Iran boasts of being able to target American troops, reports said, but which troops? The crucial piece of information to be gleaned from the reports, however, is that Iran would not strike first. They would do unto us what we have done to them.
Iran is being consistent.
In September, Iran said it would send troops near U.S borders.
But why?
Was it because they hate our freedoms? Was it because they don’t like our lifestyles?
No.
Here’s what the CNN report said:
“Commander of the Navy of the Army of the Islamic Republic of Iran broke the news about the plans for the presence of this force in the Atlantic Ocean and said that the same way that the world arrogant power is present near our marine borders, we, with the help of our sailors who follow the concept of the supreme jurisprudence, shall also establish a powerful presence near the marine borders of the United States,” the story said. [bold emphasis mine]
In other words, they would do unto us what we have done to them. It’s the reverse golden rule. Or maybe the “perverse golden rule“?
But again, I ask, which troops?
From the LRC Blog:
The above caption "But Iran is threatening the U.S.?" is not my own.
The New Yorks Times, which I barely read, recently reported something true:
There is no evidence that Iran has developed a warhead that could fit atop one of its missiles, and those missiles do not have the range to reach the United States. (Much of Europe is also out of range.)
That leaves me to believe that if the Iranians wanted to attack U.S. troops, they’d do it in their own backyard.
One Candidate Will Protect U.S. Troops
Ron Paul has questioned the existence of U.S. military bases abroad.
Last year, Ron Paul said:
This whole idea that we have to be in 130 countries and 900 bases… is an old fashioned idea,” the Texas congressman said on CBS’s “Face the Nation.” “It makes no sense at all. Besides, we’re bankrupt – we can’t afford it any longer.”
Paul claimed that it would save money to close bases and bring the troops home, freeing up service members to spend money in the United States.
“It would save us a lot of money,” he said. “All those troops would spend their money here at home. Besides, those troops overseas aggravate our enemies, motivate our enemies. I think it’s a danger to our national defense.”
American foreign policy, he said, had to put more emphasis on diplomacy, as opposed to military force.
“We have 12,000 diplomats. I’m suggesting that, maybe, we ought to use some of them,” Paul said.
Ron Paul’s official website offers a little more detail on this topic. From the Ron Paul 2012 campaign website:
Today, however, hundreds of thousands of our fighting men and women have been stretched thin all across the globe in over 135 countries – often without a clear mission, any sense of what defines victory, or the knowledge of when they’ll be permanently reunited with their families.
Acting as the world’s policeman and nation-building weakens our country, puts our troops in harm’s way, and sends precious resources to other nations in the midst of an historic economic crisis.
Whatever we can say about Ron Paul’s foreign policy, what we know for sure is that our troops will not be in danger from an immediate threat from Iran, because they’ll be back here on U.S. soil.
And what’s so wrong about getting our troops out of harm’s way and actually using some of our diplomats anyway?
It’s cheaper than war.
It’s fiscally conservative.
Senator Jim Demint has warned about us spreading our troops too thinly just a few days ago.
And for those of us who are Christians, didn’t Jesus say “blessed are the peacemakers?”
And what’s more there is evidence that the Iranians wanted diplomacy in 2011. The Iranians tried reaching out to the Obama administration last year, yet the news went under the radar as soon as it was reported.
This article misses 3 very important points.
Number 1 is that Iran is working on developing a missile that will reach the US.
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Foreign-Policy/2012/0202/Is-Iran-trying-to-develop-a-missile-that-could-reach-America
Number two is that the main threat from Iran is that they will give the bomb to terrorists where they can claim plausible deniability. Remember how they recruited Mexican drug gangs to assassinate the Saudi official? Those terrorists would not hesitate to set a dirty bomb off in New York, Washington or LA. This is just another example of why conservatives are ignoring Paul in huge numbers. Exit polls show the heavy part of his support comes from self described liberals and young kids who want cheap drugs.
Number Three is that many countries where we have troops act as a deterrant from foreign aggression. Poland is a perfect example. Poland is a good ally and if we no longer are there to protect them, they would be forced to become friendly with Russia. Not a good outcome. It could lead to a whole new USSR type of arrangement. Building cooperation across the world is necessary in order to assure that we have allies willing to stand with us.
Could we bring some troops home? We could but the Paul method of isolationism and trusting the Muslims to leave us alone is not only fool hardy but very near idiocy. It is no wonder that many times during the debates, the audienced laughed at Paul and his ridiculous foreign policy.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7_MmN7srkWs
http://www.thestatecolumn.com/articles/2011/12/13/rush-limbaugh-on-ron-pauls-foreign-policy-disastrous/
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1211/70923.html
http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/09/the_problem_with_paul.html
I wish this guy would join the democrats and save our party the embarrassment. They wouldn’t notice one more racist in their midst.