From the Ayn Rand Institute:

Gerhard Schroder's suggestion to "take the military option off the table" in dealing with Iran's advancing nuclear program should be dismissed. No amount of "negotiations" and "incentives" will persuade the Iranian mullahs to give up their quest for nuclear weapons.

Iran's claim that their reactors will be used for civilian purposes is absurd. Iran has more oil to generate electricity than it could possibly consume. Moreover, Iran's desire to destroy the United States (the "Great Satan") has been made clear by more than two decades of "Death to America" chanting in state-controlled mosques.

The Iranian mullahs are ideologically committed to spreading Islam throughout the world by force, and they will not abandon their murderous goal for political "concessions" or financial aid. Even the threat of war against Iran is unlikely to stop the mullahs from developing nuclear weapons. Deterrence only works against those who value their own lives. As the hordes of Islamic fanatics who blew themselves up in recent years have amply demonstrated, these people value death, not life. We can't risk our existence on the mullahs being an exception.

Iran is an avowed enemy of the United Sates and a major state sponsor of terrorism. It finances, trains, shelters and equips terrorists from organizations like Al-Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah and Islamic Jihad. Iran is currently waging a proxy war against the United States in Iraq and killing American soldiers by the dozens.

Once Iran gets hold of nuclear weapons, the United States will be an easy target for blackmail and a likely target for mass destruction. We cannot let that happen.

David Holcberg

Ayn Rand Institute

The difference, Jim, between Iran and Israel or India is that Iran wants to spread its religion by force--it is funding Islamo-Fascists and so is a threat to the free world, whereas Israel and India are not.  Iran is the major source of our difficulty in Iraq!  I don't have a problem with a democratic republic having atomic weapons; I do have a problem with a totalitarian regime having such weapons.

The evidence shows that an Iraqi agent met with Atta, paying him the final sum of blood money before the 9/11 attacks--therefore, the Iraq war is justified (i.e., those who support terrorism may be retaliated against), although it certainly could be prosecuted better.  I'm delighted that Iraq's dictatorial regime is gone!

I guess those who want war just refuse to see reality:

 12/13/2003 - The New York Times
Fresh Doubts about Iraq 9/11 Connection - Iraqi Agent Denies He Met 9/11 Hijacker in Prague Before Attacks on the U.S.
By JAMES RISEN

WASHINGTON, Dec. 12 — A former Iraqi intelligence officer who was said to have met with the suspected leader of the Sept. 11 attacks has told American interrogators the meeting never happened, according to United States officials familiar with classified intelligence reports on the matter.
<snip>
But the C.I.A. and F.B.I. eventually concluded that the meeting probably did not take place, and that there was no hard evidence that Mr. Hussein's government was involved in the Sept. 11 plot.
<snip>
http://www.fairandbalanced.us/docs/StoryID1510.htm

This bunk, just like the bunk about Iraq having WMDs or buying uranium in Africa, was debunked a long time ago. Why someone who considers himself a Lib goes around repeating neo-con lies is beyond me. What's obvious is that the neo-cons & the Bush admin wanted to invade Iraq for a long time. They stooped to new lows lying their way into war. Don't be taken in by their BS.

Your problem is with the language itself.  "Islamo-Fascists" is a propaganda term that has no place in intelligent discussions.

I agree wholeheartedly with Jim and Darren.  A non-interventionist foreign policy is the way to go.  And it makes no sense for us to have nukes, then be horrified when others get them.  Gun rights makes just as much sense when applied to countries as people.

I can't distinguish between a violent fundamentalist Muslim and a violent fundamentalist Christian.  And I can't distinguish between a non-violent fundamentalist Muslim and a non-violent fundamentalist Christian either.

If you want to go conquer those religions you disagree with, don't do it under the libertarian banner.  It was embarassing enough to the party when you bashed our 2003 keynote speaker in your "research report" included in the convention program.  Please don't go passing off your bigotry as libertarian dogma again.

An Islamo-Fascist is a Muslim who wishes to spread his religion by force (the way Islam has been spread historically).  They will cut your head off if you don't believe in "Allah" and his "prophet."  It's been estimated that 15% of the Muslim community is Islamo-Fascist (i.e., approx. 150 million people); I have no problem with the other 85%.  I actually like an off-shoot of Islam called the B'hai Movement, so I'm certainly not "bigoted."  There are 15 conflicts around the world involving Muslims against their neighbors--including Hindu and Buddhist countries, as well as Christian and Jewish countries.

As for Dean Ahmed, I debated him in the 70's.  He's on the side of Arab dictatorships--I'm not.  My 2003 convention Research Report pointed out numerous other Web sites which refuted the nonsense on Ahmed's Web site.  The only free country in the Middle East is Israel; all the other countries are dictatorships.  I do hope that Iraq becomes a free state, like Israel--if the U.S. were to withdraw now, this would be highly unlikely.

Take a look at today's Wall Street Journal editorial page:  "Back here in America, the war's critics have exploited Ms. Sheehan to assail President Bush for getting us into Iraq, and to proclaim, often with barely concealed glee, that an ignominous U.S. withdrawal and defeat are inevitable.  Amid their search for partisan vindication, it would be nice if these critics acknowledged, just once, that the real enemies in Iraq aren't Dick Cheney or George Bush but the masked terrorists who kill their fellow Iraqis for putting up election posters."

So, to conclude, I argue that the U.S. should stay in Iraq as long as necessary to get the job done--but not a day longer.  We have no interest in setting up an American "empire."  It is to our long-term, rational and national self-interest that the Arab Middle East be liberated.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul271.html

Borrowing, Spending, Counterfeiting
by Rep. Ron Paul, MD
August 23, 2005

Can we agree that Article 1, Section 8 of the US Constitution should be enforced?

Can we agree that we oppose the initiation of force for political or social gain?

No elaboration on my part is necessary for you to answer 2 simple yes/no questions?

Can we agree that Article 1, Section 8 of the US Constitution should be enforced?

Can we agree that we oppose the initiation of force for political or social gain?

Ron, what about you?

Jim