BREAKING - Iran 'definitely' closing Strait of Hormuz in the event of an EU oil embargo

[liveandletlive]

Obama is as duplicitious as they come, using soft power to make himself look like a diplomat, but doing the complete opposite, bragging about how he's leaving the Iranian economy in shambles (ironically the same thing he's doing to us domestically)

The Russians have a mutual defense treaty with Iran...even a Neocon would not be dumb enough to invite a war with Russia. its obvious they want the Iranians to strike first.

The neocons see no difference between a region-wide war and a nuclear armed Iran.

 

[sailingaway]

Well, it is relevant because it will come up at the debate, and doubtless Ron will be asked.

 

[ZENemy]

Well, it is relevant because it will come up at the debate, and doubtless Ron will be asked.

Well Rons answer should be "If they are threatening to close it, its because of the sanctions we and others are placing on them, remove the sanctions and resume talks" ?

 

[Captain Shays]

Yes, and they know this will happen. Why do you think he's becoming so arrogant with his actions on this matter? They have a plan, best believe it.

You're looking at this all wrong. Democrats were the party in power during the start of just about every major war we've had especially during the 20th century and just about every time our economy was floundering and they didn't know what to do to fix it. War brought us out of the dulldrums every time. Even Paul Krugman wrote a piece a couple of years ago calling for a good war to help stimulate the economy.

Also, the American people rarely unseat a sitting president in times of war. This won't start by itself. Look for a Gulf of Tonkin type incident that can be used as a pretext for a larger scale involvement. It could also come in the form of a more strategic style attack on one of our bases in Iraq before any serious hostilities ensue.
Contrary to the opinion that Obama's ratings will go down if we get into it with Iran from my analysis an "attack" on a US war ship and the ensuing large scale conflict will nearly assure Obama's reelection.

 

[gerryb]

They can't really challenge our sh...the 2nd largest deep water Navy in the world.

 

[tommyzDad]

It's Eye-Rakk all over again guys , GET DEM MOOZLUMZ , Go dash their NUKULAR AMBISHONS!!!!
Santorum for Prez! #1

Seriously though if Obama does launch an attack on Iran wouldn't his support drop 20%+?

And hopefully support for Newt, Rom, and Santorum drops as well?

 

[F3d]

Well Rons answer should be "If they are threatening to close it, its because of the sanctions we and others are placing on them, remove the sanctions and resume talks" ?

It's not good bringing sanctions up. They'll think he's like Carter.

 

[fatjohn]

Well Rons answer should be "If they are threatening to close it, its because of the sanctions we and others are placing on them, remove the sanctions and resume talks" ?

- Booooooo. Boooooooooohooooooooooowoowoooboooooooo!

-Gingrich: No congresman Paul, we should kill em and eat their babies!

- Awooohooooo yeah *clapclapclap* yeah

 

[everlasticity]

Did it occur to anyone that a war verse Iran could actually be the big event that this country needs to allow the public to stand behind Paul. The administration is just looking for an excuse to enter into war. Should there be an attack on US vessels in the Straight of Hormuz, we would have no choice as a country but to retaliate. The congress would probably support a declaration of war, for which Paul would probably vote for. Then Ron Paul could justifiably run as a war candidate.

 

[deputydon]

I can't wait for this to start WWIII and then we look back on that video from yesterday or the day before with the military commander saying that Ron Paul would start WWIII.

I wish Reagan was still alive so he could endorse Ron Paul like he pretty much did on his foreign policy back in the 80's.

 

[acptulsa]

Yes it's rhetoric.

Don't be too sure.

IRAN) They won't fire, as they know they are sitting ducks. They might do some damage, maybe sink one US ship, but they'd lose their navy overnight, have their nuclear facilities bombed the same day. Their ONLY oil refinery will be destroyed as one of the first targets I imagine.

US) Would win the battle, but lose the war. As with Afghanistan, Iran is very mountainous, 3 times the size of Iraq, and it has a somewhat radicalized population. Not to say it's the same as Afghanistan, because it's not. But some of the same problems, and others would rise later on.

Besides that. For the US it's economic suicide to have oil prices rise so dramatically. The economy would tank, inflation would rise due to government stimulus, besides all the printing for the war itself. Everything would get a lot more expensive, on top of the inflation there already is... This is a recipe for hyperinflation in my view.

All true. But when the decision makers in Washington aren't nearly so worried about U.S. interests as the interests of the Federal Reserve, which I might add do not at all coincide, then rational decisions are liable not to be made.

 

[acptulsa]

exactly. a siege. starve them to the point of giving them no choice but to fight.

history is cyclical. we in the post modern age just like to use new words.

And why do we use new words? We're taught to so that they can keep history cyclical. For example: Those with a vested interest in more war with the middle east frown upon the use of the word Crusades. The reason they do is simple--Crusades were kind of proven to be nothing but a quest for loot which in no way benefit the poor fools who actually fight them. So, if we called these Crusades by their right name, it might be hard on recruitment.

 

[acptulsa]

You're looking at this all wrong. Democrats were the party in power during the start of just about every major war we've had especially during the 20th century and just about every time our economy was floundering and they didn't know what to do to fix it. War brought us out of the dulldrums every time. Even Paul Krugman wrote a piece a couple of years ago calling for a good war to help stimulate the economy.

Also, the American people rarely unseat a sitting president in times of war. This won't start by itself. Look for a Gulf of Tonkin type incident that can be used as a pretext for a larger scale involvement. It could also come in the form of a more strategic style attack on one of our bases in Iraq before any serious hostilities ensue.
Contrary to the opinion that Obama's ratings will go down if we get into it with Iran from my analysis an "attack" on a US war ship and the ensuing large scale conflict will nearly assure Obama's reelection.

They're still in uncharted territory. Yes, war stimulates the economy, but they've never started wars in the middle of the postwar depressions from the last wars before, and it isn't working. And the old notion of 'don't change jockeys in the middle of the race' is pretty irrelevant now that we're in Perpetual War. It worked for Dubya in '08, sure--but since then we've actually had to change horses in the middle due to a certain Constitutional amendment. And the world didn't end. Hell, we voted for an ostensibly anti-war candidate and the damned wars didn't even end. In fact, we got ourselves into a couple more.

As for Obama's ratings, the average voter who hates war won't be happy if Obama gets us into another one, especially since they generally just do dimly remember voting for Obama to get us out. And the chickenhawks all hate Obama and are likely to continue to do so. Perpetual War changes the conventional wisdom--and in ways we don't fully understand yet, since this is the first time we've had it...