digg

Join DiggAbout

Call for questions
Submit and vote up questions you'd like to see answered by Kevin & Jay at the next Digg Townhall on 11/18.

Ron Paul Affirms: Iran Attack Plan Has ‘Green Light’

americanfreepress.net — Ron Paul (R-Tex.) has warned millions of radio listeners that the United States is heading into an illegal attack on Iran, stating his amazement at members of Congress who have openly voiced support for a criminal nuclear strike.

show profanity settings
expand all
  • bdfariello, on 08/10/2008, -5/+28Well, we're boned.
    • caferrell, on 08/10/2008, -4/+9We are boned thanks to Nancy Pelosi who jettisoned the language that would have required Congressional approval before any attack on Iran could have taken place
      http://reasontraditionandliberty.blogspot.com/2008 ...
      • MendotaLee, on 08/11/2008, -2/+5Pelosi is owned by AIPAC.
      • catcher6250, on 08/11/2008, -0/+2***** *****, the Iranians don't have nuclear weapons
      • caferrell, on 08/12/2008, -1/+1@catcher6250 - Did you read the article? Nobody, certainly not me, said that Iran has nukes. Read.
      • catcher6250, on 08/14/2008, -0/+1Well, what I meant was that, I believe that the only reason to go to war with Iran is if they actually have nuclear weapons AND are using them offensively. You can't just start attacking countries everytime they actually want to enjoy modern technology by using nuclear power plants as an alternative energy source. So, if they don't actually have nuclear weapons, then I think it is ***** that the "Iran Attack Plan Has 'Green Light'" according to Ron Paul...
    • atomicpoet, on 08/11/2008, -5/+1This is because the Iranians have developed a bomb that turns all human tissue into calcium hydroxylapatite. I, for one, am scared stiff!
  • wunksta, on 08/10/2008, -4/+22full bill
    http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill= ...

    brace for impact
    • LifeIsARhythm, on 08/11/2008, -0/+5this is the part to worry about

      (4) urges the President to lead a sustained, serious, and forceful effort at regional diplomacy to support the legitimate governments in the region against Iranian efforts to destabilize them, to reassure our friends and allies that the United States supports them in their resistance to Iranian efforts at hegemony, and to make clear to the Government of Iran that the United States will protect America's vital national security interests in the Middle East.
    • AnotherDiggGuy, on 08/11/2008, -0/+2hmm, that page seems to be down... coincidence? I think not.
    • kaelyiesta, on 08/11/2008, -0/+1Jesus christ ... the very first paragraph ignores reality:

      "Expressing the sense of Congress regarding the threat posed to international peace, stability in the Middle East, and the vital national security interests of the United States by Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons and regional hegemony, and for other purposes."

      'Sense of congress'? What the ***** do they do, pray to god and divine that iran has or is building nuclear weapons? Our own CIA explicitly stated that Iran has no nuclear weapons program. These ***** politicians are pulling ***** out of their asses and feeding it to a gullible, fearful public via MSM.
      • wunksta, on 08/11/2008, -0/+1most of what our government does ignores reality
    • Setari, on 08/12/2008, -0/+1I don't see anything in there about attacking them, but I'm sure "regional diplomacy" could possibly be redefined to mean "regional assault."

      That fourth point of the resolution only implies that we will provide aid. Now, obviously we could provide the means for an attack on Iran but we would not openly be the aggressor here.
  • klitzbtc, on 08/10/2008, -4/+33I'm not one for vast conspiracies, but the PNAC planned this ***** long in advance, and it's playing out quite well.
    • MarkEarhart, on 08/12/2008, -0/+1True, and the PNAC is simply a tiny part of a much greater network of conspiracy.
  • TylerC, on 08/10/2008, -5/+19Bout' time someone took some initiative... Even if the US controlled all the oil in the world we would probably still pay the same price anyways... You really think Exxon gives a ***** about the American worker?
  • sportsstar67, on 08/10/2008, -33/+6We should have attacked Iran long ago..Paul just needs something to bitch about...he's not a leader as his presidential campaign showed
    • CoolHandLuke70, on 08/10/2008, -2/+13Still missing the "Big Picture" there bubba!
      • sportsstar67, on 08/10/2008, -18/+3Iran is Not developing Nukes to pop popcorn, that's the big Picture !! Not even Texas thought he make a decent president, more of the big picture..
      • CoolHandLuke70, on 08/10/2008, -3/+12Where is the evidence that they are developing nukes? Have you received info that nobody else has, including the president? All the U.S. intelligence agencies support the NIE statement that Iran shelved its nuclear weapon aspirations quite a while ago. They point to the fact that Iran is interested in nuclear energy, which it has every right to do so. It further stated that even if it wanted to pursue nukes, it would be quite a number of years away for them to achieve even a modicum of progress in that area. So, unless you are getting briefings that even the president and his cabinet are not getting, you are just going along with the 'hype' of the mainstream media which is baseless. As for Ron Paul -- I do recall that Texans thought Bush would be a "great" president, not one that has the worse presidential ratings in the history of the U.S.. Further, Ron Paul has predicted and accurately described the decline of the U.S. that we are currently facing for years. George W. can barely tie his shoes -- McBama are jokes if anyone cares to take the time to look at the type of person that should make a good leader. I like and support people who use logic and Ron Paul is the only one that seems to know how to.
    • tomjeff08, on 08/10/2008, -5/+10Have you enlisted? Are you ready to head over and do something? It's obvious that you aren't the sharpest knife in the drawer. Go back to your sports. You're probably very knowledgeable about them.
      • sportsstar67, on 08/11/2008, -11/+3US Marine..Too old too or I would gladly go to protect pussies like you, Go figure !!
    • bestsoccerdog, on 08/11/2008, -0/+2EXACTLY! We can either deal with them now, or let them get more powerful and deal with them later. It's a fairly simple concept that liberals can't seem to grasp.
    • wunksta, on 08/11/2008, -1/+1yeah, attack them because the shahs took over because our FIRST attempts at controlling iran failed

      well done there.
  • JBmtk, on 08/10/2008, -4/+18War with Iran IS going to happen...I've been telling everyone this and the scary thing is, is that most people believe me. But this war is different than the past. This time the US will be facing a trained, democratic army.

    "The regular armed forces have an estimated 420,000 personnel: the Islamic Republic of Iran Army, 350,000 personnel; the Islamic Republic of Iran Navy, 18,000 personnel; and the Islamic Republic of Iran Air Force, 52,000 airmen." -Wikipedia on Iran's armed forces

    If there is a draft, this Nation should be, and probably will be up pised off, but it will be too late by then
    • tomjeff08, on 08/10/2008, -2/+15"If there is a draft, this Nation should be, and probably will be up pised off, but it will be too late by then"

      Calling it war is incorrect. War can only be declared by CONgress. What it would be is the Executive branch usurping it's power, once again, due to a spineless CONgress who allows it to happen, once again, and then does the chicken dance once they're asked about it.

      If another conflict arises, a draft is inevitable. The PTB will then start spouting the patriotism ***** to browbeat people into going along. (Keep in mind the Nazis perfected this technique of browbeating the citizenry into following orders) This is called a domestic enemy and is what I will be fighting rather than people thousands of miles away that couldn't lick a postage stamp.
    • doctorfungi, on 08/11/2008, -0/+1I'm not agreeing with the premise of a war with Iran here, but your suggestion that the Iranian army is somehow much more powerful than anything the US has ever faced is completely false.

      Iraq itself had a military only about 10-25% smaller than the current Iranian military when the United States initially invaded back in 2003. It only took three weeks to over run the entire Iraqi army and the entire Iraqi nation with the US only facing around 200 casualties.

      The US is the only hegemonic power in the world right now. Your suggestion that having to fight a trained, democratic army is a disadvantage to the US is most likely false. Their military was designed for, and has been trained for large conflicts against identifiable enemies. The counter-insurgency stuff is a new concept in mass warfare for the United States. Army vs. Army warfare is what they're trained for due to the cold war. I think you're underestimating their military ability in conventional warfare.
    • Yarmin3, on 08/11/2008, -0/+3This trained and conventional Iran military would only be an advantage to the U.S. This is what our whole military is made to defeat, not a Taliban style guerrilla warfare. You get what you pay for, and we have sure paid tremendously for our military superiority.

      The only problem is that our military will run out of willing people to fight this conflict and if a draft were ever enacted I would hope citizens of these united states would take action and throw off the chains of the U.S. government.
    • Setari, on 08/12/2008, -0/+1That ignores the several million members of the Basij.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basij

      I believe, in the Iran-Iraq War, they were used as essentially a human wave, often marching on armed Iraqi positions equipped with nothing more than a copy of the Qur'an. (Saw it in a History Channel show about Iran, so I may be mistaken.)
  • Dragotha, on 08/11/2008, -3/+13Just what we need - another war.
  • SRSco, on 08/11/2008, -25/+9Ooooohhh...if Ron Paul says it, it must be true!
    • AnotherDiggGuy, on 08/11/2008, -0/+2Ummmm, yes. You probably should believe it. It's not a not a major stretch of imagination.
  • Sephrra, on 08/11/2008, -19/+2Fake.
  • onetimer, on 08/11/2008, -27/+23Of course! If Paul says he has a hunch, it must be true! Just like when he predicted an imminent draft for the iraq war in 2003:
    "To get more troops, the draft will likely be reinstated. The implicit prohibition of “involuntary servitude” under the 13th Amendment to the Constitution has already been ignored many times so few will challenge the constitutionality of the coming draft."
    http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul144.html

    Buried as sensationalist.
    • mahsah, on 08/11/2008, -9/+17Oh boy, it's onetimer! Now this an OFFICIAL Ron Paul digg story!
    • jgaba24, on 08/11/2008, -10/+12Hey onetimer, Shouldnt you be off advising Georgia on how to deal with those pesky Russians
    • Qtip42, on 08/11/2008, -6/+14I only came to this thread and waited for onetimer's negative paul comment. I can sleep soundly now.
    • thecoolestguy, on 08/11/2008, -5/+10how bout quoting him in context:

      -----------
      The current quagmire prompts calls from many for escalation, with more troops being sent to Iraq. Many of our reservists and National Guardsmen cannot wait to get out and have no plans to re-enlist. The odds are that our policy of foreign intervention, which has been with us for many decades, is not likely to soon change. The dilemma of how to win an un-winnable war is the issue begging for an answer.

      To get more troops, the draft will likely be reinstated. The implicit prohibition of “involuntary servitude” under the 13th Amendment to the Constitution has already been ignored many times so few will challenge the constitutionality of the coming draft.
      --------------

      It looks like the neocons like McCain are advocating the exact escalation Paul discusses above, an escalation that if it were to occur, would undoubtedly lead to a draft.
      • onetimer, on 08/11/2008, -6/+6Great, looks like you did it for me. You act as if posting the previous paragraphs negates his prediction somehow. Nope, it's still right there for everyone to see (how wrong it was)

        And please, please point out where any large group of "neocons" are advocating a draft.

        Just admit it, his prediction here was completely wrong.
      • AnotherDiggGuy, on 08/11/2008, -3/+4@onetimer

        Everything he said is either true or coming true very shorty.

        "To get more troops, the draft will likely be reinstated." - He didn't say it will be reinstated, just that it will likely be reinstated. And for all we know, draft proposals were discussed behind closed doors. Do you honestly think if they were discussing a draft they'd let you know about it?

        You're worse than a woman who gets beaten senseless by her man on a daily basis, defending his actions with a brainwashed mind, living life with a black eye and a smile minus a couple teeth.
      • onetimer, on 08/11/2008, -5/+4Yet again, I ask for an explanation of why his prediction hasn't come true, and all I get are people trying to play semantics with his words.

        Perhaps you didn't notice the phrase "of the coming draft"? Also, the phrase "the draft will likely be reinstated [regarding iraq]" IS a prediction, no matter how you want to try and misconstrue it.

        It's been five yeras. He was wrong. Why should I believe him this time?
      • thecoolestguy, on 08/15/2008, -0/+2Paul emphasized the dangers of the new principle of interventionism and how it would likely lead to a draft.

        ---
        And please, please point out where any large group of "neocons" are advocating a draft.
        --

        McCain's closest ally, Lieberman, wanted the US to attack Iran!

        Bolton wanted the US to attack Iran!

        Both of these would lead to a draft.

    • sportsstar67, on 08/11/2008, -2/+2Paul only predicts negative events, almost like he's praying for them to happen..
  • MendotaLee, on 08/11/2008, -1/+1180% of the people in congress are morons, but Gates and the Joint Chiefs of Staff aren't. I'm not too worried until Petraeus arrives at Centcom, cause he has no problem with taking orders directly from the WH and cutting the chiefs out of the chain of command.
  • kingbling169, on 08/11/2008, -12/+0Buried because i love trolling troofers.
  • mahsah, on 08/11/2008, -1/+6Hey, gotta do something with those troops we are gonna take out of Iraq...

    Edit:

    Holy *****, 220 cosponsors!?!?!?!?!
  • nextsteposx, on 08/11/2008, -4/+2The 9/11 chronicles are interesting....

    http://prisonplanet.tv/alex_jones_documentaries.ht ...
  • jgaba24, on 08/11/2008, -3/+14Now just sit back and wait for the false flag op... and away we go...I better not hear any of you voicing dissent or you will be giving aid and comfort to the enemy and will be dealt with accordingly!
  • Yatata, on 08/11/2008, -1/+12i think i'm having an anxiety attack
  • AManWithNoName, on 08/11/2008, -0/+14Whenever I see Ron Paul (R-Tex) I accidentally read it as Ron Paul (T-Rex).
  • thallium205, on 08/11/2008, -2/+8“That is my sense because the Democratic leaders in the House are proposing no resistance whatsoever, Paul said. “We saw this when a supplemental bill came up and the president asked for $107 billion for the war, the Democrat leadership gave them $162 billion.
  • GidsR, on 08/11/2008, -4/+7Tragic and confirms Bush and Cheney as war criminals.
    • doctorfungi, on 08/11/2008, -2/+2Well I hope you never get Jury duty. Don't use the word "confirms" so damn lightly.
  • tiggyfiggy, on 08/11/2008, -2/+5I'm glad i live far far away from America and the Middle east... oh ***** we're US allies :(
  • corvin, on 08/11/2008, -8/+4Don't get me wrong, I like Ron Paul. But I call BS.
  • rentmitchum, on 08/11/2008, -2/+6What ***** with my head is that we don't throw these people out of office.. or something. When I was in elementary school, they were trying to kick the president out of office for lying about a blowjob. Now, we have this guy who doesn't listen to ANYONE and a government that won't do ANYTHING the people want, and lies about it for years, and we all just sit on digg.

    I wish daily for my Guy Fawkes mask to come in the mail, a day that will never happen, for there is no burn victim brave enough.. I believe the world is coming to an end, let's see how far we've come. That song is so silly.
  • sgiffy, on 08/11/2008, -2/+4Well I guess I don't have to worry about a war with Iran then.
  • redcolumbine, on 08/11/2008, -1/+3The thing about nations at war is that they get attacked. Maybe provoking an attack on US soil (or providing a smokescreen for one carried out by the US government itself) is the point of all this. Where the hell is Congress?
  • DocOctavius, on 08/11/2008, -9/+2Why do people listen to a nutjob like Ron Paul? ***** psycho if you ask me. Not to say he's wrong this time... :P
  • moracity, on 08/11/2008, -5/+5What in the hell is an "illegal attack"? We are a sovereign nation free to attack anyone we choose. There is no such thing as an illegal war because we are not beholden to any law that states war or attacks on other nations are illegal. I wish you people would get educated and at least know what you are talking about. You just make yourselves look like fools.

    I'm a libertarian (small 'l'), but Ron Paul is an idiot throwing out red herrings.

    If you are against war, that's fine. State it as such. But to call something illegal just because you don't like it is rubbish and fascist. In order to be an intellectual, you need to first understand how things ARE, not how you think they should be.
    • P5ycHo, on 08/11/2008, -1/+4Illegal because it's not approved by congress.
    • formergthing, on 08/11/2008, -0/+2There are rules to war. International laws.

      I don't think we're breaking any, though.

      It's not fascist to say we are.
  • Yarmin3, on 08/11/2008, -2/+4The thing that's sad about this is that the median age in Iran is one of the youngest in the world and they are actually informed and fond of Western culture and think Ahmadinejad is a wacko.
    • wunksta, on 08/11/2008, -0/+2they wont be fond anymore. we have a tendency to piss people off, so its not unexpected. lebanon was prowest too.
  • poprocksandsoda, on 08/11/2008, -2/+4Criminal? Illegal? Get ***** real. You are either a Euro or a pro-pot pacifist who would have been against US involvement in Europe and the Pacific during WW2. Climb down into your mom's basement and smoke more of your Glaucoma meds. When you have an ounce of understanding of how serious the proliferation of nuclear weapons are in that region come back onto Digg and revisit the ignorance you used to contribute.
    • wunksta, on 08/11/2008, -3/+1not serious enough to invade iran over it
      besides, its ***** like you who lead us to these types of outcomes. rampaging neocons who want to control the world and make it "safe" for american business.
      ask yourself, why did we dispose of mossadegh?
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.