 Your male and female servants and the best of your cattle[c] and donkeys he will take for his own use. 17 He will take a tenth of your flocks, and you yourselves will become his slaves. 18 When that day comes, you will cry out for relief from the king you have chosen, but the LORD will not answer you in that day.”
Sound familiar?
Report Post »Luke21
Posted on December 30, 2011 at 1:41pmExcellent point V-Man, thanks for the correction – I should have been clear on which King I was referring to. Like Israel (& their chosen king – Sol), before the 2nd coming of God’s anointed, the world will go after a king (like Sol) of their own ungodly choosing.
And the LORD said to Samuel, “Heed the voice of the people in all that they say to you; for they have not rejected you, but THEY HAVE REJECTED ME, that I should not reign over them.. therefore, heed their voice. However, you shall solemnly forewarn them…” (1 Sam 8:6-9)
Paul forewarns the world similarly:
2 Thess 2:3-12 Let no one deceive you by any means; for that Day [of Christ] will not come unless the falling away comes first, and the man of sin is revealed, the son of perdition, who opposes and exalts himself above all that is called God or that is worshiped, so that he sits as God in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God… [i.e. anti-christ] … then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord will … destroy… The coming of the [anti-christ] is according to the working of Satan, with all power, signs, and lying wonders, and with all unrighteous deception among those who perish, because they did not receive the love of the truth, that they might be saved. FOR THIS REASON God will send them [rejecting world] strong delusion, that they should believe the lie, that they all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness.
Grace & Peac
Report Post »Lather
Posted on December 29, 2011 at 11:52amNobody who is a Christian wants to kill, All you “Killers” are no better than the Taliban.
Report Post »chips1
Posted on December 29, 2011 at 12:00pmKilling Satan seems to be a pretty good goal. I’m not turning my other cheek to any muslim nut.
Report Post »Melvin Spittle
Posted on December 29, 2011 at 12:01pmWe do not want to kill which is why we use diplomacy. When that fails, we use sanctions. And when that fails we use our military might.
Ron Paul 3012
Report Post »GhostOfJefferson
Posted on December 29, 2011 at 12:09pm@Chips
“Vengeance is mine, sayeth the Lord.”
I don’t see anything about “do some vengeance on My behalf” there, friend.
A nation of honor and which works under rule of law, does not stride around bullying other nations, and if it goes to war, it does so only after it was attacked first (or the attack is detected en route, such as us noticing that Russia launched all of their missiles at us but they haven’t landed yet). Anything else is dishonorable and cowardly.
Report Post »Lather
Posted on December 29, 2011 at 12:11pmI would rather die then Kill.. Period.. I have done one already.. I KNOW the cost.
Report Post »cemerius
Posted on December 29, 2011 at 12:11pmTell that to King David!!!
Report Post »Working Poor
Posted on December 29, 2011 at 12:22pm@Melvin Spittle
I think I’ll be to old to vote for Ron Paul by then, but if he’s able to run, he’s got my vote!
Report Post »Vechorik
Posted on December 29, 2011 at 12:25pmI Iran blocks, then blast the hell out of them THERE. No need for a full-scale war.
Ron Paul and Israel:
Newsmax interviewer nails Dr. Pauls foreign policy and is ABSOLUTELY CORRECT. This should clear any misconceptions and doubt as to how Ron Paul stands with Israel: http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/paul-israel-support-wead/2011/12/07/id/420247
BTW, Dr. Paul doesn’t support aborting jewish babies in the holy land. The last two videos were made by supporters of Dr. Paul, and also clear misunderstandings:
Ron Paul stands with Israel:
http://www.newsmax.com/InsideCover/paul-israel-support-wead/2011/12/07/id/420247#
Ron Paul Blowback and Why They Hate Us
Report Post »http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x_dd8WS0oOc
Melvin Spittle
Posted on December 29, 2011 at 12:27pm@GhostOfJefferson I beg to differ my friend. Vengeance has nothing to do with war. We fight war because our security is under real threat and at times, will require preemptive action when solidly justified regarding imminent threat.
I do not wait for a viper to bite me before I cut his head off. I will not wrestle with a viper for some sense of fair play. Any and all identified vipers that pose a threat must be dealt with. Not all snakes are vipers and are therefore dealt with according to danger or benefit.
Report Post »Vechorik
Posted on December 29, 2011 at 12:31pmMatt 5:43-44
43 Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour,
and hate thine enemy.
44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you,
do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully
use you, and persecute you;
Make every effort to live in peace with all men and be holy Hebrews 12:14
I John 4:20
Report Post »If a man say, I love God, and hateth his brother, he is a liar:
for he that loveth not his brother whom he hath seen, how can he
love God whom he hath not seen?
GhostOfJefferson
Posted on December 29, 2011 at 1:19pm@Melvin
Yes, I see that you’re pro “strike first”.
Other people are not.
“The defense policy of the United States is based on a simple premise: The United States does not start fights. We will never be an aggressor. We maintain our strength in order to deter and defend against aggression – to preserve freedom and peace.” – Ronald Reagan
Report Post »Fella
Posted on December 29, 2011 at 11:51amBetter read up on what John Bolton is saying and writing. The hand wringing has begun and the same folks that brought us Iraq are lining up to get into Iran. Pay attention.
Report Post »Steelhead
Posted on December 29, 2011 at 12:00pmBolton is a PNACer and should be locked away
Report Post »6t5gto
Posted on December 29, 2011 at 12:05pmBolton is one of the people trying to get us in a war with Iran. We are putting sanctions on them that is an act of war, they are reacting to us by threatening something can not do. Ignore them and drop the sanctions. Stop buying oil from the middle east, we are selling our own oil and natural gas and buying from the middle east.
Report Post »Charity101
Posted on December 29, 2011 at 11:50am” …unless the U.S. decides to invest seriously in energy independence …”
Socialist Leftists have invested trillions in energy independence resulting in “Crony Capitalism” via Ponzi Schemes (like Solyndra) ALL at the expense of taxpayers.
Conservatives, despite the lies from the environmental whackos, want to open up the likes of Anwar and develop the Keystone Pipeline. Here is an idea – how about we build a new refinery just south of the Canadian Border?
Report Post »Melvin Spittle
Posted on December 29, 2011 at 12:31pmAgreed.
Report Post »JLGunner
Posted on December 29, 2011 at 12:50pmThatll work. Build or update present coal power plants to operate cleaner. Let private industry work on alternatives that make sence. Stop wasting my tax money trying to force crap like solyndra and the volt.
Report Post »cariboodragon
Posted on December 29, 2011 at 2:35pmHow about we build many refineries in Canada and sell you gas instead of oil.
Report Post »GhostOfJefferson
Posted on December 29, 2011 at 11:48amI see all kinds of statistics, used all the time, to get us to agree to unconstitutional actions by the FedGov.
Freedom isn’t about statistics, and Constitutional Republics are supposed to work by reigning in the passions of men and governments and keeping certain things defined or off limits. Our Constitution demands that Congress declare war. You want war, lobby your Congressman, otherwise, you’re working against the Constitution.
War hasn’t been Constitutionally declared since 1941. Oh how readily we swoon over Woodrow Wilson’s progressive wet dream of “spreading democracy across the globe”.
Report Post »Lloyd Drako
Posted on December 29, 2011 at 12:08pmIf Iran closed the Straits of Hormuz, we’d be in the position of Japan in 1941, after the US froze its assets, effectively cutting it off from oil imports. In 1917, going to war to spread democracy was sort of an afterthought: Wilson’s real problem was that German submarines threatened to cut the US off from the Allies, collapsing the boom in war exports.
Agree with you on the Constitution: either declare war or don’t go to war. Should have applied to Korea and evey other conflict we’ve fought since. Even in 1941, the US was in an undeclared war with Germany in the North Atlantic even before Pearl Harbor, so I suppose the problem goes back to FDR.
Report Post »FreeUsAll
Posted on December 29, 2011 at 11:44amWar should be the last resort in any matter. Would a war be less expensive than peace? I don’t know, but numbers aside, the after-effects of war would be a lot more expensive than peace. Take a look at the nation-building we did with Iraq. That should answer the question posed.
Report Post »ChiefGeorge
Posted on December 29, 2011 at 11:43amThis is the reason Iran must be removed for the sake of the NWO. They will constantly try to destabilise the region while the others nations move forward with progress and peace.
Report Post »GhostOfJefferson
Posted on December 29, 2011 at 11:50amThe NWO isn‘t something I’d be happy about advocating, personally.
Report Post »junior1971
Posted on December 29, 2011 at 12:23pmNWO is equivalent to progress and peace? NWO is regressive at best and would turn us all into numbers! These wicked people are’nt the first people to desire and attempt NWO. Romans, Greeks, Brits, nazi’s, commies, all had the same desire as these NWO demons do! The only difference is that they use other methods to force their will on the people of the world than military conquest. Death by a thousand paper cuts is their approach. You know, thousands of pages of laws and regulations that have all but descimated our bill of rights, our freedom, our sovereignty and our constitution.
Report Post »jvig
Posted on December 29, 2011 at 1:02pm@Cheifgeorge
Who is next after Iran? Who else should be eliminated for disrupting the peace of the NWO? There will only be peace when Jesus comes back to rule. The establishment of a one world government that eliminates any dissent has already been foretold. I have bad news for you if you support that global movement, you are siding with Satan.
To those that think money is more important than the life of your brother, answer this question:
” For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?”
Report Post »Mark 8:36
CatB
Posted on December 29, 2011 at 11:42amBut but but …..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A1vtUvgaB18
Report Post »LibertarianForLife
Posted on December 29, 2011 at 11:52amNice video, 5 times the dislikes as likes haha. I love how the neocons at blaze don’t even bring up the third option of NOT PUTTING SANCTIONS ON AT ALL. CatB, please stop posting, your kind of a disgrace to free thinking individuals who don’t want government down there throat.
Report Post »Melvin Spittle
Posted on December 29, 2011 at 11:57amRon Paul has doubled down on being a *****.
Report Post »CatB
Posted on December 29, 2011 at 12:09pmLIBERTARIAN .. what have you got against free speech? .. or using someone’s OWN WORDS to show where they stand? LIBERTY is only for those you agree with? I have never told any of the Paul supporters they should stop posting or speaking. Says more about you than me!
Report Post »VRW Conspirator
Posted on December 29, 2011 at 1:32pmCATB
Don’t you just love how the only people on The Blaze or Freedom Connector or any other right leaning site that call for people to shut up and go away are the Ron Paul supporters??
If the libertarian point of view is that morality is fluid and up to the individual, then yeah, I guess they are right. I always understood the libertarian point of view to mean that there ARE core values, morals, ethics, and beliefs that tie people together WITHOUT government interference. That the role of government is only to prevent people from abusing these CORES, to protect the Nation from outside and inside strife and attack, and to maintain the pathways for economic growth and choice in the marketplace (ie. stop overt fraud, scams, criminal behavior).
Right…keep the Nation safe and minimalize crime while maximizing personal freedom and choice. Too bad most of this libertarians are actualy Libertarians, which is just another of the EVIL parties that they like to rail against. I loved listening to Larry Elder, a radio host that is now back on in limited markets after retiring 5 years ago. His famous line was that he was a little L libertarian not a big L member of the Libertarian Party. He caught crap for that from all the Paulites and political party members, especially when he changed from Independent to Republican because he saw a need to change the GOP BACK to its roots, those aren’t GWB or GHWB but AUH20, Reagan, and the anti-Federalists!
Report Post »Peabody
Posted on December 29, 2011 at 11:41amBoycott Comcast !
Comcast CEO Brian Roberts in the bag for Obama
Comcast owns NBC, if they don’t fix NBC.
Comcast has many customers who buy there Cable, Internet, and Internet Phone.
People start dumping Comcast and watch how fast they will change NBC.
Other Comcast Corporation Properties
Comcast Cable Communications, Inc.
Report Post »Comcast Spectacor, L.P.
E! Entertainment Television, Inc.
Front Row Marketing Services, L.P.
G4 Media, Inc.
Global Spectrum, L.P.
Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Inc.
MGM Pictures (partial ownership)
Movielink, LLC
Outdoor Life Network, L.L.C.
Patron Solutions, LP
Philedelphia Flyers, L.P. (partial ownership)
Philadelphia Sports Media, L.P.
United Artists Corporation (partial ownership)
PPMStudios
Posted on December 29, 2011 at 12:31pmAnd this is relevant to the topic of war with Iran how??
Report Post »Roaran
Posted on December 29, 2011 at 11:40amWe’re already at war with Iran. Sanctions = War. Any effects of the sanctions are a direct result of the actions our representatives and president have taken.
How about this alternative, we all know sanctions only strengthen the tyrannical government’s hold on their people; so, let’s lift the sanctions have complete free trade with the Iranian people (Trade only with the people, nothing between the governments or the people and the governments) and weaken the regime’s control of the people while helping our economy at the same time.
Report Post »GhostOfJefferson
Posted on December 29, 2011 at 12:20pmI vote for your plan.
Report Post »palinrevolution
Posted on December 29, 2011 at 12:51pmHonest to God, do you have no common sense? The people have no power. They tried in 2009 with their Green (actually it was GWB’s envisioned cellphone) Revolution, but it was crushed by the guys with guns. The people have no guns in Iran and without external force, they will never be able to overthrow the armed regieme that is the government. You can congregate 100,000 in the city square and demand your rights, but without a gun you are at the whim of those who do have them.
Report Post »GhostOfJefferson
Posted on December 29, 2011 at 1:22pmSo I or another entrepreneuer run their government’s shoddy blockades and sell them some guns, like a good capitalist should. Or I’ll join a private outfit and finance my own private war against Iran (don’t laugh, this was the premise behind the Flying Tigers).
Ta da.
Report Post »Steelhead
Posted on December 29, 2011 at 11:39amit’s not analysis when you quote the Bible
Report Post »Walkabout
Posted on December 30, 2011 at 10:09pmYou obviously don’t know how to read the Bible.
Let’s start with the fact that Moses was a great military commander.
Report Post »Let’s look at the fact that the purity laws contained within the Bible kept the Israelites alive.
An godless apatheist can learn much from the Bible, a militant atheist can learn nothing from it.
SpankDaMonkey
Posted on December 29, 2011 at 11:39am.
The only way to have Peace with Islam unfortunately is to Kill Them All……………
No Boots on the ground, in a long drawn out Oh you can’t shoot that guy war like we have now.
Nuke’em fast and hard. Then send in the drones to mop up. Death from Above……….
Just Kill them All and let Allah sort them out…..
Report Post »Steelhead
Posted on December 29, 2011 at 11:49amreligion of peace goes to war once again
Report Post »Lather
Posted on December 29, 2011 at 11:50amOh you are a filthy human being. I bet you call yourself a Christian too.. Sick.
Report Post »chips1
Posted on December 29, 2011 at 11:56amIs it possible to delay the war until we get an American President? I, for one, won’t follow this muslim into any altercation. If there is a war, get in and get out. None of this Viet Nam crap. Been there, done that. Bomb Mecca as a warning.
Report Post »GhostOfJefferson
Posted on December 29, 2011 at 11:57amGenocide?
Really?
Wow. Just wow.
Report Post »SpankDaMonkey
Posted on December 29, 2011 at 11:58am.
No I took a shower this morning. Thank You……
Some of Ya’ll, just can’t handel the TRUTH……..
Bet you Voted for Obama too……….
Report Post »pavnvet
Posted on December 29, 2011 at 12:01pmNothing new in this part of the world….1984 movie “Countdown to Looking Glass” was about just this type of event, except the Soviet Union was the primary provocateur. The movie scared the hell out of me then and the Iranians scare the hell out of me now. Of course, in all out war, Iran would not survive. However, we would also be thrown into an economic apocalypse . If only we did the drill, baby drill three years ago we now would be almost energy independent.
Report Post »GhostOfJefferson
Posted on December 29, 2011 at 12:06pmWell, at least you didn‘t deny that you’re advocating genocide, I’ll give you that much.
Where you inferred that to not want genocide means that one voted for Obama, I just don’t know. The logic doesn‘t follow I’m afraid.
Report Post »Lather
Posted on December 29, 2011 at 12:10pm@SpankDaMonkey I bet your Nazi Group is Proud of you, Those who have killed KNOW that the only person who enjoys it is a Psychopath. Seriously brother, be honest.. you would ENJOY all of them being dead.. You can say it.
Report Post »Clearly you are NO BETTER than the Taliban or the Nazis.. Pig!
palinrevolution
Posted on December 29, 2011 at 12:54pmActually you only have to nuke Mecca. If Allah does not stop a nuclear attack on Mecca then Allah is not god and Islam collapses.
Report Post »barber2
Posted on December 29, 2011 at 12:56pmBLATHER: Love the burning cross by your name. Symbolizes your comments: You are always demonizing hateful “ Christians” on the Blaze for their uncharitable comments while you use terms like psychopaths / Nazis / Taliban to so “charitably ” describe them… Guess you must have been dealt the “Christians Are Crazy ” Troll- the -Blaze Card… ( Burning crosses are such appropriate symbols for YOUR brand of Troll-The-Blaze Christianity )
Report Post »thegreatcarnac
Posted on December 29, 2011 at 2:49pmSounds like a plan to me.
Report Post »Peabody
Posted on December 29, 2011 at 11:38amWas Rachel Maddow a guy who tried to be a girl or is she a girl trying to be a guy ?
Is Arianna Huffington the illegitimate daughter of George Soros ?
Report Post »hauschild
Posted on December 29, 2011 at 11:41amPat???
Report Post »texasfireguy
Posted on December 29, 2011 at 11:42amInteresting questions, if a bit off topic…….
Report Post »hauschild
Posted on December 29, 2011 at 1:08pmFYI – My reference of “Pat” was from the Saturday Nite live skit years ago – if anybody cares.
Report Post »texasfireguy
Posted on December 29, 2011 at 1:45pmDon’t worry Haus, I got the joke
Report Post »Detroit paperboy
Posted on December 29, 2011 at 11:38amGood thing Obama vetoed that pipeline, but then again , Marxists do not want America strong and indepenent…. So why would’nt he ????
Report Post »CatB
Posted on December 29, 2011 at 11:45amDon’t forget the drilling in the Gulf that he has stopped and other domestic drilling also. But Cuba is drilling off the coast of Key West .. surely we can have some of that oil … right?
Report Post »JRook
Posted on December 29, 2011 at 11:45amThanks for the sound bit. Can you explain why 200 to 250 of the permits granted drilling permits granted by the government, some as old as 5 years have not been acted on as yet. the pipeline should be approved, but the government should also force the oil companies to hike the production of oil and gas by 25% bringing gas under $2 a gallon. But there are 2 reasons that won’t happen under the cozy relationship between the gas industry and government at all levels. The gas industries profits and excise taxes. If you believe the oil and gas industry is really at odds with the government than you are beyond naive.
Report Post »CatB
Posted on December 29, 2011 at 12:26pmhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CNSZ62xiD4M
Own words.
Report Post »CatB
Posted on December 29, 2011 at 12:27pmWhat is better than drilling .. how is this working out?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=akjXqfvLu28
Report Post »barber2
Posted on December 29, 2011 at 12:47pmAnd don’t forget that Soros invested big bucks into Petrogas . Coincidence ?
Report Post »Therightsofbilly
Posted on December 29, 2011 at 8:23pmHey Rook,
Almost exactly 3 years ago, regular was averaging just over $1.60, and has been on a fairly steady climb ever since.
What else happened just about 3 years ago?
And I still want to know your position on congressional insider trading.
You know, since it’s legal, you are OK with it, right?
Report Post »pap pap
Posted on December 29, 2011 at 11:35amOuch !!!
Report Post »JLGunner
Posted on December 29, 2011 at 11:35amWe don’t fiht wars to win. Air strikes on strategic targets is the only plan I’ll back.
Report Post »texasfireguy
Posted on December 29, 2011 at 11:44amIran is seriously deficient in refining capabilities. They are very vulnerable to strikes on those. They know it, and so does the rest of the world. This is just posturing and saber rattling, no big deal. Stopping oil flow would hurt Iran more than the rest of the world.
Report Post »JLGunner
Posted on December 29, 2011 at 12:24pmJust the threat of intrrupting oil flow caused the price of oil to rise yesterday. If we would tap into our own resources and rid ourselves of our dependancey on these savages, we could just shrug them off. They would be irrelevant and poor. Think of how that would impact our national defence. Remember when barack was down in South America giving up 7 billion of our tax dollars and the babblin the words “America wants to be your best customer”? UUUUhhhh, no I don’t.
Report Post »Walkabout
Posted on December 30, 2011 at 10:05pm“America wants to be your best customer”
For Barack to tell the Brazilians that “America wants to be your best customer” while simultaneously preventing oil from being produced in America is plain evil & stupid.
Barack’s refusal to allow oil to be produced & his Brazilian comment needs to be spread across the America every day until he is defeated at the ballot box by citizen’s exercising their right to vote.
Report Post »hauschild
Posted on December 29, 2011 at 11:34amActually, no need for a war when the glass parking lot accomplishes the goal quite effectively, quickly and cheaply.
Report Post »