1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Iran: The Next Neocon Target

Discussion in 'The OT' started by tomcrown1, Apr 27, 2006.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. tomcrown1

    tomcrown1 Hall Of Fame

    1,576
    0
    Jan 16, 2006
    http://www.antiwar.com/paul/?articleid=8821

    April 7, 2006
    Iran: The Next Neocon Target

    by Rep. Ron Paul
    It's been three years since the U.S. launched its war against Saddam Hussein and his weapons of mass destruction. Of course, now almost everybody knows there were no WMD and Saddam Hussein posed no threat to the United States. Though some of our soldiers serving in Iraq still believe they are there because Saddam Hussein was involved in 9/11, even the administration now acknowledges there was no connection. Indeed, no one can be absolutely certain why we invaded Iraq. The current excuse, also given for staying in Iraq, is to make it a democratic state, friendly to the United States. There are now fewer denials that securing oil supplies played a significant role in our decision to go into Iraq and stay there. That certainly would explain why U.S. taxpayers are paying such a price to build and maintain numerous huge, permanent military bases in Iraq. They're also funding a new billion dollar embassy – the largest in the world.

    The significant question we must ask ourselves is: What have we learned from three years in Iraq? With plans now being laid for regime change in Iran, it appears we have learned absolutely nothing. There still are plenty of administration officials who daily paint a rosy picture of the Iraq we have created. But I wonder: If the past three years were nothing more than a bad dream, and our nation suddenly awakened, how many would, for national security reasons, urge the same invasion? Would we instead give a gigantic sigh of relief that it was only a bad dream, that we need not relive the three-year nightmare of death, destruction, chaos, and stupendous consumption of tax dollars? Conceivably, we would still see oil prices under $30 a barrel, and most importantly, 20,000 severe U.S. casualties would not have occurred. My guess is that 99 percent of all Americans would be thankful it was only a bad dream, and would never support the invasion knowing what we know today.



    Rep Ron Paul is a republican congressman from texas.
     
  2. Fifty Caliber

    Fifty Caliber Banned User

    979
    0
    Jan 4, 2006
    The correct term for him is RINO, Republican In Name Only. He originally ran as a Libertarian and found out he could not get elected without a major party afliation. So he became a RINO.
     
  3. Bogy

    Bogy Hall Of Fame

    13,242
    1
    Mar 23, 2002
    So much for the Republican "big tent" that allows for people with different points of view. :lol:
     
  4. durl

    durl Hall Of Fame

    1,743
    0
    Mar 27, 2003
    And Democrats do?

    But seriously, the representative can say whatever he wants but it's what he leaves out that should speak volumes. He doesn't see any positive lessons from Iraq because he doesn't WANT to see them. He depends on his constituency seeing only 2 weeks into the future and 2 weeks into the past.
     
  5. tomcrown1

    tomcrown1 Hall Of Fame

    1,576
    0
    Jan 16, 2006
    What are the postive lesson from Iraq.

    released annual report on global terrorism. Among the trends it identifies: More than half the deaths from global terror attacks in 2005 were in Iraq. And al-Qaida leaders are losing some control over global terrorist activity.

    http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5369786
     
  6. dpd146

    dpd146 Godfather

    415
    0
    Oct 1, 2005
    Both parties allow different points of view, they can look at the talking points on the teleprompter or on the piece of paper on the lectern. :nono2:
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page