The golden rule is being replaced by the platinum rule

freetown fred wrote:Still hangin in there with your projected "wants to's" "likely to's" and "virtually promised to's" ? Here I was hopin you'd gotten over all that negative projection stuff--guess not huh ?

Yeah, silly me actually listening to what he says.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/09 ... s-on-iran/

“I will have a very different approach with regard to Iran,” including “crippling sanctions that should have been put in place long ago,” he said.

Romney also said the greatest threat facing the United States and the rest of the world is a nuclear Iran.

"Crippling sanctions" bought us WWII and anyone with an IQ above a walnut can see they are the path to WWIII.

This plus Mitt drawing "red lines" here, there, and everywhere.

It's not all that difficult to figure out what his intentions are.

Nothing wrong with listening, it just brings us back to that interpretation thing. I'll bet you had a ball with that women in a binder one.

The binder comment was blown out of proportion but I'm curious as to how you "interpret" Mitt's Iran remarks.

He said he want's to put "crippling sanctions" on them. Do you not believe him?

I beleive that he is going to listen to his advisors & come up with a damn sure better plan then doing nothing--have you seen the latest facts the invetigatory committee has come up with on the ambassadors requests & the time frame involved?

jpete wrote:"Crippling sanctions" bought us WWII and anyone with an IQ above a walnut can see they are the path to WWIII.

Omigod. You're probably referring to your idea that our oil embargo on Imperial Japan led to the attack on Pearl Harbor. They had already embarked on a conquest of the Pacific rim, raped Manchuria with savage brutality. Hitler had been helping himself to europe. At the start of WWII, the USA had a single military division. Hitler has 300 divisions of mechanized military might; Japan had 200. It's a miracle we endured and had enough time to utilize our industrial might and save the world from fascism.
We all have an IQ, it's your attitude that seems naive in the face of recorded history. Google America First Movement 1940 and you'll find a guy with a hands off attitude. His movement dissolved shortly after Pearl Harbor; Americans were a little busy tooling up for an inevitable war.
The NAZI's believed in the forcible oppression of all opposition, and that it was perfectly acceptable to seize all the liebenroom they wanted, under the logic of survival of the fittest. seems to me so does islam; they just don't have the sense to aquire industrial strength. So let's just sit back and pretend appeasement is a valid policy.

So you agree that "crippling sanctions" CAN lead to war?

How about the Treaty of Versailles? Did it include "crippling sanctions" on Germany?

You are looking at outcomes. I look at CAUSES.

Japan was well into China in 1937. Why no sanctions until 1939?

Japan was just going after natural resources in China. How is that different that the US "protecting our interests(oil)" in the Middle East?

We don't actually go in and kill the locals, we pay Saddam, Quadaffi and King Abdullah to do it for us.

Well jpete that is a nice reasoned post that stimulates meaningful discussion.

1937 -39 --- big ships move slowly and we probably just hoped that local war would die out. Have you ever read the horrors of that China invasion? Millions of civilians killed by poisoning the water reservoirs, chemical warfare and God knows what else. We only care about resources not people.

Which rule would you expect a Christian to be most likely to agree with and try to practice? A Muslim? A Hindu? An Atheist? A Hedonist, Etc...???

And since its that time again, same question from a Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, etc... political perspective....

coalnewbie wrote:Well jpete that is a nice reasoned post that stimulates meaningful discussion.

1937 -39 --- big ships move slowly and we probably just hoped that local war would die out. Have you ever read the horrors of that China invasion? Millions of civilians killed by poisoning the water reservoirs, chemical warfare and God knows what else. We only care about resources not people.

The fact is, we really didn't care about what was happening in China in 1937. It's not like we didn't know. It just wasn't our business. Then Roosevelt decided to pressure the world into cutting off exports to Japan(crippling sanctions) and within 2 years, we get Peal Harbor.

When you back someone into a corner, you shouldn't be surprised when they attack you. It's a perfectly natural, predictable reaction. Unless you are FFreddy. Then you can never look at one past action to inform you about a future action.

I see 2 choices here - both of which lead to a similar conclusion: we sit on our hands, let Iran develop 3, 6, 60 nukes. They use one on Israel, Israel fights back, WWIII begins ... then they use one on us. We steamroll them and anyone else that wants to jump in.

OR, crippling sanctions that slow or halt their nuke development. They attack us ....... we crush them.

Either way is the same conclusion.

Pakistan is just about as insanely radical as Iran, and it is loaded to the gills with nukes. But they are our friends, so its different.

lsayre wrote:Pakistan is just about as insanely radical as Iran, and it is loaded to the gills with nukes. But they are our friends, so its different.

Like the rest of the Middle East, they are our friends as long as we keep paying them. And even that hasn't been working recently.

Just like in 79, the ISI took the money we gave them and gave it to "terrorists" except back then, they were "freedom fighters" because we didn't like who they were shooting at.

jpete wrote:You are looking at outcomes. I look at CAUSES.

Wow you're so important and superior. Ever look at your need to be right? What's your point? We're the worst most horrible country that ever was?
Yeah, Japan was just taking a stroll looking to borrow a few rice fields.
You can look at US history as us always being the bad guys go ahead. That's what our enemies do.

If China decided to go on a massively brutal Genghis Kahn like rampage through Russia, would the USA be obligated (as policeman of the world) to enter the war on the side of Russia in order to repel China?

Or if Russia decided to Cossack blitz China with a brutal rampage of destruction and depopulation, would we likewise be obligated to enter on the behalf of China?

When Stalin and Mao were starving and slaughtering millions of their own people why did we stand around and do nothing?

The idea that we were somehow morally (or for what ever other reason one can think of) obligated to stop Japan from obliterating China seems flawed.

If China decided to go on a massively brutal Genghis Kahn like rampage through Russia, would the USA be obligated (as policeman of the world) to enter the war on the side of Russia in order to repel China?

Or if Russia decided to Cossack blitz China with a brutal rampage of destruction and depopulation, would we likewise be obligated to enter on the behalf of China?

When Stalin and Mao were starving and slaughtering millions of their own people why did we stand around and do nothing?

The idea that we were somehow morally (or for what ever other reason one can think of) obligated to stop Japan from obliterating China seems flawed.

The only rational for intervening in either case would seem to be that the resultant super country would have tremendous resources to then turn on us. Most everything turns on the ownership of natural resources.

Kevin