Iran and America's foriegn policy

[falcon9]

Exactly. It's war rhetoric. Although these things can change, why does the government insist on preemptive strikes instead of relying on intel to decide what to do? I think that would be a better way of handling these situations.

Although they do endeavor to obtain as much advance intel as possible, (HUMINT, satellite imagery, etc.), these can often be inconclusive.  Since it wouldn't be optimum to wait until the mushroom clouds arise, someone makes a 'best guess' based upon the cumulative intel available at the time.  Wait too long and the point is moot.  Strike too soon and a bunch of people become 'armchair quarterbacks' with 20/20 hindsight.

[kords21]

Out of all the candidates running, Ron Paul is the most sensible when it comes to Iran. Whatever the Mullahs in Iran may be, they're not suicidal. Even if they develop a Nuke, what are they going to do with it? They're not going to attack Israel with it and destroy a very sacred Muslim site (the dome of the rock), they can't even make their own gasoline and Russia/China have said that an attack on Iran is an attack on them. Only a fool would want war with Iran. This country is 16 Trillion in debt so how is a new war going to be paid for? The national debt is more of a threat to this country than Iran could ever be. Seen gas prices lately? War with Iran will lead to much higher gas prices.

Hear's a little history of our history with Iran.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fy3KDYE5KQE

[falcon9]

Whatever the Mullahs in Iran may be, they're not suicidal. Even if they develop a Nuke, what are they going to do with it? They're not going to attack Israel with it and destroy a very sacred Muslim site (the dome of the rock) ...



Since nuclear weapons are largely a leveraged deterrent, (although Isreal isn't the only possible target for an Iranian WMD, consider the Strait of Hormuz for instance), the Mullahs may feel that possessing one would give them such leverage. Of course, their rhetoric concerning "destroying Isreal" isn't taken all that lightly by the Isreali government.

Russia/China have said that an attack on Iran is an attack on them. Only a fool would want war with Iran. 
Hear's a little history of our history with Iran.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fy3KDYE5KQE

Nominally, nobody "wants" war however, which is less foolish; conventional strikes to prevent a nuclear exchange or, getting nuked while hand-wringing about the Chinese and Russian positions?

[Thesaboteur]

In my opinion, the US needs to back down as a military power. They are spending near to 1 Trillion dollars every 2 years. If you take 1 Billion out, all Americans get healthcare. Take the rest out, and we can bring world peace. Unfortunately, the greedy don't want too and it is a sad predicament. Iran is just one of the countries who have enough *bleep* to stand up to the US.

[falcon9]

In my opinion, the US needs to back down as a military power. They are spending near to 1 Trillion dollars every 2 years. If you take 1 Billion out, all Americans get healthcare. Take the rest out, and we can bring world peace.

These are incrediably naive statements and I'm not quite sure at which point to challenge them.  Starting with defense spending; what exactly would your 1 billion dollars come out of in the combined budgets?

As for removing all defense spending and having that "bring world peace"; how would that process work?

Unfortunately, the greedy don't want too and it is a sad predicament. Iran is just one of the countries who have enough *bleep* to stand up to the US.

Any country can babble enough rhetoric to "stand up" to any other country; this does not take "*bleep*".  What does is action and if Iran takes some action which conflicts with the national interests, treaties and disruption of international "peace", someone will cut their "*bleep*" off.  Talking the talk isn't walking the walk, (and if you think the US is just "sabre-rattling", maybe you and the Iranians will be in for an uncomfortable surprise).

[floorlady]

Out of all the candidates running, Ron Paul is the most sensible when it comes to Iran. Whatever the Mullahs in Iran may be, they're not suicidal. Even if they develop a Nuke, what are they going to do with it? They're not going to attack Israel with it and destroy a very sacred Muslim site (the dome of the rock), they can't even make their own gasoline and Russia/China have said that an attack on Iran is an attack on them. Only a fool would want war with Iran. This country is 16 Trillion in debt so how is a new war going to be paid for? The national debt is more of a threat to this country than Iran could ever be. Seen gas prices lately? War with Iran will lead to much higher gas prices.

Hear's a little history of our history with Iran.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fy3KDYE5KQE

I 100% agree. He is the only candidate that realizes how detrimental it would be to the US if we had another war.  Israel has said they do not view Iran as a real threat! They have proclaimed since '92 that they are developing nuclear weapons and have yet to prove there are any there. We should focus more on our own economic concerns as well as our civil liberties  that are being stripped away at every corner. Sure, going to war with them "may" prevent us from being attacked, but who cares if we are just a bunch of slaves who have no rights anyways?