To Iran or Not To Iran
It is that time of the year. Specifically, it is not just any year, but an election year. Politicians proudly stand and say what ever they think their base would like to year. Talking tough sells very well. Leaders, I am told, are suppose to act tough.
The GOP Presidential candidates have thrown their dice on the subject of what to do about Iran’s potential nuclear capability. All but one has come down squarely on the side of tough action, like bombing Iran’s nuclear facilities. That’s politics.
There is one notable exception. Ron Paul. His libertarian message of “imminent” threat is a wise and prudent position for US foreign policy. It just does not sell on the campaign trail as well these days.
Think back to 2002 when George W Bush told us Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction and could pose a threat to America. He order Iraq to renounce WMD, open their boarders to inspectors, and destroy their current weapons and programs. This was a difficult order to follow since Iraq did not have either WMD weapons or programs to develop. Iraq simply saying “no, we have no WMD” was not enough to change the minds of the Chaney-ites.
A trillion dollars and over 4000 US dead later, one might think Ron Paul’s words would receive a fuller review. They are just not tough enough. But they are Presidential because the world is not as simple as the other GOP candidates suggest.
After bombing Iran, would the US move onto North Korea and then maybe Pakistan?
Thankfully not on Ron Paul’s watch.
Like this:
Tags: Iran, North Korea, Pakistan, Ron Paul, wmd
You can comment below, or link to this permanent URL from your own site.
December 31, 2011 at 1:52 pm
He also has said there is no evidence that Iran is developing nuclear weapons, among other absurdly out of touch with reality comments on related subjects. Not our job anyway. Israel will do the bombing. They’re in much more trouble should Iran get the bomb than we are.
December 31, 2011 at 2:56 pm
Ron Paul is not my choice either, but I think he points out an important point. With no money, the US needs to formulate a different foreign policy that comprehends it cannot invade and occupy, or attack other sovereign countries simply because it is politically attractive.