"Tehran's deputy defense minister warns Jerusalem against strike on Iran's nuclear facilities, says 'any action by Zionist regime will bring about its destruction'"
Ron Paul 2012!
He won't get the USA mixed up in that kind of thing (without a declaration of war).
If he were, he wouldn't be able to avoid it. If he tried, he would deserve impeachment. Any president who would fail to come to the defense of an ally against whom a psychotic aggressor was waging a war of annhilation would deserve nothing less, as well as the well-earned contempt of history and of decent people down through the ages.
Are you a sociopath, Jeff? Do you really have to ask on what grounds nonfeasance in a commander-in-chief, who stood by and allowed madmen to acquire nuclear weapons, commit genocide against an ally without raising a finger, and threaten the very lives of every man, woman and child in the United States as well as the existence of the Republic would deserve to be impeached?
Wow, Mr. Waters. Is it too much to expect a levelheaded discussion of the article? The article does not discuss threats to the United States at all. Or genocide.
Jeff, Jeff, Jeff. This is so stereotypically Paulista it's funny!
In the first place, once again, it's nothing less than hilarious for a disciple of a Ron Paul- a member of possibly the most loony subset of the American body politic- to accuse someone else of failing to engage in a "levelheaded discussion" of anything- especially when the topic is impending genocide!
And yes, Jeff. "Wiping Israel off the face of the earth" is indeed genocide! Once again, you guys seem to think that you can make reality go away simply by denying it! But it's just not that easy, Jeff. Words mean things. Really they do!
As to threats to the United States, the article doesn't have to discuss them. Anyone with any clue about the nature of the regime in Tehran and its connections to Hezbolah and the Islamofascist movement generally understands quite clearly that if Tehran gets the bomb, we'd better be ready to kiss Chicago or Houston or Kansas City good-bye. The fact that Paul doesn't understand this is only one of the many reasons why he's utterly unfit to be president.
And finally, leave it to a Paulbot to cherry-pick an article that says nothing more than that U.S. agencies see no "hard evidence" of an Iranian decision to build a bomb as evidence that the danger doesn't exist- especially in the context of a promise by Iran to "wipe Israel from the face of the earth!"
I'm not even sure what "hard evidence" the Iranians were building a bomb might be. What cannot be doubted is that they are developing the capability of doing so, and their rhetoric- together with the psychosis which characterizes the Iranian leadership- would certainly worry anybody in contact with reality. Ron Paul and his followers, not being in contact with reality, obviously aren't worried.
But never fear. We won't have to take out the Iranian nuclear threat. I have no doubt that the Israelis will do it themselves.
Unfortnately, though, we can't seceed from Planet Earth, as Dr. Paul would like. We will inevitably be involved in the aftermath. We simply won't be able to avoid it.
I'll just say that if Israel were to strike Iran's nuclear facilities, and Iran then made war on Israel, I would hope the commander-in-chief of the USA would stay out of it without a declaration of war.
Trust it, Jeff: the Iranians are building a bomb. Whether U.S. agencies find "hard evidence" for it or not
There wouldn't be time, Jeff. In the modern age, requiring a declaration of war practical before any military action can be taken (which, btw, the Constitution does not just isn't practical.). Once again, you and Dr. Paul are living in the Eighteenth Century while discussing problems that beset us in the 21st.
That's why we have the War Powers Act- which more than satisfies the constitutional requirement for congressional authorization.
And when the threat of nuclear genocide and terrorism are concerned, I'm afraid that "whatever" just isn't enough.
They're "keeping the soup warm." This does not indicate the puppylike harmlessness Crazy Ron attributes to these nutters. And if the soup is served, kiss Kansas City goodbye.
It isn't necessary for Iran to have a deliverable warhead, A rented truck would do. And they do have planes, Jeff.
Tell me, Jeff: if the report said that Iran already HAD the bomb- as every intelligence service in the world believed that Saddam Hussein had large numbers of WMD's prior to the invasion- what would your reaction be?
This is kind of an acid test. A president who would not take Iran's nuclear capacity out would, by definition, not defend the United States from imminent danger.
Comments
Ron Paul 2012!
He won't get the USA mixed up in that kind of thing (without a declaration of war).
If he were, he wouldn't be able to avoid it. If he tried, he would deserve impeachment. Any president who would fail to come to the defense of an ally against whom a psychotic aggressor was waging a war of annhilation would deserve nothing less, as well as the well-earned contempt of history and of decent people down through the ages.
Jeff, Jeff, Jeff. This is so stereotypically Paulista it's funny!
In the first place, once again, it's nothing less than hilarious for a disciple of a Ron Paul- a member of possibly the most loony subset of the American body politic- to accuse someone else of failing to engage in a "levelheaded discussion" of anything- especially when the topic is impending genocide!
And yes, Jeff. "Wiping Israel off the face of the earth" is indeed genocide! Once again, you guys seem to think that you can make reality go away simply by denying it! But it's just not that easy, Jeff. Words mean things. Really they do!
As to threats to the United States, the article doesn't have to discuss them. Anyone with any clue about the nature of the regime in Tehran and its connections to Hezbolah and the Islamofascist movement generally understands quite clearly that if Tehran gets the bomb, we'd better be ready to kiss Chicago or Houston or Kansas City good-bye. The fact that Paul doesn't understand this is only one of the many reasons why he's utterly unfit to be president.
And finally, leave it to a Paulbot to cherry-pick an article that says nothing more than that U.S. agencies see no "hard evidence" of an Iranian decision to build a bomb as evidence that the danger doesn't exist- especially in the context of a promise by Iran to "wipe Israel from the face of the earth!"
I'm not even sure what "hard evidence" the Iranians were building a bomb might be. What cannot be doubted is that they are developing the capability of doing so, and their rhetoric- together with the psychosis which characterizes the Iranian leadership- would certainly worry anybody in contact with reality. Ron Paul and his followers, not being in contact with reality, obviously aren't worried.
But never fear. We won't have to take out the Iranian nuclear threat. I have no doubt that the Israelis will do it themselves.
Unfortnately, though, we can't seceed from Planet Earth, as Dr. Paul would like. We will inevitably be involved in the aftermath. We simply won't be able to avoid it.
Trust it, Jeff: the Iranians are building a bomb. Whether U.S. agencies find "hard evidence" for it or not
Whatever.
That's why we have the War Powers Act- which more than satisfies the constitutional requirement for congressional authorization.
And when the threat of nuclear genocide and terrorism are concerned, I'm afraid that "whatever" just isn't enough.
They're "keeping the soup warm." This does not indicate the puppylike harmlessness Crazy Ron attributes to these nutters. And if the soup is served, kiss Kansas City goodbye.
It isn't necessary for Iran to have a deliverable warhead, A rented truck would do. And they do have planes, Jeff.
Tell me, Jeff: if the report said that Iran already HAD the bomb- as every intelligence service in the world believed that Saddam Hussein had large numbers of WMD's prior to the invasion- what would your reaction be?
This is kind of an acid test. A president who would not take Iran's nuclear capacity out would, by definition, not defend the United States from imminent danger.