Giant Nork soldier
EFF No Longer Protects A****les?

An act of war against Ron Paul

Ron Paul will never be President of the US, something we should all be profoundly thankful for. Matter of fact, the only real impact he could have on the race is to run as an independent and throw the election to Obama. There are certainly some principles of fiscal responsibility he has helped bring attention to, but he has far too many batsh*t crazy ideas to ever be trusted with the title of Commander in Chief. Here is the latest reason why.

Defending himself against charges of isolationism, Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul told voters in Iowa on Thursday that western sanctions against Iran are "acts of war" that are likely to lead to an actual war in the Middle East.

That wouldn't pass even a freshman quiz on international affairs. Q. What are economic sanctions?

A. Economic sanctions are domestic penalties applied by one country (or group of countries) on another for a variety of reasons. Economic sanctions include, but are not limited to, tariffs, trade barriers, import duties, and import or export quotas

You will have to help me out if I miss anything vaguely resembling an act of war there or in any of the melange of weak tea proposals advanced to try to stop the advance of the Iranian nuke program. I wish I was missing something, as an act of war is about the only thing likely to slow it down long enough for the Mullahocracy to finally implode. If refusing to trade favorably with a country is an act of war, then by Ron Paul's reckoning I am committing an act of war against him by withholding my vote from him. Jim Hanson officially declares war on Ron Paul 2012 this 30th day of December 2011, a date that will live.....ahhh nevermind.

Now I am not saying we should invade, but at some point someone needs to turn some centrifuges into recycling. This of course assumes you have the common sense to oppose the proliferation of nuclear weapons to the certifiably batsh*t crazy. Even that is a bridge too far for Mr. Paul.

Apparently alluding to Israel and its nuclear-weapons arsenal, Paul said that "if I were an Iranian, I'd like to have a nuclear weapon, too, because you gain respect from them."

I'm with you Ron, I don't trust those dirty Joooos either. You gotta show 'em who's boss. Now it is fine to say that Iranians might want to have nukes, heck there are plenty of disrespected dictators and wannabe-much-more-oppressive regimes who would greatly appreciate the bargaining clout a few A bombs bring when extorting satchels (or more properly planefuls) of Danegeld. Just ask the Pakistanis. But that is why any reasonable person should oppose them getting that power. And even more important that the American President grasp that and oppose it with every tool at his disposal and if necessary every weapon in our arsenal.

Isolationism would be fine if the planet wasn't such a hellish place and we didn't need to keep the petty and not-so-petty tyrants and tyannies from boiling over into frenzies of genocide and slaughter. But you see, we do. When the world dials 911, the phone rings at the Pentagon. That doesn't mean we roll tanks every time something awful happens. But it does mean we are still the only ones who can. Hiding our heads in the sand can't change that and we need to act proactively, so we don't need to send in the Marines. Ron Paul would have us sit on the sidelines until Tel Aviv was a parking lot. Sorry but I must disconcur.