Letters to the Editor
-
A Reason Not To Vote For The GOP
Listening to these guys is enough to convince any thinking person that the GOP must not be allowed back into power unless they get rid of their sword-rattling mullahs and the war mongering Religious Right.
If eight years of Bush hasn't convinced folks nothing will.
-
Don't believe anything till election day
Giuliani and Hillary are right to see the voter as more likley to be led by fear than by reason, on election day. As long as you take into account, that Giuliani, however much he appears to support a tough line on Tehran, is, in reality, certainly "understating" his support for an aggressive posture. Whereas Hillary, however much she is appearing to support a tough line on Tehran, is, in reality, almost certainly "overstating" her support for an aggressive posture.
-
The Dog That Isn't Barking
If the Iranians really wanted to destroy Israel, they wouldn't need nukes to do it. Israel is a pretty small country. Chemical and biological weapons delivered by competent soldiers could do the job. Hezbollah is competent, as demonstrated clearly by the Lebanon war last August. If Iran doesn't have chemical and biological weapons, they could easily develop them, much more easily and secretly than nuclear weapons. But, gosh, neither Hezbollah nor any other anti-Israel force seems to have chemical and biological weapons. Anybody atuned to the real world should think about the significance of that fact.
People who worry about Iran destroying Israel are worrying about a threat that's not real. If it were real, it would be happening right now, with chemical and biological weapons. Maybe the Iranians are deterred. Maybe what President A says is mistranslated. It doesn't matter. Look at what isn't happening.
-
Rodian nailed this debate; 'nuff said…
…except to point out that there is only one nation on earth that has ever used nuclear weapons in a war. If you're going to vote for anyone, please find someone who is at least suitably ashamed of that.
-
Fantasyland in the Oval Office
i work around the "defense" sector and have seen many new offensive projects underway. The HEATR, a ground-penetrating device for attacking underground biological labs, is a good example. It scatters high-temperature flares all over the place and sets off a fragmentation bomb to shatter vessels of evil goo then ignites everything. This means no blow-back through the opening in the roof. Great idea! A lot more fun than inventing a cheaper solar panel, I say. The problem is that all of these projects get a well-staged audience with Cheney and Bush, complete with animations. "We can do it. We won't miss". The likely problem is that a U.S. high-tech attack will result in many low-tech retaliatory responses. A suicide speedboat can disable a multi-billion dollar aircraft carrier. We know that they are fools, but, sadly, they don't see it that way.
-
Hawks for Bucks
Ask yourself 'who do I know that has personally contributed to the Giuliani and Clinton campaigns'? Where are they getting their money? Who benefits from their reckless stance on Iran? It certainly is not the American voter, soldier and taxpayer. We have a long history of peaceful diplomatic interaction with the people of Iran with the exceptions of the CIA installation of the Shah and the hostage crisis, both of which were ultimately settled by internal politics and diplomacy.
If we as a nation wish to be consistent about nuclear arms and proliferations we must include Israel, India, Pakistan, and others who have entered the nuclear arms club with our tacit and, in some cases active participation.
Giuliani and Hillary do not give a damn about the poor folk military members who will die in an invasion of Iran. They do not care about you and me and our offspring when it comes to paying for the wishes of those who wag them.
-
Isolationist verses non-interventionist
The only thing wrong with this otherwise excellent article by Prof. Cole was his use of the term "isolationist" in describing Cong. Paul's position on foreign affairs. I'm surprised he did this for Cole is an educated man and should have seen the use of that term by the neocons as a misrepresentation of Paul's position. The proper term describing Paul's position is "non-interventionist". In fact, this is how Paul describes himself. An isolationist is a person who wants to have as little to do as possible with the rest of the world like North Korea. Paul, on the other hand wants to engage the rest of the world with trade and diplomacy. What he doesn't want to do is to interfere in the internal affairs or civil wars of other nations The Israel government loves to interfere here in the US via AIPAC to influence elections or in the case of the US government, the overthrow of governments as the CIA did in Iran in 1953, for example.
-
The new Soviet Union
Congratulations to our politicos and the media they have made Iran the new "Soviet Union."
-
Wikipedia is your friend...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isolationism
Isolationism is a foreign policy which combines a non-interventionist military policy and a political policy of economic nationalism (protectionism). In other words, it asserts both of the following:
1. Non-interventionism - Political rulers should avoid entangling alliances with other nations and avoid all wars not related to direct territorial self-defense.
2. Protectionism - There should be legal barriers to control trade and cultural exchange with people in other states.
Not to be confused with the non-interventionist philosophy and foreign policy of the libertarian world view, which espouses unrestricted free trade and freedom of travel for individuals to all countries. This "libertarian isolationist" view is best defined as a policy of nonparticipation in foreign political relations, but free trade and affability to all.
Not to be confused, of course, unless you are a journalist, a pundit, or somehow don't have access to an encyclopedia, thesaurus, or dictionary...
If we are going to call someone an "Isolationist" because of one part of the definition of Isolationism, i.e. non-intervention, then quite frankly all the protectionist candidates, e.g. Duncan Hunter, should be labeled "Isolationists" as well, because their rhetoric sure as hell matches the second part of the definition. If we are going to say that matching one part of the definition but not the other implies matching the whole thing, e.g. the way journalists and pundits call Ron Paul an "Isolationist" when an Encyclopedia a 10 year old can easily access, read, and understand says otherwise, then they should be consistent and apply it to people who fit the second part of the definition but not the first, e.g. all of the other Republicans and their rhetoric regarding regarding countries like China.