How can 'strange bedfellows' unite to stop the Iran war?

[flexnor]

Most people on this forum may not like people like Pat Buchanan and Ron Paul (I sure as heck dont agree with them on everything), but most of you have something in common with them and their followers:

you think going to war with Iran would be insane and disasterous - you think that it's the Iraq war scam all over again

how can all those who agree on Iran, unite and 'agree to disagree' on the other issues while we stop this?

the wardrums are clearly beating, the military industrial complex is licking it's chops, having digested the gains it made from Iraq, and hungry once again

Ideas?

[NNN0LHI]

1. No thanks, you lay down with dogs you get fleas

Can't say it was nice knowing you.

Don

[flexnor]

3. spoken like someone who wont

be coming home in a box from Iran

'Can't say it was nice knowing you. '

that's mutual

[LeftishBrit]

39. Spoken like someone...

who won't risk starving and dying on the street because of 'libertarian' policies, or being lynched by racists, if people like Paul and Buchanan get into power.

Of course, welcome their anti-war votes by all means; but no deals should be made with them that involve compromising basic principles.

[cpwm17]

13. I would have not cared less about politics if German right-wingers had stopped the Nazis during WWII

This is not a time to worry too much about other issues where we may disagree with these right-wingers. Stopping war is too important. In politics you have to make coalitions or little will get done.

[flexnor]

24. thanks - someone here actually understands the term 'strange bedfellows'

meaning that forming an incidental alliance does not mean signing on with the bulk of their values, it just means you have a common interest that rises above all

and i think stopping hundreds of thousands of people from being senselessly murdered in a needless war and bankrupting our nation rises to that definition

[JNathanK]

37. I really just support Ron Paul on the issue of not going to war.

I disagree with him on everything else, but if Obama started drumming up Iran too, which there are indications, not going to war is so important to me that I'd vote him in over Obama.

[LeftishBrit]

40. I was once told by a British intellectual far-right-winger

'Hitler made the mistake of invading other countries. He should have stayed at home and got on with the business of getting rid of the Communists and the gypsies'. (The only reason he didn't add 'and the Jews' is because there were a couple of us there.)

So - supposing Hitler were stopped from invading other countries, but permitted to continue exterminating minorities and dissidents at home? It would certainly have been much better than his extending his evil to other countries - for example, the death toll of Jews would have been in the hundreds of thousands, not in the millions- but it would still not have been a situation which one could 'not care less about'.

I do not imply that Paul and Buchanan are as bad as even a domestically-limited Hitler would have been; but they would still, if allowed in power, cause a great deal of suffering and death at home, not through active extermination policies, but by total non-intervention in extreme poverty, and by accepting and tolerating racism and other forms of bigotry in action.

Accept the anti-war votes of even people like the BNP by all means; but no compromises should be made with them.

[Behind the Aegis]

19. Agreed.

I can't wait for the next installment of "strange bedfellows" and only wonder if such "luminiaries" like David Duke and Fred Phelps will be included (both are against "war" with Iran). Apparently, hardcore bigots are "cool" sometimes.

[RZM]

26. There's a difference, though, in the way those two would make the argument against war

I'll confess I don't know much about Fred Phelps' opposition to war in Iran. But I'll go out on a limb and say that his reasons would make about as much sense as his reasons for protesting military funerals, which is none. And David Duke is pals with the Iranian regime as well as virulently anti-Semitic. I imagine his argument would rest almost entirely on anti-Semitism, which no decent person could touch.

But Paul and Buchanan's arguments against war are more in the classic RW isolationist mold. That's not entirely incompatible with LW isolationism. Actually the two have quite a bit in common, most notably the issue of money. The idea that America should not be gallivanting all over the world spending billions on war and the military is an argument quite familiar to DU, since it's expressed here many times every day. The two are more than capable of crafting anti-war arguments that the left can get behind. That's just the thing the might actually do if say, there was a powwow between them and prominent members of the anti-war left where the group came up with a joint op-ed or agreed to issue a series of them individually with a narrow and specific anti-war focus that anybody opposed to war in Iran could get behind.

This is NOT an endorsement of either one, or even a suggestion that they do this. But I do think such cooperation is possible. Remember too that the appeal of Duke and Phelps is extremely limited. They are the very definition of fringe figures. Buchanan and Paul are a different story. They reach people, notably many people that the left can't really reach at all. A full-on assault against war in Iran would need voices from the right. I'm not saying it would have to be them, but they are the 'low hanging fruit,' since they already express anti-war views that you see on the left as well.

[flexnor]

30. THANK YOU!!!!

that's exactly what I'm trying to say

hey, in a better world, where a war with iran wasnt that likely, or it was a long way off, or wasnt all that important, we could pick only people we 'like'

but it's not - the war drums are beating, this has happened before, it's critical and the momentum is crystalizing

"But Paul and Buchanan's arguments against war are more in the classic RW isolationist mold. That's not entirely incompatible with LW isolationism. Actually the two have quite a bit in common"

that's exactly right - i simply cannot comprehend how people can get hung up on what 'brand' of isolationism it is. i went into the history of that in this post

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=344122

(and as a side note, phelps is a total, total nutjob, a disbarred civil rights lawyer, of all things, disbarred for a sexually charged badgering of a court reporter witness in 1977 - the real issue with him is at what point can you commit someone who's mentally ill, and a harm to themselves and others)

[Behind the Aegis]

31. They are all bigots.

The idea that we should look at an "alliance" with hardcore bigots because they are also against war is as ignorant and offense as saying PETA should have teamed up with Hitler because he was kind to animals and a vegetarian. What I see is those on the left who are willing to compromise their alledged "progressive creds" because in their minds, the ends justify the means. Let them handle their base and us handle ours. We should never team with bigots.

[RZM]

33. Hate to break it to you

But Ron Paul and Pat Buchanan are not Hitler. They may have serious flaws. But they aren't Nazis.

It boils down to a question of cooperation. That is the essence of politics. If you want everybody on your side to be pure, you're going to have a pretty small side. That's just the way it is.

[Behind the Aegis]

34. Hate to break it to you: I didn't say they were.

Comprise your values, to align yourself with bigots, is one step too far. It isn't a matter of "purity," it is a matter of bigtory.

[RZM]

35. Let's take a step back

I never said I endorsed either one of them. All I said was that they make anti-war arguments that the left makes every day on DU. That's a fact, like it or not. If you choose to reject them, so be it. But when the issue is Iran, they will be key players in RW opposition to the war. And if you want to stop it, you're going to need RW opposition.

[Behind the Aegis]

36. You need to step back and re-read...just like the Hitler remark, I didn't say you endorsed them.

Let the RW do their own shit, there is NO reason, not a single one, why we should "lie with strange (bigoted) bedfellows." PERIOD!

[LeftishBrit]

42. They are not literally Nazis; but here are some quotations from Buchanan's own website

The last consequence of a dying Christianity is a dying people. Not one post-Christian nation has a birth rate sufficient to keep it alive….The death of European Christianity means the disappearance of the European tribe, a prospect visible in the demographic statistics of every Western nation.

– Suicide of a Superpower


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

How can Notre Dame credibly teach that all innocent life is sacred, and then honor a president committed to ensuring that a woman’s right to end the life of her innocent child remains sacrosanct?

– Suicide of a Superpower


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[W]hite America is an endangered species. By 2020, whites over 65 will out-number those 17 and under. Deaths will exceed births. The white population will begin to shrink and, should present birth rates persist, slowly disappear.

– Suicide of a Superpower


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mexico is moving north. Ethnically, linguistically and culturally, the verdict of 1848 is being over-turned. Will this Mexican nation within a nation advance the goals of the Constitution — to “insure domestic tranquility” and ‘make us a more perfect union’? Or have we imperiled our union?

– Suicide of a Superpower


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Peoples of European descent are not only in a relative but a real decline. They are aging, dying, disappearing. This is the existential crisis of the West.

– Suicide of a Superpower


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Those who would change society begin by changing the meaning of words. At Howard University, LBJ changed the meaning of equality from the attainable — an end to segregation and a legislated equality of rights for African-Americans — to the impossible: a socialist utopia.

– Suicide of a Superpower


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Where equality is enthroned, freedom is extinguished. The rise of the egalitarian society means the death of the free society.

– Suicide of a Superpower


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The non-Europeanization of America is heartening news of an almost transcendental quality,” Wattenberg trilled.4 Yet, one wonders: What kind of man looks with transcendental joy to a day when the people among whom he was raised have become a minority in a nation where the majority rules?

– Suicide of a Superpower


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Historians will look back in stupor at 20th and 21st century Americans who believed the magnificent republic they inherited would be enriched by bringing in scores of millions from the failed states of the Third World.

– Suicide of a Superpower


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

We may deny the existence of ethnonationalism, detest it, condemn it. But this creator and destroyer of empires and nations is a force infinitely more powerful than globalism, for it engages the heart. Men will die for it. Religion, race, culture and tribe are the four horsemen of the coming apocalypse.

– Suicide of a Superpower


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Through its support of mass immigration, its paralysis in power to prevent 12-20 million illegal aliens from entering and staying, its failure to address the “anchor-baby” issue, the Republican Party has birthed a new electorate that will send it the way of the Whigs.

– Suicide of a Superpower


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Are vital U.S. interests more imperiled by what happens in Iraq where were have 50,000 troops, or Afghanistan where we have 100,000, or South Korea where we have 28,000 — or by what is happening on our border with Mexico?…What does it profit America if we save Anbar and lose Arizona?

– Suicide of a Superpower


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

We are trying to create a nation that has never before existed, of all the races, tribes, cultures and creeds of Earth, where all are equal. In this utopian drive for the perfect society of our dreams we are killing the real country we inherited — the best and greatest country on earth.

– Suicide of a Superpower


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Left has found the Ho Chi Minh Trail around democracy…to impose its views and values upon our society without having to win elections or persuade elected legislators.

– Where the Right Went Wrong


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In July 1944, at the Mount Washington Hotel in the resort town of Bretton Woods in the White Mountains of New Hampshire, John Maynard Keynes and Harry Dexter White created the New World Order.

– Where the Right Went Wrong


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ten years after NAFTA, Mexico’s leading export to America is still–Mexicans. America is becoming Mexamerica.

– Where the Right Went Wrong


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Will the American Southwest become a giant Kosovo, a part of the nation separated from the rest by language, ethnicity, history and culture, to be reabsorbed in all but name by Mexico from whom we took these lands in the time of Jackson and Polk?

– State of Emergency


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

With perhaps 4 million illegal aliens having broken in in Bush’s five-and-a-half years in office, and our border states being daily breached by thousands more, can anyone say President Bush has protected the states of this Union against that invasion? In an earlier America, this dereliction of constitutional duty would have called forth articles of impeachment.

– State of Emergency


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

High among the costs of immigration is the appearance among us of diseases that never before afflicted us and the sudden reappearance of contagious diseases that researchers and doctors had eradicated long ago. Malaria, polio, hepatitis, tuberculosis and such rarities of the Third World as dengue fever, Chagas’ Disease and leprosy are surfacing here…

– State of Emergency


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

By 2050 there will be almost 2.5 times as many people here as in 1960: 420 million. The share of the population of European descent will be a minority as it is today in California, Texas and New Mexico. And that minority will be aging, shrinking and dying. There will be as many Hispanics here, 102 million, as there are Mexicans today in Mexico…

– State of Emergency


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

By nation of origin of our people, by 2050, America will be a Third World country. Our great cities will all look like Los Angeles today. Los Angeles and the cities of the Southwest will look like Juarez and Tijuana…

– State of Emergency


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As Rome passed away, so, the West is passing away, from the same causes and in much the same way. What the Danube and Rhine were to Rome, the Rio Grande and Mediterranean are to America and Europe, the frontiers of a civilization no longer defended.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In 1960, the U.S. population was 89% white. By 1990, it was 76%. Today, it is under 70%. By 2050, white Americans, the most loyal voting bloc the Republican Party has, that provides 90% of all GOP votes, will be just another minority because of an immigration policy championed by Republicans. When John Stuart Mill called the Tories “the Stupid Party,” he was not entirely wrong.

– State of Emergency


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Why does President Bush not act? What is paralyzing the White House? Answer: Political correctness, political cowardice, political opportunism, a sense of guilt for America’s sins, and twin ideologies that have a grip on our elites not unlike a religious cult. The proud old boast, “Here, sir, the people rule!” no longer applies.

– State of Emergency


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


The seething racial resentment in the Third World against the West — decades after independence and trillions in foreign aid — should cause second thoughts about opening our borders to mass immigration from that world. Not everyone coming here brings in his heart the passionate attachment to America we attribute to the peoples of Ellis Island.

– State of Emergency


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Young Asian males are nine times as likely as white youth to belong to a gang and Hispanic youth are 19 times more likely. A disproportionate share of Hispanic young and poor are thus assimilating into a misogynistic, rebellious, youth sub-culture of drugs, gangs, crime, contempt for formal education, and hostility to police.

– State of Emergency


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Like the Paris riots, the struggle over French history raises grave questions for Europe. How does the presence of 20 million Muslims who come from nations where men believe their grandfathers were exploited and persecuted by Europeans advance the unity and security of Europe? How is Europe made stronger by such “diversity”?

– State of Emergency


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Islamization of Europe is an unavoidable consequence, indeed, an inevitability, once Europe ceased to reproduce itself. The descendants of the men who went out from Europe to conquer and Christianize the world have decided to leave the world. The culture of death triumphs, as the poor but fecund Muslims, expelled centuries ago, return to inherit the estate.

– State of Emergency


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In his litany of famous immigrants who have contributed mightily to America, JFK does not mention a single woman, African or Asian. All are males and all were from Europe, except one West Indian: Alexander Hamilton. And JFK assures the nation, “Immigrants would still be given tests for health, intelligence, morality and security…

– State of Emergency


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Our illegal population alone exceeds the all the Irish, Jewish and British immigrants who came. Each year, we catch more people breaking in at the border than all the Swedes and Norwegians who came to America in 200 years. Half a million illegal aliens succeed in breaking in every year, more than all the Greeks or Poles who came legally from the Revolution to 1960.

– State of Emergency


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The crisis of the West is a collapsing culture and vanishing peoples, as a Third World that grows by 100 million people, the equivalent of a new Mexico, every 18 months, mounts the greatest invasion in history of the world. If we do not shake off our paralysis, the West comes to an end.

– State of Emergency


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If we do not solve our civilizational crisis — a disintegrating culture, dying populations, and invasions unresisted — the children born in 2006 will witness in their lifetimes the death of the West. In our hearts we know what must be done. We must stop the invasion. But do our leaders have the vision and will to do it?

– State of Emergency


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



As can be seen, Buchanan is obsessed with the preservation of racial and ethnic identity in America and Europe: obsessed with immigration, not mainly for economic reasons but for ethnic reasons; similarly obsessed with the decline in reproduction in 'the West'. Unlike a full-blown Nazi, he is not talking about exterminating minorities, but about excluding them and outbreeding them - but that is basically eugenics. Indeed, Nazism started with an emphasis on racial purity and only over time did it proceed to the Holocaust. This is not to say that a Buchanan government would ever reach the extremes of the Holocaust - most racist anti-democratic regimes don't; but it would still be a racist anti-democratic regime.

And this is before we consider Buchanan's and Paul's economic views, which are basically a war on the poor, weak or ill.

Buchanan and Paul have more than 'serious flaws'. Winston Churchill, for example, had serious flaws but was an important leader in the cause of defeating Hitler. Buchanan and Paul are unmitigatedly evil and dangerous. They may not want war with Iran, but they want war on the poor (especially Paul) and war on Latinos and other minorities (especially Buchanan).

'If you want everybody on your side to be pure, you're going to have a pretty small side.'

I don't need everybody on my side to be 'pure'; but I don't think it's asking a lot to expect them not to be white supremacists, or types who are happy to allow poor people to die.

[RZM]

43. That stuff is all well known

I see where you're coming from, but my opinion is different. I don't see Buchanan and Paul as 'untouchables.' Others do and while I don't necessarily agree, I at least understand why they believe that.

[flexnor]

41. how can you be so obtuse?

Is it intentional?"

[Behind the Aegis]

48. How can you be?

Is there a reason?

[Proud Liberal Dem]

2. Re-elect Barack Obama POTUS in 2012

He doesn't seem interested in war in Iran and doesn't have a cadre of neocons in his Administration whom are pushing the idea either.

[flexnor]

5. actually, Buchanan has suggested just that

from his article 'who wants war with Iran', he says


"Year 2012 is thus shaping up as a war-or-peace election, with Republicans the war party and Democrats the peace-and-diplomacy party."



http://news.yahoo.com/wants-war-iran-080000090.html

[flexnor]

8. Ron Paul'ers could be persuaded to break from GOP to Obama against Iran war

you'll notice that none of them have committed to support the nominee (if it's not Ron Paul)

with the percent that Paul has pulled in, they could swing the election, if they were sold on the idea 'this is a vote against an Iran war ONLY - not a 'real' vote for Obama'

[leveymg]

11. I'm afraid your conclusion doesn't follow your assumptions, which are erroneous

They may be Democratic neocons, but they are neocons. Since 1979, we've never been closer to war with Iran than we are right now. This is the result of a campaign of escalating tension that's been unleashed since 2009, not something we can blame on Bush.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

12. yeah but

Obama is not the one advocating for pre-emptive military action. Sure, all options are "on the table" but that's pretty much the default position that most leaders take. Most of the "noise" and escalation of rhetoric is coming from Israel and right-wingers over here, not President Obama and/or his Administration. The fact that Israel seems hesitant to do anything suggests that they are unsure about whether or not we would back them up once they light the match with Iran.

[leveymg]

14. Ever heard of the "good cop, bad cop" game?

If Obama wanted to stop escalation of tensions, all he would have to do is state that a preemptive Israeli attack on Iran is contrary to U.S. national interests, and would be treated as such. There would be no attack, but that would spoil the game of provocation to get Iran to shoot first that's being played in concert by Obama and Netanyahu.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

15. I'm not entirely convinced that is what is going on

could be I suppose but he's walking an awful fine line. He needs to keep the heat on Iran on over their nuclear program but avoid any rash moves that could escalate tensions further. I see no real eagerness to go to war in Iran coming from President Obama, especially considering the potential consequences thereof. If Iran attacks us and/or Israel, all bets are off but, hopefully, Iran would not be stupid enough to pick a fight with us and Israel it knows it's not going to win.

[leveymg]

16. The object may not be to attack, per se, but that may well be the result.

An awfully fine line, indeed. As George Bernard Shaw says, "The road to Hell is paved with good intentions."

Outcomes count. So far, it doesn't look like this game is working to do anything other than to ramp up tensions and preparations for war. Time to try a different tack, unless war is the desired outcome.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

17. War with Iran would be a huge mess

Most everybody but the GOP Presidential candidates, Fox News and assorted pundits, and Israeli hardliners know it and are unlikely to support it like they did Iraq in 2002-2003.

[leveymg]

18. Once tensions get high enough, war becomes probable. Look at World War One - the war no one wanted,

except a group of Imperial Russian secret policemen with loyalties to Germany who bankrolled the Serbian extremists who actually assassinated the Austrian Grand Duke. See, http://journals.democraticunderground.com/leveymg/211

[Proud Liberal Dem]

20. I'm not naive enough

to think that it couldn't happen- just that, thankfully, President Obama does not seem as as eager to go to war as his predecessor was or as his potential *successors* seem to be.

[flexnor]

45. Iran is being baited and provoked, and even false flags arent

out of the question, if iran doesnt take the bait

you have a complex that has a whole bag of tricks, dont underestimate them

[TheWraith]

21. No, your conclusion is the one which is erroneous.

I.e. that there's any prospect of the US being at war with Iran. It's not happening. Anyone not paranoid can see that it's not happening. And also that the US is acting as the strongest brake against the Israelis attempting some kind of military option.

[JNathanK]

38. All the other neo-cons, besides Paul, are psychos for war n/t

[SunsetDreams]

4. Ugh

Wonder how Ross Perot feels too?

Sorry I wouldn't enjoy getting fleas, they bite and so do the dogs that hold them. Pat Buchanan
Ron Paul GOP

[flexnor]

6. when those across the political spectrum unite on an issue

it goes from being a left vs right issue, and becomes a right vs wrong issue in the eyes of the independents and undecided

[flexnor]

7. the warmongers fear guys like buchanan and ron paul more than they fear you

because they aim right at the definition of 'conservative' when it comes to war, and undermine 'pro-war' as a definition of 'good republican'

[davidthegnome]

9. Do you really think it can be stopped?

I don't. I don't think it would matter if Ron Paul supporters united with democrats - which I think is unlikely in any event.

When (I don't think it's still a matter of if) Israel decides it has to take out Iran's nuclear facilities, we'll be knee deep in it with them. Since our bunker buster bombs can't take out the nuke facilities, we're looking at a sustained ground invasion, occupation for who knows how long. You think it matters to the MIC or to most of our politicians whether we want the war? They don't give a damn what we want. We could march in the streets in protest, we could write letters and make phone calls till we're blue in the face - many of us did just that prior to the Iraq war.

If Obama gets a second term - and I think he will, I do not think he would let Israel go it alone. I really don't think Obama is likely to prevent a war with Iran, I think it's far more likely that he'll reluctantly agree to put boots on the ground.

[flexnor]

10. that's a fair arguement, and you may be right, but

it underscores the need to 'think outside the box' politically for anyone who really wants to stop it

you said

"We could march in the streets in protest, we could write letters and make phone calls till we're blue in the face - many of us did just that prior to the Iraq war. "

that's true, but there are some fine distinctions between iraq and iran

1) in 2002, the iraq war drumbeat, 911 was 1 year old, the 'you're not patriotic if you dont like war' had it's all time power - all those fresh chinese made flag stickers, on all those gas guzzling SUVs

2) in 2002, the economic fallout from the wars was 5 years ahead of us, now we're wallowing in it - people actually fear inevitable USA bankruptcy, in part, from military overextension

3) the 'fool me once - you cant get fooled again' experience, as W would say

4) while Buchanan was against the Iraq war, he's more vocal about this one, even going as far as to say 2012 is war and peace election, and he rec's Obama, which is kind of shocking - in 2002, the election was 2 years away. In 2002, nobody had heard of Ron Paul, now he has a large anti-war following. There is a definable, credible anti-war faction in the republican party that didnt exist in 2002

these 4 factors may be enough to make a difference, and derail this

"Do you really think it can be stopped?"

I honestly dont know, I only know a lot of innocent people are going to die, and our country will go broke if we dont. That's why I think we have to consider everyone who agrees on this, no matter where they come from

[davidthegnome]

27. All valid points

None of which are going to matter if the "Iran = nuclear destruction" scare continues to build both here and in Israel. Of course, there's the money to consider as well, I imagine a military occupation of Iran would be beneficial in regards to oil supply. If the oil companies want war, hell, if the Super PACs want it... they can buy it. The nuclear scare may just be how they're going to sell it to the people.

Fact is, we have as many gas guzzling SUVs now as we had then - they're just older and more used. Prices at the pump might even go down if we managed to get a strangle-hold over Iran's supply. How many players are in this game? Will the Russians try to stop us? The Chinese, maybe?

There are dangerous Countries - arguably ruled by lunatics, that presently have nuclear weapons. We haven't hit them yet, we're not talking about war (with them) like it's imminent. So why Iran? All we have to do is follow the oil/money. There will be many rationalizations and justifications, "We're bringing them Freedom from their tyrannical government", "They would have (eventually) nuked Israel if we hadn't stopped them!", "Rebuilding Iran, regime change in Iran, will stabilize the middle east and grant us another ally for decades to come.."

Most of them are bull, but they will appeal to plenty of people. Ultimately though, the fact of the matter is that the government doesn't have to convince us. If it comes to a vote, we don't get one. Congress will - and can you see our conservative congress drooling over the prospect of invading an oil rich Nation? I can. I can see oil execs (the really rich ones) rubbing their hands together in anticipation of all that campaign money coming back.

We can vote to elect different people next time around, get them out of office, maybe... or maybe not, it's hard to stop campaigning politicians when they have nearly unlimited wealth at their beckon call. I'm just way too cynical at this point to think we have any real control over such things.

[MineralMan]

22. Trying to sell accommodation with Buchanan and Paul

on this site is unlikely to bear any fruit but extremely bitter fruit. If you like them, then, by all means, do as you wish. But selling it here is not appropriate.

[flexnor]

23. I'm selling full effort against a senseless war with Iran

and if people are more against people like buchanan and paul, (who actually agree on this issue, whose voices can reach where your's cant, and are immune to the usual neocon labels tossed at anyone who questions war), than they are against war itself, then we're all screwed, and i feel sorry for you

has this site really reached a point where someone (me) who is purely anti-warmongering, and pro-american worker gets driven out for lack of ideological purity on problems that ARENT getting solved with the status quo?

(and note that in this thread I am saying that people should vote FOR Obama in 2012, and that Buchanan is saying that too)

[flexnor]

25. and if you read carefully, i'm selling splitting the GOP before an election

along pro war/anti war lines

the modern GOP is known mostly for it's goldwater/reagan/bush, and now romney/santorum/gingrich rooted neocon warmongering branch

but there is another branch of the republican party, the isolationist charles lindberg sr, robert taft, eisenhower (ike wasnt isolationist, but made the 1961 military industrial complex speech), and now buchanan, ron paul branch. republicans were actually 'anti-war' when robert taft was their standard bearer 60 years ago, and paul/buchanan are breathing life back into the robert taft branch after beign dormant for nearly 50 years many gop members are actually waking up to the idea that 'warmongering' is actually NOT 'conservative', it's neo-conservative

somone tell me how 'this isnt the place to sell that'

(as a side note, Robert Taft was profiled in JFK's book 'Profiles in Courage')

[MineralMan]

28. I'm not buying anything you're selling.

I think I'll keep my money in my wallet. You're selling a very bad bargain.

[flexnor]

29. how about this then?

donkey good

elephant bad

[Ohio Joe]

32. Fuck em both

I don't want anything to do with either of those turds.

[flexnor]

44. 'how will this war authorization vote affect my next election?"

very sad, but very true that for many of them, that's the most important question when deciding whether or not thousands of people die

a lot of them come from 'red states'. now many of you might think there shouldnt be red states and that they should all be fully converted to blue, but i can guarantee you on the day of an iran war authorization vote, there will be red states

and when facing the next election in that red state after that vote, 'i listened to some liberal's arguement against the war, and it made a lot of sense' just wont cut it - it wont

but 'Pat Buchanan wrote an excellent article about how Iran really isnt a critical threat and a war with Iran would be bad for America' WILL cut it

and even reps from blue states will get bullied about being 'weak on defense', 'letting the terrorists win' b;a bla bla, but 'even Pat Buchanan is against it' is a pretty tough retort

[flexnor]

47. Anyone else notice that we took out saudi arabia's enemy in response to 911?

a terrorist act committed by saudi nationals on those planes?

in the gulf war of '90, scud missiles from iraq went into rhyad saudi arabia