Skip to comments.The Obama Perpetrated Iran Disaster Emerges
Posted on 02/06/2014 7:35:20 AM PST by LSUfan
Well, the deed is all but done. The Obamanistas have gotten what they wanted all along: a false detente with the Ayatollahs.
John Kerry would have us believe that the Iranian nuclear program has been frozen by the agreement he hammered out with Iranian negotiators, but the subsequent remarks from Iranian leaders are very telling; they dont appear to believe that they agreed to anything that truly curtails their nuclear ambitions.
Kerry is lying.
At BEST, this agreement seems to have set back the Iranian nuclear program all of 6 weeks. It is now inevitable that one day we will wake up and turn on the cable news shows and be treated to the news that Iran has nuclear weapons.
Make no mistake, Obama was NEVER committed to preventing the Iranians from becoming armed with nuclear weapons. To Obamas world view, this is simply a balancing of world power. We have more nukes than anyone, so, what difference does it make that Iran has nukes? (Incidentally, this is essentially the same position that some Republicans, notably Rand Paul, have taken.)
(Excerpt) Read more at iranbulletin.me ...
That sentence should prompt a few comments.
He's only committed to eliminate OUR nuclear weapons.
Who are we to judge? The pin-headed moron, kerry, meant well, no?
As long as its a neutron bomb over DC, I'm okay with that. /sarc
Ron Paul has never said Iran should be allowed to develop nuclear weapons without resistance.
What Ron Paul said was the USA should not be entangled in so many wars as the world’s policeman or empire.
Laying siege on Iran has an effect. Tripling the sanctions and enforcing others to abide them would lead to an overthrow of the Mullahs by the Iranian people because starvation is always a local issue.
But bombing by the USA or under cover of its NATO surrogate, or by the Israelis will only anger the Iranian people and entrench further the power of the psychotic terrorists that answer to the Mullahs.
Ron Paul would back a siege because it is simply a refusal to allow Iran to trade oil, to have visas to travel, to perform any international banking, gold, precious metals or any commodity transactions or anything of value that can be monetized. These sanctions do have an effect but are leaky for lack of enforcement.
Enforcement of an oil embargo could be carried out by placing a carrier group near the Strait of Hormuz with standing orders to shoot down or sink anything coming from or going to Iran. Such as action has no effect of making war on the ground. Ron Paul could sign for this.
The invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan allowed for the complete isolation of Iran as all countries bordering it are or were at one time in agreement with the West in regards to sanctions of Iran. Ron Paul would not sign for an invasion of countries to isolate Iran. I expect he would sign for placing sanctions on all three, Iraq, Afghanistan and Iran, but even laying siege to all three may have been unnecessary. Leaving Saddam Hussein in power would not have empowered Iran as Iraqis and Iranians ruling classes are permanent enemies of each other. Afghanistan is mostly influenced by Pakistan and there is no friendly basis for Afgans and Iranian governments to carry on against the sanctions of the West. Afghanistan is poor and would not be helpful to Iran even if its governing class chose to participate in evading sanctions.
Starve them, it’s the only way. I expect Ron Paul would be fine with that as it involves no aggressive military action.
Well, truth be told, our nukes are technologically outdated, Obama won't permit any new warhead design, Obama is chopping our nuke numbers, and China is not beholden to ANY nuclear proliferation treaty.
China and Russia will sucker-punch us one day with a tag-team nuclear attack, I believe before Bath House leaves office. Bath House won't know what to do at that point. NYC, D.C., LA, SF, Philly, Boston, and Seattle will be smoking holes in the ground.
That is an absolute misrepresentation of Ron Paul’s repeated statements on Iran and repeated votes against sanctions on Iran. In fact, in some cases, Ron Paul was the lone Republican to vote against sanctions on Iran.
Iran is economically self sufficient. The only thing they don’t make at home are computers and cars.
“We have more nukes than anyone, so, what difference does it make that Iran has nukes?”
Saudi Arabia will next have nukes, followed by the UAE, Qatar, and all the other oil kingdoms and Iraq. Somewhere in that crowd, there is a crazy person who will use the bomb when he gets ahold of it, and then it won’t matter who had more bombs, or how many Israel had.
If he's still alive at that point, he'll be doing the Happy Dance - his ultimate goal, and that of the barbarians on the other end of his BlackBerry, is the complete destruction of this country.
Unless they’ve developed the capability recently, they don’t make gasoline, either.
40 years ago Iranians were self-sufficient. But things have changed greatly.
There are 35 million new people of adult age without education and skills.
The Mullahs dictate that women should be married before having sex and that marriages should produce children immediately without delay and without waiting after giving birth before a new pregnancy is conceived. Women are to bear children as soon as they are capable.
The results are a demographic disaster.
Long ago Iran had a middle class where young men were expected to be able to support a family before marrying and having a family. Now young unmarried men and women can be arrested just for holding hands or necking on a park bench.
The infrastructure is old and decaying in Iran, and has not kept up with the baby boom that came about by dictates from the Mullahs.
Iran which 40 years ago was between first and second world economically is now a 3rd world cesspool. Iran does not have enough housing, clean water and food to sustain its new unskilled and uneducated population of young people. Large portions of cities especially the outskirts resemble toxic poverty of Calcutta with tents, ramshackled arrangements, no plumbing and requiring to dig holes for human sewage or to carry it in pots to nearby streams.
“The World Banks Board of Directors this week approved a total of $359 million in loans for two projects aimed at helping the Government of Iran improve housing conditions for poor and middle-income urban neighborhoods as well as expand access to clean water and coverage of sanitation services in the two large cities of Ahwaz and Shiraz.”
“The Water Supply and Sanitation Project ($279 million) supports the initial phase of the Government of Irans long-term development plans to expand water and wastewater facilities in Ahwaz and Shiraz by 2027. About 96 percent of the Irans urban population is connected to public water supplies. However, only about 16 percent is connected to sanitary public sewerage, and only part of the collected sewage is treated before disposal. The bulk of sewage is discharged untreated, polluting groundwater and posing a risk to public health.”
“The five-year project will benefit some 2.4 million people living in Ahwaz and Shiraz, a proportion of whom are poor. It will significantly increase coverage of sanitation services as well as improve the quality of water supply in the two cities, with substantial hygiene and health benefits to their population. The Project will upgrade existing water treatment plants, provide additional treatment, and improve water networks in both cities. Wastewater treatment works will include the rehabilitation, improvement and expansion of wastewater facilities and wastewater collection systems.”
“The project will also strengthen the capacity of sector institutions, particularly the Ahwaz and Shiraz Water and Wastewater companies and assist them in improving their efficiency and financial autonomy.”
“The Urban Upgrading and Housing Reform Project ($80 million) is the first phase of a twelve year lending program ($264 million) which aims at supporting the Government of Irans housing sector goals as spelled out in its Third and Fourth Five-Year Development Plans.”
“During the last decade, Iran has experienced rapid urban growth resulting in the proliferation of informal settlements. Both central and local governments were unable to provide basic services to these areas that represent around 20-30% of the urban population and that are home to the poorest segments of the society.”
“Furthermore, Irans housing sector is hindered by an inefficient system of housing subsidies, an inactive land market controlled largely by the government, poor urban planning and constrained role of local governments. Also, being among the most earthquake-prone countries in the world, Iran is at risk of facing large and unexpected housing loss.”
“To help the Government of Iran achieve its housing sector goals, the Project will launch a nationwide urban upgrading program in major under-serviced settlements in up to five provincial capital cities. The Project will also initiate housing sector reforms through technical assistance in areas such as: land management, housing finance, housing subsidies and information aiming at improving the affordability of housing in Iran.”
“The two projects fall in line with the World Banks interim strategy for Iran which focuses on extending assistance to priority areas including low-income housing, water and sanitation and urban upgrading and community-based infrastructure, among others. The Bank is currently implementing four projects in Iran in healthcare and nutrition, sewerage in Tehran, environmental management, and emergency earthquake recovery.”
Javijaa Khomeini. Praise Allah. Better living through Islamic fanaticism.
geee, even the Iranians know about the Obamanistas? Looks like the Ayatollahs don’t like Obama’s peace.
It's worked wonders in N. Korea... Oh...
They are working on it (with Chinese assistance, IIRC?), but have a long way to go.
Cripple the gasoline import mechanisms & Iran is in big trouble - not that the Mullah’s would necessarily yield. I doubt that the death of half their population would deter them.
This is clearly an act of war, and Iran (or most any country) could be expected to react accordingly (but with time to plan, etc.) If it is to be war, better to hit them hard and fast, and try to take out any chance of dirty bomb or chem counterattack as things ramp up.
N. Korea - Iran ....... Apples and Oranges.
There is plenty of food aid to North Korea. The sanctions against N. Korea do not extend to food.
There is starvation in N. Korea that is found in the ‘hostile’ class of the 50 strata songbun system where the hostile class is at the bottom. Starvation of the hostile class is deliberately inflicted by the state which also prevents food aid from reaching this bottom class. The regime wants the hostile class to perish.
The NK hostile class is too small to overthrow the regime in N. Korea whereas in Iran, where 72% of the population is favorable to Americans, starvation would certainly result in an overthrow of the regime and especially quickly if supplied with weapons.
Lighten up, Francis.
> “This is clearly an act of war, and Iran (or most any country) could be expected to react accordingly....”
Who would Iran attack? The US Carrier Group? I don’t think so. Iraq? I don’t think so. Pakistan? Nope.
Iran will attack nothing outside its borders because the Iranian people will not support any such attack unless first attacked within their borders. The only war recourse for the regime in Iran is to plan attacks through their terrorist network which are kept hidden from the Iranian people. But an uprising of the Iranian people will put a stop to any planned terrorist strikes. This is key; to use the Iranian people’s disgust for the mullahs as a weapon in the war. Starvation is the tipping point.
Starvation is always local; people who are starving, who see family and neighbors dead of starvation, cease to care about politics or political reasons given them for the starvation; they only care about finding food and they will kill anyone that gets in the way of their getting food.
It’s not complicated. It’s bitter medicine but will work inside Iraq according to Iranians that live outside Iran.
It is also the best way to conduct a war against the regime in Iran that both preserves the favorable view that the Iranian people hold for Americans and avoids a foreign hot war intrusion on Iranian ground which would only anger Iranians thereby empowering the mullahs.
Well.......I think we all know how this is going to end and for my part, I suspect the sooner the better.
You have a rather peculiar view of history. I'd suggest you read up on the response of the Irish to famine and starvation in 1846-7. And the Ukrainians during the famine and starvation of 1932-3. And the German people in the latter stages of WW II.
Starving people rapidly lose motivation, become listless and passive. It has been thus in every case, from Africa to the real life examples mentioned above. Iran had its chance to rise up when they were well fed. They failed. History says starving them will accomplish nothing. Your theory is at variance with reality.
The French Revolution
The Fall of the Soviet Union
and many others.
You have a twisted view of the response of Germans in the latter part of WWII.
If youd like to be on or off, please FR mail me.
RON PAUL to DFU on Iowa radio - he would not stop ship with nuclear missiles from N. Korea to Iran WHO RADIO in Des Moines ^ | 1-3-08 | dfu
Posted on 1/3/2008 9:15:39 AM by doug from upland
For those who have doubts that Ron Paul would be an acceptable commander in chief, your doubts would have been absolutely confirmed if you listened to him this morning on WHO 1040 talk radio in Des Moines, Iowa.
He came on Jan Mickelson's show at about 8:50am, Pacific Time. I was the second caller.
After complimenting him on his commitment to the Constitution, I asked a question about foreign policy. If any of you can pull the podcast, you can hear the conversation.
The question went something like this: Dr. Paul, if a shipment of nuclear tipped missiles was heading from North Korea to Iran, knowing the position of Ahmadinejad and the mullahs, would you stop that ship or sink it?
His answer was stunning. He very quickly answwered, "No, why would we do that?" After that question back to me, he commented that there was almost zero chance of that happening. He said that if he knew they planned to use them against us, he would take action. But they know they would be obliterated.
I wanted to challenge him further over Iran's stated goal of destroying Israel, but I was apparently cut off by the host and couldn't do it.
There you go, folks. Dr. Paul is an unthinkable commander in chief.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.