Is Ron Paul correct on Iran?

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

The Houston metro area has been "ground zero" on the Soviet hit list, since there was one ... with San Antonio on the list also, because of the military presence there .... and with the inaccurate control of warheads utilized by the Soviets a falling warhead that just happened to miss and hit SA was considered a "two-fer" .... and certainly not wasted.

The estimates now are about 2/3rds of the domestic petrochemical production .... one decent lob from Cuba would contaminate the area beyond use for 1,000's of years, and probably kill more than were lost in 9-11 attacks or the unpopular war with the anti-Bush crowd. I suspect the economic consequences would be off the charts, and "rebuilding a city" would exceed the costs of "nation building" spent since 2000.

Some folks need to recall that the Japanese believed the U.S. was incapable of delivering the blow dealt to them. My physics professor worked on the Manhattan Project. The belief by Japanese scientists was that the U.S. lacked a delivery system (airplane) large enough and powerful enough to deliver an explosive device that could create an explosion as did "the bomb." At the same time the Japanese thought we had more than three of them. They miscalculated 2 times: Pearl Harbor and "the end." We have had one miscalculation so far: 9-11.

Some of the comments on here remind me of John Kerry's remarks to Larry King just after 9-11 on Larry's show: Paraphrase: "We knew it could happen ...."

I agree that Ron Paul is not Nervous Champlain ... Paul will never be President.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

Some folks need to recall that the Japanese believed the U.S. was incapable of delivering the blow dealt to them. .

Some people need to learn the real history....things are not always as simple as they seem.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/kreca/kreca6.1.1.html

An aide to Navy Secretary Frank Knox, Vice Admiral Francis Beatty, revealed in 1954:

"Prior to December 7th, it was evident even to me... that we were pushing Japan into a corner. I believed that it was the desire of both President Roosevelt and Prime Minister Churchill that we get into the war, as they thought the Allies could not win without us and our efforts to cause the Germans to declare war on us failed. The conditions we imposed upon Japan — to get out of China, for example — were so severe that we knew that that nation could not accept them. We were forcing her so severely that we could have known that she would react toward the United States. All her preparations in a military way — and we knew their overall import — pointed that way."

Exactly a week after this memo was issued, FDR's Secretary of War, Henry Stimson, wrote in his diary some two weeks before Pearl Harbor, recalling a cabinet meeting discussing the problems with Japan. He wrote:

"There the President...brought up entirely the relations with the Japanese. He brought up the event that we were likely to be attacked, perhaps [as soon as] next Monday, for the Japanese are notorious for making an attack without warning and the question was what should we do. The question was how we should maneuver them into the position of firing the first shot without allowing too much danger to ourselves."

Sir Oliver Lylleton, Churchill's war production minister, knew all of Churchill's and FDR's plans and decisions to force the USA into the war. In a June 20, 1944 speech to members of the American Chamber of Commerce in London, he stated:

"America provoked Japan to such an extent that the Japanese were forced to attack Pearl Harbor. It is a travesty on history, even to say that America was forced into the war."

Moreover, there was a persistent undercurrent of fear in the Kremlin that Great Britain would make a separate peace with Germany. These fears were intensified after Deputy Führer Rudolf Hess's mysterious May 1941 solo flight to Scotland supposedly to meet secretly with the Duke of Hamilton, (six weeks before the German invasion of the USSR) but Japan's bombing of Pearl Harbor seven months after Hess's inexplicable odyssey, among other things, helped scuttle any chances of a separate Berlin-London peace treaty, another major benefit to Moscow.
Even after Pearl Harbor, Joseph Grew, by then Undersecretary of State for Asian Affairs, still hoped for some kind of negotiated settlement:

"At the same time I believe that it is important that we bear in mind that the defeat of Japanese aggression does not necessarily entail, as many Chinese think, our crushing Japan militarily. The complete elimination of Japan as a force in the Far East would not be conducive either to order or prosperity in this area."

Well, we certainly crushed Japan militarily, finally finishing the job with two atomic bombs in August 1945. What did we get for it all? Scores of GIs killed from Oahu to Okinawa, billions of postwar taxpayer dollars spent rebuilding a completely wrecked and humiliated Japan, keeping it militarily weak in the face of an appallingly genocidal and increasingly assertive Red China with both nations eventually becoming the USA's fiercest foreign economic competitors.
Barely eight years after Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the USA wound up with some 33,000 US dead in a still divided and tense Korea, and some two decades after that, 58,000 troops killed in a still Communist Indochina — the last courtesy of a fruitless eight-year conflict (which some have called the US version of the Boer War) that severely damaged US social, economic and political institutions. We then were treated to Pol Pot's notoriously barbaric Cambodian "Killing Fields," scads of desperate Vietnamese "boat people," thousands of US troops and a string of warships permanently deployed in the Far East, and, finally, Chinese Long March ICBMs aimed at the US West Coast.
All to avenge the loathsome FDR and his pro-Soviet disciples' self-serving and cleverly premeditated "day of infamy" and to fulfill the bloodthirsty Josef Stalin's totalitarian fantasies. Well, hey, winning is everything, right, sports fans?
But what did we win?

[JD Barleycorn]

Always said that if we didn't want war in the Pacific we should have had twice the number of ships including six or seven new aircraft carriers. Yes, it would cost money but a lot less money than the war cost and hundreds of thousands of fewer lives. Eternal vigiliance; the price of freedom.

Too bad about Paul though (and his followers); Iran has been accused of plotting to assassinate the Saudi (and maybe the Israeli) ambassador in the United States. Collateral damage would have been high but according to a plotter that was not important to Iran. I guess Iran is more of a problem than Ron Paul thought.

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by WTF

Some people need to learn the real history....things are not always as simple as they seem.

I hope you are not refering to "the real history" according to WTF.

Just like in Japan there are always those who said: "I told you so."

There are several rather lengthy books detailing the extensive investigations with testimony and documents that explored who knew what and when, as well as who thought what and why. If you recall, since you obviously lived it, FDR was even accused of "allowing" Pearl Harbor to be attacked to sway public opinion into supporting a U.S. entry into the global conflict, etc., etc. I do not recall any "cherry picking" of reports, documents, and articles. Didn't seem to white-wash the relaxed, blissful demeanor of the general public, and a lot of servicemembers, particularly those who desired a vacation in Hawaii while on duty.

I'm sure your conclusions after having been there are that it was because of the oil companies wanting to destroy petroleum assets and seeking to disrupt supply routes to drive up the prices of gasoline. Or was it the auto makers who wanted to build more military vehicles. It was all about the money, right?

I do have to agree with the assessment of China, except that it was the Japanese who killed millions of Chinese, many in experimentation that made the Germans look like beginners, and shipped the young ladies out of the islands for entertainment back home, not to mention the tastey ones from mainland China.

If we degrade our military and withdraw into a shell like a turtle, this country will get run over on the freeway and pay backs are hell.

[Texas Contrarian]

In response to this:

Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight

I'm not sure how many years away Iran might be from developing and deploying ICBMs -- that's a pretty difficult technical task.

But one thing I've often wondered is this:

What would stop the Iranians from putting a nuclear weapon aboard a ship disguised as a freighter and sailing it within close range of one of our coastal cities -- and then loading it onto one of those little "speedboats" they've used to harass Navy ships in the Persian Gulf, followed by rushing toward shore with nuke-equipped suicide bombers.

...wellendowed1911 said this:

Originally Posted by wellendowed1911

Dude if you want to talk hypothetical hyperbole bullshit than when we can- but to answer your question what's stopping Iran from doing that is having fucking common sense and not wanting to be destroyed off the face of the earth. The CIA states by best estimate Iran is capable of producing at least 1 nuke in the next 5 years- do you know how many nukes the U.S has???? Even if that hypothetical bullshit scenario was to happen- we have enough nukes to respond in such a manner that we can nuke Iran until nothing is left but cockroaches.
Your scenario is as absurd as saying what if an Iranian diplomat has his stomach cut open and a bomb is placed in his intestines and he travels to the White House/ U.N or some crowded American market and detonates the bomb that was implanted in his stomach- you see how absurd that sounds. What in the hell would Iran gain from doing that??? A country that attacks another country has to be prepared for a retaliation hence why do you think all those arab countries don't attack Israel head on??? The reason being Israel response would greatly overshadown any countries first response.

...and here was my reply from two days ago:

Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight

Crazy regimes occasionally do crazy things. Haven't you noticed that from your study (if you've ever undertaken one) of history?

Don't you think U.S. intelligence agencies have to be prepared for almost any potential eventuality?

And you keep talking about Israel. Are you really going to try to draw some sort of moral equivalence between the Israelis and the Iranian mullahs?

And are you really going to try to claim that the Iranian regime has "common sense." That's simply laughable!

OK, wellendowed1911 -- after today's news, are you still going to try to tell us that the Iranian regime has "common sense?"

Arguably, the possibility I mentioned seems far-fetched, but we're dealing with lunatics. Don't you think our intelligence agencies have to consider a wide variety of risks?

The Iranian regime obviously believes it can act with relative impunity. The probability that it might think it could get away with an act such as I mentioned, and establish enough plausible deniabilty that we wouldn't retaliate in kind because it could claim some nonstate terror group was involved, may not be very high. However, I don't believe that it's zero.

But the mullahs wouldn't really have to actually do something as extreme as this to gain from the perceived risk. If a well-placed "mouthpiece" somewhere in the world mentioned it as a possibilty, and if tensions between the U.S. and Iran arose (perhaps I should have said "continued") Iran would certainly feel that the perception of such a risk might enhance its "negotiating position" ragarding a number of issues.

Long ago, Aron Nimzowitsch said that a threat can be stronger than the execution thereof.

If Iran does not develop a deployable ICBM anytime soon, wouldn't it be possible that they might consider the nuke-on-a-ship scheme to be an effective possible fallback plan?

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight

Don't you think our intelligence agencies have to consider a wide variety of risks?

After 9-11 they had better consider every dot, and the absence of a dot.

But practically every day I see people zipping and roaring down the toll roads at 80 plus MPH who obviously NEVER considered the speed rating of the tires on the vehicle.....right off the shelf... much less after 10,000 to 20,000 miles. Rattling around in that space between their ears are the words .... "it'll never happen to me."

At least in my reality when one is tasked with protecting others it is prudent to err on the side of caution rather than taking the risk. And given the severe consequences of making mistakes by assuming that nothing will happen the results are unacceptable if one is wrong in "assuming" that nothing will happen. That complacency, and some compartmentalized thinking, "allowed" 9-11 to occur.

That is why I was somewhat "stunned" by John Kerry's rather candid admission to Larry King immediately after 9-11 that "we" knew it could happen. What he did not admit was that it could have been prevented. I didn't want Kerry to be President because of that (not only that, though), and I surely wouldn't want Ron Paul if his solution is to pretend that "all is well" on the Middle Eastern front just to score points in an effort to win some votes. If he really believes his bullshit, then he really isn't qualified for the job of CIC and "leader of the free world."

And you Ron Paul lovers make fun of Palin.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

I hope you are not refering to "the real history" according to WTF.

Just like in Japan there are always those who said: "I told you so."

There are several rather lengthy books detailing the extensive investigations with testimony and documents that explored who knew what and when, as well as who thought what and why. If you recall, since you obviously lived it, FDR was even accused of "allowing" Pearl Harbor to be attacked to sway public opinion into supporting a U.S. entry into the global conflict, etc., etc. I do not recall any "cherry picking" of reports, documents, and articles. Didn't seem to white-wash the relaxed, blissful demeanor of the general public, and a lot of servicemembers, particularly those who desired a vacation in Hawaii while on duty.

I'm sure your conclusions after having been there are that it was because of the oil companies wanting to destroy petroleum assets and seeking to disrupt supply routes to drive up the prices of gasoline. Or was it the auto makers who wanted to build more military vehicles. It was all about the money, right?

I do have to agree with the assessment of China, except that it was the Japanese who killed millions of Chinese, many in experimentation that made the Germans look like beginners, and shipped the young ladies out of the islands for entertainment back home, not to mention the tastey ones from mainland China.

If we degrade our military and withdraw into a shell like a turtle, this country will get run over on the freeway and pay backs are hell.

Pretty much what I was prepared to write. However, I do wish to reiterate that nothing in what WTF posted supports his argument that all U.S. wars are/were waged for the benefit of U.S. oil companies.

Furthermore, nothing WTF posted conclusively proves that FDR and his staff knew that Japanese military forces were going to strike Pearl Harbor. Fact is, Secretary Stimson forgets to mention in his diary the "war warning" message sent to General Walter C. Short, commander U.S. Army forces in Hawaii, directing Short not to alarm the civilian population in Hawaii and to be on alert for sabotage - not a naval air attack. Admiral Kimmel was similarly informed, and was on alert for sabotage. Added to this erroneous belief was the fact that U.S. aviation experts considered Pearl Harbor too shallow for successful torpedo attacks. Classified Japanese torpedo development proved them wrong.

Sir Oliver Lylleton was not in a position to know anything about U.S. military plans and decisions in 1941. His statement reflects nothing more than his personal opinion.

The fiasco in Korea only serves to underscore the argument to keep U.S. military forces funded and prepared.

@ JD Barleycorn - three additional carrier groups might have served as a sufficient deterrent.

[CuteOldGuy]

No one is opposed to keeping the military funded and prepared. We just need to quit fighting useless wars.

I'm personally shocked, SHOCKED! That Iran might want to assassinate an ambassador. That PROVES they are an international threat and must be bombed into submission. It PROVES that our National Defense MUST include keeping Iran nuke free, even though they don't have a delivery system. (God help Iran if they attack Israel).

How does this prove anything? The only thing it proves is that our borders are too porous, which would not be the case if Ron Paul were President.

Ron Paul was looking pretty old in the debate tonight. It's time to turn the mantle of liberty over to a new generation. I prefer Gary Johnson.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

No one is opposed to keeping the military funded and prepared. We just need to quit fighting useless wars.

I'm personally shocked, SHOCKED! That Iran might want to assassinate an ambassador. That PROVES they are an international threat and must be bombed into submission. It PROVES that our National Defense MUST include keeping Iran nuke free, even though they don't have a delivery system. (God help Iran if they attack Israel).

How does this prove anything? The only thing it proves is that our borders are too porous, which would not be the case if Ron Paul were President.

Ron Paul was looking pretty old in the debate tonight. It's time to turn the mantle of liberty over to a new generation. I prefer Gary Johnson.

They have hundreds of willing "delivery systems." They just need two or three of them to drive an old VW bus with a nuclear device on board over the porous boarder and detonate it on target (Houston, El Paso, who knows).

And you are underestimating their missile capabilities. Remember, there was a time when the U.S. didn't think the Japanese could use torpedoes at Pearl Harbor.

[CuteOldGuy]

Are you kidding? Our intelligence is much better now. Isn't it? Hmmm . . . Maybe you have a point.

Still, border security is the best deterrent.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Pretty much what I was prepared to write. However, I do wish to reiterate that nothing in what WTF posted supports his argument that all U.S. wars are/were waged for the benefit of U.S. oil companies.
..

Just because you are to ignorant to know that this was about resources does not mean it was not about resources.

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Furthermore, nothing WTF posted conclusively proves that FDR and his staff knew that Japanese military forces were going to strike Pearl Harbor..

Nobody said he knew where...they just knew that they had to fight. If I sat you in a room with food on one side and nothing on the other and told you not to cross the line to where to food was ... well I'd have to be about as dumb as you are to not anticipate you are going to cross that line at some point.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Are you kidding? Our intelligence is much better now. Isn't it? Hmmm . . . Maybe you have a point.

Still, border security is the best deterrent.

Seriously, discounting the possibilty of a nuclear attack on the U.S., it could more realistically be used on an ally or the U.S. base in Qatar.

And what would the U.S. have done if the Israeli and Saudi embassies had been blown up? The would be an act of war would it not.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by WTF

Just because you are to ignorant to know that this was about resources does not mean it was not about resources.

Is this code for you don't know WTF to say, WTF?

Originally Posted by WTF

Nobody said he knew where...they just knew that they had to fight. If I sat you in a room with food on one side and nothing on the other and told you not to cross the line to where to food was ... well I'd have to be about as dumb as you are to not anticipate you are going to cross that line at some point.

Now, this is just more proof of your ignorance.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

They have hundreds of willing "delivery systems." They just need two or three of them to drive an old VW bus with a nuclear device on board over the porous boarder and detonate it on target (Houston, El Paso, who knows).

And you are underestimating their missile capabilities. Remember, there was a time when the U.S. didn't think the Japanese could use torpedoes at Pearl Harbor.

Iran is not going to nuke us.... god damn you war monger who hate to pay taxes! Get your head outta your ass.

We would turn that sandy country into a sea of glass after we nuked the fuc outta them.

There is not a thing any country besides Russia can do to fuc with us. Quit hiding under your school desk in case of a nuke war...it ain't gonna happen. Plus you might scare the women and children with that idiotic talk.

No country can defeat us militarily, not by invading us.

The only thing we have to fear is fear itself. Scardy cats like you are the problem not the solution.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Is this code for you don't know WTF to say, WTF?

Are you ignorant enough to think I will not have nothing to say?

All wars are about resources.

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Now, this is just more proof of your ignorance.

We goaded Japan into a fight...we wanted a fight. Read your history, the American public did not want to go to war. Most of the country thought it wasn't any of our business. Ahhhhh the good ole days , when this country actually believed in not sticking our nose in everyone elses business.