On Foreign Policy, War, Suicide Bombings and Iran
Notice how Ron Paul is ignored especially when it comes to his foreign policy ideas...
Note: Ron Paul is against invasion/war and doesn't attempt to brush the lies of Iraq war under the rug.
Essentially, pre-agreeing to war continues to be the GOP's primary goal in terms of actions taken...
Indecision 2012 - Romspringa Republican voters go through a rite of passage wherein they desperately explore every possible option before ultimately and unhappily voting for Mitt Romney. (03:27):
Indecision 2012 - Romspringa Republican voters go through a rite of passage wherein they desperately explore every possible option before ultimately and unhappily voting for Mitt Romney. (03:27):
"Their main problem with Ron Paul... is because he won't pre-agree to start a war with Iran" - Jon Stewart
News Article from the time of the GOP primary (notice how this sort of war mongering behavior would simply make any nation like Iran even more aggressive in defending themselves... so their actions are logical when faced with an eminent invasion by the world's most powerful military even though they are not "Sunni" i.e. the sect of Islam Osama Bin Laden was from):
Pentagon says Iran concerned primarily with deterring an attack
The Iran question is often posed, as it was in last week's debate to Ron Paul, as a hypothetical. If Iran was proven to have a nuclear weapon what steps would be taken by the US to assure they did not attack Israel? The establishment media is skillful in the presentation and structure of the debate. The question assumes it is the responsibility of the US to protect Israel from a strike by Iran. But more importantly it assumes that Iran has the ability and strategic desire to attack Israel.
This unclassified assessment of Iran's military capability by the US Department of Defense clearly states that "To ensure regime survival, Iran's security strategy is based first on deterring an attack."
The document goes on to make this key statement, "Iran's nuclear program and its willingness to keep open the possibility of developing nuclear weapons is a central part of its deterrent strategy."
But what if the unpredictable Ahmadinejad and company in Tehran suddenly changed their strategy and decided to go on the offensive? Fortunately they would not have the capability according to the DoD which states, "At present Iran's forces are sufficent to deter or defend against conventional threats from Iran's weaker neighbors such as post-war Iraq, the GCC, Azerbaijan or Afghanistan but lack the air power and logistical ability to power much beyond Iran's boarders or to confront regional powers such as Turkey or Israel."
Stated simply Iran wants to obtain the necessary weapons to defend itself in a bad neighborhood where it finds itself surrounded by a global superpower.
The hyping of the potential nuclear program in Iran is Washington's attempt to establish a pretext that would garner public support for a strike/destabilization campaign on Iran. The obvious goal would be regime change.
News Article from the time of the GOP primary (notice how this sort of war mongering behavior would simply make any nation like Iran even more aggressive in defending themselves... so their actions are logical when faced with an eminent invasion by the world's most powerful military even though they are not "Sunni" i.e. the sect of Islam Osama Bin Laden was from):
Pentagon says Iran concerned primarily with deterring an attack
The Iran question is often posed, as it was in last week's debate to Ron Paul, as a hypothetical. If Iran was proven to have a nuclear weapon what steps would be taken by the US to assure they did not attack Israel? The establishment media is skillful in the presentation and structure of the debate. The question assumes it is the responsibility of the US to protect Israel from a strike by Iran. But more importantly it assumes that Iran has the ability and strategic desire to attack Israel.
This unclassified assessment of Iran's military capability by the US Department of Defense clearly states that "To ensure regime survival, Iran's security strategy is based first on deterring an attack."
The document goes on to make this key statement, "Iran's nuclear program and its willingness to keep open the possibility of developing nuclear weapons is a central part of its deterrent strategy."
But what if the unpredictable Ahmadinejad and company in Tehran suddenly changed their strategy and decided to go on the offensive? Fortunately they would not have the capability according to the DoD which states, "At present Iran's forces are sufficent to deter or defend against conventional threats from Iran's weaker neighbors such as post-war Iraq, the GCC, Azerbaijan or Afghanistan but lack the air power and logistical ability to power much beyond Iran's boarders or to confront regional powers such as Turkey or Israel."
Stated simply Iran wants to obtain the necessary weapons to defend itself in a bad neighborhood where it finds itself surrounded by a global superpower.
The hyping of the potential nuclear program in Iran is Washington's attempt to establish a pretext that would garner public support for a strike/destabilization campaign on Iran. The obvious goal would be regime change.
Extract from a New York Times Article: The Central Intelligence Agency's secret history of its covert operation to overthrow Iran's government in 1953 offers an inside look at how the agency stumbled into success, despite a series of mishaps that derailed its original plans.
Written in 1954 by one of the coup's chief planners, the history details how United States and British officials plotted the military coup that returned the shah of Iran to power and toppled Iran's elected prime minister, an ardent nationalist.
Extract from George Washington University's Archive: Long-sought by historians, the Wilber history is all the more valuable because it is one of the relatively few documents that still exists after an unknown quantity of materials was destroyed by CIA operatives – reportedly “routinely” – in the 1960s, according to former CIA Director James Woolsey. However, according to an investigation by the National Archives and Records Administration, released in March 2000, “no schedules in effect during the period 1959-1963 provided for the disposal of records related to covert actions and, therefore, the destruction of records related to Iran was unauthorized.” (p. 22) The CIA now says that about 1,000 pages of documentation remain locked in agency vaults.
Written in 1954 by one of the coup's chief planners, the history details how United States and British officials plotted the military coup that returned the shah of Iran to power and toppled Iran's elected prime minister, an ardent nationalist.
Extract from George Washington University's Archive: Long-sought by historians, the Wilber history is all the more valuable because it is one of the relatively few documents that still exists after an unknown quantity of materials was destroyed by CIA operatives – reportedly “routinely” – in the 1960s, according to former CIA Director James Woolsey. However, according to an investigation by the National Archives and Records Administration, released in March 2000, “no schedules in effect during the period 1959-1963 provided for the disposal of records related to covert actions and, therefore, the destruction of records related to Iran was unauthorized.” (p. 22) The CIA now says that about 1,000 pages of documentation remain locked in agency vaults.
More Relevant Information;
PDF Documents (i.e. these are the sorts of activities that lead to 1.2 million deaths)...
War Crimes In Iraq 1
Illegal War in Afghanistan
War Crimes In Iraq 2
War Crimes in Afghanistan
War Crimes In Iraq 1
Illegal War in Afghanistan
War Crimes In Iraq 2
War Crimes in Afghanistan
Going deeper...
Lt. Col. Daniel Davis: Commanders Sending False Impressions of Afghan War: - Army Lt. Col. Daniel Davis recently criticized top military brass, including retired Gen. David Petraeus, saying they have misled Congress and the American people about progress in the war in Afghanistan. Margaret Warner speaks with Davis about his whistleblowing, why he went public and what his future may hold in the military.
Confessions of an Iraq War Whistleblower: The State Department fired me for telling the truth about US failures in Iraq. Here's why I don't regret it. What I saw while serving the State Department at a forward operating base in Iraq was, however, different. There, the space between what we were doing (the eye-watering waste and mismanagement) and what we were saying (the endless claims of success and progress) was filled with numb soldiers and devastated Iraqis, not scaredy-cat bureaucrats. That was too much for even a well-seasoned cubicle warrior like me to ignore, and so I wrote a book about it, We Meant Well: How I Helped Lose the War for the Hearts and Minds of the Iraqi People. I was on the spot to see it all happen, leading two Provincial Reconstruction Teams in rural Iraq while taking part up close and personal in what the US government was doing to, not for, Iraqis. Originally, I imagined that my book's subtitle would be "Lessons for Afghanistan," since I was hoping the same mistakes would not be endlessly repeated there. Sometimes being right doesn't solve a damn thing.
Petraeus and the signature of U.S. terror: The CIA pressures Obama to step up indiscriminate attacks in Yemen
From PBS: Timeline | The Decade-Long Covert War Against Iran
DRUG FALLOUT: The CIA's forty-year complicity in the narcotics trade (i.e. there's opium in Afghanistan!)
Lt. Col. Daniel Davis: Commanders Sending False Impressions of Afghan War: - Army Lt. Col. Daniel Davis recently criticized top military brass, including retired Gen. David Petraeus, saying they have misled Congress and the American people about progress in the war in Afghanistan. Margaret Warner speaks with Davis about his whistleblowing, why he went public and what his future may hold in the military.
Confessions of an Iraq War Whistleblower: The State Department fired me for telling the truth about US failures in Iraq. Here's why I don't regret it. What I saw while serving the State Department at a forward operating base in Iraq was, however, different. There, the space between what we were doing (the eye-watering waste and mismanagement) and what we were saying (the endless claims of success and progress) was filled with numb soldiers and devastated Iraqis, not scaredy-cat bureaucrats. That was too much for even a well-seasoned cubicle warrior like me to ignore, and so I wrote a book about it, We Meant Well: How I Helped Lose the War for the Hearts and Minds of the Iraqi People. I was on the spot to see it all happen, leading two Provincial Reconstruction Teams in rural Iraq while taking part up close and personal in what the US government was doing to, not for, Iraqis. Originally, I imagined that my book's subtitle would be "Lessons for Afghanistan," since I was hoping the same mistakes would not be endlessly repeated there. Sometimes being right doesn't solve a damn thing.
Petraeus and the signature of U.S. terror: The CIA pressures Obama to step up indiscriminate attacks in Yemen
From PBS: Timeline | The Decade-Long Covert War Against Iran
DRUG FALLOUT: The CIA's forty-year complicity in the narcotics trade (i.e. there's opium in Afghanistan!)
Going even deeper...
Does American Foreign Policy have an unconscious tendency of Genocide towards lands they don't control?
1. Massacre Example 1 (wishita),
2. Sand Creek Massacre ,
3. Trail of Tears
Does American Foreign Policy have an unconscious tendency of Genocide towards lands they don't control?
1. Massacre Example 1 (wishita),
2. Sand Creek Massacre ,
3. Trail of Tears
Ron Paul Is Consistently Against War (While Others Have Been Consistently for It Unless Polling Says They Something Else);
Note: 2 minutes and 15 seconds - Hannity asks 'you want to eliminate the CIA?' Answer by Ron Paul is yes, "They do allot of mischief"
Ron Paul in Congress - Foreign Policy - War Spending and Propaganda makes Us Unsafe
Ron Paul in Congress - Foreign Policy - War Spending and Propaganda makes Us Unsafe