Ron Paul says he'd lift sanctions on Iran

WCAX ^ | 12/19/07 | WCAX

[WhistlingPastTheGraveyard]

Fair enough. But honestly, the fishing expeditions aren’t necessary. If you have a point to make about something that happened in 1975 that you believe is relevant to what’s happening with Iran today, put it out there and we’ll discuss it. Same with America’s role in the Iran-Iraq war. Just make your case and let the conversation go from there. If you’re not hiding anything, there’s no reason to beat around the bush.

I’m not hostile to the fact that the past had led us to the present. I am hostile to the notion that American foreign policy is entirely to blame for the current situation, though.

[JediHal]

Fair enough. But honestly, the fishing expeditions aren’t necessary. If you have a point to make about something that happened in 1975 that you believe is relevant to what’s happening with Iran today, put it out there and we’ll discuss it. Same with America’s role in the Iran-Iraq war. Just make your case and let the conversation go from there. If you’re not hiding anything, there’s no reason to beat around the bush.

I’m not hostile to the fact that the past had led us to the present. I am hostile to the notion that American foreign policy is entirely to blame for the current situation, though.

Thank you. My intent was to get differing viewpoints and let the discussion take off from there. I do concur that our foreign policy is not entirely to blame. My basic opinion is that we helped both sides during the Iran-Iraq War. The why is a little more complicated so I'll put out my views in a later post (my son wants to take advantage of the nice weather and shoot some hoops). Take care.

[Extremely Extreme Extremist]

No, most of it came from Soros & MoveOn....the rest from poor saps claiming to be conservative, but were in fact closet LIEberals.

I have no problemo with liberals donating to Paul. Maybe they want to understand the Constitution and conservatism.

Now about Hunter, I can get him a great deal on a low-interest loan to help his struggling campaign.

[Bokababe]

"Ah...another closet LIEberal speaks! Maybe one day Cap'n. Paul will give you your own SHRIMP BOAT too!"

Thinking of you as representing all "Real Conservative Republicans" would be enough to turn even Ronald Reagan back into a Democrat!

[RasterMaster]

If they're looking to undertand the Constitution, they should pick up a book once in awhile.

Certainly won't get educated following around LIEberals and Losertarians.

Now isn't there a MoveOn rally you're missing somewhere?

[Recovering Hermit]

This guy is nuttier than squirrel turds.

[brooklyn dave]

What is it with a lot of conservatives? I realize that Romney has changed his opinions on issues that are dear to conservatives since his time as governor of MA. Isn’t anyone allowed to change their position without being called a flip-flopper? If I get more information on certain thngs, I would change my position. But the change would be very incremental depending on the info I received. On abortion, which many are still ticked at Romney, I would take quite a conservative view that would be short of outlawing it all together. (no partial birth, only in case of rape/incest/extreme deformity, or if mother’s physical life is threatened by giving birth) The fact is that conservatives are still on a safari for the next Ronald Reagan....which they won’t find in 2008. Anybody but Hillary puhleeez!

[montag813]

My Michigan operatives tell me the Paulestinians are mounting a large and successful fundraising operation among Arabs in and around Dearborn. The word is out: PaulPot is the jihadists’ favored candidate.

[MEGoody]

And the Paulites wonder why we won't support their guy.

::::shaking head::::

[MEGoody]

I have no problemo with liberals donating to Paul. Maybe they want to understand the Constitution and conservatism.

If you believe that, I have some ocean front property in Kansas you'd be interested in.

[Martins kid]

Paul’s explanation of his support/opposition of the Texas Wild Shrimp Industry reminds me of the Grinch explaining his theft of the Christmas tree to Cindy Lou Who.

IF he really wanted to stop spending on pork he would NOT propose the spending. It cannot pass IF he does not propose it. He is as guilty of the spending as if he voted for it and wrote the check himself. Paul is trying to mislead people. He is behind the spending but he is lying and saying he is not.

And you actually believe him - How is the weather in Who-ville today, eh?

[Froufrou]

These are even better than blond jokes!

[StarCMC]

What a bonehead.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the ping!

[publiusF27]

You mean 28 years ago when Jimmy Carter betrayed the Shah of Iran and to show their appreciation, the Iranians seized SOVEREIGN AMERICAN SOIL and kept American citizens with diplomatic credentials in captivity for 444 days?

The Shah was an asshole, and that's what made him vulnerable. When we quit propping him up, he fell, and the people most opposed to us were the most popular. Not really surprising.

I see a similar situation today in Pakistan. Musharaf is an unpopular asshole dictator and we're propping him up and giving him billions of dollars in military aid. Not surprisingly, our assistance is enhancing the popularity of the most anti-American among his domestic opposition. When we pull the rug from under him, which we are showing signs of doing, we'll have a large, nuclear-armed Islamic nation ruled by people who hate us. What a tangled web we weave.

[JediHal]

Thank you. My intent was to get differing viewpoints and let the discussion take off from there. I do concur that our foreign policy is not entirely to blame. My basic opinion is that we helped both sides during the Iran-Iraq War. The why is a little more complicated so I'll put out my views in a later post (my son wants to take advantage of the nice weather and shoot some hoops). Take care.

The short version is that in 1975 there was a peace settlement negotiated between Iran and Iraq over the Shat el Arab waterway, effectively putting the border (and access to the Persian Gulf) down the middle of the river. Iraq calimed the entire width of the waterway. I think that part of the treaty required Iran from supporting Iraqi Kurds from insurgent activity against Iraq but I am not sure. In 1979 the Shah fell (our fault), the Ayatollah took advantage of the power vacuum and the Iranian Hostage Crisis developed. Also during 1978 or 1979 Saddam Hussein came to power in Iraq.

Saddam wanted to take advantage of Iran's instability and launched attacks in 1980 to regain control of the waterway and possibly gain territory. Iraq was on the State Department's State Sponsor of Terrorism (SSOT) list but Iran was not. We had severed diplomatic relations with Iraq around 1967 and did not formally re-establish ties until 1984. When that happened Iraq came off the SSOT list and Iran went on it.

To be continued...

[WhistlingPastTheGraveyard]

We had severed diplomatic relations with Iraq around 1967 and did not formally re-establish ties until 1984. When that happened Iraq came off the SSOT list and Iran went on it.

The 241 Marines slaughtered at the hands of Iranian Hezbollah in 1983 had more to do with that than anything else.

[JediHal]

If you have a point to make about something that happened in 1975 that you believe is relevant to what’s happening with Iran today, put it out there and we’ll discuss it. Same with America’s role in the Iran-Iraq war.

I’m not hostile to the fact that the past had led us to the present. I am hostile to the notion that American foreign policy is entirely to blame for the current situation, though.

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/context.jsp?item=us_iraq_80s_741&scale=2#us_iraq_80s_741

The above website gives a decent timeline with regards to our involvement with Iraq in the 1980s. It may not be all-inclusive but it's a good start.

The upshot is we started backing Iraq with at least military intelligence and possibly more. Remember that officially we were neutral about the conflict. We had armed Iran during the Shah's reign so that information was valuable to Iraq. I also believe that Saudi Arabia and Britain aided Iraq during this time.

In my opinion, we decided to help Iraq for two reasons. First we felt that a well-armed Islamic state might very well destabilize the region. Secondly I believe it was simple revenge for being humiliated by a bunch of "students" and a cleric for over 400 days. Iraq provided the perfect vehicle to "stick it" to Iran without our direct involvement.

And then there was Afghanistan...

[JediHal]

The 241 Marines slaughtered at the hands of Iranian Hezbollah in 1983 had more to do with that than anything else.

Point taken - I hadn't gotten to our dealings with Iran yet. I am a very slow typist (sorry).

[WhistlingPastTheGraveyard]

We didn’t weave the web. We do get tangled up in it from time to time when we try to navigate it, but the Islamist world ain’t exactly a trolley ride on the boardwalk. The reason that place is a constant thorn in the world’s side is Mohammed and his damned book. The Arab world is his web.

If left to their own devices, as the Paulites and isolationists would have, there’s nothing in the world that would prevent those same Islamist countries from acquiring nuclear weapons. They’d still be ruled by the strongest, most violent fundamentalists. And since they’d still be followers of the Koran, they’d still consider it their religious duty to rid the world of infidel Christians and Jews.

Doing nothing almost certainly gets us to the same place as trying and failing, only a lot quicker.