Ron Paul Army

[mraynrand]

Syria under Hafez al-Assad was deeply engaged in the Middle East peace process as Damascus tried to regain the Golan Heights from Israel through negotiations. At the same time, Iran took a less-invested position on the peace process, saying it would support whatever outcome helped the Palestinians.

Gotta like the way Syria and the other Islamic nations 'negotiated' with Israel hisorically. They kept those 'negotiations' open until Israel closed them militarily.

But if your right that the U.S. and Iran have so many common interests, then we should share common interests with Syria too. Why should they be afraid? They should just want to negotiate with us as well, right? Ahh, that explains the Kucinich envoy. 'Syria, if you stop exterminating Lebanese leaders unfavorable to you and stop supporting hezbollah, we promise to...."

[Harlan Huckleby]

What exactly are our mutual intrests with Iran?

Iran could be our greatest partner in the war on Islamic Fundamentalism.

The caliphate that the Islamic radicals want to establish is a Sunni institution. They view Shitte Muslims with as much animosity as they do the christians and the West. Shitte muslims are mostly in Iran and South Iraq.

Al Qaida are bitter adversaries of Shitte Muslims. The Wahabbi brand of Islam that you hear about in Saudi Arabi preach hatred of the Shitte.

Our war in Afghanistan was so successful largely because of good cooperation with Iran. Iran are bitter enemies of the Taliban. (altho we have recently managed to push them into a position of tactical cooperation with Bush's idiotic policy.)

They support the most dangerous terrorists in Lebanon, Syria, and Palestine. I'm sure you've heard of Hezbollah and Hamas .

Yes, Hezbollah. But Hezbollah is a Shitte organization with zero history or interest in international terrorism. Their fight has been with local rivals, especially Isreal. Which I don't completely discount.

Hamas - different kettle of fish. Ummm, they are fighting Israel. Only very recently have they received support via Iran.

We deal with the Saudis to whore for oil for the U.S. and our allies. What does that get us? Better funded radical Islamic mosques around the world. Good dealings.

Good lord. Sorry, MrAnnRand, but you and I are just at polar opposites. I believe in MUCH more diplomacy, not less. Saudi Arabia is perfect example. We have benefited greatly from our strong relationship with them, despite the many ways they have been bitches. The idea of diplomacy is to keep your freinds close and your enemies even closer.

[Joemailman]

I thought diplomatic isolation of Hitler and Mussolini was a good idea.

I don't think it was a good idea. Even in the most extreme cases, better to keep channels open. (which I suppose they did anyway through Swiss or something, eh?)

Breaking diplomatic relations is so stupid. Diplomatic isolation helped with South Africa, but that was a rare exception.

You totally contradict yourself. It worked with S. Africa, didn't it? The reason it didn't work with Iraq and now Iran is that other nations (France and Russia in the case of Iraq and Russia and China in the case or Iran) are either making money of the regimes or are using it as a method to counter the U.S.

You're worse than a Chamberlin, HH. How exactly would you bargain with Hitler? We'll stop bombing Dresden if you close down half your ovens?

The time to talk to Hitler would have been in 1938, not after the war started. You know, like telling him that an attack on France and Britain would result in our involvement. Might have given Chamberlain a backbone.

[Harlan Huckleby]

The time to talk to Hitler would have been in 1938, not after the war started. You know, like telling him that an attack on France and Britain would result in our involvement. Might have given Chamberlain a backbone.

you are right. but I believe in always keeping diplomatic channels open. it can be useful.

[BallHawk]

Ding. Ding. Ding. There's the bell.

Back on topic.....

[MJZiggy]

There was a topic?

[BallHawk]

There was a topic?

Hard to believe, isn't it?

EDIT: That emoticon freaks me out.

[Joemailman]

Okay, back to Ron Paul. I think he's cool because he's a Republican from the same state as Bush and he's not afraid to speak out against the war. He's also not afraid to speak out against the assault on the constitution orchestrated by the Bushies with the aid of the capitulating Congress. Unfortunately, I think the nomination will be sewed up by someone before they get to the Wisconsin primary.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Our system has ZERO room for the Ron Pauls of this world. The only party where he fits is the Libertarian.

And more Ron Pauls are not going to change anything.

Did Ross Perot or John Anderson change the system?

Presidential politics are almost fixed. Usually the establishment insider wins in both parties, you can usually pick the nominees years in advance. And the high cost of campaigning keeps tightening that stranglehold.

We don't have much democracy for Presidential politcs.

[mraynrand]

Harlan, what difference does it make that Iran is Shia and Iraq is sunni - they are both radicalized. You want us to play them off against each other (that's what al quaeda did in Iraq that cause so much havoc) - alternatively, want us to take sides with the shia - well, I guess that's provisionally possibl, but it's really nothing other than the same stuff over and over - use Stalin to help get rid of Hitler, use Afghani elements to dig at the Soviets - then the radicalized among them come back to bite us.

The point about Saudi Arabia is that you look at 'negotiations' as some sort of panacea. Sometimes it 'works' (is to your benefit) and sometimes you're just being a useful idiot. Sometimes both at the same time, like Saudi Arabia.

I think you guys are wrong - way wrong - about Hitler. Any conversation with him would have been useless and more likely, devastating. I'm certain he would have loved to talk with us and make some deals. The country was very anti war and was doing everything it could to prevent FDR from even helping Britain with supplies. Any little deal he could have made to reduce our helping Britain - in any way - money, supplies, etc. might just have weakened Britain enough so that Germany would have won the Battle of Britain. Imagine Hitler coming to Columbia telling the admiring students and press how he had no designs on Britain and that it was ou supplying Britain that was making him nervous and threatened. The Keith Olberman of the day would call FDR the "Worst Person in the World" for trying to incite a fight with Hitler. Talking with Hitler would NEVER have delayed Hitler's attacks, but it very likely would have diminished or delayed our helping England.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Harlan, what difference does it make that Iran is Shia and Iraq is sunni - they are both radicalized.

No, this is certainly not true. Well, in some places, like Lebanon, it is getting more true I suppose.

The idealogical threat we are fighting is coming from Sunnis and Sunnis only.

Americans and America are quite popular in Iran. The Iranians are schizophrenic - angry over the history with the Shah, yet with warm feelings and admiration for the U.S. The United States is more popular in Iran than any place in the middle east besides Israel.

The Iranian people are NOT radicalized. They are teeming with resentment at the mullahs; and their nutjob president is deeply resented. One of the reasons we are popular there is that the U.S. has had no presence for a number of years. Absence makes the heart grow fonder. And many Iranians were educated in U.S. Universities.

Iran is the perfect place where democracy might evolve organically. They are an ideal country, in my view, to partner with, to have some patience with. The place is not especially repressive, there is more freedom of speech there than in the Arab countries, and they are ruled by a broad oligarchy rather than a tyrant, as in the ARab countries. BTW, the President of Iran has about as much power as Condoleesa Rice.

Iran is badly mismanaged economically, and the people are frustrated, restive, and well educated.

You want us to play them off against each other (that's what al quaeda did in Iraq that cause so much havoc) - alternatively, want us to take sides with the shia - well, I guess that's provisionally possibl, but it's really nothing other than the same stuff over and over - use Stalin to help get rid of Hitler, use Afghani elements to dig at the Soviets - then the radicalized among them come back to bite us.

No, this is really not what I'm saying. Iran could and should be a better friend of ours than Saudi Arabia. And they might be unreliable partners like the Saudis, but overall useful.

IRAN SHOULD BE ALLIED WITH THE U.S. in IRAQ!! If we had not made existential threats to the Iranians, they would have had every reason to support stability in Iraq. Bush made a horrible, horrible mistake by telling Iran "you're next, pal." Instead of helping us, they have made the project hellish. And frankly, who could blame them?

I think you guys are wrong - way wrong - about Hitler. Any conversation with him would have been useless and more likely, devastating.

nah. I'm just suggesting to keep lines of communication open. You don't give your enemy propaganda platforms, just keep talking behind the scenes.

The Hitler case is the worst case scenario for what I'm saying, and has little applicability. You're right, there would be very little to discuss with Der Fuhrer. But certainly plenty value in communication with say, the North Koreans, Syrians, Iranians, Venezuala, Cuba .....

[digitaldean]

I voted for Perot in 1992 and would vote for Ron Paul with the exception of his foreign policy stances. In the today's post 9/11 world we do have to go after those who want to destroy us. The stance on the Patriot Act I don't agree with either, but I admire his consistency.

His stances on abolishing the IRS and toning down the spending are what I like about him most.

His stances on the 2nd Amendment, home schooling, property rights, etc. are pretty much in line with I believe.

Right now BOTH parties suck at controlling spending. NO ONE has truly come out with a legitmate immigration enforcement plan.

I have voted 3rd party before, but I've learned from '92. The 3rd party candidate I want to vote for has to be head and shoulders above all else. The end result may be another Clinton in the White House otherwise.

The GOP candidates, don't thrill me. I like Rudy's foreign policy stances, but his liberal social policies make me leery. Romney has proven to be a successful leader in Mass., but something about him appears too polished. I do like Fred Thompson, but his ambivolence in some of the domestic issues (plus his support of McCain/Feingold) cause me to 2nd guess him.

[Harlan Huckleby]

The political mix of this forum consists of:

libertarians with republican leanings
socially conservative republicans
right wing nutjobs
a phone booth full of democrats

[Joemailman]

The political mix of this forum consists of:

libertarians with republican leanings
socially conservative republicans
right wing nutjobs
a phone booth full of democrats

You left out left-leaning independents.

[Harlan Huckleby]

ok joe, but you don't get an entire phone booth.