Ron Paul Vindicated on Iran

Ron Paul is the only non-Armageddon presidential candidate among the Republicans.  He is the only person who staunchly opposes a massive first strike against Iran because of  its alleged nuclear program.  He has long been ridiculed for his aversion to preemptive genocide in the Middle East.

The National Intelligence Estimate yesterday reported that Iran abandoned its nuclear weapons program in 2003.  This blows to pieces the Bush-Neoconservative case for war.

Bush knew this for at least the last 5 or 6 months, but he continued rattling his missiles and warning of World War III if Iran did not kowtow to U.S. demands.   Cheney has been even more bloodthirsty, as usual. 

Top Bush supporters like Norman Podhoretz are wailing that the intelligence agencies are cheating them out of another U.S. government-orchestrated slaughter of Muslims.  Not exactly “Presidential Medal” Podhoretz’s words, but that’s the soul of the complaint.

In the Fall of 2002, Ron Paul stood almost alone denouncing the “phantom weapons” claims the Bush team was invoking to attack Iraq.   Once again, he has been proven right.

  • Kenneth

    Tim R.-Oh ok, you mean a lie like Islam is a peaceful and tolerant religion?

    Nonwithstanding that this isn’t a “big lie” because it isn’t being widely purveyed, and because it’s not untrue: Islam was very tolerant in the past, and is quite capable of becoming so again.

    Or maybe that Iran only wants nuclear power for peaceful purposes?

    Iran has every reason for wanting nuclear power. The gap between its domestic oil consumption and oil exports will continue to shrink unless it diversifies its energy sources. And, as always, you avoid mentioning the fact that there is no evidence for an Iranian nuclear weapons program. The real “big lies” that permeate public discourse are as follows:

    -The US aims to spread democracy and human rights, and cares about minimizing civilian casualties

    -There is such a thing as “Islamofascism”, and it poses an imminent threat to the west

    -The west is the sole fount of all that is good in the world

    -All good things resulting from American intervention are proof of benign intent

    -All bad things resulting therefrom can only happen by bureaucratic error, bad intelligence, and flawed policy, and never by design

    These are but a few, but I’m sure you could name more, seeing as you’re a walking compendium of them.

    • Tim R.

      Kenneth writes: Islam was very tolerant in the past, and is quite capable of becoming so again.

      Well, I agree with the latter half of what you wrote. It could become tolerant and peaceful in the future, indeed, I hope it does. But it will have to reform and modernize itself.

      As for the past, learn your history of this religion! It was spread through violance and blood. For about a hundred years starting around 632 it was spread with wanton violance and bloodshed. They spread it all the way into Europe, by force of arms, before finally being stoped by Charles Martel. As for tolerant, its true that they usually allowed people to live in Muslim lands and not convert, but only if, I repeat only if, they accepted a second class status of “dhimmi” and paid a tribute tax to their superior Muslim elders and practiced their religion in seclusion. Also, how can a religion be “tolerant” if any Muslim who wants to convert away from it is subject to execution?

      • Kenneth

        As for the past, learn your history of this religion! It was spread through violance and blood. For about a hundred years starting around 632 it was spread with wanton violance and bloodshed. They spread it all the way into Europe, by force of arms, before finally being stoped by Charles Martel. As for tolerant, its true that they usually allowed people to live in Muslim lands and not convert, but only if, I repeat only if, they accepted a second class status of “dhimmi” and paid a tribute tax to their superior Muslim elders and practiced their religion in seclusion. Also, how can a religion be “tolerant” if any Muslim who wants to convert away from it is subject to execution.

        Christianity, too, has been spread by the sword. That doesn’t tell us anything about modern day Christianity. The difference is that the Islamic caliphates of the past allowed non-Muslim subjects to continue their lives under the condition that they would pay a poll tax, whereas Christendom simply slaughtered its “infidels”. It is true that the Muslim world of times past would have been considered illiberal by modern standards, but during its heyday it was much more tolerant than its neighbours.

  • Recovering Republican

    Islam is mostly a peaceful religion. the trouble is that every religion has its nutcases and extremists. In the USA it is/was Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, that guy who is charge of Blackwater, and all the people who believe that the Earth is only 6,000 years old.

    As for Iran only using nuclear power for peaceful purposes, I am not sure about that, but I sure am skeptical of anything this Administration says, because they seem to want another war, which brings me to another similarity:

    During the September 26 broadcast of his nationally syndicated radio show, Rush Limbaugh called service members who advocate U.S. withdrawal from Iraq “phony soldiers.” He made the comment while discussing with a caller a conversation he had with a previous caller, “Mike from Chicago,” who said he “used to be military,” and “believe[s] that we should pull out of Iraq.”

    Why of course the people don’t want war. Why should some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece? Naturally the common people don’t want war neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.

    Hermann Goering, Nazi Reichmarshall

  • Tim R.

    Recovering Republican: If Islam is a “mostly peaceful” relgion why, recently, did Saudi Arabia sentance a woman who was the victim of a gang rape to six months in jail and 200 lashes? Why did crowds riot in the streets in Sudan last week and call for the execution of a school teacher because they did not like the name she gave to a toy teddy bear? Why, a year or two ago, did crowds of Muslims riot in the streets, burn down churches and kill a nun because the Pope said something they did not agree with? Why, if Islam is so peaceful are there hundreds of verses of violance, subjugation, sexism, racism, and homophobia in the Quran? (see for yourself, http://www.thereligionofpeace.com) Why, if Islam is so peaceful do the vast majority of terrorist attacks come from Muslims?

    I agree that Islam, COULD, become peaceful and it could reform and modernize itself. As much as I lambaste it, there are also some wonderful and sublime messages in the Quran. Helping the poor is one of the five pillars of Islam. So, cleary, there are good things in it, but the Muslims need to reform and modernize the religion. Because as it stands now it is anything but peaceful. Unless by “peaceful” you refer to pieces of bodies getting blown up and body parts being cut off.

    • Kenneth

      Recovering Republican: If Islam is a “mostly peaceful” relgion why, recently, did Saudi Arabia sentance a woman who was the victim of a gang rape to six months in jail and 200 lashes? Why did crowds riot in the streets in Sudan last week and call for the execution of a school teacher because they did not like the name she gave to a toy teddy bear?

      Because religion is always perverted when the State co-opts it for its own ends.

      Why, if Islam is so peaceful are there hundreds of verses of violance, subjugation, sexism, racism, and homophobia in the Quran? (see for yourself, http://www.thereligionofpeace.com).

      We’ve been through this at least half a dozen times, Tim. You haven’t been able to produce a single quote in support of your position that isn’t either ambiguous, taken out of context, or contradicted by passages elsewhere in the Qu’ran. Attributing the origins of something as complex as terrorism to theology, apart from being extraordinarily reductive, is completely useless as an explanation, for the stubborn fact remains that the vast majority of Muslims are not terrorists.

      Why, if Islam is so peaceful do the vast majority of terrorist attacks come from Muslims?

      Because terrorism is the warfare of the weak, and the Islamic world lacks the military might to confront the west directly. Why is the majority of state terrorism conducted by the United States?

  • The trick in the NIE lies in: Iran stopped in 2003! So, they had one? Russians foreign minister Lavrov said: their is no evidence whatsoever Iran had a nuclear weapon programm.

    Look to sources where those evidences supposedly were coming from: defector, listening into conversation of Iranian generals and surprise a stolen Iranian notebook.

    What is next?

  • phil

    Hey Timmy R. (aka Benedict Arnold),

    People who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones!!

    Before you condemn Muslims, please explain the following which is what you actually believe but are probably too stupid to realize it:

    Only Jews are human. [Gentiles] are animals. (Baba Mezia 114a-114b.)9

    For murder, whether of a Cuthean [Gentile] by a Cuthean, or of an Israelite by a Cuthean, punishment is incurred; but of a Cuthean by an Israelite, there is no death penalty. (Sanhedrin 57a)10

    Even the best of the [Gentiles] should be killed. (Babylonian Talmud)11

    If a Jew is tempted to do evil he should go to a city where he is not known and do the evil there. (Moed Kattan 17a.)
    Gentiles’ flesh is as the flesh of asses and whose issue is like the issue of horses.12

    If a heathen [Gentile] hits a Jew, the Gentile must be killed. Hitting a Jew is hitting God. (Sanhedrin 58b.)13

    If an ox of an Israelite gores an ox of a Canaanite there is no liability; but if an ox of a Canaanite [Gentile] gores an ox of an Israelite…the payment is to be in full. (Baba Kamma 37b.)14

    If a Jew finds an object lost by a heathen [Gentile] it does not have to be returned. (Baba Mezia 24a; Affirmed also in Baba Kamma 113b.)15

    God will not spare a Jew who ‘marries his daughter to an old man or takes a wife for his infant son or returns a lost article to a Cuthean [Gentile]… (Sanhedrin 76a.)16

    What a Jew obtains by theft from a Cuthean [Gentile] he may keep. (Sanhedrin 57a.)17

    [Gentiles] are outside the protection of the law and God has ‘exposed their money to Israel.’ (Baba Kamma 37b.)18

    Jews may use lies (‘subterfuges’) to circumvent a [Gentile]. (Baba Kamma 113a.)19

    All [Gentile] children are animals. (Yebamoth 98a.)20

    [Gentiles] prefer sex with cows. (Abodah Zarah 22a-22b.)21

    The vessels of [Gentiles], do they not impart a worsened flavor to the food cooked in them? (Abodah Zarah 67b.)22

    • Kenneth

      Tim R. should promptly leave this site after this most delectable ontological demolition if he wishes to avoid further humiliation.

    • peace

      Thank you so muc, Phil, for taking the time and listing the perfidy part of the ‘religion’ said as claimed by the Muslim hater who continually contaminates this site.

    • Tim R.

      Phil R. and Kenneth as well:

      For the last time, listen carefully! I agree that the old testament has some awful things in it. And so does the Talmud. Now listen carefully because I think you both have wax in your ears! I categorically, totally, and vigourously repudiate and condemn any passages that advocate capital punishment, religious intolerance, sexism, racism, homophobia or any thing of the sort. I don’t try to justify such passages as being “taken out of context” or being contradicted elsewhere. They are wrong, period. Have I made myself clear?

      Now how about we get some Muslims who are willing to stand up and do the same when it comes to the Quran instead of rioting in the streets to get peoples heads cut off!

      • Kenneth

        For the last time, listen carefully! I agree that the old testament has some awful things in it. And so does the Talmud. Now listen carefully because I think you both have wax in your ears! I categorically, totally, and vigourously repudiate and condemn any passages that advocate capital punishment, religious intolerance, sexism, racism, homophobia or any thing of the sort. I don’t try to justify such passages as being “taken out of context” or being contradicted elsewhere. They are wrong, period. Have I made myself clear?

        Yes, it’s perfectly clear. What’s not clear is why you don’t think the same critical method can be employed with the Qu’ran (and clearly you don’t, otherwise you wouldn’t be lifting passages from it to argue that Islam is inherently violent). The mere fact that you think you can repudiate the ugliest portions of the Talmud without undue theological consequence upends the better part of your puerile attacks on Islam.

  • Tired of the Noise

    IRAN HAS NOT VIOLATED THE NUCLEAR PROLIFERATION TREATY.
    THEY HAVE A LEGAL RIGHT TO BUILD PLANTS, ENRICH URANIUM, AND BUILD NUCLEAR WEAPONS UNDER THE TREATY THE US, AND EVERY OTHER WHINING COUNTRY SIGNED. THE EXCEPTION TO THAT IS ISRAEL, WHO REFUSES TO BE HELD LIABLE FOR THEIR ILLEGAL NUCLEAR WEAPONS PROGRAM.

    These are the simple facts Bush must address first if he wants to stop Iran from having nuclear facilities. His policy is to deny rights that are guaranteed to individuals by law and treaty. He has no legal or Constitutional right to do these things. We the People must stand up and say Enough is Enough!!

  • Kenneth

    Frank, dear, contra Encyclopedia Dramatica, caps lock is not cruise control for cool, and ambiguous data is not a substitute for reasoned argument. The “radiological material” in question might well have been for nuclear power, since the article you link to does not indicate that it was used for military purposes. From the same source:

    http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/01/25/sprj.nirq.kay/

  • Kenneth

    Ah, it looks as though Frank’s spam has been deleted. Mine eyes are spared.

  • bAKU

    IMPEACH BUSH AND CHENEY NOW!

  • Mike Morris

    “Christianity, too, has been spread by the sword. That doesn’t tell us anything about modern day Christianity. The difference is that the Islamic caliphates of the past allowed non-Muslim subjects to continue their lives under the condition that they would pay a poll tax, whereas Christendom simply slaughtered its “infidels”. It is true that the Muslim world of times past would have been considered illiberal by modern standards, but during its heyday it was much more tolerant than its neighbours.”

    Not quite so simple, Kenneth. Christendom became established in the Old World through peaceful conversion. Its basic tenets held great appeal to the down and out of the Roman Empire. It did not really begin to expand violently until it had fully taken the reins of power from pagan Rome and beaten back (or absorbed, or simply resisted) the onslaughts of northern European pagans and Muslims from the South and East. Also, most of the time, Jews were allowed to live within Christendom in a state roughly analogous to the condition of non-Muslims in the Caliphate (which indeed was established by conquest).

    But the current situation is quite different. The ‘West’ (the US and Britain) have invaded and occupied two Muslim countries and is making threatening noises toward another. If anything, Muslims worldwide have been remarkably willing to turn the other cheek in the face of Western aggression. How long this will last is difficult to judge.

    • Kenneth

      I’m aware that Christianity spread initially through peaceful conversion. I was referring mainly to the European colonization of the New World when I said “violence”. I was not aware of the status of the Jews in Christendom, though I was alluding to the Spanish Inquisition, an event for which the Muslim world has, to my knowledge, no analogue.

    • Dizzy

      Religion being spread by the sword has occurred in most (if not all) religions at some stage. When it occurs it is often as a tool of the state, not the religion itself. In the Old World, there are examples of Christianity being spread by the sword: read about the Teutonic push into Lithuania etc. Again, you have to question how much was “religiously inspired” and how much was for a more worldly gain.

      For an example of tolerance in Islam, read about the caliphate in Spain. For around 700 years much of Spain was Muslim, with Jews and Christians living (if not quite equally, as dhimma) peacefully together. Jews had greater opportunities in life here than under the earlier Christian Visigothic rule (which in 613 AD ordered Jews to convert or leave). As the Spanish Reconquista occurred, Jews became persecuted and then forced in 1492 to convert or be exiled (along with any remaining Muslims).

      My point: citing examples of X religion did bad stuff to Y religion/people will have us going around in circles, as I doubt any of the religious followers are innocent of these acts. We should be concentrating on what we all have in common rather than accusing each other.

      Thanks, and keep up the good discussion!

  • phil

    There are bad people everywhere and good people everywhere. But stop singling out Arabs and Muslims.

    • Tim R.

      Phil writes”
      “But stop singling out Arabs and Muslims.”

      I will gladly stop singling them out when and if the overwhelming majority of homicide bombings and other terrorist attacks on innocent civilians are no longer being perpatraded by them.

      • Kenneth

        Arbitrary legal categories like “terrorism” only serve to elide the equivalence of individual and state violence, and obscure the fact that the majority of terror is orchestrated by western governments, not Muslims, thereby painting a misleading picture of violence aimed at extracting the assent of the population through fear.

  • Tim R.

    Kenneth writes:

    “What’s not clear is why you don’t think the same critical method can be employed with the Qu’ran (and clearly you don’t, otherwise you wouldn’t be lifting passages from it to argue that Islam is inherently violent). ”

    Islam IS inherently violent, just like the Old Testament was. However, most Jews have repudiated the violent portions of it and modernized their religion. The vast majority of both reform, conservative and even some of the more modern orthodox Jews would be horrified at the thought of putting someone to death for many of the reasons descrbibed in the old testament. And, unlike the case with Islam, it just does not happen anymore! A Jewish ecclesiastical court has not put someone to death in 2,000 years. Jews don’t stone people to death for sexual immorality or anything else anymore, but Muslims do!

    And the Christians have the New Testament, which I would argue in inherently peaceful, at least the things that Jesus said. Jesus said to “love your enemies” while the Quran says to strike off their heads, thats a pretty big difference if you ask me! Yes, Christians have done some awful things in the past, but they, unlike many Muslims, have progressed a great deal since then. I know of no other religion today, other than Islam, that says you can put people to death, and actually does so, for “sexual crimes.” I know of no other religion today, other than Islam, that says you can execute someone for turning away from the religion. I know of no other religion today, other than Islam that would have a woman given 200 lashes after she was just raped. Jews don’t stone people to death anymore, Catholic Preists don’t burn people at the stake anymore. Judaism and Christianity have progressed a great deal. But a lot of the radical Muslims are still stuck in the 7th century.

    Next point, the same critical method that Jews and Christians have used to modernize their religions CAN be employed with Islam. However, most Muslims are not doing so! Look at the Pew Research Studies, they all show high rates of suppport for suicide bombings amongst Muslims. Where are the good Muslims who will repudiate the violent portions of the Quran without making lame excuses like “it was taken out of context” or “it is refuted by other, more peaceful, portions of the Quran. Where are the good Muslims to stand up and refute the violance in their religion, categorically? There are some, yes. But far too few.

    • Kenneth

      Islam IS inherently violent, just like the Old Testament was. However, most Jews have repudiated the violent portions of it and modernized their religion. The vast majority of both reform, conservative and even some of the more modern orthodox Jews would be horrified at the thought of putting someone to death for many of the reasons descrbibed in the old testament. And, unlike the case with Islam, it just does not happen anymore! A Jewish ecclesiastical court has not put someone to death in 2,000 years. Jews don’t stone people to death for sexual immorality or anything else anymore, but Muslims do!

      You’ve yet to establish scriptural support for Islamic “violence” that is uniform throughout the Qu’ran.

      And the Christians have the New Testament, which I would argue in inherently peaceful, at least the things that Jesus said. Jesus said to “love your enemies” while the Quran says to strike off their heads, thats a pretty big difference if you ask me.

      Well, uh, yeah. “Enemy” in Qur’anic parlance is anyone who oppresses or commits injustice. Not an unreasonable response, methinks, especially since you are willing to countenance (indeed, even promote) violence on far weaker grounds. It does, however, strictly proscribe attacks against non-Muslims under protection, so it has a redeeming feature that the Bible lacks. In Christianity, both the Old and New Testaments are canonical, so one can’t simply cite verses from the New Testament to negate the Old.

      I know of no other religion today, other than Islam, that says you can execute someone for turning away from the religion. I know of no other religion today, other than Islam that would have a woman given 200 lashes after she was just raped.

      You don’t? Try googling “Christian Reconstructionism”.

      But a lot of the radical Muslims are still stuck in the 7th century.

      A few points: in the seventh century, Islam was a great deal more socially progressive than it is now. It is more accurate to say Islamic states have regressed. You can hardly hold the unelected governments who enforce this kind of interpretation responsible. Perhaps if the majority of Muslims voted for it, but seeing as Saudi Arabia is an absolute monarchy and the linchpin of American propaganda is that the Middle East lacks “democracy” they can hardly be held accountable for the crimes of their governments, no? Second, your assertion borders on analytic: any sampling of the radicals, depending on how “radical” is defined, will, indeed, reveal that nearly all of them support a strict interpretation of Qur’anic law. What matters is not the radicals, but the moderate majority.

      Next point, the same critical method that Jews and Christians have used to modernize their religions CAN be employed with Islam. However, most Muslims are not doing so! Look at the Pew Research Studies, they all show high rates of suppport for suicide bombings amongst Muslims.

      Because of the actions of the occupying powers (such as Israel and America) at which they are directed. Suicide bombing is a tactic, Tim, one aimed at getting foreign interlopers to withdraw. Inasmuch as it is aimed at military targets, it is a legitimate form of resistance. It has little to do with Islamic fundamentalism- Islamist organizations have simply usurped the role once played by secular nationalist and Marxist organizations (remember the P.L.O.?).

      Where are the good Muslims to stand up and repudiate the violence in their religion, categorically?

      Well, seeing as the American-backed dictatorships in the Middle East don’t permit much freedom of expression, they’re hard to hear. There is, indeed, a great deal of trouble with Islam today. It is an inferential leap, however, to conclude that this is the reason for terrorism. Islamic terrorism, which has simply replaced nationalist terrorism, is rooted in the concrete facts of the Islamic world’s current political environs.

      • Kenneth

        Correction: One particular sentence should read “You can’t hold the people who live under the unelected governments who enforce this kind of interpretation responsible”.

      • Tim R.

        Kenneth:

        On relgion a few points you should understand. In Islam, a “person under protection” is a “Dhimmi” one who accepts his status as a second class citizen and pays a special tribute tax to his superior Muslim overlords. He must also practice his religion quietly and in relative seclusion. Is that a society you would like to live in? Why do you insist on making excuses for these things? You seem like a smart guy and you are quite willing, and rightfully so, to lambaste the shortcomings of the Old Testament but with you the Quran gets a free pass!

        Also, you wrote, “In Christianity, both the Old and New Testaments are canonical, so one can’t simply cite verses from the New Testament to negate the Old.” Well, actually there are several passages where Jesus negates precepts of the Old Testament. Jesus says, in the old testment you heard of an eye for an eye, but I say turn the other cheek. In the old testment it says you can stone people to death, Jesus says, “He who is without sin should cast out the first stone.” I defy you to find messages of violance from the mouth of Jesus that is on par with the violance from the mouth of Mohammed. As for scriptural sources of violence in the Quran, again, I have given you many examples but you choose to ignore them or make lame excuses that they are “taken out of context.”

        But anyway, I am enjoying the discussion!

  • Kenneth

    On relgion a few points you should understand. In Islam, a “person under protection” is a “Dhimmi” one who accepts his status as a second class citizen and pays a special tribute tax to his superior Muslim overlords. He must also practice his religion quietly and in relative seclusion. Is that a society you would like to live in? Why do you insist on making excuses for these things? You seem like a smart guy and you are quite willing, and rightfully so, to lambaste the shortcomings of the Old Testament but with you the Quran gets a free pass!

    I’m not giving the Qu’ran a free pass. I’m merely defending it against your rhetorical bait and switch which repeatedly transposes Islamic doctrine with Islam as it is practiced today in order to blur the distinction between the two and cast me as some kind of apologist for terrorism. I certainly wouldn’t like to live as a dhimmi, but I’m pointing out that the “dhimmi” concept has no counterpart in the Bible. I’m also making this comparison to illustrate the futility of trying to explain terrorism by reference to religion. Of course the Qu’ran contains objectionable material; the whole point is that it is not unique in this respect, and can’t be used to make generalizations about the behaviour and aspirations of 1.3 billion people.

    I defy you to find messages of violance from the mouth of Jesus that is on par with the violence from the mouth of Mohammed.

    I defy you to find support for gratuitous violence from Mohammed (note my use of the term “gratuitous”: I do not simply mean violence of any sort. I mean violence directed against those who have done no wrong).

    I have given you many examples but you choose to ignore them or make lame excuses that they are “taken out of context.”

    You have chosen sources that don’t dovetail well with your general perspective of Islam. They’re not taken out of context, they merely don’t say what you claim they say.

  • Kenneth

    One more comment: there really is no point in canvassing this matter any further, since what was once a political debate has been transfigured into an abstruse theological discussion removed from any account of the modern day Islamic world, consisting as it does of little more than quote-mining and crudely legalistic interpretations of Islamic law. Since you haven’t succeeded in tying terrorism to Islam, or even to radical Islam, what verse X of chapter Y of the Qur’an said has no discernible relevance to either current events or the subject of post. Perhaps if we could digress slightly to the actual motivations for terrorism, a topic which you have thus far avoided discussing, we could reinvigorate this increasingly languid conversation.

  • Dennis Kucinich. Breath. Repeat. Dennis Kucinich.

    Amazing that he doesn’t get any more traction here at antiwar.com, isn’t it.

    The actual leader against the IWR. Hasn’t voted to spend a penny on the war and occupation. Has HR 1234 written and ready to be implemented, etc., etc. and so forth.

    Paul’s fine, but you guys need to stop flipping off the leader against the Dempublicans.