Sen. Lieberman says force may be needed in Iran

[heavenlyboy34]

And I gave a response to the 2005 election, you just didn't bother quoting that in this response, so I won't bother repeating it. And yes, America was threatened, economically, by Saddam conquering and pillaging Kuwait through higher gas prices. But a country doesn't have to be threatened militarily for an intervention to be justified(even by the Christian Just War theory which Ron Paul cites as one of his influences for foreign policy. Even if Germany never declared war on us, we should have gone to war and it would have been 100% justified.

It is a very odd thing for you not a be a pacifist when you say we shouldn't have wars because people die, that is the basis of pacifism.

False. Protecting corporate/government interests is not justification for war.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

And you are the only one who has lied on this thread, I haven't told a single lie here. .

You are a more consistent liar and distorter of facts than Theocrat.

 

[The Patriot]

Why should they run "pre-approved candidates"? Do you think the world is simply a protectorate of the US regime?

You can't be serious that the Gulf War was justified. It was a petty regional conflict that Bush I turned into a full-scale war. A "good example of world diplomacy"? /facepalm I'm amazed this site attracts warmongering types like yourself.

What, how could you possibly pervert my answer in such a way to say I endorse the screenings by the Mullahs. I have been incredibly clear in my opposition to such anti-democratic tactics, while on the other hand, there have been two posters here defending and providing legitimacy to Ahmedenijad.

I am very serious, defending a nation against invasion, rape, and pillage is 100% justified. And I don't consider that to be petty, nor would effects economically in the way of high gas prices been petty.

How could your argue that it was a poor example of world diplomacy? We had the full backing of the UN, and even had troop commitments from Arab nations(Saudi Arabia, Egypt, UAE, Morocco, Oman, Qatar). All of these nations had over 2500 troops committed to the Persian Gulf War).

 

[The Patriot]

False. Protecting corporate/government interests is not justification for war.

Yes, defending Europe from Fascist occupation, and prohibiting the annihilation of minority groups is most certainly a justifiable cause for war.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Yes, defending Europe from Fascist occupation, and prohibiting the annihilation of minority groups is most certainly a justifiable cause for war.

Says who?

http://www.lewrockwell.com/buchanan/buchanan115.html
On Sept. 1, 1939, 70 years ago, the German Army crossed the Polish frontier. On Sept. 3, Britain declared war.

Six years later, 50 million Christians and Jews had perished. Britain was broken and bankrupt, Germany a smoldering ruin. Europe had served as the site of the most murderous combat known to man, and civilians had suffered worse horrors than the soldiers.

By May 1945, Red Army hordes occupied all the great capitals of Central Europe: Vienna, Prague, Budapest, Berlin. A hundred million Christians were under the heel of the most barbarous tyranny in history: the Bolshevik regime of the greatest terrorist of them all, Joseph Stalin.

What cause could justify such sacrifices?

The German-Polish war had come out of a quarrel over a town the size of Ocean City, Md., in summer. Danzig, 95 percent German, had been severed from Germany at Versailles in violation of Woodrow Wilson's principle of self-determination. Even British leaders thought Danzig should be returned.

Why did Warsaw not negotiate with Berlin, which was hinting at an offer of compensatory territory in Slovakia? Because the Poles had a war guarantee from Britain that, should Germany attack, Britain and her empire would come to Poland's rescue.

But why would Britain hand an unsolicited war guarantee to a junta of Polish colonels, giving them the power to drag Britain into a second war with the most powerful nation in Europe?

Was Danzig worth a war? Unlike the 7 million Hong Kongese whom the British surrendered to Beijing, who didn't want to go, the Danzigers were clamoring to return to Germany.

Comes the response: The war guarantee was not about Danzig, or even about Poland. It was about the moral and strategic imperative "to stop Hitler" after he showed, by tearing up the Munich pact and Czechoslovakia with it, that he was out to conquer the world. And this Nazi beast could not be allowed to do that.

If true, a fair point. Americans, after all, were prepared to use atom bombs to keep the Red Army from the Channel. But where is the evidence that Adolf Hitler, whose victims as of March 1939 were a fraction of Gen. Pinochet's, or Fidel Castro's, was out to conquer the world?

After Munich in 1938, Czechoslovakia did indeed crumble and come apart. Yet consider what became of its parts.

The Sudeten Germans were returned to German rule, as they wished. Poland had annexed the tiny disputed region of Teschen, where thousands of Poles lived. Hungary's ancestral lands in the south of Slovakia had been returned to her. The Slovaks had their full independence guaranteed by Germany. As for the Czechs, they came to Berlin for the same deal as the Slovaks, but Hitler insisted they accept a protectorate.

Now one may despise what was done, but how did this partition of Czechoslovakia manifest a Hitlerian drive for world conquest?

Comes the reply: If Britain had not given the war guarantee and gone to war, after Czechoslovakia would have come Poland's turn, then Russia's, then France's, then Britain's, then the United States.

We would all be speaking German now.

But if Hitler was out to conquer the world – Britain, Africa, the Middle East, the United States, Canada, South America, India, Asia, Australia – why did he spend three years building that hugely expensive Siegfried Line to protect Germany from France? Why did he start the war with no surface fleet, no troop transports and only 29 oceangoing submarines? How do you conquer the world with a navy that can't get out of the Baltic Sea?

If Hitler wanted the world, why did he not build strategic bombers, instead of two-engine Dorniers and Heinkels that could not even reach Britain from Germany?

Why did he let the British army go at Dunkirk?

Why did he offer the British peace, twice, after Poland fell, and again after France fell?

Why, when Paris fell, did Hitler not demand the French fleet, as the Allies demanded and got the Kaiser's fleet? Why did he not demand bases in French-controlled Syria to attack Suez? Why did he beg Benito Mussolini not to attack Greece?

Because Hitler wanted to end the war in 1940, almost two years before the trains began to roll to the camps.

Hitler had never wanted war with Poland, but an alliance with Poland such as he had with Francisco Franco's Spain, Mussolini's Italy, Miklos Horthy's Hungary and Father Jozef Tiso's Slovakia.

Indeed, why would he want war when, by 1939, he was surrounded by allied, friendly or neutral neighbors, save France. And he had written off Alsace, because reconquering Alsace meant war with France, and that meant war with Britain, whose empire he admired and whom he had always sought as an ally.

As of March 1939, Hitler did not even have a border with Russia. How then could he invade Russia?

Winston Churchill was right when he called it "The Unnecessary War" – the war that may yet prove the mortal blow to our civilization.

 

[The Patriot]

I like Buchanan on some things, but he is totally off base here, and is ignoring history. If the German's only goal was to get Danzig which had a ethnic german majority, he wouldn't have agreed to the pact with the Russians which gave Hitler all of West Poland and Lithuania to boot. He also fails to mention it was Hitler who complied with Stalin and initially allowed the eastern european and baltic capitals(East Poland, Finland, Estonia, and Latvia) to fall under the Soviets, Hitler endorsed it through the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact. And if Hitler didn't have designs for the whole of Europe, and merely wanted to defend himself against those mean English and French bullies, he wouldn't have invaded and occupied Belgium, Denmark and Holland, who did not declare war on Germany and posed no threat militarily. If it wasn't for Hitler, we wouldn't have had an iron-curtain to begin with.

 

[AminCad]

You are just uttering pure bullshit, you have no idea of which you speak, and when you do, you obfuscate the facts to fit a pro Ahmedenijad agenda.

No, you are uttering pure bullshit. You are obfuscating the facts to fit a pro Netanhayu agenda.

Because, what you are doing is defending the legitimacy of his regime, and going beyond opposing strategic strikes on nuclear facilities.

I am opposing sanctions on Iran. Iran's government is as legitimate as any other in the middle east.

I can understand the latter to a certain degree but engaging in the former is un-libertarian. "Many" may support him, but a majority, a strong majority, oppose him, not just the wealthy, and not even just the non-religious(there are many women in full Islamic dress were at the Green Movement Rallies).

You have no idea if a majority oppose them. That's an empty claim. Most of Iran is poor. The tech savvy wealthy urbanites are not the majority of the population.

No, they are pure evil, anyone whose state police rapes young political dissidents(Teenagers), repeatedly, while they are in custody for freely expressing their political opinions is evil.

There is no policy in Iran of state police raping political dissidents. Rape happens in all correctional facilities in all countries. You pretending Iran is unique in this is just war propaganda from you. You are trying to incite sanctions and war against Iran.

No, their objectives are not rational and moderate, they truly believe Islam will conquer the rule and want to bring back the rule of the 12th Imam. I have posted the vids of Ahmedenijad saying Islam will conquer the mountaintops of the world and the vid of him talking about the coming of the 12th Imam

Your beliefs are completely insane, or extremely cynical in their dishonesty. No serious foreign policy observers thinks Ahmadinejad's bluster is backed by any serious strategic intent. They make these religious laced speeches to their religious base, but actual strategy is guided by rational and moderate objectives.

You're a war propagandist, and nothing more.

 

[lester1/2jr]

Nope, not a single word was debunked, you are lying again. you provided zero evidence to debunk a single claim of mine in regards to al-zarqawi. And the burden of proof is on you to provide sources to dispute my claim as you are making an affirmative argument that zarqawi was not in iraq prior to the invasion.

no it isn't. you ar trying to convince people, us and the common belief out there, that saddam did not have a working relationship with al queda the way the taliban did and that he did not have a weapons program.

you have stated that YOU belive otherwise and have cited "proof" that doesn't pass the smell test or everyone and across the country would have came to a similar conclusion a long time ago.

if you wanted to say that silver was heavier than gold you would have to do more to prove it than cite some obscure scientist because most people understand that gold is heavier than silver.

you are frankly just about the last person on earth who makes the claims you do and its more than a little embarassing

If I am in the CIA or defense industry, or just a taxpayer, I am putting my money where my mouth is.

lol. no it isn't. you're a chickenhawk. you want war but are chicken to fight it.

The Saudi Royal Family, the Government, is the target of, not the supporter of, Islamic terrorism, as I have outlined previously

yeah wahabi islam has nothing to do with terrorism. holy crap

 

[AmericaFyeah92]

No soldiers should have to die, it would be great if we could give them bullet proof armor and never worry about deaths. But that is the reality of war, people die. And the war to liberate Kuwait and to secure western oil interests was defnitely worth it. Oil prices would have skyrocketed and the Kuwaitis would have been governed by an oppressive and tyrannical occupation force.

I am not using black and white thinking, the guy I just responded to was defending the Iranian regime, and I clearly stated there is a line, a line of naivety between opposing attacks on nuclear sites and defending the regime. But you just defended Saddam Hussein, you justified his invasion and plundering of Kuwait by the absurd claim(propogated by Saddam Hussein) that Kuwait was supposedly stealing Iraqi oil.

My point wasn't that American soldiers should never die, idiot. It was that they shouldn't die to "liberate" a third-world-monarchy, and they shouldn't die to ensure exxon and BP profits either.

Your repeated claim that Saddam " harbored" al Qaeda is ridiculous. The CIA begs to differ.

 

[AmericaFyeah92]

Your beliefs are completely insane, or extremely cynical in their dishonesty. No serious foreign policy observers thinks Ahmadinejad's bluster is backed by any serious strategic intent. They make these religious laced speeches to their religious base, but actual strategy is guided by rational and moderate objectives.

You're a war propagandist, and nothing more.

This.

Everyone except the Palin/Bachmann crowd knows Iran wouldn't actually "launch" a nuke. That's why they blab on about the "balance of power" and "regional stability". North Korea's rhetoric is a lot more violent and hostile than Ahmadinejads ( they once again threatened nuclear war last week). Doesn't mean shit, cuz it's just talk.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

I like Buchanan on some things, but he is totally off base here, and is ignoring history. If the German's only goal was to get Danzig which had a ethnic german majority, he wouldn't have agreed to the pact with the Russians which gave Hitler all of West Poland and Lithuania to boot. He also fails to mention it was Hitler who complied with Stalin and initially allowed the eastern european and baltic capitals(East Poland, Finland, Estonia, and Latvia) to fall under the Soviets, Hitler endorsed it through the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact. And if Hitler didn't have designs for the whole of Europe, and merely wanted to defend himself against those mean English and French bullies, he wouldn't have invaded and occupied Belgium, Denmark and Holland, who did not declare war on Germany and posed no threat militarily. If it wasn't for Hitler, we wouldn't have had an iron-curtain to begin with.

Hitler didn't "invade" those countries. They welcomed him. To this day, people who lived through the Hitler reign in that region are grateful to him. Prior to Hitler, no other regime could make the trains and so forth work on time and properly. Previous regimes were too decentralized and incompetent. Again, you are wrong.

 

[American Nationalist]

Hitler didn't "invade" those countries. They welcomed him. To this day, people who lived through the Hitler reign in that region are grateful to him. Prior to Hitler, no other regime could make the trains and so forth work on time and properly. Previous regimes were too decentralized and incompetent. Again, you are wrong.

I can't believe we have Nazi defenders on a fucking liberty forum.

That is bullshit. That is probably the most retarded statement I have ever heard on an online forum. Sorry to be so mean...actually, I am not fucking sorry, you are an idiot. I guess you haven't heard of the Battle of Dunkirk. Those Dutch and Belgian soldiers, and Danish resistance fighters who died fighting off the invasion and occupation would have to disagree with you. And this is coming from someone who had family in the dutch resistance, specifically. The people supported the Dutch Army and the Dutch resistance thereafter. The government didn't collaborate either, they were forced into exile in England after the Germans try to execute and capture the Royal Family and the Dutch Parliament. Both Belgium and Holland were under military occupation and Germany violated it's neutrality agreements and Denmark was allowed to become a vassal state under the threat of force if they did not comply.

 

[AmericaFyeah92]

What are we talking about, now???

 

[Matt Collins]

YouTube - Ron Paul: Iran Sanctions = Act of War
YouTube - 12/21/09 Ron Paul: Iran Sanctions are Precursor to War
YouTube - House Floor Debate on Iran Sanctions part 1

Iran: Neither Threat Nor Menace: http://reason.com/blog/2010/09/17/iran-neither-threat-nor-menace