If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Cricket Australia)   New sanctions against Iran's oil industry constitute "an act of war," according to a) Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, b) President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, or c) RON PAUL?   (capitolcolumn.com) divider line 49
    More: Unlikely, Iran, sanctions against Iran, AIPAC, punishments  
•       •       •

911 clicks; posted to Politics » on 04 Aug 2012 at 10:11 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



49 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2012-08-04 09:25:44 AM
I wonder if he considered the Oil Embargo of the '70s an act of war. I'm betting not.
 
2012-08-04 09:38:16 AM
So has RON PAUL officially given up any hope of throwing a spanner in Romney's works (or at Romney's head, whatever) at the national convention? 'Cos he's back to his usual old batshiat-crazy self, it appears.
 
2012-08-04 10:00:33 AM
"While we have clearly placed all options on the table in this standoff with Iran, our goal is not to pick a fight with Iran, but to politically isolate Iran and deprive Iran of the resources and technology it needs to achieve its goal," said Sen. Bob Menendez.

So isolating them from their allies and depriving them of resources and technology is going to lessen their desire to acquire nukes?
 
2012-08-04 10:28:32 AM

miss diminutive: "While we have clearly placed all options on the table in this standoff with Iran, our goal is not to pick a fight with Iran, but to politically isolate Iran and deprive Iran of the resources and technology it needs to achieve its goal," said Sen. Bob Menendez.

So isolating them from their allies and depriving them of resources and technology is going to lessen their desire to acquire nukes?


Desire, not so much. Ability? Maybe.
 
2012-08-04 10:31:34 AM

dbirchall: So has RON PAUL officially given up any hope of throwing a spanner in Romney's works (or at Romney's head, whatever) at the national convention? 'Cos he's back to his usual old batshiat-crazy self, it appears.


Why is this crazy? They're not going to give up going for nukes because we had an embargo. Sure looks like a precursor to a shooting war to me.
 
2012-08-04 10:35:53 AM
"Act of War"? Yet again, a constitutional literalist doesn't give half a shiat what the Constitution actually says when they want to make waves. Must be a day.
 
2012-08-04 10:41:07 AM

The Jami Turman Fan Club: dbirchall: So has RON PAUL officially given up any hope of throwing a spanner in Romney's works (or at Romney's head, whatever) at the national convention? 'Cos he's back to his usual old batshiat-crazy self, it appears.

Why is this crazy? They're not going to give up going for nukes because we had an embargo. Sure looks like a precursor to a shooting war to me.


Only if you consider the last 30 years of US-Iranian relations to be a precursor to a shooting war
 
2012-08-04 10:41:09 AM
Frankly, I don't see why Iran would ever stop trying to get nukes.

Hell, we've seen it with North Korea. Once you have them, you're safe from the US. It's a great big 'stay off my lawn' sign.
 
2012-08-04 10:42:44 AM
Suppose the EU got a hair up its ass to do something similar to the U.S. How would we respond?
 
2012-08-04 10:45:44 AM

Lost Thought 00: The Jami Turman Fan Club: dbirchall: So has RON PAUL officially given up any hope of throwing a spanner in Romney's works (or at Romney's head, whatever) at the national convention? 'Cos he's back to his usual old batshiat-crazy self, it appears.

Why is this crazy? They're not going to give up going for nukes because we had an embargo. Sure looks like a precursor to a shooting war to me.

Only if you consider the last 30 years of US-Iranian relations to be a precursor to a shooting war


Been more than 30 years since 1953, hasn't it?
 
2012-08-04 10:48:11 AM

NIXON YOU DOLT!!!!!: Suppose the EU got a hair up its ass to do something similar to the U.S. How would we respond?


We would thank the EU for also placing sanctions on Iran?
 
2012-08-04 11:03:51 AM
Apparently, choosing not to shop at a certain store is the same thing as robbing it.
 
2012-08-04 11:08:16 AM
Sanctions are an act of war. Duh.
 
2012-08-04 11:14:25 AM
"Republican presidential hopeful Ron Paul supports calls for the abolishment of Israel as a Jewish state, and the return of it in its entirety to the Arabs, though he is not an anti-Semite, a former senior aide of the libertarian Texan congressman wrote in a blog on Monday.

"'He wishes the Israeli state did not exist at all,' Eric Dondero wrote in his blog on the RightWing News website. 'His view is that Israel is more trouble than it is worth, specifically to the America taxpayer.'

"'He sides with the Palestinians, and supports their calls for the abolishment of the Jewish state, and the return of Israel, all of it, to the Arabs,' Dondero added.

"Responding to the column, CBS News quoted Ron Paul's spokesman Jesse Benton as saying that, 'Eric Dondero is a disgruntled former staffer who was fired for performance issues.'

"'He has zero credibility and should not be taken seriously,' Benton added."

Haaretz.com

Duly noted. I will put this in the big pile of "Ron Paul items to ignore" along with all the racist/anti-semitic newsletter articles published under his name.

Link
 
2012-08-04 11:15:08 AM
Iran does not care about 'sanctions'. China, Russia, and India will do business with them no matter what and there is nothing the USA can do to stop them. They do not fear us anymore.

So they will get a nuke, we or Isreal will bomb them and there there is WWIII. Unless Obama gets re-elected. He miiiiight not bomb them, but I am not sure.
 
2012-08-04 11:26:04 AM

vygramul: I wonder if he considered the Oil Embargo of the '70s an act of war. I'm betting not.


I consider both to be acts of war.......
As hawkish as I am, I really do not see the point of occupying another country. Unless we kill everyone and take the country and make it a new US settlement, then fark it, we don`t need it.

Maybe the US should consider controlling the god damned oil/gas market? Screw international influence, we have enough of it here. An isolated market I think it is called.
 
2012-08-04 11:33:18 AM

darkedgefan: So they will get a nuke, we or Isreal will bomb them and there there is WWIII. Unless Obama gets re-elected. He miiiiight not bomb them, but I am not sure.


I am pretty sure Iran will get a nuke, but are they dumb enough to use one on Israel? If Israel gets nuked, expect them to nuke every country they have been in conflict with since the countries creation. And to be honest, mass killing is nothing new to the area. Nukes may just speed things up and society will get a chance to wipe the asshole of the earth that is the middle east.
 
2012-08-04 11:33:46 AM

NIXON YOU DOLT!!!!!: Suppose the EU got a hair up its ass to do something similar to the U.S. How would we respond?


What, force us to use all our oil domestically? The horror.
 
2012-08-04 11:38:10 AM

Fat-D: I am pretty sure Iran will get a nuke, but are they dumb enough to use one on Israel? If Israel gets nuked, expect them to nuke every country they have been in conflict with since the countries creation. And to be honest, mass killing is nothing new to the area. Nukes may just speed things up and society will get a chance to wipe the asshole of the earth that is the middle east.


Except the inhabitants of the "asshole of the earth" have some big, powerful and trigger-happy allies who have a combined arsenal capable of killing everyone on the planet several times over.

I think the chances of nuclear war being "limited" to a localized area are pretty small.
 
2012-08-04 11:38:56 AM
Remember kids, petroleum geologists get to determine how much "freedom" and "assistance" any given country gets.
 
2012-08-04 11:42:40 AM

Lost Thought 00: The Jami Turman Fan Club: dbirchall: So has RON PAUL officially given up any hope of throwing a spanner in Romney's works (or at Romney's head, whatever) at the national convention? 'Cos he's back to his usual old batshiat-crazy self, it appears.

Why is this crazy? They're not going to give up going for nukes because we had an embargo. Sure looks like a precursor to a shooting war to me.

Only if you consider the last 30 years of US-Iranian relations to be a precursor to a shooting war


As an international expert in shooting I applaud your level-headedness.

NIXON YOU DOLT!!!!!: Suppose the EU got a hair up its ass to do something similar to the U.S. How would we respond?


By renaming more french foods.
 
2012-08-04 11:53:40 AM

Fat-D: darkedgefan: So they will get a nuke, we or Isreal will bomb them and there there is WWIII. Unless Obama gets re-elected. He miiiiight not bomb them, but I am not sure.

I am pretty sure Iran will get a nuke, but are they dumb enough to use one on Israel? If Israel gets nuked, expect them to nuke every country they have been in conflict with since the countries creation. And to be honest, mass killing is nothing new to the area. Nukes may just speed things up and society will get a chance to wipe the asshole of the earth that is the middle east.


I think he's saying Israel will attack Iran if they get nukes. They're already assassinating scientists to try and kill the program. If they do, the US will pretty much be dragged in to help. If we jump in, Russia and China will likely jump in on the other side. Tada, WWIII.
 
2012-08-04 11:55:18 AM
Weedlord Bonerhitler 2012
 
2012-08-04 11:57:26 AM

odinsposse: I think he's saying Israel will attack Iran if they get nukes. They're already assassinating scientists to try and kill the program. If they do, the US will pretty much be dragged in to help.


Haven't we historically been pretty happy to sit back, let Israel do the dirty work, and pretend we know nothing about it?
 
2012-08-04 12:02:11 PM

sprawl15: "Act of War"? Yet again, a constitutional literalist doesn't give half a shiat what the Constitution actually says when they want to make waves. Must be a day.


All this stupid shiat about how to interpret the Constitution such that it conveniently lines up exactly with your political leanings is exactly that: stupid shiat.
 
2012-08-04 12:08:01 PM
clambam: I will put this in the big pile of "Ron Paul items to ignore" along with all the racist/anti-semitic newsletter articles published under his name.

from TFA: One group that was pleased with the bill was the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, a lobbyist group that endorsed the sanctions.

Mr. Paul and Representative Dennis Kucinich spoke opposing the bill, voicing concerns that it would spark an armed conflict with Iran. Mr. Paul insisted that Iran is not a threat and is "incapable of attacking us." He maintains that the U.S. is "beating the war drums once again," according to a Digital Journal report.


Yes, how dare anyone speak up when the corrupt US Congress allows a foreign lobby backing the policies of a group of extremist nutballs to play them. The nerve of some people!

This playing the JEW card when someone dares to call the Zionists and the military industrial complex on their BS is getting old. Learn some new tricks, eh?

Just for you, in case you actually are not some AIPAC shill and have an open mind: Link
 
2012-08-04 12:15:03 PM

dbirchall: odinsposse: I think he's saying Israel will attack Iran if they get nukes. They're already assassinating scientists to try and kill the program. If they do, the US will pretty much be dragged in to help.

Haven't we historically been pretty happy to sit back, let Israel do the dirty work, and pretend we know nothing about it?


What? There's a what on? I'm sorry, what? A War? Oh no thank you, we're quite alright.
 
2012-08-04 12:19:42 PM

dbirchall: odinsposse: I think he's saying Israel will attack Iran if they get nukes. They're already assassinating scientists to try and kill the program. If they do, the US will pretty much be dragged in to help.

Haven't we historically been pretty happy to sit back, let Israel do the dirty work, and pretend we know nothing about it?


Sure, except Israel doesn't have a chance at a successful invasion of Iran without our help. They can do target air strikes and delay Iran's nuclear program but they can't eliminate it without larger scale military operations. They need the US for that.
 
2012-08-04 12:43:18 PM

odinsposse: dbirchall: odinsposse: I think he's saying Israel will attack Iran if they get nukes. They're already assassinating scientists to try and kill the program. If they do, the US will pretty much be dragged in to help.

Haven't we historically been pretty happy to sit back, let Israel do the dirty work, and pretend we know nothing about it?

Sure, except Israel doesn't have a chance at a successful invasion of Iran without our help. They can do target air strikes and delay Iran's nuclear program but they can't eliminate it without larger scale military operations. They need the US for that.


Even so, step 1 would be to sit back and let them do everything they can, without any help from us (*cough*STUXNET*cough*).
 
2012-08-04 12:53:35 PM
Okay, subby, it's not a challenge if you make the answer obvious.
 
2012-08-04 01:02:47 PM
Well OF COURSE it is. RON PAUL (insert year here) would never steer you wrong. He's incapable of being wrong, he's perfect, blah blah. Wake me when he doesn't say something hyperbolic and stupid.
 
2012-08-04 01:27:33 PM

miss diminutive: "While we have clearly placed all options on the table in this standoff with Iran, our goal is not to pick a fight with Iran, but to politically isolate Iran and deprive Iran of the resources and technology it needs to achieve its goal," said Sen. Bob Menendez.

So isolating them from their allies and depriving them of resources and technology is going to lessen their desire to acquire nukes?


Hey, it worked for Iraq. Oh wait, no it didn't.
 
2012-08-04 01:33:52 PM

odinsposse: dbirchall: odinsposse: I think he's saying Israel will attack Iran if they get nukes. They're already assassinating scientists to try and kill the program. If they do, the US will pretty much be dragged in to help.

Haven't we historically been pretty happy to sit back, let Israel do the dirty work, and pretend we know nothing about it?

Sure, except Israel doesn't have a chance at a successful invasion of Iran without our help. They can do target air strikes and delay Iran's nuclear program but they can't eliminate it without larger scale military operations. They need the US for that.


Maybe we can just let them borrow some troops.

"We had no idea what they were going to do with them. Really!"
 
2012-08-04 01:48:22 PM
If we'd just get the hell of their property, you know, like just leave the muddled east to the folk that actually live there ... they'd soon forget all about us. Al Queda, the Haqqani Network, Hizbullah, Moqtada al-Sadr, Ohmydinnerjacket. All of them. They'd soon be too busy shredding themselves. We could always check back later when the dust settles.
 
2012-08-04 01:56:58 PM
"If goods don't cross borders, armies will."
 
2012-08-04 02:10:05 PM

Fat-D: darkedgefan: So they will get a nuke, we or Isreal will bomb them and there there is WWIII. Unless Obama gets re-elected. He miiiiight not bomb them, but I am not sure.

I am pretty sure Iran will get a nuke, but are they dumb enough to use one on Israel? If Israel gets nuked, expect them to nuke every country they have been in conflict with since the countries creation. And to be honest, mass killing is nothing new to the area. Nukes may just speed things up and society will get a chance to wipe the asshole of the earth that is the middle east.


Are they dumb enough?

I don't think dumb is the question when it comes to religion.

You should read up on twelver beliefs it you think a nuclear war is unimaginable.
 
2012-08-04 02:41:24 PM
s3.amazonaws.com
 
2012-08-04 02:56:11 PM
I think Ron Paul is confusing an "embargo" with a "blockade" and even then, there's a bit of grey. He's old, senile, probably forgets stuff. So in that sense it's hard to get worked up about the mistake. But the infirmed, incompetent, and insane probably shouldn't be setting policy. That's bad. But, for now, shooting republicans on sight is considered worse, so there's really nothing that can be done to fix it.
 
2012-08-04 03:03:39 PM
So...has the revolution happened yet? Because I was assured beyond the shadow of a doubt that RON PAUL was going to sweep the popular vote.

It hasn't?

What happened you guys? You back to playing Skyrim in your mom's basement?
 
2012-08-04 04:51:45 PM

NIXON YOU DOLT!!!!!: Suppose the EU got a hair up its ass to do something similar to the U.S. How would we respond?


take your do unto others pinko crap and get outta this country
 
2012-08-04 04:55:24 PM
s3-ec.buzzfed.com

Don't forget Poland.
 
2012-08-04 05:11:39 PM

Rich Cream: NIXON YOU DOLT!!!!!: Suppose the EU got a hair up its ass to do something similar to the U.S. How would we respond?

take your do unto others pinko crap and get outta this country


This response to the question may give you cause to reevaluate the subversive nature of the question.
 
2012-08-04 05:25:10 PM

Tickle Mittens: Rich Cream: NIXON YOU DOLT!!!!!: Suppose the EU got a hair up its ass to do something similar to the U.S. How would we respond?

take your do unto others pinko crap and get outta this country

This response to the question may give you cause to reevaluate the subversive nature of the question.




take your subversive pinko crap and get outta this country
 
2012-08-04 05:58:13 PM

Dalrint: Frankly, I don't see why Iran would ever stop trying to get nukes.

Hell, we've seen it with North Korea. Once you have them, you're safe from the US. It's a great big 'stay off my lawn' sign.


That's not what keeps North Korea safe. It's one of the limited means the North Koreans have to obtain resources, but on balance it was a terrible economic mistake for them. What secures north korea are thousands of artillery pieces dug into mountains surrounding the nearly 25 million people of Seoul. In the event of the full resumption of hostilities, which the North Koreans are sure to lose decisively to the South Koreans (even if they weren't aided), the North Koreans would reduce Seoul "... to a sea of fire." Some estimates used to report North Korean capability of sustaining 25,000 shells per hour (and it might well be more) into Seoul. Even with DARPA projects to develop laser systems capable of intercepting artillery shells, nothing could save Seoul. Nothing.

Nuclear weapons are extremely expensive. Not just for the country that develops them, but for all the countries everywhere. North Korea is bleeding the US of money, not in aid to themselves, but in aid to American allies to stave off their own nuclear programs. Japan is revisiting the necessity of nuclear weapons, with the 10s of thousands of kg of plutonium they have, and the available technology, they could likely become a nuclear power in months. Without North Korea's program, and love of proliferation, they might not be seeking to assume this economic burden. And if Japan goes nuclear, South Korea would virtually have to embark on a similar program. Then there's the matter of Taiwan, who's nuclear program was utterly dismantled by the CIA in 1992. Like Japan, they would have no difficulty producing effective weapons. Unlike Japan, China has long maintained the result of a Taiwanese bomb would be an immediate full-scale invasion. In absence of definitive proof of a Taiwanese bomb, the American response would be to intercede preventing a Chinese invasion, and potentially WWIII and the use of thermonuclear weapons. WWII has been estimated to have cost quadrillions of modern dollars. The world economy is having trouble dealing with the unexpected burden of tens of trillions in unmet/unlikely to be met obligations. What if that were 100 to 1000 times worse? That's the cost of nuclear proliferation.

The US will not allow the Iranians to have a nuclear capability for a few reasons:
1. They are perceived as not necessarily rational actors, and capable of using a nuclear device even under circumstances they know would lead to their complete annihilation. As such, the MAD balancing act fails, and interested parties, ever world power and citizen of the region would necessarily be even more hyper-vigilant than they were during the cold war; nearly resulting in a full exchange. Over a long time, the use of nuclear weapons in the region seems potentially unavoidable should Iran get the bomb.

2. Other wealthy powers in the region can afford the development of nuclear weapons, but their fragile or distorted economies would suffer or perhaps be unable to support the costs of maintaining nuclear capability; particularly, as the nature of the energy economy necessarily changes for everyone going forward. If Iran obtains a nuclear capability, what about Egypt, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, etc. This is a reserve of untold billions which will not go into lowering internal pressures.

3. Which will increase political stability in a region which is already under a great deal of pressure on many fronts. Civil wars, and a series of persistent low intensity conflicts don't strike me as a environment that would foster excellent nuclear security. No one is looking at Pakistan thinking, "You know what the world needs? A half dozen more of that!"

4. It is senseless. If the choice is between regional nuclear proliferation and destroying Iran, the kinder option 100 or 500 years from now may well be the later. But Iran looks to be a problem that solves itself. They have not instituted a government that can meet the needs of its people; which is greatly exaggerated by the embargos. Most of the people in Iran are young and their needs are totally unmet by their leadership. A leadership that is aging. While they nurture their own replacements, those people won't have the support of a populace who had their government stolen from them to consolidate their power. And information is far more dangerous now, the ability to know and communicate is becoming ever more persistently invasive. Time and necessity is more corrosive to Iran than to North Korea which started off insular and has maintained that for half a century. Iranian flirting with the blessings of the modern world may well save them from a fate worse than cannibalism.

This is not to say the US has chosen the best path. The US should likely ease some elements of the embargo, cultivate a more communicative relationship, and find an option for Iran to produce medical isotopes without the specter of mushroom cloud. But the costs of an Iranian weapon are extremely expensive, more so than other nations, much of which was the ill-considered doing of the US. It's a cost likely to be paid in lives, possibly through one extremely devastating war, resources, dollars, euros, and everything else under the sun.
Don't worry, I didn't read it either
 
2012-08-04 07:17:29 PM

Fat-D: As hawkish as I am, I really do not see the point of occupying another country.


Well, I sincerely doubt that any likely US action includes that as a goal.
 
2012-08-04 07:21:32 PM

Tickle Mittens: In the event of the full resumption of hostilities, which the North Koreans are sure to lose decisively to the South Koreans (even if they weren't aided), the North Koreans would reduce Seoul "... to a sea of fire." Some estimates used to report North Korean capability of sustaining 25,000 shells per hour (and it might well be more) into Seoul. Even with DARPA projects to develop laser systems capable of intercepting artillery shells, nothing could save Seoul. Nothing.


These estimates are almost certainly vastly over-stating the problem and rely heavily on assumptions that are nowhere near the entire set of possibilities in which hostilities develop. If it was a certainty, NK wouldn't need the nukes. But they're not confident in their capabilities, so nukes it is.
 
2012-08-05 02:21:41 PM
A blockade is an act of war under international law. I dunno if this one did or if such a one has passed, but it's been floated in many of these bills to not just have *sanctions* (which are at the very least, a hostile act if not a pure casus belli) but to have the US military actively intervene to prevent certain goods from crossing Iran's international borders.

That is an act of war. If someone tried it on us we'd blow their navy out of the water.
 
2012-08-05 11:20:20 PM

Churchill2004: A blockade is an act of war under international law. I dunno if this one did or if such a one has passed, but it's been floated in many of these bills to not just have *sanctions* (which are at the very least, a hostile act if not a pure casus belli) but to have the US military actively intervene to prevent certain goods from crossing Iran's international borders.

That is an act of war. If someone tried it on us we'd blow their navy out of the water.


We put a farking fleet in the entrance of the Persian Gulf. Looks like deliberate provocation to me.

And what is this crap about the Consitution? I have yet to see Ron Paul do or say anything that's in contrast with the Consitution as our Founders would have read it. You know, back when we had slavery, and the Kentucky & Virginia Resolution, and the Alien & Sedition Act.

That's what I love about Ron Paul. He's a pure, strict, Originalist. It makes the Scalia types look all the derpier when you realize what a mess this country would be in if we used the Founder's intent.
 
2012-08-06 10:19:03 AM

The Jami Turman Fan Club: as [the] Founders [whom I personally agree with] would have read it.


FTFY

/The Founders weren't a rock band, they had divergent opinions - that's where all that checks and balances nonsense you idiots hate came from.
 
Displayed 49 of 49 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report